Pritchard would be most to contribute to the days as been out half the season

Arsenal

Their fans never remind you of it though

Saw this earlier and I think it's only taking into account injuries sustained this season rather than actual days missed through injuries, which is not really a fair indicator in terms of who has suffered the most.

Arsenal have had Welbeck, Rosicky and Wilshere out the entire season, which is like 450 days for just those 3.

where the faaack is pritchard btw?

comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 4 seconds ago
where the faaack is pritchard btw?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times you asked this now? Back training but not 100% yet

was hoping he would make a big impact this season

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

you forgot chadli who was out for about 3 months no?

When clubs have first teams squads of 25 players, why should injuries even matter, unless all 25 are out at the same time. Just an excuse injuries.

Well it's not is it sandy. Because you can either lose your worst player through injury or your best player. Clearly one is better than the other.

Absolutely clueless as usual sandy

Can't count Rosicky or Wilshere they were born that way.

comment by sandy, senior citizen, but young at heart (U20567)
posted 31 minutes ago
When clubs have first teams squads of 25 players, why should injuries even matter, unless all 25 are out at the same time. Just an excuse injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Says the man who doesn't trust using any squad players and would play his preferred first XI all season

comment by sandy, senior citizen, but young at heart (U20567)
posted 23 minutes ago
When clubs have first teams squads of 25 players, why should injuries even matter, unless all 25 are out at the same time. Just an excuse injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree that injuries are just an excuse. But despite of Arsenal (inc. Welbeck and Wilshire) and Man City (inc Kompany and to a lesser extent Aguero) missing key players, they're still challenging for the title. But Liverpool have been affected by a few key players being injured this season, esp. Sturridge and Henderson. Would they have been challenging for the title if they were injury free? I have my doubts.

We've been lucky this season compared to other clubs, but Dembele missing the Newcastle game was a key factor in us losing, as when we went 1-0 up our midfield was somewhat lightweight and they created several chances to score.

Its extremely rare for Arsenal to have more injuries then Man Utd. Arsenal usually are one of the teams with the least injuries while Man Utd are one of the most.

Having said that Arsenal do have some players are usually nearly permanently injured.

faack off hafi

I think Sandy's point is a good one, the oil-rich clubs have a squad of 25 first-teamers, not a decent X1 plus inexperienced reserves. Unless one of those clubs have 3 players in the same position all out injured then it shouldn't matter. Ar$e have about a dozen almost identikit midfielders, a few are always injured so they shouldn't be using that as an excuse. If you know you have a guy like Wheelchair who will spend half the season injured then you buy adequate replacements to cover that, which they have done.

Puffin





Ledley's

I have nothing against using squad players through injury, I do however think that teams should play their strongest available XI in every game where possible.

I think it is different for different clubs


City for example feel the pinch much more if Silva, Toure and Kompany are out, than we would if Eriksen, Dier and Alderweireld are.

Kane and Aguero we both would, but their first choice players are far superior to their squad men, whereas for us and say, Arsenal, the difference is not so distinct. We both have players who ebb and flow in the pecking order.