Injury watch 2021/22

[Coppells Lost Coat]

Player management here is appalling.

[Zip]

Player management here is appalling.

So all your strikers are injured or in the case of Puscas badly out of for, so you risk your young striker for no benefit at all. Utterly shambolic management.

[Hound]

Player management here is appalling.

So all your strikers are injured or in the case of Puscas badly out of for, so you risk your young striker for no benefit at all. Utterly shambolic management.

thats unfair. You can't not play someone because he might get injured. Just as much chance he'd get injured in training or the first team. Can't wrap in him cotton wool for 2 weeks and expect him to be fit and on form

He's still very inexperienced, its international week as well. He absolutely should be getting game time in wherever possible.

[morganb]

Player management here is appalling.

So all your strikers are injured or in the case of Puscas badly out of for, so you risk your young striker for no benefit at all. Utterly shambolic management.

thats unfair. You can't not play someone because he might get injured. Just as much chance he'd get injured in training or the first team. Can't wrap in him cotton wool for 2 weeks and expect him to be fit and on form

He's still very inexperienced, its international week as well. He absolutely should be getting game time in wherever possible.

We don't know how the injury happened - it may have happened after a challenge from an opposition player or, as he played on Saturday then Monday (48 hours between games), he might not have been "conditioned correctly". Perhaps Clarke himself was still on a high from Saturday and was too enthusiastic in the match.

You would expect there to be a subtle difference between training with your own players and playing in a competitive game. In training, with our injury record, you wouldn't expect players to go in too hard (or you would instruct them not to). In a competitive match you have no control over your opponents and they will want to win the game so injuries are more likely to happen with strong challenges being thrown around. Why take the risk?

[Hound]

So all your strikers are injured or in the case of Puscas badly out of for, so you risk your young striker for no benefit at all. Utterly shambolic management.

thats unfair. You can't not play someone because he might get injured. Just as much chance he'd get injured in training or the first team. Can't wrap in him cotton wool for 2 weeks and expect him to be fit and on form

He's still very inexperienced, its international week as well. He absolutely should be getting game time in wherever possible.

We don't know how the injury happened - it may have happened after a challenge from an opposition player or, as he played on Saturday then Monday (48 hours between games), he might not have been "conditioned correctly". Perhaps Clarke himself was still on a high from Saturday and was too enthusiastic in the match.

You would expect there to be a subtle difference between training with your own players and playing in a competitive game. In training, with our injury record, you wouldn't expect players to go in too hard (or you would instruct them not to). In a competitive match you have no control over your opponents and they will want to win the game so injuries are more likely to happen with strong challenges being thrown around. Why take the risk?

Every game of football is a risk on their fitness, and they made the decision, which was perfectly reasonable - that more experience for him was worth the risk of an injury. And as said on the other thread, you have Hoilett back, and Ehibhatiomhan to back up Puscas.

[Coppells Lost Coat]

The way i see it - we had 2 fit strikers that had first team minutes. Do you play 50% of your available resources in a nothing game. Knowing that there is no other way of pulling in resources for at least 6 weeks, would you risk it?
If he didn't get injured i would still be questioning the judgement, thats why i highlighted Ashcroft and Camara also playing.
Until Hoilett and co are back in the squad then by all means its fine but they are not and will more than likely have a set back in training and personally should only be doing 20 / 30 min cameos.

[Zip]

Player management here is appalling.

So all your strikers are injured or in the case of Puscas badly out of for, so you risk your young striker for no benefit at all. Utterly shambolic management.

thats unfair. You can't not play someone because he might get injured. Just as much chance he'd get injured in training or the first team. Can't wrap in him cotton wool for 2 weeks and expect him to be fit and on form

He's still very inexperienced, its international week as well. He absolutely should be getting game time in wherever possible.

I don’t agree. All fine if we have senior strikers fit and firing. We don’t. We should be limiting the possibility of injuries in positions where our options are desperately light. This was a risk absolutely not worth taking. The likelihood of injury is considerably higher in a game situation than it is for training.

[Zip]

thats unfair. You can't not play someone because he might get injured. Just as much chance he'd get injured in training or the first team. Can't wrap in him cotton wool for 2 weeks and expect him to be fit and on form

He's still very inexperienced, its international week as well. He absolutely should be getting game time in wherever possible.

We don't know how the injury happened - it may have happened after a challenge from an opposition player or, as he played on Saturday then Monday (48 hours between games), he might not have been "conditioned correctly". Perhaps Clarke himself was still on a high from Saturday and was too enthusiastic in the match.

You would expect there to be a subtle difference between training with your own players and playing in a competitive game. In training, with our injury record, you wouldn't expect players to go in too hard (or you would instruct them not to). In a competitive match you have no control over your opponents and they will want to win the game so injuries are more likely to happen with strong challenges being thrown around. Why take the risk?

Every game of football is a risk on their fitness, and they made the decision, which was perfectly reasonable - that more experience for him was worth the risk of an injury. And as said on the other thread, you have Hoilett back, and Ehibhatiomhan to back up Puscas.

Hoilett may be back. He may not be. He would be unlikely to be ready to start in our next match.

[Notts Royal]

The way i see it - we had 2 fit strikers that had first team minutes. Do you play 50% of your available resources in a nothing game. Knowing that there is no other way of pulling in resources for at least 6 weeks, would you risk it?
If he didn't get injured i would still be questioning the judgement, thats why i highlighted Ashcroft and Camara also playing.
Until Hoilett and co are back in the squad then by all means its fine but they are not and will more than likely have a set back in training and personally should only be doing 20 / 30 min cameos.

Couldn’t have put it better myself. Another poor management decision (whoever made it) by the club

[Barney]

The way i see it - we had 2 fit strikers that had first team minutes. Do you play 50% of your available resources in a nothing game. Knowing that there is no other way of pulling in resources for at least 6 weeks, would you risk it?
If he didn't get injured i would still be questioning the judgement, thats why i highlighted Ashcroft and Camara also playing.
Until Hoilett and co are back in the squad then by all means its fine but they are not and will more than likely have a set back in training and personally should only be doing 20 / 30 min cameos.

Couldn’t have put it better myself. Another poor management decision (whoever made it) by the club

x1000.

Staggering decision to play Clarke. He should have been working with the first team squad (those that can walk). Learning and gaining experience from that. And NOT playing in a pointless u-23 game. You couldn't write this stuff. Absolutely insane.

[Snowflake Royal]

Is it only me that finds each new injury amusing at this point?

[The Royal Forester]

Is Clarke injured? As far as I can tell only one person tweeted or whatever, I have read the match report on the club website, it says Clarke came on at half-time and one other sub (Campbell) was used for the last 10 minutes. If Clarke was injured why wasn't he subbed? if he was in a plaster cast, surely he would have been subbed? One for the local journos to investigate, come on, it's time to earn your money.

[Sutekh]

Is it only me that finds each new injury amusing at this point?

No, I think it’s highly amusing too esp. as generally Reading seem to get better results the worse the injury crisis gets.

What’s the betting Puscas gets injured on Sunday, not that it’d probably make too much difference to the goal threat posed by the club. Just stick E-hib on the bench to get a late winner and no one will worry.

For the record, until Saturday week reveals otherwise, the injury list is now:

1. Araruna
2. Azeez
3. Clarke
4. Drinkwater
5. Halilovic
6. Hoilett
7. Joao
8. McIntyre
9. Meite
10. Morrison
11. Rinomhota
12. Tetek

[The Royal Forester]

No mention of Clarke's "injury" in the Tilehurst End report either.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Is Clarke injured? As far as I can tell only one person tweeted or whatever, I have read the match report on the club website, it says Clarke came on at half-time and one other sub (Campbell) was used for the last 10 minutes. If Clarke was injured why wasn't he subbed? if he was in a plaster cast, surely he would have been subbed? One for the local journos to investigate, come on, it's time to earn your money.

It's come from Eddie so probably correct.

On the plus side Hoilett, TMac and Halilovic should all be back next week....Rino is mentioned too but until it happens I won't believe it.

[Wycombe Royal]

Is Clarke injured? As far as I can tell only one person tweeted or whatever, I have read the match report on the club website, it says Clarke came on at half-time and one other sub (Campbell) was used for the last 10 minutes. If Clarke was injured why wasn't he subbed? if he was in a plaster cast, surely he would have been subbed? One for the local journos to investigate, come on, it's time to earn your money.

Also where my son heard it from is genuine. His friend does know and talk to a lot of academy players....not sure why they would need to make it up (not saying they haven't). I didn't put in on here earlier in the week as I'm not one to spread rumours like that, but it has now also come from a different source......

[Hound]

I've no doubts he is injured.

Happy to agree to disagree with the above about whether Clarke should have played or not, but lets not say its staggering etc. It really isn't.

tbf, don't know what the injury is. If it was a pulled muscle etc (doesn't sound like it) I'd be far more critical. If it was a tackle or twist, then shit happens basically.

Azeez for example I do feel that second injury was poor injury management. This one, just not

[Zip]

I have seen on here or elsewhere that he is out for four weeks/broken ankle. If his ankle is broken he will be out for longer than four weeks.

[Hound]

I have seen on here or elsewhere that he is out for four weeks/broken ankle. If his ankle is broken he will be out for longer than four weeks.

2 months min I'd expect with that

[morganb]

Dejan Tetek back in training