It's interesting how some players get rotated all the time, whereas the likes of Pratley, Gunter, Watson and Maatsen never seem be deliberately rested. The 30 somethings and the 18 year old play all the time, it's the 20 somethings who apparently need protecting!
Gunter has been decent when played as a conventional left back. I think Matthews gets forward well but his final ball is not as good as Gunter's.
As for Amos, I had the discussion with my son, who is more than a decent keeper. He thought I was being harsh on him for the goals.
Matthews is a good player but hasn't offered much at all in the final third this season or last. A lot of his crosses seem a bit weak and get cut out. Gunter just seems to have a bit of extra quality IF he gets forward (which he didn't v Stanley). Matthews is a decent defender and when on form, he's a neat footballer.
I agree with this but if we had a fairly attacking 442 or 443 line up we wouldn't need him to offer something in the final third. We need a solid defence because we're leaking goals and for me Gunter has played a large role in that. I'm not writing Gunter off but I don't see the point in having two players for every position if you are not going to allow for competition. Matthews deserves a chance and he'll get it Saturday. If he plays well then for me he gets a run in the team.
Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.
In fairness, he's mostly cost us when playing CB. I would prefer he play RB when he is played, but for me he is a player that should be being rotated with Matthews.
Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.
On the other hand, he won the ball back for Schwartz’s goal and I think was the assist for one of the other goals.
Doesn't make up for continual errors
Okay, he also scored in the Plymouth game.
You can’t just pick up on continual errors without mentioning the continual positives too. They both count towards the way he’s performing.
We're the top scorers in the league - our biggest problem is a leaky defense. I'd rather have a right-back who contributed less going forward but didn't play a continual part in us conceeding soft goals.
You may have your way on Saturday as I would say there is a better than average change Gunter will be playing centre back again in the absence of Pearce.
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.
On the other hand, he won the ball back for Schwartz’s goal and I think was the assist for one of the other goals.
Doesn't make up for continual errors
Okay, he also scored in the Plymouth game.
You can’t just pick up on continual errors without mentioning the continual positives too. They both count towards the way he’s performing.
We're the top scorers in the league - our biggest problem is a leaky defense. I'd rather have a right-back who contributed less going forward but didn't play a continual part in us conceeding soft goals.
Wow, we actually are! We're the new Peterborough.
That's exactly what I joked to myself when I read that.
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
You're annoyed that the actual scientific or medical term for Chuks' problem hasn't been shared, is that it?
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player
Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options
If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR
So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player
Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options
If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR
So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"
It is a bit strange though because when he does play he often looks unplayable and there are no visible signs of him struggling. That is not saying there isn't an issue but it is a strange one.
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player
Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options
If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR
So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"
It is a bit strange though because when he does play he often looks unplayable and there are no visible signs of him struggling. That is not saying there isn't an issue but it is a strange one.
I think the only signs are like what Golfie was saying on Tuesday night, realistically he maybe should have been taken off himself with about 10-15mins to play as he was clearly showing signs of tiredness and was certainly less effective
Thats down to fitness though and surely cant be linked with his historic muscular problems
Apart from Tuesday the last time he played 90mins was against Reading at the Valley, so its probably understandable he was starting to get to hit fitness limit with that regard, you have to go back to February 2019 for MK Dons when he last played back to back 90-minute games and to be fair, thats League Two!!
It's interesting how some players get rotated all the time, whereas the likes of Pratley, Gunter, Watson and Maatsen never seem be deliberately rested. The 30 somethings and the 18 year old play all the time, it's the 20 somethings who apparently need protecting!
I’ve always presumed it’s Bowyer wanting the experience of Pratley, Gunter and Watson on the pitch as much as possible, and Chelsea having asked for Mattsen to start when fit. Could be wrong, just my opinion.
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player
Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options
If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR
So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"
It is a bit strange though because when he does play he often looks unplayable and there are no visible signs of him struggling. That is not saying there isn't an issue but it is a strange one.
I think the only signs are like what Golfie was saying on Tuesday night, realistically he maybe should have been taken off himself with about 10-15mins to play as he was clearly showing signs of tiredness and was certainly less effective
Thats down to fitness though and surely cant be linked with his historic muscular problems
Apart from Tuesday the last time he played 90mins was against Reading at the Valley, so its probably understandable he was starting to get to hit fitness limit with that regard, you have to go back to February 2019 for MK Dons when he last played back to back 90-minute games and to be fair, thats League Two!!
I wouldn't mind knowing why he isn't doing more to improve his stamina to last full games. I can only assume that it is linked to his muscular problems. Maybe he can't manage regular sustained bouts of intensity.
Since I tore my quad in 2019, I haven't been able to run consistently, despite not losing too much pace I am unable to maintain the stamina as the right quad stops giving me any power. I know when it happens that I risk injury pushing it further and so I end up having to rest and recover it for up to two weeks until I start having power in it again and the slow build up begins again... If he's got anything like that it can be devastating to your overall endurance.
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Yet things like that would potentially appear during the medical phase when you sign a player
Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options
If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR
So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"
It is a bit strange though because when he does play he often looks unplayable and there are no visible signs of him struggling. That is not saying there isn't an issue but it is a strange one.
I think the only signs are like what Golfie was saying on Tuesday night, realistically he maybe should have been taken off himself with about 10-15mins to play as he was clearly showing signs of tiredness and was certainly less effective
Thats down to fitness though and surely cant be linked with his historic muscular problems
Apart from Tuesday the last time he played 90mins was against Reading at the Valley, so its probably understandable he was starting to get to hit fitness limit with that regard, you have to go back to February 2019 for MK Dons when he last played back to back 90-minute games and to be fair, thats League Two!!
He nearly scored the winner in the 85th minute. He was still winning the balls played to him. I will give you he may not have been as athletic at the end of the game as he was earlier in it, but this is true for a lot of players and there wasn't anything too glaring. Bowyer kept him on I would imagine as he thought he remained a goal threat.
It's interesting how some players get rotated all the time, whereas the likes of Pratley, Gunter, Watson and Maatsen never seem be deliberately rested. The 30 somethings and the 18 year old play all the time, it's the 20 somethings who apparently need protecting!
I’ve always presumed it’s Bowyer wanting the experience of Pratley, Gunter and Watson on the pitch as much as possible, and Chelsea having asked for Mattsen to start when fit. Could be wrong, just my opinion.
With regards to Pratley | Gunter | Watson I admire their experience but often wonder if their legs demand the need to be rested
Pratley I can imagine as he's been around so long now but those three must really look after themselves away from the matchday to be in contention every week - Always remember Ryan Giggs talking about doing Yoga to help the longevity in his career, although now I say it I wonder if it was a code word for something else
Once all are fit and not suspended... We certainly should be rotating Watson and Pratley OR figuring out how we build a side without players approaching retirement in the core of our side.
For information purposes for those of us who obviously missed out on some other unknown thread: Does Chuks have allergic rhinitis, anemia, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease? Just so we know why playing 90 minutes is so heroic for him. Thanks.
The physios believe that when he plays past 70 minutes he enters a 'danger zone' where muscular injuries are very likely. Nothing to do with his actual fitness.
I've read this kind of thing about him before but my point really is that it's all too vague.
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
You're annoyed that the actual scientific or medical term for Chuks' problem hasn't been shared, is that it?
It's interesting how some players get rotated all the time, whereas the likes of Pratley, Gunter, Watson and Maatsen never seem be deliberately rested. The 30 somethings and the 18 year old play all the time, it's the 20 somethings who apparently need protecting!
I’ve always presumed it’s Bowyer wanting the experience of Pratley, Gunter and Watson on the pitch as much as possible, and Chelsea having asked for Mattsen to start when fit. Could be wrong, just my opinion.
The point is though that they don't NEED to be rested. You never hear of Bowyer saying he can only play Pratley for 70 minutes each game, or that Maatsen can't start Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday, which is what he's said about the likes of JFC, Williams and Chuks
Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.
Mostly when he's played at CB.
It's too easy just to blame the player though, we need to look at the context. He looked very solid after he first signed, especially during our 6 wins-on-the-spin run when Inniss and Famewo were impenetrable.
Gunter has cost us so many times this season. Inexcusable for a player of his experience. Time to start Matthews.
Mostly when he's played at CB.
It's too easy just to blame the player though, we need to look at the context. He looked very solid after he first signed, especially during our 6 wins-on-the-spin run when Inniss and Famewo were impenetrable.
What does that tell you?
Same with Maatsen , they don’t look half the players they were before our coaching team got in to them
Comments
Surely there must be some known condition for his problem; some kind of proper diagnosis.
If he had some other physical job, he would need a doctor's certificate. I can't imagine a doctor writing such jargon as 'danger zone' or 'he needs to be managed.' As an employer you would think it were unprofessional, wouldn't you?
Bit like Curbs when we had the chance to sign Chris Makin, sometimes you take the risk on a player, sometimes you decide to let them go - I wonder if we partly decided to take the risk on Chuks because being a Championship club on Roland's budget there werent many options
If you look back on the early pages of the thread when Aneke signed, there were rumours he failed his medical @ QPR
So in the case with us the Medical could well have stated: "Sign player at your own risk"
Thats down to fitness though and surely cant be linked with his historic muscular problems
Apart from Tuesday the last time he played 90mins was against Reading at the Valley, so its probably understandable he was starting to get to hit fitness limit with that regard, you have to go back to February 2019 for MK Dons when he last played back to back 90-minute games and to be fair, thats League Two!!
Since I tore my quad in 2019, I haven't been able to run consistently, despite not losing too much pace I am unable to maintain the stamina as the right quad stops giving me any power. I know when it happens that I risk injury pushing it further and so I end up having to rest and recover it for up to two weeks until I start having power in it again and the slow build up begins again... If he's got anything like that it can be devastating to your overall endurance.
Pratley I can imagine as he's been around so long now but those three must really look after themselves away from the matchday to be in contention every week - Always remember Ryan Giggs talking about doing Yoga to help the longevity in his career, although now I say it I wonder if it was a code word for something else
Damn! I thought you said Yoda 😁
It's too easy just to blame the player though, we need to look at the context.
He looked very solid after he first signed, especially during our 6 wins-on-the-spin run when Inniss and Famewo were impenetrable.
What does that tell you?
Things can (and often do) change pretty quickly in football.