Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Injuries in the Premier League


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
Posted

It's the hot topic right now.

Anyone who follows the record of injuries in this league might be familiar with this site - https://www.premierinjuries.com/injury-table.php which keeps track of latest injury info.

They've delved in deeper and concluded (up to last night so it's 'live' data so to speak) who has been affected the most in terms of time-loss of players since the start of the season...

 

Surpisingly, Burnley are the worst-affected for individual injuries - They've had 37 significant players sidelined. Time lost being 'only' 670 days. 

In terms of time-loss of players absent, perhaps less surprisingly, Newcastle are up there with 760 days lost. Liverpool are third on list with 34 injuries, but have had significantly more 'days' lost due to injuries.

Average time-loss in PL is 575 days as of Game 26.

 

As a bit of a nerd, I'm intrigued to see the stats breakdowns for all the clubs and who else suffers badly. 

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator
Posted
9 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

This thread won't be tedious at all

Least it can be spoken about all in one place xD 

  • Administrator
Posted
29 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If I don't want to watch two boring cunts talk for 11 minutes, is there another way I can get this information?

I think they'll release the stats and breakdowns at some point in the next couple of days.

Ben Dinnery (one of them) has a good and insightful Twitter page on football (not just injuries). 

Posted

Thought Arsenal were really good value for their win in the end after a slow start they never really looked troubled. Leicester so much poorer at home than away but looked completely out of sorts. Need a big response in their next game 

Posted
54 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If I don't want to watch two boring cunts talk for 11 minutes, is there another way I can get this information?

Save yourself the time mate.

Apparently Burnley have been "affected the most" with 670 days lost.

We apparently are third with "Over 1000 days lost" .........(makes sense right)?

Clearly these two have an agenda, no actual figure for Liverpool just a very vague "over 1000".

Not sure how they came up with these figures? Apparently the Ox not included in the injury totals, apparently a long term injury that occurred at the end  of last season doesn't count as an injured player this season.:coffee:

 

  • Administrator
Posted
11 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Save yourself the time mate.

Apparently Burnley have been "affected the most" with 670 days lost.

We apparently are third with "Over 1000 days lost" .........(makes sense right)?

Clearly these two have an agenda, no actual figure for Liverpool just a very vague "over 1000".

Not sure how they came up with these figures? Apparently the Ox not included in the injury totals, apparently a long term injury that occurred at the end  of last season doesn't count as an injured player this season.:coffee:

 

If you read it properly and listen to them explain it, it says Burnley have had the most individual injuries, whereas Liverpool are top for the most days lost from their injuries.

It really isn't rocket science but I guess when explaining things to a child it might seem like that.

Look how pissy you're getting that Ox wasn't included. They clearly also state all figures were taken from Game 1 of this season. Maybe to make it a level-playing field?

Maybe stop moaning and coming across so victimised all 'woe is me'. :ay::ph34r:

Posted
9 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Apparently Burnley have been "affected the most" with 670 days lost.

I imagine they calculated that by most days with "strongest XI" missing? I'm not sure though - other than raw numbers, which can be a bit useful and also not useful depending on how you use it... I'm not sure how you can determine "who's been affected the most" - there's a lot of different factors that would go into determining that.

I think it's just incredible that we've had so many long term injuries to the same position, that even players that don't play in that position normally and were filling in... were getting hurt. Even the lad we signed from the Championship to just make up the numbers got hurt before he's even played a game xD

Are they counting him in the numbers? Somehow I doubt it, but maybe. But I doubt it - some pundits forgot we'd signed him recently, which made for funny on-air viewing when his injury was mentioned.

I am obviously biased as fuck, but it's hard for me to say that a side that's been basically deprived of it's first choice defense and first choice midfield... pretty much all season long... isn't the most affected.

At the same time, I think there's a decent argument for Crystal Palace as the most affected side. Because they've had an absolutely ridiculous injury crisis... with a much smaller squad. At least we've got enough midfielders to play our best midfielders in defense and paper over some cracks.

I have also wondered whether playing senior midfielders in the defense, while making our midfield much weaker, was the better tactical decision than just going back to the Liverpool of pre-Virgil times... where we just accepted that we were absolute shit at defending. Maybe because players are older and there's a bit more wear and tear and we can't play that aggressively in this condensed season.

But yeah, if I were to say which two sides were most affected by injuries this season - I'd have to say us or Palace.

Posted

I'd have to say Palace are the most affected actually, because we started our recent rubbish run of form... by thrashing Palace 7-0. No way that happens to them in normal circumstances.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Stan said:

If you read it properly and listen to them explain it, it says Burnley have had the most individual injuries, whereas Liverpool are top for the most days lost from their injuries.

It really isn't rocket science but I guess when explaining things to a child it might seem like that.

Look how pissy you're getting that Ox wasn't included. They clearly also state all figures were taken from Game 1 of this season. Maybe to make it a level-playing field?

Maybe stop moaning and coming across so victimised all 'woe is me'. :ay::ph34r:

Weren't you the one bellyaching yesterday about "misleading stats"?xD

Liverpool have clearly been affected the most by injuries, even if you conveniently ignore players injured at the end of last season and unavailable for this season.

But wtf I'll leave you to it, at least you have mastered the skill of replying to my posts after you have read them.:congrats:

  • Administrator
Posted
1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Weren't you the one bellyaching yesterday about "misleading stats"?xD

Liverpool have clearly been affected the most by injuries, even if you conveniently ignore players injured at the end of last season and unavailable for this season.

But wtf I'll leave you to it, at least you have mastered the skill of replying to my posts after you have read them.:congrats:

What is misleading about the stuff posted today?

Posted
10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I imagine they calculated that by most days with "strongest XI" missing? I'm not sure though - other than raw numbers, which can be a bit useful and also not useful depending on how you use it... I'm not sure how you can determine "who's been affected the most" - there's a lot of different factors that would go into determining that.

I think it's just incredible that we've had so many long term injuries to the same position, that even players that don't play in that position normally and were filling in... were getting hurt. Even the lad we signed from the Championship to just make up the numbers got hurt before he's even played a game xD

Are they counting him in the numbers? Somehow I doubt it, but maybe. But I doubt it - some pundits forgot we'd signed him recently, which made for funny on-air viewing when his injury was mentioned.

I am obviously biased as fuck, but it's hard for me to say that a side that's been basically deprived of it's first choice defense and first choice midfield... pretty much all season long... isn't the most affected.

At the same time, I think there's a decent argument for Crystal Palace as the most affected side. Because they've had an absolutely ridiculous injury crisis... with a much smaller squad. At least we've got enough midfielders to play our best midfielders in defense and paper over some cracks.

I have also wondered whether playing senior midfielders in the defense, while making our midfield much weaker, was the better tactical decision than just going back to the Liverpool of pre-Virgil times... where we just accepted that we were absolute shit at defending. Maybe because players are older and there's a bit more wear and tear and we can't play that aggressively in this condensed season.

But yeah, if I were to say which two sides were most affected by injuries this season - I'd have to say us or Palace.

Number of injuries obviously more important than length of injuries.

A player out for ten days obviously is just as important as a player out for ten months.

1029 games is the most significant number here, downplayed by Stan of course because it doesn't fit his agenda.:coffee:

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

We don't have this conversation in any other season. I wonder, why oh why could it be that this year is different? :what:

The number of injuries in a condensed season caused by a global pandemic

Posted
1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Number of injuries obviously more important than length of injuries.

A player out for ten days obviously is just as important as a player out for ten months.

1029 games is the most significant number here, downplayed by Stan of course because it doesn't fit his agenda.:coffee:

 

@Stan doesn’t have an agenda xD

Don’t be a WUM mate

  • Administrator
Posted
2 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

1029 games is the most significant number here, downplayed by Stan of course because it doesn't fit his agenda.:coffee:

 

88aa5a9708fe10faa3529b8420fc07aa.png

Posted
7 minutes ago, Stan said:

What is misleading about the stuff posted today?

Number of short term injuries affecting Burnley more than the total days lost to Liverpool for starters.

 

Posted

After all the praise we gave him the week before I thought Ndidi was really poor - haven’t seen him play that badly for ages 

  • Administrator
Posted
4 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Number of short term injuries affecting Burnley more than the total days lost to Liverpool for starters.

 

No. Not what I said or is being said by those in the video. 

Burnley have had the most individual injuries. That is plain fact. 

You're just choosing to twist it to fit your agenda. 

Liverpool have the most days lost due to injuries. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...