Injuries in the Premier League

[Storts]

3 minutes ago, Stan said:

Go away @Storts

 

Just lightening the mood 

[RandoEFC+]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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

That would explain why there has been more injuries all round this season and might go some way to explain why there has been increased analysis into the numbers, but we all know the reason it's headline news.

What I'm about to say is by no means aimed at ALL Liverpool fans or ALL Leicester fans or anything like that but surely at some point when you're arguing over which metric of injury measurement is the most or least misleading in a desperate attempt to convince everyone who'll listen that your team is the unluckiest team in the league in order to achieve god knows what, you must take a look at yourself and think "why the fuck am I spending all this time arguing about something so ridiculous?"

I mean I'm a fucking massive maths nerd (see my differential tracker thread) and even I'm looking at the people who have been arsed to put these utterly pointless statistics together and I'm thinking "oh, please". Nobody in their right mind denies the horrific extent to which Liverpool have been hammered by injuries, and in the same key areas of the pitch too, but if you're going to spend so much time harping on about it and using stats that have never been deemed worth calculating in any other season to "prove" how unlucky your team have been the second anyone deigns to point out that someone else has had it pretty bad as well, then you should expect to have people taking the piss out of you.

[Scouse_Mouse]

 

1 minute ago, Stan said:

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. 

And it's a misleading fact as I'm sure you are aware.

Or are you really suggesting that a player out 10 days for Burnley "affects them more" than a player out for virtually the whole season elsewhere?

Let's face it if Burnley had missed 1029 games to injury as opposed to the 670 they missed you can guarantee that would be the the significant figure and you'd be banging on about that now instead.

[Dr. Gonzo]

But are clubs that aren't suffering from injuries at a higher rate juicing up?

Worth looking into tbh.

[Stan]

20 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

 

And it's a misleading fact as I'm sure you are aware.

Or are you really suggesting that a player out 10 days for Burnley "affects them more" than a player out for virtually the whole season elsewhere?

Let's face it if Burnley had missed 1029 games to injury as opposed to the 670 they missed you can guarantee that would be the the significant figure and you'd be banging on about that now instead.

Only if you want it to suit an [your] agenda.

[Scouse_Mouse]

Just now, Stan said:

Only if you want it to suit an [your] agenda.

Maybe I'm expecting more from the mods on here but I will try again........

are you really suggesting that a player out 10 days for Burnley "affects them more" than a player out for virtually the whole season elsewhere?

and at least have the honesty to admit if it was another club that had 1029 games missed you'd be banging on about that number instead?

[Stan]

Why do you resort to mods and admin constantly  . Adds nothing to the debate. One of the most pointless things to retort to.

Anyway, you'd think a team like Liverpool and their resources could cope with a player being out for a whole season. Burnley on the other hand? Maybe it does affect them more? You're acting like each one of their injuries is only 10 days, as well. Again, to swing it in your favour.

2 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

and at least have the honesty to admit if it was another club that had 1029 games missed you'd be banging on about that number instead?

Very reminiscent of comments a previous member on here would make. Suspicious now...

[LFCMike]

This 'you'd think Liverpool would have the resources to cope with three injuries at centre back' thing is nonsense. Man City couldn't cope with Laporte being injured last season and it was constantly given as a reason for them being 20-odd points behind Liverpool this time last year but now Liverpool should be able to cope with losing three?!

[Stan]

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

This 'you'd think Liverpool would have the resources to cope with three injuries at centre back' thing is nonsense. Man City couldn't cope with Laporte being injured last season and it was constantly given as a reason for them being 20-odd points behind Liverpool this time last year but now Liverpool should be able to cope with losing three?!

Not gonna lie I genuinely don't recall myself saying Man City's lack of Laporte at the back was the reason for you being so far ahead.

I was more of the impression that Liverpool were just outright superior in every single department by a long, long way that even if Man City did have a decent defence (and they should have even with Laporte out) it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

[RandoEFC+]

19 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

1029 games missed

What's this? Assume Liverpool play about 50 games a season. You would need to have 20-21 players injured for EVERY GAME to achieve this number of games missed.

I know you mean days not games but if you're trying to prove someone else is being misleading you should try to get your own numbers spot on .

[Scouse_Mouse]

10 minutes ago, Stan said:

Why do you resort to mods and admin constantly  . Adds nothing to the debate. One of the most pointless things to retort to.

 

Maybe I expected more from the mods, most forums don't have the mods starting WUM threads like this one started by you.

10 minutes ago, Stan said:

 

Anyway, you'd think a team like Liverpool and their resources could cope with a player being out for a whole season. Burnley on the other hand? Maybe it does affect them more? You're acting like each one of their injuries is only 10 days, as well. Again, to swing it in your favour.

 

I'm not swinging anything in our favour, Burnley have had a couple more individual injuries, the total days lost from those injuries is much lower than ours, ergo anyone with a basic grasp of math can work out that their injuries have been short term compared to ours.

10 minutes ago, Stan said:

Very reminiscent of comments a previous member on here would make. Suspicious now...

It's bad enough trying to debate with you without having to explain what someone else posted before I arrived Stan.

Having said that I'm sure I'm not the first on here to have ever wondered about your creative way of presenting statistics to promote an agenda?

 

[Storts]

So Jamie Vardy eh? Is age finally catching up with him? Was poor at the weekend

[Cicero]

Genuine question @Stan & @Dan, would you take Tammy Abraham as Vardy's successor?

[Scouse_Mouse]

9 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

What's this? Assume Liverpool play about 50 games a season. You would need to have 20-21 players injured for EVERY GAME to achieve this number of games missed.

I know you mean days not games but if you're trying to prove someone else is being misleading you should try to get your own numbers spot on .

Yes clearly I was referring to days.

btw you're good at math, he's not listening to me, can you explain to Stan why total days/games missed affects a club more than short term injuries?

 

 

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Maybe I expected more from the mods, most forums don't have the mods starting WUM threads like this one started by you.

How is this a WUM thread?

4 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

I'm not swinging anything in our favour, Burnley have had a couple more individual injuries, the total days lost from those injuries is much lower than ours, ergo anyone with a basic grasp of math can work out that their injuries have been short term compared to ours.

But it goes back to the original point. All that was pointed out was that Burnley had had more individual injuries than anyone else in the league. You just chose to interpret that in line with your agenda.

5 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

It's bad enough trying to debate with you without having to explain what someone else posted before I arrived Stan.

Having said that I'm sure I'm not the first on here to have ever wondered about your creative way of presenting statistics to promote an agenda?

Please bear in mind this isn't my video, they're not my stats, and it's not my data that has been researched.

I literally only relayed what was being said in the short video (which I doubt you've watched?). They literally state Burnley had have more injuries than anyone else in the league.  You just weirdly choose to infer that I have some agenda from pointing that out, stating it's a 'misleading fact'. I'm not disputing what the effects of the injuries are and how they affect each respective team.

[Dan+]

8 minutes ago, Storts said:

So Jamie Vardy eh? Is age finally catching up with him? Was poor at the weekend

I'm worried that it finally might be. It wasn't just the weekend. One goal since christmas and just generally looks a bit leggy. I think it's gone well under the radar because of how well Barnes & Maddison have done.

That incident where Pablo Mari beat him in a foot race. That just wouldn't happen before. He's either carrying a knock or he's finally dwindling - but following having an operation quite recently we might've seen the best of him now.

 

3 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Genuine question @Stan & @Dan, would you take Tammy Abraham as Vardy's successor?

I'm not totally convinced by Abraham if I'm honest. I think he'd be steady but I'm not convinced he'll ever be a top striker. I don't know what you think. There's a sad realisation that whatever we get is probably going to be worse than Vardy though. Not only has he been top drawer but bar one day where his odds tumbled on a move to Arsenal we've never really been in any danger of losing him. If we did get somebody in at his level we'd be facing a fight to hold on.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Would it just be easy at this point to say that all prem teams have shit medical and physio teams to stop the dick measuring contest? 

[Dan+]

didn't even realise Storts has spent this thread making comments of a similar type. Problem is I didn't disagree with any of them.

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Genuine question @Stan & @Dan, would you take Tammy Abraham as Vardy's successor?

If it was just him, then no. I think we need some heavy recruitment either in support for Vardy and then eventually as his replacement anyway. 

It's an odd place we find ourselves in - how do you even go about replacing someone like Vardy anyway?! It's like what we had with Kante. Almost an impossible task really and I just hope the club have some plan in place for this imminent eventuality...

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Dan said:

didn't even realise Storts has spent this thread making comments of a similar type. Problem is I didn't disagree with any of them.

It's because we were talking about injuries in the match thread so he's brought those here  

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Dan said:

I'm not totally convinced by Abraham if I'm honest. I think he'd be steady but I'm not convinced he'll ever be a top striker. I don't know what you think. There's a sad realisation that whatever we get is probably going to be worse than Vardy though. Not only has he been top drawer but bar one day where his odds tumbled on a move to Arsenal we've never really been in any danger of losing him. If we did get somebody in at his level we'd be facing a fight to hold on.

 

Just now, Stan said:

If it was just him, then no. I think we need some heavy recruitment either in support for Vardy and then eventually as his replacement anyway. 

It's an odd place we find ourselves in - how do you even go about replacing someone like Vardy anyway?! It's like what we had with Kante. Almost an impossible task really and I just hope the club have some plan in place for this imminent eventuality...

How many top strikers are available though, let alone Premier league proven? Yes its an old cliché, but its become apparent now players of other leagues sometimes take a bit longer to adapt to English football. 

Tammy is only 23, and since the start of last season he has the best goals/game ratio in the league (excluding penalties). Personally, I'd think he'd do well under Rodgers. 

[Stan]

Just now, Cicero said:

 

How many top strikers are available though, let alone Premier league proven? Yes its an old cliché, but its become apparent now players of other leagues sometimes take a bit longer to adapt to English football. 

Tammy is only 23, and since the start of last season he has the best goals/game ratio in the league (excluding penalties). Personally, I'd think he'd do well under Rodgers. 

I agree - there aren't many which is why I'm wondering how you replace him!

I didn't realise he was so young, thought he was a few years older for some reason. Even if we were to get him in (and you're right I think he'd do alright under Rodgers), I'd like to have more options than just Abraham. Not a slant on him, just more about our depth required if we're gonna handle 4 competitions in a season again.

[Burning Gold]

3 hours 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?

Well you could follow this thread and watch two boring cunts talk for 11 pages instead 

[Dan+]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

How many top strikers are available though, let alone Premier league proven? Yes its an old cliché, but its become apparent now players of other leagues sometimes take a bit longer to adapt to English football. 

Tammy is only 23, and since the start of last season he has the best goals/game ratio in the league (excluding penalties). Personally, I'd think he'd do well under Rodgers. 

I wouldn't be upset with Abraham and I'd give him plenty of time but I dunno - Chelsea would've snapped your hand off for Vardy in the last few years yet would be happy enough to sell him to us, tells me that he's a way off being good enough.

What we really need, as we're not going to get another Vardy, is to get in a right winger with actual goal contribution. With Barnes on the left we've finally cracked somebody who I think can regularly get 15 a season in all comps, and in Maddison now I think he won't be far behind as he seems to have really upped his game lately.

But the right wing, we're so accustomed to non-productivity it's unreal. Perez has scored 9 goals in a year and a half and nearly all of them have come in thumping wins - there's a stat that if you take every goal of his away we'd have 2 less points, and I don't think he makes up for that with his all-round game either. Albrighton's never been a goalscorer, and Cengiz Under has barely had a run but the fact he can't get one despite what I've just said about those two tells me he isn't really rated.

If we could get Abraham, and Thauvin could come here and replicate his Marseille form, then I'd say we've done well and remain a dangerous team.

I think the most likely signing is Odsonne Edouard. I also think Danny Ings is an outside bet - I initially thought it would be a mega money move for him but he's out of contract in a year and wants a move to a club in Europe. Well we might just be that club. Worked with Rodgers before too.

[Burning Gold]

25 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Genuine question @Stan & @Dan, would you take Tammy Abraham as Vardy's successor?

Would Chelsea really sell him? Highest scorer this and last season, plus even if you upgrade in the summer, Giroud isn't getting any younger