Gone off after 34 minutes of the game v Holland, lets hope its nothing major and that he is ok for Saturday

He should never of been allowed to play in a pointless friendly like that.

We're short of players as it is.

He should never of been allowed to play in a pointless friendly like that.

We're short of players as it is.

 

I agree. I know most Premier League clubs are capable of absorbing the direct financial burden of such injuries- having to pay the wages of an employee who was injured whilst "working" for someone else, but the knock-on effect is immeasurable. We simply will never know how many goals he would have created/prevented or points we would have gainedhad he been able to play for those six weeks. Of course, we will also never know whether he may have picked up a more serious injury the following game, but I do not like the idea of international friendlies taking place whilst the domestic seaon is in full swing. Moreover, I'm not sure qualifiers should take place then either. Friendlies are a totally pointless exercise so far in advance of a tournament. Many of the players will be ruled out of playing in the tournament through injuries picked up between now and then anyway. Form will wax and wane in that time, so it isn't really that useful for testing out fringe players.

 

We had a similar problem at Atherton Colls last season when one player picked up an injury playing Sunday League- another pointless injury in a meaningless game. We may well have avoided relegation but for that!!!

In talks to take up the option of another year in his contract

I agree. I know most Premier League clubs are capable of absorbing the direct financial burden of such injuries- having to pay the wages of an employee who was injured whilst "working" for someone else, but the knock-on effect is immeasurable. We simply will never know how many goals he would have created/prevented or points we would have gainedhad he been able to play for those six weeks. Of course, we will also never know whether he may have picked up a more serious injury the following game, but I do not like the idea of international friendlies taking place whilst the domestic seaon is in full swing. Moreover, I'm not sure qualifiers should take place then either. Friendlies are a totally pointless exercise so far in advance of a tournament. Many of the players will be ruled out of playing in the tournament through injuries picked up between now and then anyway. Form will wax and wane in that time, so it isn't really that useful for testing out fringe players.

 

We had a similar problem at Atherton Colls last season when one player picked up an injury playing Sunday League- another pointless injury in a meaningless game. We may well have avoided relegation but for that!!!

 

If in a world cup year if we tried to sign a player who had a chance of playing in the world cup and told him that he would nt be allowed to play in friendlies then the player would nt come to us in the first place.

Edited March 9, 201016 yr by Ani

I agree. I know most Premier League clubs are capable of absorbing the direct financial burden of such injuries- having to pay the wages of an employee who was injured whilst "working" for someone else, but the knock-on effect is immeasurable. We simply will never know how many goals he would have created/prevented or points we would have gainedhad he been able to play for those six weeks. Of course, we will also never know whether he may have picked up a more serious injury the following game, but I do not like the idea of international friendlies taking place whilst the domestic seaon is in full swing. Moreover, I'm not sure qualifiers should take place then either. Friendlies are a totally pointless exercise so far in advance of a tournament. Many of the players will be ruled out of playing in the tournament through injuries picked up between now and then anyway. Form will wax and wane in that time, so it isn't really that useful for testing out fringe players.

 

We had a similar problem at Atherton Colls last season when one player picked up an injury playing Sunday League- another pointless injury in a meaningless game. We may well have avoided relegation but for that!!!

 

Aye because representing your country against one of the top nations in world football is the same as a run out for your local pub team.

 

FFS if Fergie stopped his players from representing england in friendlies everyone would moan, look at the flack Gerrard got when he was 'injured' for England duty but played for the bindippers a few days later.

Aye because representing your country against one of the top nations in world football is the same as a run out for your local pub team.

 

FFS if Fergie stopped his players from representing england in friendlies everyone would moan, look at the flack Gerrard got when he was 'injured' for England duty but played for the bindippers a few days later.

 

The principle is the same- a player playing football for a team other than his employers. There is absolutely no need for any of these friendlies to take place at all. If a player is good enough to play for his country, his abilities are spotted at club level. He doesn't need to play in a friendly for a decent manager to know whether he will fit into the team or not. In the club v country debate, I favour the club EVERY TIME.

 

At the end of the day it is we, the supporters of the clubs, who pay the price for such injuries. We pay the wages of injured players- not the individual FA concerned. And before you say that gate receipts count little towards the wages these days, it is we who subscribe to Sky and ESPN. Without us, there is no professional game. Maybe some of the international FAs do pay some compensation for players injured on national team duty, but most don't and can't afford to. The FAI, Welsh FA, Irish FA and Scottish FA certainly can't afford to. US Soccer may be able to, but don't. As for the FAs of poorer countries in Africa, Asia and South America- there is no chance. Sooner or later, we pay for it. I don't believe we should. Players are paid higher wages and clubs pay higher insurance premiums to cover such eventualities, and it is we who pay. FIFA makes enough money out of the World Cup to more than cover the associated costs. It is high time they took some responsibility and used this income to cover these costs.

 

That doesn't take into account the possible knock-on effect of players missing through injuries sustained on international duty. In theory, such injuries can cost the very existence of some football clubs. At Colls, it certainly didn't help our survival chances, having our top striker out thanks to an injury he picked up playing for a pub team. We may have been relegated anyway, but we will never know. In other leagues, where relegation can have a serious financial impact, it is events like this that can cost clubs their existance.

The principle is the same- a player playing football for a team other than his employers. There is absolutely no need for any of these friendlies to take place at all. If a player is good enough to play for his country, his abilities are spotted at club level. He doesn't need to play in a friendly for a decent manager to know whether he will fit into the team or not. In the club v country debate, I favour the club EVERY TIME.

 

At the end of the day it is we, the supporters of the clubs, who pay the price for such injuries. We pay the wages of injured players- not the individual FA concerned. And before you say that gate receipts count little towards the wages these days, it is we who subscribe to Sky and ESPN. Without us, there is no professional game. Maybe some of the international FAs do pay some compensation for players injured on national team duty, but most don't and can't afford to. The FAI, Welsh FA, Irish FA and Scottish FA certainly can't afford to. US Soccer may be able to, but don't. As for the FAs of poorer countries in Africa, Asia and South America- there is no chance. Sooner or later, we pay for it. I don't believe we should. Players are paid higher wages and clubs pay higher insurance premiums to cover such eventualities, and it is we who pay. FIFA makes enough money out of the World Cup to more than cover the associated costs. It is high time they took some responsibility and used this income to cover these costs.

 

That doesn't take into account the possible knock-on effect of players missing through injuries sustained on international duty. In theory, such injuries can cost the very existence of some football clubs. At Colls, it certainly didn't help our survival chances, having our top striker out thanks to an injury he picked up playing for a pub team. We may have been relegated anyway, but we will never know. In other leagues, where relegation can have a serious financial impact, it is events like this that can cost clubs their existance.

 

Good lord you do drone on a bit.

 

Mid Season freindlies are daft but with the seasons all running to their own timetable about half the worldd is now in 'post season' mode so fit in with your international timetable.

 

So unless we go down the 'We are England, we invented footballl, everyone should do what we want' route the current set up is always going to be there and isn't going to change anytime soon.

The principle is the same- a player playing football for a team other than his employers. There is absolutely no need for any of these friendlies to take place at all. If a player is good enough to play for his country, his abilities are spotted at club level. He doesn't need to play in a friendly for a decent manager to know whether he will fit into the team or not. In the club v country debate, I favour the club EVERY TIME.

 

At the end of the day it is we, the supporters of the clubs, who pay the price for such injuries. We pay the wages of injured players- not the individual FA concerned. And before you say that gate receipts count little towards the wages these days, it is we who subscribe to Sky and ESPN. Without us, there is no professional game. Maybe some of the international FAs do pay some compensation for players injured on national team duty, but most don't and can't afford to. The FAI, Welsh FA, Irish FA and Scottish FA certainly can't afford to. US Soccer may be able to, but don't. As for the FAs of poorer countries in Africa, Asia and South America- there is no chance. Sooner or later, we pay for it. I don't believe we should. Players are paid higher wages and clubs pay higher insurance premiums to cover such eventualities, and it is we who pay. FIFA makes enough money out of the World Cup to more than cover the associated costs. It is high time they took some responsibility and used this income to cover these costs.

 

That doesn't take into account the possible knock-on effect of players missing through injuries sustained on international duty. In theory, such injuries can cost the very existence of some football clubs. At Colls, it certainly didn't help our survival chances, having our top striker out thanks to an injury he picked up playing for a pub team. We may have been relegated anyway, but we will never know. In other leagues, where relegation can have a serious financial impact, it is events like this that can cost clubs their existance.

 

Perhaps we should stop players from crossing the road in case they get knocked down by a bus.

Perhaps we should stop players from crossing the road in case they get knocked down by a bus.

 

Crossing the road is an essential everyday activity. Of course, it is by no means less dangerous, but it is difficult to avoid. That said, very few of our overpaid stars actually ever need to cross a road on foot! The point is that playing football- a risky activity- for a team other than your employers is one that can be avoided, especially when the game is meaningless. I realise managers use friendlies to run the rule over fringe players, but that challenge could have done far more damage. I question whether it is a risk worth taking- especially with so much at stake. The world cup is held at a time of year when the vast majority of nations are on their close season. There is plenty of time between the end of the domestic season and the world cup to play a couple of friendlies (as they will be doing anyway) for those fringe players to get a chance to justify their place in the squad. My primary concern is- and always has been- Bolton Wanderers. The national team doesn't even make it into second place for me- Colls are way ahead.

Crossing the road is an essential everyday activity. Of course, it is by no means less dangerous, but it is difficult to avoid. That said, very few of our overpaid stars actually ever need to cross a road on foot! The point is that playing football- a risky activity- for a team other than your employers is one that can be avoided, especially when the game is meaningless. I realise managers use friendlies to run the rule over fringe players, but that challenge could have done far more damage. I question whether it is a risk worth taking- especially with so much at stake. The world cup is held at a time of year when the vast majority of nations are on their close season. There is plenty of time between the end of the domestic season and the world cup to play a couple of friendlies (as they will be doing anyway) for those fringe players to get a chance to justify their place in the squad. My primary concern is- and always has been- Bolton Wanderers. The national team doesn't even make it into second place for me- Colls are way ahead.

 

Do you think if Bolton stopped players like Holden playing fpr their country they would sign for us in the first place?

 

The guy played 1 or 2 games for us he was hardly home grown talent. If we want to attract players we have to accept they will go off and play Internationals and in doing so might get injured.

Do you think if Bolton stopped players like Holden playing fpr their country they would sign for us in the first place?

 

The guy played 1 or 2 games for us he was hardly home grown talent. If we want to attract players we have to accept they will go off and play Internationals and in doing so might get injured.

 

I fully appreciate all of that. Everything you say is factually correct, but does that mean that's the way it should be? That is my point. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should prevent players from playing internationals- more that the internationals themselves are largely pointless exercises, and if FIFA sanction them, perhaps they should cough up for such injuries when they arise. Why should the club (and ultimately the fans) have to pay for injuries occurring on FIFA's watch? How much money does FIFA bring in in sponsorship revenue for the World Cup- and where does it all end up? It certainly isn't going on providing grants for goal-line technology!

Stu got a brand new cast for his broken leg, well it was new at first, but now with all the signatures and get well messages it looks a rite holden

Stu got a brand new cast for his broken leg, well it was new at first, but now with all the signatures and get well messages it looks a rite holden

 

Possibly the worst joke in the history of WWays

 

I fully appreciate all of that. Everything you say is factually correct, but does that mean that's the way it should be? That is my point. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should prevent players from playing internationals- more that the internationals themselves are largely pointless exercises, and if FIFA sanction them, perhaps they should cough up for such injuries when they arise. Why should the club (and ultimately the fans) have to pay for injuries occurring on FIFA's watch? How much money does FIFA bring in in sponsorship revenue for the World Cup- and where does it all end up? It certainly isn't going on providing grants for goal-line technology!

 

Now be fair : FIFA have to pay top salaries to attract the best officials; 1st class travel isn't cheap, and 1st class hotels even less cheap ..... it all adds up.

I don't disagree about these meaningless international friendlies at important periods in the season, but as someone said - the world's seasons don't coincide; not even within Europe. And players get injured in training get-togethers too.

IMO though, if Holden had been a Manu or Arse or 'Pool player, he wouldn't have been allowed to play the friendly international because he'd only recently joined the club carrying a niggling injury and had only made a couple of club appearances. BWFC need to be as hard-headed when the occasion demands. It's not even as if the international appearance was vital to Holden's future international prospects.

Players also get injured in training. Eddie Hopkinson once broke his leg in training. Perhaps players shouldn't train but just play competitive games. Or perhaps not, they might get injured playing competitive games.

"Nigel de Jong insists he will not curb his combative approach to the game, despite recent criticism.

The Manchester City midfielder has established a reputation for taking no prisoners, with the Dutchman prepared to put his body on the line every time he takes to the field.

However, the Holland international can, at times, overstep the mark, with a crunching challenge on USA international Stuart Holden in a recent friendly leaving the Bolton man with a broken leg.

If you hold back you are going to get injured or get a red card. When it's a 50-50 you have to go for it 100 per cent."

de Jong on Sky website.

Put SKD, Muamba and Robinson on him next time we play Citeh, see how he likes that.