| threadbare squad 09:20 - Jan 12 with 6650 views | wombat |
we have gone from being in some cases having way to many players in certain postions to down to bare bones for the coming months .
does the club say mid table it is or gamble and bring a few loans in ?
we wont have
chair hamstring
burrell hamstring
saito hamstring
varanne possibly sold
poku hamstring
dembele
jcs yeah i know !
for a good chunk of the next 4/6 weeks but are still in with a decent shout of top 6
so is its stick or twist time ?
[Post edited 12 Jan 9:26]
|  |
| |  |
| threadbare squad on 13:57 - Jan 13 with 1516 views | KensalT |
| threadbare squad on 11:26 - Jan 12 by nix |
No, stick. We’ve spent a lot already and have to save some money for future seasons.
As for the number of hamstring injuries it’s not just us. Hull have had seven this season and Millwall five as well as numerous calf and other muscle injuries. I’ve also reposted the study on the increase of hamstring injuries over the past twenty years, which must be down to how football is played now. It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before. Not saying there’s nothing we can do but it’s not all down to our training and physios.
https://www.besoccer.com/team/
https://www.besoccer.com/team/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go |
"It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before."
That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!
I take your overall point that there has been an increase across football in soft tissue injuries and that must be down to factors that aren't controlled for or aren't yet fully understood. The sports scientists still say that these types of injury are wholly preventable. Nevertheless, these injuries are on the rise. So something doesn't add up.
Pointing at other clubs and saying that they have more hamstring injuries than us isn't an excuse or a justification for our own problems.
It might be unfair to bring up Ben Williams' stint with Brooklyn Nets but they finished last season with the most matches missed through injury, and second for most players injured:
https://www.rotowire.com/baske
It was their worst season for injuries since 2016/17.
I saw some data elsewhere showing that the Nets had seven hamstring injuries last season, which is freakishly high even for a sport where such injuries are commonplace.
Ben Williams seems to be a magnet for these things.
Maybe he's just unlucky. Maybe a lot of it is down to factors out of his control. But then again maybe he isn't unlucky and his methods are wrong.
Fairly or unfairly player performance is his remit and the buck stops with him. It's on him to understand why these injuries are happening and to find methods for preventing them.
Shrugging shoulders and pointing to someone else's problems isn't an answer. [Post edited 13 Jan 13:58]
|  | | |
| threadbare squad on 14:13 - Jan 13 with 1449 views | TheChef |
| threadbare squad on 13:57 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
"It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before."
That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!
I take your overall point that there has been an increase across football in soft tissue injuries and that must be down to factors that aren't controlled for or aren't yet fully understood. The sports scientists still say that these types of injury are wholly preventable. Nevertheless, these injuries are on the rise. So something doesn't add up.
Pointing at other clubs and saying that they have more hamstring injuries than us isn't an excuse or a justification for our own problems.
It might be unfair to bring up Ben Williams' stint with Brooklyn Nets but they finished last season with the most matches missed through injury, and second for most players injured:
https://www.rotowire.com/baske
It was their worst season for injuries since 2016/17.
I saw some data elsewhere showing that the Nets had seven hamstring injuries last season, which is freakishly high even for a sport where such injuries are commonplace.
Ben Williams seems to be a magnet for these things.
Maybe he's just unlucky. Maybe a lot of it is down to factors out of his control. But then again maybe he isn't unlucky and his methods are wrong.
Fairly or unfairly player performance is his remit and the buck stops with him. It's on him to understand why these injuries are happening and to find methods for preventing them.
Shrugging shoulders and pointing to someone else's problems isn't an answer. [Post edited 13 Jan 13:58]
|
Fck yes.
Get Williams out of my club. |  |
| |
| threadbare squad on 14:39 - Jan 13 with 1387 views | nix |
| threadbare squad on 13:57 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
"It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before."
That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!
I take your overall point that there has been an increase across football in soft tissue injuries and that must be down to factors that aren't controlled for or aren't yet fully understood. The sports scientists still say that these types of injury are wholly preventable. Nevertheless, these injuries are on the rise. So something doesn't add up.
Pointing at other clubs and saying that they have more hamstring injuries than us isn't an excuse or a justification for our own problems.
It might be unfair to bring up Ben Williams' stint with Brooklyn Nets but they finished last season with the most matches missed through injury, and second for most players injured:
https://www.rotowire.com/baske
It was their worst season for injuries since 2016/17.
I saw some data elsewhere showing that the Nets had seven hamstring injuries last season, which is freakishly high even for a sport where such injuries are commonplace.
Ben Williams seems to be a magnet for these things.
Maybe he's just unlucky. Maybe a lot of it is down to factors out of his control. But then again maybe he isn't unlucky and his methods are wrong.
Fairly or unfairly player performance is his remit and the buck stops with him. It's on him to understand why these injuries are happening and to find methods for preventing them.
Shrugging shoulders and pointing to someone else's problems isn't an answer. [Post edited 13 Jan 13:58]
|
‘That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!’
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that IN GENERAL there are more hamstring injuries than ever before, not just at QPR and if it’s happening at all other teams it can’t be just down to sports science not being good enough at QPR.
I was using these other clubs as supporting evidence that hamstring injuries are a current issue in football in the Championship, not as an excuse to ignore it as a problem. People tend to say that we have a terrible issue with injuries without looking at whether there are other factors involved. The fact that it is happening to other clubs in the Championship combined with the overall data examining football injuries suggest there are other factors.
I can’t comment on what happens in another sport happening in another country as I have zero knowledge about the individual players, the manager, etc. etc.
If there are other factors involved, e.g. like overplaying players (including silly Christmas periods), like particular formations exacerbating the issue, then it makes sense to consider those too. That’s not shrugging shoulders, that’s taking a holistic approach. For instance I would’ve rested Burrell totally for at least one of the four Christmas matches and taken him off against Leicester when we were 4-0 up at halftime. Is that the manager or the performance team.
Of course we could just blame our performance team but that’s not going to help if we sack them and still have an issue. I have no axe to grind with Ben Williams. I’ve never met him. Don’t work for him. Don’t care if he’s sacked or not really. In fact I’m not sure if the slow burn approach works that well TBH. But I do think just blaming him for everything isn’t really that useful. |  | | |
| threadbare squad on 14:53 - Jan 13 with 1344 views | wombat |
| threadbare squad on 14:39 - Jan 13 by nix |
‘That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!’
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that IN GENERAL there are more hamstring injuries than ever before, not just at QPR and if it’s happening at all other teams it can’t be just down to sports science not being good enough at QPR.
I was using these other clubs as supporting evidence that hamstring injuries are a current issue in football in the Championship, not as an excuse to ignore it as a problem. People tend to say that we have a terrible issue with injuries without looking at whether there are other factors involved. The fact that it is happening to other clubs in the Championship combined with the overall data examining football injuries suggest there are other factors.
I can’t comment on what happens in another sport happening in another country as I have zero knowledge about the individual players, the manager, etc. etc.
If there are other factors involved, e.g. like overplaying players (including silly Christmas periods), like particular formations exacerbating the issue, then it makes sense to consider those too. That’s not shrugging shoulders, that’s taking a holistic approach. For instance I would’ve rested Burrell totally for at least one of the four Christmas matches and taken him off against Leicester when we were 4-0 up at halftime. Is that the manager or the performance team.
Of course we could just blame our performance team but that’s not going to help if we sack them and still have an issue. I have no axe to grind with Ben Williams. I’ve never met him. Don’t work for him. Don’t care if he’s sacked or not really. In fact I’m not sure if the slow burn approach works that well TBH. But I do think just blaming him for everything isn’t really that useful. |
more hamstring injuries are mainly down to the type of football being played id say , fast intense running compared to slow build up play being the previous fashinable way of playing , somebody stated there are more hamstring inuries now than there was in 2011 i think was the year quoted , how much had football changed in that period ?
what style of football was in at the time ?
it wasnt the type of football mainly being played at the moment high impact running for longer periods , i say it was more posssion based so a slower overall game.
the comments about ben williams basketball side line last season is relevent in this , there injury record was one of the worst way about the norm i remember reading
ours is pretty bad as well , when he was at the fans forum this year , he couldnt have come across as being less intrested if he had tried , totally diff to how he was when he joined us . when he was unveiled as the new sports science guru i got chance to speak to him after the event finished really nice guy seemed clused up and approchable , his success is cycling thats where hes made his name and is sort of living off that since then .
do his methods work ?
From his time with us and his brief spell in basketball id say its prob not suited to this type of sport , thats not being against him hes just been found out to be the wrong choice for the job hes doing by the issues we have right now, in most jobs ur judged on results no matter what you do by suddnely moving an obvious hamstring injury to burrell as being a contact injury and using the stats from the kids teams upwards to keep his stats low is trying to hoodwink the fans and the owners big time ,slightly insulting as well id say but maybe thats just my take on things . | |
| |
| threadbare squad on 15:03 - Jan 13 with 1317 views | Northernr |
As I said in the match report, this will likely become the latest issue at QPR on which the two factions of the support entrench themselves again, but it's really very simple.
Blame who or what you like. Put it down to bad luck if you must. Give it all the stats you like. But if we want to improve again next year and push for the play-offs then we cannot get to the middle of January with eight first teamers out, all but one of them with muscle and soft tissue problems, and a pitch that looks like a ploughed field. The club should just admit that's not good enough and vow to improve, not give it statistics and pretend we didn't have injury problems as happened at the last forum.
However it's happened, whoever is at fault, we have to do better than that next year. We've got some very winnable games coming up (Oxford, Blackburn, Charlton) that we're going to potentially struggle with now for want of putting a team out. If we want to push for the top six next season then your best ability is availability. |  | | |
| threadbare squad on 15:08 - Jan 13 with 1302 views | Hunterhoop |
| threadbare squad on 13:57 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
"It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before."
That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!
I take your overall point that there has been an increase across football in soft tissue injuries and that must be down to factors that aren't controlled for or aren't yet fully understood. The sports scientists still say that these types of injury are wholly preventable. Nevertheless, these injuries are on the rise. So something doesn't add up.
Pointing at other clubs and saying that they have more hamstring injuries than us isn't an excuse or a justification for our own problems.
It might be unfair to bring up Ben Williams' stint with Brooklyn Nets but they finished last season with the most matches missed through injury, and second for most players injured:
https://www.rotowire.com/baske
It was their worst season for injuries since 2016/17.
I saw some data elsewhere showing that the Nets had seven hamstring injuries last season, which is freakishly high even for a sport where such injuries are commonplace.
Ben Williams seems to be a magnet for these things.
Maybe he's just unlucky. Maybe a lot of it is down to factors out of his control. But then again maybe he isn't unlucky and his methods are wrong.
Fairly or unfairly player performance is his remit and the buck stops with him. It's on him to understand why these injuries are happening and to find methods for preventing them.
Shrugging shoulders and pointing to someone else's problems isn't an answer. [Post edited 13 Jan 13:58]
|
Excellent post.
I understand what Nix is saying with regards to context, in terms of football in general changing, and some other clubs having similar or worse situations than us.
However, I think the context you provide regards Williams’ stint at the Nets, coupled with our injury record and conditioning both last season and this (I’m focussing on the first team only here), does also provide relevant context on him.
Do we have the best “Performance” (Fitness, Medical, Physio) lead we could have? Are his methods actually working? Remember he was ex-cycling before coming to us. He’s implemented a method and approach from that sphere, so we are bucking the trend to gain an advantage. Are we though? Do his methods work? Brooklyn Nets appeared not to think so and dispensed with his services after one , injury hit, season.
As I have posted before, in a Player Trading strategy, where you’re amortising transfer fees to allow you to place more bets and sign more players up front, keeping those assets fit is absolutely critical. No one’s value goes up when they are injured. The model simply cannot allow us to have a middling to bad injury record in the first team AND be amortising such amounts (for a club of our income).
Given that, and given how we hold Head Coaches accountable, why would we not explore trying to replace him with someone better? On the evidence we have, it doesn’t seem like it’s likely we’d replace with someone who would produce worse results, so what does the club have to lose?
I understand Nourry and Williams are very close, but surely Nourry wouldn’t die in a ditch over Williams if his methods torpedo Nourry’s Player Trading model.
Replacing your Performance Lead shouldn’t be a big deal. |  | | |
| threadbare squad on 15:22 - Jan 13 with 1274 views | KensalT |
| threadbare squad on 14:39 - Jan 13 by nix |
‘That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!’
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that IN GENERAL there are more hamstring injuries than ever before, not just at QPR and if it’s happening at all other teams it can’t be just down to sports science not being good enough at QPR.
I was using these other clubs as supporting evidence that hamstring injuries are a current issue in football in the Championship, not as an excuse to ignore it as a problem. People tend to say that we have a terrible issue with injuries without looking at whether there are other factors involved. The fact that it is happening to other clubs in the Championship combined with the overall data examining football injuries suggest there are other factors.
I can’t comment on what happens in another sport happening in another country as I have zero knowledge about the individual players, the manager, etc. etc.
If there are other factors involved, e.g. like overplaying players (including silly Christmas periods), like particular formations exacerbating the issue, then it makes sense to consider those too. That’s not shrugging shoulders, that’s taking a holistic approach. For instance I would’ve rested Burrell totally for at least one of the four Christmas matches and taken him off against Leicester when we were 4-0 up at halftime. Is that the manager or the performance team.
Of course we could just blame our performance team but that’s not going to help if we sack them and still have an issue. I have no axe to grind with Ben Williams. I’ve never met him. Don’t work for him. Don’t care if he’s sacked or not really. In fact I’m not sure if the slow burn approach works that well TBH. But I do think just blaming him for everything isn’t really that useful. |
My comments weren't aimed at you and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are trying to defend Ben Williams.
I agreed with your general point that there are more hamstring injuries in football. But there's also more sports science in football than ever before. So to repeat my previous comment "something doesn't add up!"
You also say all other teams are having this problem. I'm not so sure that is true, and certainly not to the extent that we are.
I'm not a sports scientist but from what I have read there are two big contributory factors with hamstring injuries:
1. Age - older players are more susceptible
2. Previous history of hamstring problems
We certainly don't have an ancient squad this season so it can't be that. And we signed Poku knowing that he missed a big chunk of last season because of his hamstring so that one does have to be on us.
My own pet theory (untested and unproven) relates to the amount of water we are putting on pitches. If you remember when we played at Forest in 2022 the pitch was very heavy because of a lot of rain before kick off. Willock and Marshall did their hamstrings for us and Scott McKenna also limped off with a hamstring problem. One match is no sort of scientific sample but three hamstring injuries in one match is a bit of an outlier.
But I've also heard climate, fatigue, etc put forward as possible explanations.
As I said in my previous post Ben Williams does appear to be a magnet for hamstring problems. Maybe that's just bad luck and maybe it isn't. But it is on him to understand the problem for us and find solutions. If he can't do that then maybe we do need to look at replacing him. [Post edited 13 Jan 15:26]
| | | |
| threadbare squad on 15:35 - Jan 13 with 1242 views | wombat |
| threadbare squad on 15:08 - Jan 13 by Hunterhoop |
Excellent post.
I understand what Nix is saying with regards to context, in terms of football in general changing, and some other clubs having similar or worse situations than us.
However, I think the context you provide regards Williams’ stint at the Nets, coupled with our injury record and conditioning both last season and this (I’m focussing on the first team only here), does also provide relevant context on him.
Do we have the best “Performance” (Fitness, Medical, Physio) lead we could have? Are his methods actually working? Remember he was ex-cycling before coming to us. He’s implemented a method and approach from that sphere, so we are bucking the trend to gain an advantage. Are we though? Do his methods work? Brooklyn Nets appeared not to think so and dispensed with his services after one , injury hit, season.
As I have posted before, in a Player Trading strategy, where you’re amortising transfer fees to allow you to place more bets and sign more players up front, keeping those assets fit is absolutely critical. No one’s value goes up when they are injured. The model simply cannot allow us to have a middling to bad injury record in the first team AND be amortising such amounts (for a club of our income).
Given that, and given how we hold Head Coaches accountable, why would we not explore trying to replace him with someone better? On the evidence we have, it doesn’t seem like it’s likely we’d replace with someone who would produce worse results, so what does the club have to lose?
I understand Nourry and Williams are very close, but surely Nourry wouldn’t die in a ditch over Williams if his methods torpedo Nourry’s Player Trading model.
Replacing your Performance Lead shouldn’t be a big deal. |
excellent post hunter , in most clubs i would agree but it seems since hes come back to gain a promotion , asto what his new role actualy is god knows .
id also says it will affect us with trying to bring players in if a once so called fully fit players would be thinking , hang on are the training methods going to wrke my career.if williams has taken over a more senior role within the club what is it ?
if hes not directly involved with the day to day physio aspects what is he doing ?
we also have the new found methodology coaches at the club wasnt part of there remit was to identify training regimes for certain players ? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| threadbare squad on 15:48 - Jan 13 with 1206 views | nix |
| threadbare squad on 15:22 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
My comments weren't aimed at you and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are trying to defend Ben Williams.
I agreed with your general point that there are more hamstring injuries in football. But there's also more sports science in football than ever before. So to repeat my previous comment "something doesn't add up!"
You also say all other teams are having this problem. I'm not so sure that is true, and certainly not to the extent that we are.
I'm not a sports scientist but from what I have read there are two big contributory factors with hamstring injuries:
1. Age - older players are more susceptible
2. Previous history of hamstring problems
We certainly don't have an ancient squad this season so it can't be that. And we signed Poku knowing that he missed a big chunk of last season because of his hamstring so that one does have to be on us.
My own pet theory (untested and unproven) relates to the amount of water we are putting on pitches. If you remember when we played at Forest in 2022 the pitch was very heavy because of a lot of rain before kick off. Willock and Marshall did their hamstrings for us and Scott McKenna also limped off with a hamstring problem. One match is no sort of scientific sample but three hamstring injuries in one match is a bit of an outlier.
But I've also heard climate, fatigue, etc put forward as possible explanations.
As I said in my previous post Ben Williams does appear to be a magnet for hamstring problems. Maybe that's just bad luck and maybe it isn't. But it is on him to understand the problem for us and find solutions. If he can't do that then maybe we do need to look at replacing him. [Post edited 13 Jan 15:26]
|
That’s interesting about the water on the pitches.
I didn’t say all teams are having the same problems. I said the hamstring problem has been increasing in the last twenty years, in fact it has practically doubled. I also looked at two teams at random as they are around and about us in the league, Millwall and Hull. Both had hamstring issues. I don’t know if it’s a problem down to similar sized clubs having to play their best players more often, do more high press to win the ball or if it’s purely coincidence. Of course no other teams in the Championship may have the level of five or more hamstring issues this season. I don’t know and I haven’t got time to check every single one.
I agree it does suggest we need to look at it from all angles including lobbying the EFl to reduce the fixture congestion at Christmas. I can’t believe the match on the 29th was such a money spinner that they couldn’t have fitted that in elsewhere in the season.
As fans we also have a part to play in not complaining too heavily if sometimes our favourite player gets rested not because he is injured but because he is being protected from injury. And no amount of ‘in my day they used to play ten matches a week’ will change the fact that hamstring injuries are are more prevalent now (not saying you say this but it’s a point worth making). | | | |
| threadbare squad on 15:56 - Jan 13 with 1178 views | KensalT |
| threadbare squad on 15:22 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
My comments weren't aimed at you and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are trying to defend Ben Williams.
I agreed with your general point that there are more hamstring injuries in football. But there's also more sports science in football than ever before. So to repeat my previous comment "something doesn't add up!"
You also say all other teams are having this problem. I'm not so sure that is true, and certainly not to the extent that we are.
I'm not a sports scientist but from what I have read there are two big contributory factors with hamstring injuries:
1. Age - older players are more susceptible
2. Previous history of hamstring problems
We certainly don't have an ancient squad this season so it can't be that. And we signed Poku knowing that he missed a big chunk of last season because of his hamstring so that one does have to be on us.
My own pet theory (untested and unproven) relates to the amount of water we are putting on pitches. If you remember when we played at Forest in 2022 the pitch was very heavy because of a lot of rain before kick off. Willock and Marshall did their hamstrings for us and Scott McKenna also limped off with a hamstring problem. One match is no sort of scientific sample but three hamstring injuries in one match is a bit of an outlier.
But I've also heard climate, fatigue, etc put forward as possible explanations.
As I said in my previous post Ben Williams does appear to be a magnet for hamstring problems. Maybe that's just bad luck and maybe it isn't. But it is on him to understand the problem for us and find solutions. If he can't do that then maybe we do need to look at replacing him. [Post edited 13 Jan 15:26]
|
Quick PS to my own post.
Another theory for the increase in muscle injuries is that it's a side-effect of having five substitutes which has led to greater intensity in the game. It also means that clubs with stronger squads have an advantage over the rest. This was put forward by Michael Cox in The Athletic a couple of months ago. The link to the article and the full text are below:
https://www.nytimes.com/athlet
"Why the five-substitute era has not been good for football
By Michael Cox
Nov. 2, 2025
Amid reports that some of Europe’s major clubs have held discussions about the possibility of introducing a sixth substitute in league matches, it’s worth reflecting on the situation football has accidentally found itself in, with ‘only’ five permitted.
This was initially an emergency measure introduced in 2020, when football was forced into a demanding schedule to compensate for the three months lost to the pandemic. Entirely predictably, the temporary change became permanent.
Naturally, managers have taken advantage of the extra changes. Since the start of 2022-23, when the five-substitute rule was made permanent in the Premier League, managers have used (at least) a fourth substitute 72 per cent of the time. They evidently appreciate having more ability to rotate, and more scope for making tactical alterations.
But has it actually been good for football overall?
The concept of five substitutes was about easing physical demands on players, therefore guarding against injury and physical burnout. But it’s highly questionable whether this has had any serious impact whatsoever, and it’s arguably made things worse; this time last season, in particular, there seemed to be more injuries than ever before. Tottenham currently have 10 players out injured, for example.
Granted, it’s not an entirely fair test, because in what could be termed the ‘five-substitute era’, top-level players have become involved in more competitive games, because of the expansion of the Champions League and the introduction of the Club World Cup.
But football has completely overlooked the impact of introducing extra substitutes: it increases the tempo of the game, and the physical demands upon those who aren’t substituted. It’s a fairly straightforward equation: if no substitutes were allowed, the game would need to be played at a tempo that players could sustain for 90 minutes. At the other end of the scale, if 11 substitutes were allowed, every player could run themselves into the ground, knowing they could be replaced.
Football has ended up at a halfway house of five, which means that, going into the final stages, it’s not uncommon to have 10 outfielders with fresh legs up against 10 outfielders who are fatigued, but need to keep on sprinting at the intensity of the substitutes. Whereas once players with fresh legs were outliers, almost like a manager playing a ‘joker’, they’re now a more fundamental part of the game. It’s worth clarifying that the tempo in football has always increased decade on decade, and the five-substitute rule is not the only factor. But things do appear to have exploded dramatically in the last half-decade.
Of course, the increased intensity affects things tactically, too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many people are content for football to be played at an increasingly high tempo.
The danger, though, is that the game becomes so frenetic that talented technical players are denied an extra half-second on the ball, an extra few yards of space. The challenge, as always in football, is for those players to showcase their skill within the context of a high tempo. But this is perhaps an artificial high tempo, dictated by an unreasonable number of substitutes. This season’s Premier League has been notable for its underwhelming level of football, with teams seemingly looking elsewhere — to set-pieces — for creativity, at a time when playmakers are finding it difficult to create.
Then, of course, there’s the problem of inequality; more substitutes surely benefits the richer clubs.
First, they can afford to introduce top-class replacements, and five of them — rather than simply three — can completely overwhelm weaker clubs. Yes, in strict terms, the issue is not simply outright quality, but quality in comparison to the player being replaced. Still, it’s difficult to make a case that, say, Arsenal — who use their considerable budget to build a squad to compete in multiple competitions, and therefore have strength in depth — are not better off from the five-subs rule than, say, Burnley. It’s hardly a coincidence that the prospect of a further increase to six has been raised by the big clubs in particular.
Then there’s the long-term impact of depth and stockpiling players. Restrictions have been introduced on squad sizes in an attempt to tackle this problem. Ultimately, most footballers want to play and if a manager is using 16 rather than 14 every game, big clubs have more scope to keep more players involved. The same applies to matchday squads, which are now 20 rather than 18 in the Premier League, and 23 in some other European leagues.
Pep Guardiola wants an unlimited number of players on the bench, so more can feel involved. “I would love the Premier League to say, ‘You can allow on the bench the players you want’,” he said. “I would love it because everybody can play. More alternatives.” But it would be better for football, overall, if players on the fringes moved onto clubs where they will start matches.
The five-substitute era has probably made it harder for promoted teams to survive — things are set to be different this time, but the last six promoted clubs have all been relegated straight away. One of them, Ipswich Town — who found themselves in the Premier League after consecutive promotions — would have been placed 17th on a ‘first half league table’ last season, but 20th on a ‘second half league table’. Were Kieran McKenna’s tactics worked out by opposition managers during matches? Were Ipswich serial bottlers? Or were they simply unable to cope because the five-substitute era rewards established clubs with depth?
There’s also an argument — and maybe this is just one for traditionalists — that football is also supposed to be, on some level, a test of individual stamina and adaptability. Obviously, some substitutes are needed to replace injured and fatigued players, and sides should be able to make changes to tilt the balance of their side too.
But five substitutes is probably too many, and has likely had the opposite impact to what was intended. As a solution to the problem of fatigue, two extra changes has been the footballing equivalent of throwing a glass of water onto a chip pan fire." | | | |
| threadbare squad on 15:57 - Jan 13 with 1171 views | OldPedro |
Wasn't the fitness of the squad one of the points that led to the fall out between Cifuentes and Nourry last season?
Several people have commented that some players such as Saito and Kone seemed fitter when they first joined us (after a preseason elsewhere) than they have done recently. I also read some remarks from Charlton about Kelman not being fit enough when he joined them after a preseason with us.
It does look just from watching games that our general fitness isn't good enough even if you ignore the injury situation. |  |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| threadbare squad on 15:58 - Jan 13 with 1167 views | TheChef |
| threadbare squad on 15:56 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
Quick PS to my own post.
Another theory for the increase in muscle injuries is that it's a side-effect of having five substitutes which has led to greater intensity in the game. It also means that clubs with stronger squads have an advantage over the rest. This was put forward by Michael Cox in The Athletic a couple of months ago. The link to the article and the full text are below:
https://www.nytimes.com/athlet
"Why the five-substitute era has not been good for football
By Michael Cox
Nov. 2, 2025
Amid reports that some of Europe’s major clubs have held discussions about the possibility of introducing a sixth substitute in league matches, it’s worth reflecting on the situation football has accidentally found itself in, with ‘only’ five permitted.
This was initially an emergency measure introduced in 2020, when football was forced into a demanding schedule to compensate for the three months lost to the pandemic. Entirely predictably, the temporary change became permanent.
Naturally, managers have taken advantage of the extra changes. Since the start of 2022-23, when the five-substitute rule was made permanent in the Premier League, managers have used (at least) a fourth substitute 72 per cent of the time. They evidently appreciate having more ability to rotate, and more scope for making tactical alterations.
But has it actually been good for football overall?
The concept of five substitutes was about easing physical demands on players, therefore guarding against injury and physical burnout. But it’s highly questionable whether this has had any serious impact whatsoever, and it’s arguably made things worse; this time last season, in particular, there seemed to be more injuries than ever before. Tottenham currently have 10 players out injured, for example.
Granted, it’s not an entirely fair test, because in what could be termed the ‘five-substitute era’, top-level players have become involved in more competitive games, because of the expansion of the Champions League and the introduction of the Club World Cup.
But football has completely overlooked the impact of introducing extra substitutes: it increases the tempo of the game, and the physical demands upon those who aren’t substituted. It’s a fairly straightforward equation: if no substitutes were allowed, the game would need to be played at a tempo that players could sustain for 90 minutes. At the other end of the scale, if 11 substitutes were allowed, every player could run themselves into the ground, knowing they could be replaced.
Football has ended up at a halfway house of five, which means that, going into the final stages, it’s not uncommon to have 10 outfielders with fresh legs up against 10 outfielders who are fatigued, but need to keep on sprinting at the intensity of the substitutes. Whereas once players with fresh legs were outliers, almost like a manager playing a ‘joker’, they’re now a more fundamental part of the game. It’s worth clarifying that the tempo in football has always increased decade on decade, and the five-substitute rule is not the only factor. But things do appear to have exploded dramatically in the last half-decade.
Of course, the increased intensity affects things tactically, too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many people are content for football to be played at an increasingly high tempo.
The danger, though, is that the game becomes so frenetic that talented technical players are denied an extra half-second on the ball, an extra few yards of space. The challenge, as always in football, is for those players to showcase their skill within the context of a high tempo. But this is perhaps an artificial high tempo, dictated by an unreasonable number of substitutes. This season’s Premier League has been notable for its underwhelming level of football, with teams seemingly looking elsewhere — to set-pieces — for creativity, at a time when playmakers are finding it difficult to create.
Then, of course, there’s the problem of inequality; more substitutes surely benefits the richer clubs.
First, they can afford to introduce top-class replacements, and five of them — rather than simply three — can completely overwhelm weaker clubs. Yes, in strict terms, the issue is not simply outright quality, but quality in comparison to the player being replaced. Still, it’s difficult to make a case that, say, Arsenal — who use their considerable budget to build a squad to compete in multiple competitions, and therefore have strength in depth — are not better off from the five-subs rule than, say, Burnley. It’s hardly a coincidence that the prospect of a further increase to six has been raised by the big clubs in particular.
Then there’s the long-term impact of depth and stockpiling players. Restrictions have been introduced on squad sizes in an attempt to tackle this problem. Ultimately, most footballers want to play and if a manager is using 16 rather than 14 every game, big clubs have more scope to keep more players involved. The same applies to matchday squads, which are now 20 rather than 18 in the Premier League, and 23 in some other European leagues.
Pep Guardiola wants an unlimited number of players on the bench, so more can feel involved. “I would love the Premier League to say, ‘You can allow on the bench the players you want’,” he said. “I would love it because everybody can play. More alternatives.” But it would be better for football, overall, if players on the fringes moved onto clubs where they will start matches.
The five-substitute era has probably made it harder for promoted teams to survive — things are set to be different this time, but the last six promoted clubs have all been relegated straight away. One of them, Ipswich Town — who found themselves in the Premier League after consecutive promotions — would have been placed 17th on a ‘first half league table’ last season, but 20th on a ‘second half league table’. Were Kieran McKenna’s tactics worked out by opposition managers during matches? Were Ipswich serial bottlers? Or were they simply unable to cope because the five-substitute era rewards established clubs with depth?
There’s also an argument — and maybe this is just one for traditionalists — that football is also supposed to be, on some level, a test of individual stamina and adaptability. Obviously, some substitutes are needed to replace injured and fatigued players, and sides should be able to make changes to tilt the balance of their side too.
But five substitutes is probably too many, and has likely had the opposite impact to what was intended. As a solution to the problem of fatigue, two extra changes has been the footballing equivalent of throwing a glass of water onto a chip pan fire." |
Yes I saw that mentioned somewhere else too.
I really don't know why they didn't go back to three subs, which seemed to work fine. But players probably prefer it because it increases their chance of getting game time, even if it er, means it increases their chance of getting injured.
So, er. Yeah. | |
| |
| threadbare squad on 15:59 - Jan 13 with 1161 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
| threadbare squad on 15:57 - Jan 13 by OldPedro |
Wasn't the fitness of the squad one of the points that led to the fall out between Cifuentes and Nourry last season?
Several people have commented that some players such as Saito and Kone seemed fitter when they first joined us (after a preseason elsewhere) than they have done recently. I also read some remarks from Charlton about Kelman not being fit enough when he joined them after a preseason with us.
It does look just from watching games that our general fitness isn't good enough even if you ignore the injury situation. |
Kelman had an injury that Charlton didn't pick up in the medical rather than being unfit. He had an operation and now he is back playing. | |
| |
| threadbare squad on 16:07 - Jan 13 with 1134 views | OldPedro |
| threadbare squad on 15:59 - Jan 13 by Wilkinswatercarrier |
Kelman had an injury that Charlton didn't pick up in the medical rather than being unfit. He had an operation and now he is back playing. |
Didn't realise Kelman had an injury as he did play in a couple of our preseason friendlies before he left for Charlton at the end of July | |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| threadbare squad on 16:30 - Jan 13 with 1069 views | numptydumpty |
Sports Science can only take players and teams so far.
Am sure, the ways of doing things to ensure or rather hope to ensure as fully fit a squad as is possible is probably quite a bog standard approach. With Ben Williams, am guessing he is implementing want happens elsewhere. The facts though state our players now, there are too many picking up similar long term injuries, and this only means one thing with regards to our current sports science processes -THEY ARE FAILING !!
This could also be linked to the dreadful state of our pitch. So clearly the pitch and turf team needs a reboot for sure. But with recent failings everywhere Ben Williams has to be in grave danger of losing his job. I dont think he will, because he is a Nourry man from my viewpoint and as such a lot of this could also be blamed on misfortune. Yes the way the game is played now is different, but if your output is rubbish at work, you generally get released unless you have caught the boss's eye when you flaunted his eye, by wearing that rather brief mini skirt - sorry personal memories of this experience - let's not go there !!!
Seriously though, I do believe its bad luck myself, coupled with too many games in a short period. But even then several have been rested and still the injuries do come.
It is a shame and key players missing are hard to replace. If Madsen got injured now, the only players I could see covering his role, are two that would not normally play there - ie Chair and Edwards....
If Stephan gets us through this period, with ourselves still in the top ten, then we will have to say, he could be a bit special.
Let's see what happens.... [Post edited 13 Jan 16:37]
|  |
| |
| threadbare squad on 16:48 - Jan 13 with 1037 views | wombat |
| threadbare squad on 15:57 - Jan 13 by OldPedro |
Wasn't the fitness of the squad one of the points that led to the fall out between Cifuentes and Nourry last season?
Several people have commented that some players such as Saito and Kone seemed fitter when they first joined us (after a preseason elsewhere) than they have done recently. I also read some remarks from Charlton about Kelman not being fit enough when he joined them after a preseason with us.
It does look just from watching games that our general fitness isn't good enough even if you ignore the injury situation. |
Think it one of the issues , the bringing in of a defensive coach was rumoured to be another issue .
the saito from this season isnt the same one we had last season thats for sure.
and add to that stev bould allegedly reports to nourry and i presume the same for the methodology coahces do the same it and always has been a weird siutation sine they brouhgt it in.
i can imagine its like a school assemby when it comes to picking the squad on a thursday.
please raise your hands if present.
those who arent aval please bring a note from your dept of methodolgy and ben williams saying why u cant play .
jake obv we can make an exception for you | |
| |
| threadbare squad on 16:52 - Jan 13 with 1033 views | Northernr |
| threadbare squad on 16:07 - Jan 13 by OldPedro |
Didn't realise Kelman had an injury as he did play in a couple of our preseason friendlies before he left for Charlton at the end of July |
Played basically every game through to November then did his hamstring against Swansea (annoyingly for him the game he also scored his first goal for them). Returned after 7 weeks against Oxford on December 20 and scored again. | | | |
| threadbare squad on 21:18 - Jan 13 with 828 views | nix |
Thanks everyone. Really interesting discussion. Enjoyed reading all the responses and background info especially the Atlantic article. It seems slightly counterintuitive that having more subs would lead to potentially more injuries but reading the article it makes sense. [Post edited 13 Jan 21:26]
| | | |
| threadbare squad on 21:37 - Jan 13 with 783 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| threadbare squad on 15:57 - Jan 13 by OldPedro |
Wasn't the fitness of the squad one of the points that led to the fall out between Cifuentes and Nourry last season?
Several people have commented that some players such as Saito and Kone seemed fitter when they first joined us (after a preseason elsewhere) than they have done recently. I also read some remarks from Charlton about Kelman not being fit enough when he joined them after a preseason with us.
It does look just from watching games that our general fitness isn't good enough even if you ignore the injury situation. |
100%.
We've been saying it all season, and most of last season too. |  |
| |
| threadbare squad on 22:06 - Jan 13 with 722 views | KensalT |
| threadbare squad on 21:37 - Jan 13 by BrianMcCarthy |
100%.
We've been saying it all season, and most of last season too. |
This is precisely why the club needs to be asking serious questions of Ben Williams and the support staff.
I completely accept Nix's point that hamstring injuries are a growing problem in the game, but this can't be a Get Out of Jail Free card for Ben Williams to avoid scrutiny.
Our problems do seem far worse than most, and we can't ignore the fact that Ben Williams also had a bad record for injuries in his season with the Brooklyn Nets.
I'm not suggesting we sack Williams now because this deep into the season there isn't likely to be a magic wand to turn things around. But it is on Williams now to come up with answers for our injury problems and if he can't do that and the injuries continue to pile up into next season then his position will look untenable. | | | |
| threadbare squad on 22:56 - Jan 13 with 622 views | wombat |
| threadbare squad on 22:06 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
This is precisely why the club needs to be asking serious questions of Ben Williams and the support staff.
I completely accept Nix's point that hamstring injuries are a growing problem in the game, but this can't be a Get Out of Jail Free card for Ben Williams to avoid scrutiny.
Our problems do seem far worse than most, and we can't ignore the fact that Ben Williams also had a bad record for injuries in his season with the Brooklyn Nets.
I'm not suggesting we sack Williams now because this deep into the season there isn't likely to be a magic wand to turn things around. But it is on Williams now to come up with answers for our injury problems and if he can't do that and the injuries continue to pile up into next season then his position will look untenable. |
On the subs subject wasn’t it Barnsley a few season back who had two run the ares out of your self for 45 mins then two more which they swapped over just after half time to do the same thing all four played high press in ur faces for 9o mins we struggle to get a press on for 20 mins before we are blowing. Out of our arses this season | |
| |
| threadbare squad on 23:06 - Jan 13 with 617 views | KensalT |
| threadbare squad on 22:56 - Jan 13 by wombat |
On the subs subject wasn’t it Barnsley a few season back who had two run the ares out of your self for 45 mins then two more which they swapped over just after half time to do the same thing all four played high press in ur faces for 9o mins we struggle to get a press on for 20 mins before we are blowing. Out of our arses this season |
And Barnsley had a lot of success with it, which is why it has now become common practice and contributed to greater intensity in the game overall.
But as Michael Cox points out the switch to five subs was originally a short-term measure designed to protect players from injury but has instead led to an increase in injuries. | | | |
| threadbare squad on 09:55 - Jan 14 with 375 views | wombat |
| threadbare squad on 23:06 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
And Barnsley had a lot of success with it, which is why it has now become common practice and contributed to greater intensity in the game overall.
But as Michael Cox points out the switch to five subs was originally a short-term measure designed to protect players from injury but has instead led to an increase in injuries. |
be intresting to see if there are any stats on how many players who are used as subs succome to hamstring inuires compared to starters , subs dont warm up prop most of the time they spend there time having a chat or watching the game while doing the odd stretch or two. | |
| |
| threadbare squad on 12:54 - Jan 14 with 280 views | nix |
| threadbare squad on 09:55 - Jan 14 by wombat |
be intresting to see if there are any stats on how many players who are used as subs succome to hamstring inuires compared to starters , subs dont warm up prop most of the time they spend there time having a chat or watching the game while doing the odd stretch or two. |
Yes. Although the article posted by Kensal seems to suggest that it’s tiring players who’ve already done 70 minutes then trying to play against up to five fresh players coming on and raising themselves again physically.
Another thought is of course you can erase yellow cards by getting subs on. I also think there’s a possibility that kneeing a player in the back of the thigh, which happens quite often to pacy players, could also contribute to hamstring issues. If you’ve got fresh defenders/midfielders coming on they can foul again without risk of being sent off. | | | |
| threadbare squad on 13:45 - Jan 14 with 226 views | Northernr |
| threadbare squad on 23:06 - Jan 13 by KensalT |
And Barnsley had a lot of success with it, which is why it has now become common practice and contributed to greater intensity in the game overall.
But as Michael Cox points out the switch to five subs was originally a short-term measure designed to protect players from injury but has instead led to an increase in injuries. |
As usual, something that was brough in under the guise of player welfare but is actually just there to keep the big clubs with massive squads happy and has made the sport worse. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
