Jump to content

Joe Cole


TrentVilla

Recommended Posts

I think people continue to mis-understand tiredness in footballers

its not fatigue thats the problem.. its whether his body can handle 3 games in a week.. is it a risk playing him if hes going to break down.

 

 i would imagine Lambert is worried to lose this one so he will most likely play him anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think people continue to mis-understand tiredness in footballers

its not fatigue thats the problem.. its whether his body can handle 3 games in a week.. is it a risk playing him if hes going to break down.

 

 i would imagine Lambert is worried to lose this one so he will most likely play him anyway.

 

My point was that people act as if Joe Cole not being able to play 3 games in a week means he wouldn't physically be able to carry himself out onto the pitch and will die of exhaustion or something if he attempted it.

 

It doesn't mean that.

It just means he'll tire quicker or get injured easier. And in the premier league you can't afford to have a player at 80% when the opposition are all at 90-100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you think Cole at 80% is better than say Gabby at 90%. Then it becomes a question.

I take your point though and agree to an extent. It is also worth pointing out the obvious - when the body is fatigued you're more susceptible to injury.

Well yeah, that's obviously the debate. I was just plucking numbers out of the sky to make the point really.

 

I'm not really aiming this at anyone on here, but you hear people say about footballers "They're professional athletes, they should be able to play 2 games in a week without getting tired!"

 

They can. Obviously. That's not the point.

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without wanting to get carried away after one performance, if he can maintain that level then ideally I think the club would benefit from a 'McGrath' style training routine for Joe. It worked wonders for Ledley King, and I'm sure many others.

Edited by Woody1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you think Cole at 80% is better than say Gabby at 90%. Then it becomes a question.

I take your point though and agree to an extent. It is also worth pointing out the obvious - when the body is fatigued you're more susceptible to injury.

Well yeah, that's obviously the debate. I was just plucking numbers out of the sky to make the point really.

I'm not really aiming this at anyone on here, but you hear people say about footballers "They're professional athletes, they should be able to play 2 games in a week without getting tired!"

They can. Obviously. That's not the point.

Yeah, we're not disagreeing. Pisses me off too, particularly when people bring money in to the debate. It's BECAUSE they're such finely tuned athletes (in most cases) that if they're not at 100% it shows. They're playing at the very highest level, so any drop in athletic performance will be noticeable.

I imagine it like this - think of Usain Bolt running the 100m at only 80% fitness. Imagine he clocks a time of 10.36 seconds and pulls a hamstring. Sure, he ran the race, but was it really worth it?

There is still a debate to be had that 60 minutes of Cole at 80% is more beneficial to us than Gabby or one of Westwood/Cleverly at full fitness. Bearing in mind that three games in a week and his fitness will only deteriorate further, I think we need a win on the board ASAP and should go for that tonight and rest him the weekend.

Fitness dependent, of course!

Edited by dont_do_it_doug.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â