Mantis Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) It is odd how a lot of people seem to think that Vlaar is more injury-prone than he actually is. I guess it's because we feel it so badly when he's out, which just goes to show how good he is really. Edited August 4, 2014 by Mantis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Regarding the Dunne vs. Vlaar debate, the question I'd ask is whether Dunne could've [single-handedly] carried a defence that included the likes of Baker, Clark, Lowton, Luna and Bennett and receiving zero protection from Westwood? Possibly but I doubt it myself. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted August 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted August 4, 2014 It is odd how a lot of people seem to think that Vlaar is more injury-prone than he actually is. I guess it's because we feel it so badly when he's out, which just goes to show how good he is really. A hundred times this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Regarding the Dunne vs. Vlaar debate, the question I'd ask is whether Dunne could've [single-handedly] carried a defence that included the likes of Baker, Clark, Lowton, Luna and Bennett and receiving zero protection from Westwood? Possibly but I doubt it myself. No. They'd be carrying Dunne out the pub. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 It is odd how a lot of people seem to think that Vlaar is more injury-prone than he actually is. I guess it's because we feel it so badly when he's out, which just goes to show how good he is really. A hundred times this. I think it's due to when he's injured i.e. over the winter period and thats when we really need him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I think it's due to when he's injured i.e. over the winter period and thats when we really need him. We always really need him. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I think it's due to when he's injured i.e. over the winter period and thats when we really need him. We always really need him. That's the point. It was more a point of people thinking he's injury prone, usually the winter period and being consecutively out of those fixtures makes people think he's injury prone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 It was more a point of people thinking he's injury prone, usually the winter period and being consecutively out of those fixtures makes people think he's injury prone. Ah OK. I suppose being injured at roughly the same time of year twice in a row does look quite bad but I think it only seems like we really need him then because they were our worst patches of form. But that comes back full circle to the point that the only reason they were our worse patches of form was because Vlaar wasn't playing. If he'd missed the same number of games in September or March instead then they would have been our worst patches and it would have seemed like we really needed him then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) I agree that having better players around him helped Trent, but I stand by that the fact that I have never seen him perform so well, nor as heroically. He was pretty heroic coming back from injury a game early to stop the rot and lead us to victory at SOL. I think he is a vital player for us, no doubt, but, I don't think we will see anything other than a relegation scrap if he stays, due to him undoubtedly being out for half the season. He's missed 17 of 76 league games. If he really did miss half we'd have been thoroughly relegated last season. You have taken my 'half the season', a bit literally. The point with Vlaar is it is never just one injury. It is 3 weeks here, 3 weeks there and there is never a time where we get a consistent run in the team out of him. Certainly never appears to be. I don't want Vlaar coming back from injury to save us from relegation year on year. I want him in the team, for the vast majority of the season guiding us up the table. And until that occurs, with a consistent/injury free season, I will not agree with the valuation that his world cup performances seem to have instigated. Edited August 4, 2014 by Woodytom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) 17 games out of 76 hes missed? That is nearly 1/4 of the league games since he has been here. Far from ideal. Your stat does not take into account games where he went off injured, nor does it take into account the knock on effect of him getting back to full fitness each time. Edited August 4, 2014 by Woodytom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted August 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted August 4, 2014 17 games out of 76 hes missed? That is nearly 1/4 of the league games since he has been here. Far from ideal. No it isn't but then we aren't shopping at the ideal end of the market are we. Yes he has missed some games but he isn't made of glass as some make out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie09 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 17 games out of 76 hes missed? That is nearly 1/4 of the league games since he has been here. Far from ideal. Centre halves are more likely to miss games through injury and suspension throughout a season. The issue is we don't have adequate cover when Vlaar is out. I know I'm in the minority as I still think Clark can develop into a decent player but the thought of Baker and Senderos playing consistently fills me with dread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 17 games out of 76 hes missed? That is nearly 1/4 of the league games since he has been here. Far from ideal. No it isn't but then we aren't shopping at the ideal end of the market are we. Yes he has missed some games but he isn't made of glass as some make out. Nor is he made of concrete, as some make out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I want him in the team, for the vast majority of the season guiding us up the table. And until that occurs, with a consistent/injury free season, I will not agree with the valuation that his world cup performances seem to have instigated. He missed 6 games through injury last season. Lovren (£20m) missed 7. Mangala (£32m) missed eight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 17 games out of 76 hes missed? That is nearly 1/4 of the league games since he has been here. Far from ideal. Centre halves are more likely to miss games through injury and suspension throughout a season. The issue is we don't have adequate cover when Vlaar is out. I know I'm in the minority as I still think Clark can develop into a decent player but the thought of Baker and Senderos playing consistently fills me with dread. Yes I agree (not about Clark like) but could cashing in on Vlaar allow us to go and buy 2 good CBs that could not only replace Vlaar, but provide extra cover. Given the person who will be buying and the person freeing up the money, probably not. However, they did enable the purchase of Vlaar in the first place so it is always possible. I am not suggesting that selling Vlaar is definitely the right thing to do, it is impossible to know. However, i do not think keeping him is as imperative as some fans and indeed the media are making out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I want him in the team, for the vast majority of the season guiding us up the table. And until that occurs, with a consistent/injury free season, I will not agree with the valuation that his world cup performances seem to have instigated. He missed 6 games through injury last season. Lovren (£20m) missed 7. Mangala (£32m) missed eight. I have literally no idea what your point is? You are suggesting we compare the ridiculous valuations of a number of players based purely on their availability last year. Ignoring their age, skill level etc? :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) I want him in the team, for the vast majority of the season guiding us up the table. And until that occurs, with a consistent/injury free season, I will not agree with the valuation that his world cup performances seem to have instigated. He missed 6 games through injury last season. Lovren (£20m) missed 7. Mangala (£32m) missed eight. I have literally no idea what your point is? You are suggesting we compare the ridiculous valuations of a number of players based purely on their availability last year. Ignoring their age, skill level etc? :s No. I thought my point was quite obvious. You suggesting his injury problems of the last season (missing 15% of the games) stop him from being valued highly is wrong. I gave some examples of players that were more often injured without their value being slashed. As someone else pointed out, CBs get injured a lot. It's an occupational hazard. Jones (and Ferdinand and Vidic), Koscielny, Dawson, Agger, Kompany, Nastasic, Terry and several others have missed more games than Vlaar in his time with us. Edited August 4, 2014 by ArteSuave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie09 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I can go as far back as the days of Ian Ross so for me Vlaar isn't in the top 10 of centre halves. If someone offered us £8m I'd snap their hands off because he could be replaced for that sort of money. I'd trust Lambert to replace him if he is allowed to reinvest all the money, but if he has to look at players for a couple of million then I'd rather keep Vlaar and let him go on a free at the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) I want him in the team, for the vast majority of the season guiding us up the table. And until that occurs, with a consistent/injury free season, I will not agree with the valuation that his world cup performances seem to have instigated. He missed 6 games through injury last season. Lovren (£20m) missed 7. Mangala (£32m) missed eight. I have literally no idea what your point is? You are suggesting we compare the ridiculous valuations of a number of players based purely on their availability last year. Ignoring their age, skill level etc? :s No. I thought my point was quite obvious. You suggesting his injury problems of the last season (missing 15% of the games) stop him from being valued highly is wrong. I gave some examples of players that were more often injured without their value being slashed. As someone else pointed out, CBs get injured a lot. It's an occupational hazard. Jones (and Ferdinand and Vidic), Koscielny, Dawson, Agger, Kompany, Nastasic, Terry and several others have missed more games than Vlaar in his time with us. But I am not only suggesting that his tendency to be injured should impact on his value. His age, contract length and the fact that I believe he will not be anywhere near as good for us as he is for Holland (for a number of reasons) are all reasons why I think an offer of 8m is more than worth thinking about. Edited August 4, 2014 by Woodytom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 (edited) But I am not only suggesting that his tendency to be injured should impact on his value. What does this mean then? I don't want Vlaar coming back from injury to save us from relegation year on year. I want him in the team, for the vast majority of the season guiding us up the table. And until that occurs, with a consistent/injury free season, I will not agree with the valuation that his world cup performances seem to have instigated. IMV you're suggesting that without his injury problems he'd be worth more yet in reality he's been injured less often than at least one of the first choice CBs at all of the top 8 clubs. Edit - Obviously there are other factors but injury isn't a major one at all IMO. Edited August 4, 2014 by ArteSuave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts