Re: 19 for London : Sat May 18, 2019 11:06 pm  

upthecats wrote:

Ok then....this could be interesting....

Which of the current players we have out injured, became injured because of fatigue?

No one can correctly answer that for example arona alk said it was a bad tackle but no penalty or ban came of this so was it s foul tsckle but was his body fatigued its a scientific FACT our bodies become weaker when its fatigued tini played many mins over last few weeks.last week mcb came off injured had massive ice pack round his thigh and limping but he fine today but hes fresh played very little and alwsys in gym so znd is a very fit guy...the injury count in sl this year is big is it just a coincidence that its when there less subs and the games been sped up

Upthecats no one can correctly say the answer 99% of injuries happen in tackles but the condition of the body dictates how bad

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 12:24 am  

Trinityknight wrote:

And when a player is fatigued bodies act different thats a fact if you knew anything..the joints muscles etc all become weaker and its the postion players sre getting into for these injuries not all injuies are directed to fatigue no but many are do you not see most clubs are struggeling with injuries this comes with less interchanges snd speeding up of game ie shot clock..if you think where a fit team then fsir where all entitled to opinions dont mean your right or im right..one thing is for certain we rarley play for 80 mins.

Well it may surprise you to know that I do know something
Spending 8yrs as an RN would have given me that and also time since spent in sports medicine.
Thats why I disgree with you - in fact, you disagree with yourself re the highlighted part of your post.

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 6:27 am  

Absolutely shocking Wakefield.

Another example of our inability to play for 80 minutes.

Can't use the injuries as an excuse, we had enough out there to beat them, or at the very least compete for a lot longer than we did.

We certainly aren't as good as what we are.

Good point made by Trinity 1315, regarding contracts and incentives. I remember when I started doing the salary cap, I had a meeting with a bloke at the RFL, who went through all the ins and outs, and he said that there were some teams that offered contracts, with incentives for players and some that didn't. At that time it was those teams with the incentives that were at the top of the league. The only thing though is it would all need logging in and reporting to them, and nothing being missed so there is no risk of breach

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 7:06 am  

Time for clearout of some players,ive got names in mind but ill keep it zipped ,unfortunately some players are not good enough, top 5 ,no ,challenge cup,no

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 7:23 am  

People moan about people not going to games but this exactly why we are always going to getting low attendances. £25 to watch a match and not know if your team is going to turn up. Also if these two defeats to London keep them up and relegate Leeds we have probably chopped about 70-80k off our revenue which is a players salary.

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 7:30 am  

Cannot believe some of the posts on here. Sometimes teams like anyone else have a bad day at the office yesterday was one. I travelled down and was disappointed but in a two team game one has to lose and in the past we have lost plenty. Get up for next week now

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 7:40 am  

I don't think people on here have an issue with us losing, but it's in the manner in which we did it.

Twice this season, away, and to the same side.

When you've driven down, witnessed that and then drove back up, after watching effort by the team only in the final quarter, there's no wonder of the negativity.

I do believe in getting behind your team, but they're happy to take praise when deserved, they should also be prepared to take the flak when the brown stuff hits the fan. You would in any other walk of life

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 7:41 am  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

Well it may surprise you to know that I do know something
Spending 8yrs as an RN would have given me that and also time since spent in sports medicine.
Thats why I disgree with you - in fact, you disagree with yourself re the highlighted part of your post.

You need to carry on with high lighted bit mate and i never said all injuries are so no i dont disagree with myself and 25 years working in this makes me confident with what im saying but like ive said where all entitled opinions.

Anyway onto next week yesterday done with now

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 7:56 am  

Eastern Wildcat wrote:

Absolutely shocking Wakefield.

Another example of our inability to play for 80 minutes.

Can't use the injuries as an excuse, we had enough out there to beat them, or at the very least compete for a lot longer than we did.

We certainly aren't as good as what we are.

Good point made by Trinity 1315, regarding contracts and incentives. I remember when I started doing the salary cap, I had a meeting with a bloke at the RFL, who went through all the ins and outs, and he said that there were some teams that offered contracts, with incentives for players and some that didn't. At that time it was those teams with the incentives that were at the top of the league. The only thing though is it would all need logging in and reporting to them, and nothing being missed so there is no risk of breach

I would of thought the incentive was to play for a team that could win a trophy and even better get selection for your country

Re: 19 for London : Sun May 19, 2019 8:37 am  

Well I've slept on it. Still annoyed at the team. Credit to London they played to their strengths and beat us again. We had no enthusiasm, they had it in spades. Our tackling in the first 60 was amateur to say the least. Glad we won't be travelling down next year as I would be giving it a miss after 2 visits this year.