brfc fan Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 With all this should he/shouldn't he business with Stevie G I was wondering what your thoughts are of the option to risk causing further damage so you can play one game pain free.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Florida Rover Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Don't do it.A Cup Final maybe but not a qualifier.At least not this game
brian_gallagher85 Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 I think every football fan should be given them before watching England play
riclr Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 i dont think its worth it. More and more evidence is coming to light that people who have had these injections in the past are suffering long term problems with athritic and rheumatic joint conditions which can become a problem that will not go away later in life. Agreeably, for footballers it is a short career and they will wish to play in the most important games, especially someone as patriotic as Steven Gerrard who i would presume (as i dont know him) wouldn't want to let his country down. But is it worth risking your long term health to play in a game that realistically should be an easy victory anyway? 60 years ago people were encouraging the social benefits of smoking.
Cocker Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Don't do it.A Cup Final maybe but not a qualifier.At least not this game Spot on. You break your back for an important game but leave them alone for something like this.
youandwhosearmy Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 well if Benitez made him do it already then i have no problem with him doing it for england
USRoverME Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 I think the term, "made him do it" is a bit harsh. He might be a footballer, but certainly he's not daft enough as to be mindlessly controlled by someone else. My opinion, its the footballer's call. You make sure you give him an accurate medical opinion on the potential effects adn side-effects (short and long term) and let him decide what matches are important enough. That being the same way as I can listen to a doctor's advice, and even if he says a certain procedure is in order, if I disagree, I can sign myself out AMA and be on my way.
Flopsy Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 the pain is there to inform you that there is an injury and hopefully stop you damaging the tissue any further whilst letting it heal. Painkillers just mask the pain whilst not protecting the injury
Torgeir Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 I think the term, "made him do it" is a bit harsh. He might be a footballer, but certainly he's not daft enough as to be mindlessly controlled by someone else. My opinion, its the footballer's call. You make sure you give him an accurate medical opinion on the potential effects adn side-effects (short and long term) and let him decide what matches are important enough. That being the same way as I can listen to a doctor's advice, and even if he says a certain procedure is in order, if I disagree, I can sign myself out AMA and be on my way. I'm pretty certain players in the past have been pressured to play when they aren't 100% fit because the manager insists. Seeing as the manager picks the team week in week out it probably isn't wise to refuse as he can bear a grudge. I doubt it's very common but I'm quite certain it has happened in the past - I think Norwegian crock Ronny Johnsen said a previous manager of his pressured him into playing games when both him and the physio disagreed. I think an injection a couple of times a year isn't too bad but if there's many injections over a relatively short period of time I most certainly wouldn't do it - unless I made £100.000 per week
Hasta Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 well if Benitez made him do it already then i have no problem with him doing it for england I think Benitez said that for 3 or 4 days after the Chelsea game which Gerrard played with an injection that he had more pain and couldnt train. That's why he wasnt risked against Derby. I don't actually believe that. However, if you need a painkilling injection and you have a genuine injury which is proven then he shouldn't be risked even in a qualifyer IMO.
Seggie Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Never Footballers are naturally competitive and will play every game they can even if it means taking these injections, this is were someone with the power needs to step in and say NO YOU ARE NOT PLAYING. Benitez has obviously had the message after the Chelsea game and not risked him v Derby, McClown needs to accept he is injured and tell him no, not just for the long term future of the England national team and Liverpool(Granted he prob wont have anything to do with either) but for Steven Gerrard as a footballer. It would be a dissaster for England and Liverpool and most of all the player if he does more damage playing when he doesnt have too.
broadsword Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 We won't win Euro 2008 the FA\are just fussed about qualifying for the dough. There's no way he should be forced to play. Who wants to be a millionaire cripple?
Jim J Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Who wants to be a millionaire cripple? If we're just talking about a bad toe, count me in.
Grabbi Graeme Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 As it has been said the pain is there for a reason, if he has to take an injection then he isn't fit to play and if he does play and does further damage then it's Liverpool who will miss him more and it is them who pay his inflated wages. Same with Lampard he has been sent back to Chelsea and is to join England on Friday to have his injury assessed, I'm sure Jose won't be happy if England deem him fit to play and he ends up doing more damage.
Jonas Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 I'm kind of curious about Lampard's thigh injury. He was playing on a broken toe as well, and I'm sure he got injections of some sort. Could overcompensating for the toe have led to the thigh injury?
neekoy Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 This is a danger game for England but it should be up to the player.
Earlydoors Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 I think the whole sad side of this saga is that what sort of manager insists that the only way England can beat the might of Israel is to play an unfit Steven Gerrard. For me the longer term damage is not just to Gerrard but to the squad and the nation as a whole. I'm sure that Israel would rather have Hargreaves and Carrick playing for them than their current selection so why are these two not good enough to play for England. Of course we what Gerrard, but the point is we are England, there are perhaps half a dozen nations that have a better selection of players to choose from. Mclaren's job is not to pick the best players - it is to make the best team. That does not include buggering up Gerrard in a pathetic attempt to save his neck for one more game.
LeftWinger Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Who wants to be a millionaire cripple? Sounds like an excellent idea for a TV show. The celebrity version is boring anyway.
3rdpillar Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Let McDuff do his job. He will die by his decision to play SG &OR FL, he will die if SG &OR FL suffer long term injury cause of his decision. Should England win both matches convincingly, without injury to any players, then McDuff will survive... For how long? Personally I want Englant to Qualify and WIN Euro 2008. Mc Duff or no MCDuff.
Martin Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 I'm against it in this instance. But that's for selfish reasons - if Gerrard doesn't play it brings Bentley closer to playing some part. However, if I was England manager Gerrard would be having an injection - no doubt.
Tim Southampton Rover Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 If it were Bentley instead of Gerrard, I wouldn't want him to have it done because it could result in a lot of long term problems. At the end of the day, it is only Israel and we SHOULD have the players to beat any second rate team whether Gerrard's in the squad or not. It might even be a blessing to actually pick a team to win the game rather than pick the top individuals to play in the game.
LeftWinger Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 In this case I'd say we've got more than enough cover for SG in Owen Hargreave, Michael Carrick, etc. Hargreaves is doubtful for Saturday
JAL Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 With all this should he/shouldn't he business with Stevie G I was wondering what your thoughts are of the option to risk causing further damage so you can play one game pain free. Dont know the full facts but it smacks of desperate men doing desperate things when in reality full rest and recover should be the only logical course of action Steven Gerard should be taking right now and thats not just with England but his club Liverpool aswell.
Cocker Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Anyway, we can probably close this thread now because The Sun are running a full page spread on which you place your Toe on Gerrards and it will magically heal - so no need for an injection then
Hughesy Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Injections are not the way forward and you should always let it rest naturally
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.