Please Register to access the whole of the site and to post on the forums.
Discussion in 'Spurs Chat' started by Dougal, Aug 11, 2017.
Like yourself you mean?
Think Poch is being very Nieve telling the world no Kane tomorrow should have staid sthum until an hour before kick off keep Maureen guessing
I would think that Kane is unlikely to travel, so his absence however we try to hide it from Maureen would have got back to him a long time before kick off..The hotel staff are probably Maureen's first line of spies
A hamstring injury can happen to a player as much in the first ten minutes of a game as it can in the last ten. You could say that any number of players as important to the team as Harry should have been taken off.
To blame Poch for this shows your lack of understanding of the injury.
How many players are as important as Kane ? Seriously ? Eriksen ? He went off.
Of course it can happen all the time.
But the likelihood of it to happen in a specific game is higher over a total of 90 minutes than over a total of say 64 minutes. If the the likelihood is the exact same in every single one of those minutes, you reduce the overall likelihood if you reduce the overall playing time. It's incredible that some think it makes perfect sense to keep Kane on after two goals of his and a 4-1 lead over a team that's given up.
If we are to be worried shitless about minor injuries then why not just take him off after fifteen minutes, i mean if he had picked up the injury after the first twenty munutes what would be your excuse?
Shit happens that can't be accounted for irrespective of how much cotton wool you want to wrap a player up in.
That is a plain daft reply, why not just sub one player every ten minutes in that case.
Kane suffered an unfortunate injury, and it could have happened at any point of the game and to any player, and to say it occured when Liverpool had given up simply isnt the case. They played some if their best football of the game at 4-1.
Daft reply? I urge you, Sir, to think one step ahead of your self before next time you throw around such a clumsy remark carelessly.
It's about a risk/reward calculation.
There is a risk involved when having any player on the pitch at any given time. A fundamental, underlying risk of long or short term injury. However, the reward is really great, because without any player on the pitch (no risk) you can't win. You have to have players you there to win the game and reap the reward. So the potential reward far outweighs the inherent risk at the start of the game.
Way later in the game, it's opposite. The continuous risk of keeping any one player on the is still the same, but the reward might already be already cashed in (within some degree of potential failure still, but that's really all academical). At a certain point, as was the case for the Liverpool game, the reward is more than secured, but the risk is still relentlessly present. Now, that's doesn't make a strong case for keeping any of the players on. But you can only take off a limited amount of players to still be entitled the reward. So, you start by taking off the most priced asset. Bam, the risk is instantly reduced or eliminated, the reward still in tact, and everybody is happy.
Link has Poch's press conference video in it pre Madrid.
BREAKINGLloris to miss Palace game
Tottenham v Crystal Palace (Sun, 12:00 GMT)
Tottenham confirm that captain and goalkeeper Hugo Lloris (groin) and defender Toby Alderweireld (hamstring) will both miss Sunday's game with Crystal Palace.
Not too worried about that. As long as we have Super Jan we will be ok!
It's incredible really, we have two of our best players out from defense/goalkeeper, and we still have one of the best defenses around!
pre Palace press conference in this link
Separate names with a comma.