Hendo injury
- Thread starter mark1975
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Was this a new injury, or something he was carrying?
This could be a blessing in disguise.
Its definitely a big loss. If we wanted to lose one of the 'samey' midfielders then Henderson offers a lot more to us than Milner. I would personally have liked to see a DM brought in for Milner allowing more freedom to Hendo to get further up the pitch which is where he is most effective.
For those of you saying this is a blessing in disguise, did you not notice the immediate difference in our team once he was subbed off on Monday, we missed him straight away. As many said in the match thread, Henderson is the type of player you don't appreciate until he's gone, it's a massive blow to us if he doesn't make it, thankfully I think he will.
Exactly. That period between him going off and Moreno coming on was when we were at our most vulnerable.
Well I definitely disagree with that. Henderson has been shite thru pre-season and against Stoke too. Only against Bournemouth did he start to look like the Hendo of the past 2 seasons. Whereas Milner has been a top player ever since he joined us, was voted into the Top 3 vs. Bournemouth by most and five posters (on here) Top 3 vs. Stoke.
At the moment I'd definitely take Milner over Hendo in our midfield. And I'd bring Lucas back for Arsenal but Rodgers won't because he's dead biased like that. He may throw on Chiravella though .... that would be the 3rd or 4th time he's thrown a youngster on to debut in a big match !
I think we really need both Henderson and Milner against Arsenal. We'll need plenty of legs in midfield. I'd rather we setup more of a 4-3-3 though.
I agree - Milner is better than an injured Henderson.
On balance I'm okay with the way we've started the season, albeit we look quite disjointed (which given the new personnel is to be expected); and much as I like Henderson I don't think Can is a bad option to step in for him, even though they're quite different players.
So why is it I am absolutely and completely convinced that we are going to get whooped by Arsenal on Monday.... and I mean smashed
So why is it I am absolutely and completely convinced that we are going to get whooped by Arsenal on Monday.... and I mean smashed
Only the 3rd game of a very lonnnnggggg season.
I wouldn't be too fussed tbh.
I wouldn't be too fussed tbh.
We'll miss him and you have to question the logic in starting him against Bournemouth if he wasn't fully fit with Arsenal coming up next.
His assist, didn't get enough credit at the weekend and in many post match reviews. It was a perfect ball hit first time.
His assist, didn't get enough credit at the weekend and in many post match reviews. It was a perfect ball hit first time.
I prefer a player I notice while he's there but...
I take your point, it would be better if he was fit.
Fuck it though... Game on
probably a bit daft to play, but it may have been a manageable injury that has gone too far. explains a lot
Echoes of Rodgers's first season when he played Joe Allen despite his carrying a shoulder injury which required surgery and we promptly got trounced by Southampton. I'd have thought we had enough central midfielders without having to resort to playing one carrying an injury this time round.
Well that's the big issue we've all been banging on about all this Summer isn't it ? We simply don't have enough CMs.
If you consider that we either play with 2 or 3 each game then we have ; Milner, Henderson, an unproven Can, Lucas who seems to be on his way out and Allen who most here don't want and who even Rodgers doesn't use as first choice. Chiravella, Williams, Rossiter etc. are all in the wings but highly unlikely to play more than a few subs appearances this season.
We are short of at least one CM with better defensive skills than Milner/Henderson and preferably with quality long ball passing ability too.
I see a few calls to bring back Lucas and I've to say that, instinctively, I'd agree.
However, a look back at results with and without him in the big games over the last 3 seasons under Rodgers doesn't seem to suggest that his inclusion would make that much of a difference. This is completely without context (who he lined up with, what system we played, who the opponents used, whether we leaked goals due to stupid individual defensive errors, etc.) so it's as likely to be hogwash as informative, but I'll share the data anyway and you guys can draw your own conclusions:
* no Lucas means either he didn't play, or he played a very small number of minutes and the scoreline didn't change
Arsenal : with Lucas = conceded 10 goals in 4 games (2.5 gpg); no Lucas = 3 goals in 2 games (1.5 gpg)
Chelsea : with Lucas = conceded 5 goals in 2.5 games (2.0 gpg); no Lucas = 5 goals in 3.5 games (1.4 gpg)
Man City: with Lucas = conceded 4 goals in 2 games (2.0 gpg); no Lucas = 8 goals in 4 games (2.0 gpg)
Man Utd : with Lucas = conceded 1 goal in 2.5 games (0.4 gpg); no Lucas = 8 goals in 3.5 games (2.3 gpg)
Interesting numbers, didn't think they'd look like this, but they really do!
What's also interesting is how the data is consistent for the first 3 clubs, but different for Man Utd. At the risk of inventing a theory to match the data, my conjecture is that the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City render Lucas less effective because of the personnel and the attacking methods / systems they use - high mobility, skilful, quick passing, pacy - attributes which don't play to Lucas' strengths. Lucas can read the game, but there's a difference between seeing it developing and actually being able to get to a player / position quick enough to stop it before being given the slip. On the other hand, the Man Utd midfield and attacking players / systems in the past three seasons have been a lot less accomplished in this regard, thus allowing Lucas' intervention to come off better.
Like I said, it's all just conjecture without context. Who knows, maybe we could've been tonked for 5 in each of those 9.5 games he didn't play against Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City in the last 3 seasons, and we were just very lucky. 😉
However, a look back at results with and without him in the big games over the last 3 seasons under Rodgers doesn't seem to suggest that his inclusion would make that much of a difference. This is completely without context (who he lined up with, what system we played, who the opponents used, whether we leaked goals due to stupid individual defensive errors, etc.) so it's as likely to be hogwash as informative, but I'll share the data anyway and you guys can draw your own conclusions:
* no Lucas means either he didn't play, or he played a very small number of minutes and the scoreline didn't change
Arsenal : with Lucas = conceded 10 goals in 4 games (2.5 gpg); no Lucas = 3 goals in 2 games (1.5 gpg)
Chelsea : with Lucas = conceded 5 goals in 2.5 games (2.0 gpg); no Lucas = 5 goals in 3.5 games (1.4 gpg)
Man City: with Lucas = conceded 4 goals in 2 games (2.0 gpg); no Lucas = 8 goals in 4 games (2.0 gpg)
Man Utd : with Lucas = conceded 1 goal in 2.5 games (0.4 gpg); no Lucas = 8 goals in 3.5 games (2.3 gpg)
Interesting numbers, didn't think they'd look like this, but they really do!
What's also interesting is how the data is consistent for the first 3 clubs, but different for Man Utd. At the risk of inventing a theory to match the data, my conjecture is that the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City render Lucas less effective because of the personnel and the attacking methods / systems they use - high mobility, skilful, quick passing, pacy - attributes which don't play to Lucas' strengths. Lucas can read the game, but there's a difference between seeing it developing and actually being able to get to a player / position quick enough to stop it before being given the slip. On the other hand, the Man Utd midfield and attacking players / systems in the past three seasons have been a lot less accomplished in this regard, thus allowing Lucas' intervention to come off better.
Like I said, it's all just conjecture without context. Who knows, maybe we could've been tonked for 5 in each of those 9.5 games he didn't play against Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City in the last 3 seasons, and we were just very lucky. 😉
- Status
Similar threads
