Martinez tells of Barkley's lucky escape

Come to think of it, that wouldn't go amiss in the derby matches either.

LetÂ’s move on and get the likes of Mirallas and Osman fully fit and ready to help us get some points on the board for when Ross is back.

1) Yes, it's good that the truth is finally put out there...
2) But why does it take a whole week?
3) No, it wasn't Besic (but would anyone have been surprised?)
4) Does the passing of time somehow lessen the seriousness or gravity of what resulted?
5) Why is okay to tell us now... but to be coy about it for a whole week since it happened?

The bottom line is his knee was fucked on Day One; it's still fucked one week later, and it'll be fucked for another seven or eight weeks. Somehow, I can accept it if it happens in a match... but on the training ground? I'm not sure I buy the gung-ho philosophy Roberto is spouting here.

Can't we do... 90% on the training field? Then we could give that fallacious 110% (stupid expression) on the pitch in the real game, where it matters? Or does it really not make any difference?

Anyone who has played some contact sport will probably tell you that a half-hearted challenge can often result in greater injury, for both the "tackler" and the "tackled", primarily because the body is (in very layman terms) not primed for contact, and as a result, less able to take the impact, or as a result fall more awkwardly.

I too am becoming a tad annoyed with hearing about Ross's injury. In our heart's we all want him fit before the end of September but our heads tell us more like November sometime.

If it's as bad an injury as first made out, he isn't going to start training for at least 8 weeks, then you're looking at getting sharp in training, you're looking at, if we're lucky, mid-October but, as with most of our injuries, it will probably drag on a further 5 weeks.

I am more concerned as to why Seamus Coleman may miss tomorrow's match and will Roberto take the massive risk by playing Stones right back against a team as pacy, tricky and direct as Arsenal?

I love Stonesy, he is going to make a great central defender eventually, but at right back he looks like a fish out of water, just hasn't got that same mobile agility as Coleman, and personally I can see him getting torn a new one tomorrow evening if Martinez plays him there again.

Is Hibbert not fit again? Question is, why bother giving him another short contract if he is never going to play?

Classic

"Can't we do... 90% on the training field? Then we could give that fallacious 110% (stupid expression) on the pitch in the real game, where it matters? Or does it really not make any difference?"

I happen to know some things about training and if you want to use training to really improve the players' skills, technique and tactical awareness you need the trainings to be at 100%. If you're training at 90% you're just keeping the players fit. I could imagine Martinez might do this in the weeks we have two matches to play but in the pre-season? Not a chance, not with his background.

I don't think we can criticise anyone for injuries, the only thing that can be done and criticised is the acquisition of more cover.

100% means everything. As you can't give more than you've got, you can't give 110%.

I agree with Michael 120%.

Sounds like it was innocent enough and hopefully it will learn Ross never to tackle while bending his knee.

If it is 100% of the absolute maximum, then yes, you can't give any more, but you can't play at the absolute maximum for very long and if you did you'd get injured, burnt out, fatigued or whatever. You therefore play at a reasonable level that you know you can sustain over a long period. The 100% should be seen as of the average, or of the maximum that is sustainable over time.

Imagine you face a season where you know you're going to play 50 games. Let's use running distance as a measure of the effort you put it because it makes the numbers easier. Now let's say that over those 50 games you are going to average running 10 km in a game, that's how much effort you put in as a reasonable measure that can be sustained over 10 months and 50 games. Now the absolute maximum you can cover in a game may be more like 13-15 km, but if you did that on Saturday you'd be unlikely to play at your peak on Wednesday, or if you did manage to repeat it you'd need to miss the game altogether next Saturday.

The phrase 110% is an acknowledgement that sportsmen cannot perform at the absolute limit of their capability at all times, and must make choices and preserve energy, even if only slightly, most of the time. Just like a marathon runner may be capable of running 100 m in 11 or 12 seconds, but over the course of 26 miles, tends not to push himself that hard as he wouldn't last. When it comes to a sprint finish for the Olympic gold or a world record, he finds that pace again.

The times when 110% is asked for are the times when it is necessary to go beyond the safe and sustainable and push closer to the absolute limit; perhaps in a bigger match, a more desperate situation or against more significant opponents, making it a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

At least we should have a fresh, class player some the second half of the season.

Does concern me how many injures he seems to pick up though...

It developed to mean "more effort than the normal really high amount of effort" – but it's literal nonsense (and of course not meant literally).

Literally is often also not meant literally. For example, "the success of this team literally snowballed" – (images of football team in one giant snowball rolling down a hill!)

Another pet hate is "regularly" often used instead of frequently. "I regularly go the game, once every 7 years" is correct usage.

So there are the answers, now what was the question and why am I posting this??

Sadly Vaughan never developed into the player he should have been because of the injuries and Rodwell faces an up hill battle to get his career going again.

I worry for Barkley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

Bread and butter challenge that unfortunately sometimes causes injuries. Nothing to do with 100% commitment, just a challenge.

As said above, no-one would give a bat's nads if it had been Hibbert or Osman but because it's Barkley we should change the whole process of how they train.

Shit happens, we won't miss him that much because he isn't the star he is destined to become yet.

We can't expect a manager to say "Don't tackle each other, lads, you might get hurt." It's a contact sport, so we'll get injuries.

As he nominates Kenwright, I couldn’t help wondering if (with a good hard shove) a small-ish great white shark could fit into a very large bucket.

Link

We won't miss Barkley???

Are you sure about that mate?

We won't miss having a potential matchwinner who scored goals such as the ones against Newcastle, Swansea and Man City?

Of course we will miss him; I agree he's not the finished article but he has match-winning ability and looking at the centre of our midfield there is hardly an abundance of attacking options.

All of our goal threat from midfield looks likely to come from wide areas, although McGeady scored a great goal, I think it's too early to suggest he's going to start rattling them in often, it was his first strike in six months.

Atsu probably won't get that many starts. Pienaar has never been a goalscorer, fantastic ability... but the weakness has always been his goal input. That leaves only Mirallas when fit and ready to help out Lukaku and Naismith.

We have a massive game tomorrow and nothing about it written at all... any chance of focusing on players that are fit and the actual footballl to be played? Surely that's much more interesting than discussing Barkley's knee over and over again... Maybe it would be an idea to have a separate section on TW just for injury articles and leave the main bit for, erm........football?

I see there was no discussion on Arsenal's performance on Tuesday or how we could/should maybe approach the game. For such a massive game I'm astonished that there is nothing so far on the site.

Sorry if the above sounds like a grumbling old man but I am so bored of reading about Barkley's bloody knee.

Roberto, what a legend, it has been nice having you as the Manager of Everton FC as I really can't see Mr Kenwright doing this... although he could always out-source it to an interested third party?

"... won't miss him that much", ergo we will miss him some amount (but not as much as some on here probably think).

We will miss him – especially for the big games.

I think we can all accept this was just a fluke injury from a routine tackle, and I don't think anyone is really having a go at Gareth Barry (or were actually gunning for any other potential culprit).

The injury was sustained last Thursday but was not reported until fairly late on the Friday. The possibility of a full contact training session the day before a match raised a few eyebrows, though that was laid to rest fairly quickly.

Good news; it healed quite quickly, and I played again the same season.

Bad news: I still get pain and twinges in the knee, 35 years later!!

In any given game (the duration of which can vary) it is always possible to 'give it your all', and that adds up to 100% and nothing more.

Or is that impossible?

When I drive 77mph on the motorway, I'm doing 110% of the speed limit, but probably only 60-70% of my car's actual top speed.

Si, you're right about it not actually being reducible to statistics, which is why I used distance covered to make the point, but what I'm saying is don't assume players will give their absolute maximum all the time, they'll play at a certain, probably very high, level. Then when it matters they'll find an extra 10%.

I'm sure that's bad every time until after we won a game because of it! :P