Liverpool FC Forum

by **DAV** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:39 pm

What are peoples opinons of this article on the BBC website.
My own opinion is that i disagre with nearly all of it, i'll go into the reasons why if it makes a decent debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/7072685.stm

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:43 pm

Players who get tired for being payed to play football need help. The modern day player eats the best food, best medical treatment and get payed for something they enjoy. So I don't agree.

by **babu** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:44 pm

Wtf?

GERRARD'S ROAD TO RUIN
Oct 13th: Estonia (h)
Oct 17th: Russia (a)
Oct 20th: Everton (a)
Oct 24th: Besiktas (a)
Oct 28th: Arsenal (h)
Oct 31st: Cardiff (h)

road to ruin? He's not playing badly

by **dawson99** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:45 pm

hes not playing badly, but what will happen come february, he'll be knackered. i do agree in part to the article, players do playa lot. doesnt matter how good the food is that you eat, over excertion can lead to other problems... but on the other hand they do get paid a feck of a lot. its not healthy to work 7 days a week or two jobs but a lot of us do it

by **DAV** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:49 pm

Spot on mate. My thoughts exactley. In the 70s and 80s our players must have played 60 odd games a season no problem.
I'm mot sure what people are trying to turn the game of football into. These players do for a job which we all dream of doing, getting wages that are more than i will see in a life time.
Don't no about you lot but i work 40,50 or even sometimes 60 hours a week, and i play football twice a week.
Pathetic thats what i think of those comments on the BBC

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:03 pm

DAV wrote:Spot on mate. My thoughts exactley. In the 70s and 80s our players must have played 60 odd games a season no problem.
I'm mot sure what people are trying to turn the game of football into. These players do for a job which we all dream of doing, getting wages that are more than i will see in a life time.
Don't no about you lot but i work 40,50 or even sometimes 60 hours a week, and i play football twice a week.
Pathetic thats what i think of those comments on the BBC

70s and 80s like it's just been said by Dav, played 60s games a season and there was no problems, but in those 60 games players were allowed to be kicked kingdom come by the likes of Ron Harris, Billy Bremner and even our very own Tommy Smith. Players then were on 40 ciggys a day as well 40 pints a week and weren't pampered the way the modern day softies are. No need for tiredness.

by **Emerald Red** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:09 pm

I don't blame the players. Personally, I think they are over paid to do something that I'm sure most people able can do, and that's kick a ball. Sure there is a lot more to it, but not that much more. Obviously they are talented, but when all is said and done, the average hard working person that works far harder than they do to get paid a minimum wage and still find enough energy to go do other things says it all. I know that when I was actively playing the game a few years ago, I could run for two hours straight without a half-time break, then still have enough left in the tank to do it all again for another 3 days of the week. They have no excuse.

But as I said before I went on a detour on my initial statement that it's not the players fault, I think money is the main culprit. Years ago players weren't valued anywhere near what they are today. Imagine the insurance on them. When people mention about the players getting lumps kicked out of them and still playing on years ago, it was because they had no protection. The refs didn't give a f*ck because they weren't under any real pressure to protect an asset of a club that was worth millions. I think todays game and players have become soft as a result of clubs paying them massive wages and massive price tags. It's all geared to protect the player as the investment from the club is so high.

by **Ace Ventura** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:32 pm

Havent had a chance to read the article but logic tells you that if a player players 60 games in a season and another plays 40, the one who has played 40 will have more in the tank in the latter stages of the game.
What they are being paid bears no relevance.

by **Bammo** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:36 pm

Players energy levels can only be compared to those they are competing against.

In the 70s and 80s players could play 60 games a season because they were all doing it. Fitness levels drop but if your opposition are just as knackered then the effect is negligible.

Nowadays a player playing in his 60th game of the season will be competing against potentially world class opponents playing only their 30th game so the effect of tiredness is more noticable.

That's why we have a big squad. When Gerrard gets tired we shouldn't be afraid to rest him in favour of Lucas, Alonso, Masch, Sissoko or anyone else that can play in his position. We're strong enough to allow players to recover.

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:10 pm

I think there is a lot of strain on professional footballers these days but the main problem I see with the posted article is that it is looking at it from the perspective of the FA rather than from the perspective of the club. Taylor's worried that Gerrard's playing too many games with Liverpool and will be knackered for Euro 08 (if England qualify) whereas most of us think Stevie could do without the England qualifiers in order to concentrate on his club.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:41 am

Did anyone see a while back about footballers when they come out of the game and are "on there own". It had Gary Lineker, Neil Ruddock and Neil Webb talking about what happens when they retire from the game. I think it was Neil Webb who said "once you retire thats it, your on your own, whereas the club would sort out everything to do with you personal life, as in electric cuts, or house repairs the club would pay for that to be sorted so you just concentrated on football, you would then be left wandering what to do because the club isnt there to sort it anymore", or words to that effect.

I believe that players can get tired. We look at the matches they play but many dont take into account the different training regimes that each club supplys to there players but I also believe that players, especially today, are pampered like spoilt kids.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:52 am

Benitez defends his rotation policy by saying that the players will be fitter for the end of the season by which point we won't be in a chance of winning competitions. Players aren't tired by the end of October and if a side is winning then players certainly aren't tired because they can't afford to lose their place.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:15 am

Bad Bob wrote:I think there is a lot of strain on professional footballers these days but the main problem I see with the posted article is that it is looking at it from the perspective of the FA rather than from the perspective of the club. Taylor's worried that Gerrard's playing too many games with Liverpool and will be knackered for Euro 08 (if England qualify) whereas most of us think Stevie could do without the England qualifiers in order to concentrate on his club.

I don't think so Bob, Taylor is head of the PFA (similar to a union) so he is fighting for the players not the FA.

Players today arn't playing 5 a side in training and trotting round the pitch a few times, they have strict fitness regimes, weight training, individual fitness programes...... special diets rather than pie and chips.

Then they are expected to run themselves into the ground twice a week for the team.

You only have to look at our injury list to see this is having an effect on their fitness.

3 players out with stress fractures should be a good enough indicator that all this training and then the excessive demands made on them during games is having a negative impact on their health.

Even players from the 60's and 70's have been left crippled for life, not from some horrendous tackle but because their joints have worn out. Tommy Smith is an example of this.

by **Kharhaz** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:27 am

Many peoples joints wear out due to age. I dont think training has anything to do with it. Its a simple case of the human body having different effects on different people. Paolo Maldini compared to Hyypia. Hyypia is a baby in comparison but Maldini looks like hes the younger one !

by **bigmick** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:34 am

There's no doubt the game takes a long term toll on the bodies of players. I never made it as a pro but my knees are creaking a bit nevertheless, and I've no doubt that lads that play for a living will very often pay a price when they get older. Should we feel sorry for them though? Well I'm not so sure. They are fantastically well rewarded if we are talking about the elite (as Gordon Taylor was), and would have access upon retirement to the very best medical assitance their considerable money can buy, as well as as much rest as they can cope with.

There are probably too many matches (and there's certainly a case for getting rid of pointless International friendlies) but I would be more inclined to feel sorrier for the lads kicking around in the lower leagues to be perfectly honest. Their respective divisions contain more teams and they aren't going to have the luxury of being able to literally retire from work when they pack up football.

The article almost leads us into a rotation debate, but not quite and as nobody else seems to have the stomach for retreading old ground, I won't go there either.

As for the pointless International friendlies, I think we should return to a home International series held annually, three games a season, four if you let France in, five if you include the republic, ahh feck it.

Liverpool FC Forum

Stars face burn-out risk

Who is online