How important is injury record when buying a player?

[Annihilate Now!]

Seeing the injury record of Mazraoui and Perdo Neto (and De Ligt too) ahead of their moves has me wondering - just how important should a players injury record be before signing them? Are we talking number one priority - Regardless of how good a player is, or is it a middle ranking issue somewhere?

For us, right now, it feels like it should be a number one consideration - yet then you go buy Yoro (who has a decent record) and he gets injured so you then just think what's the point? Ultimately everyone seemingly gets injured these days... so maybe it's more just about building a large enough squad to deal with it?

 

[Powderfinger]

The ability to stay healthy and available is obviously a really important attribute in a player. But past injury record isn't always a great predictor of that going forward and is probably only one of several variables clubs likely consider (alongside the player's physique, perhaps their running style, etc).

A lot of it is just a big gamble. Thomas Partey had a nearly perfect injury record before coming to Arsenal and he has been injured constantly since joining. Martin Odegaard had a concerning knee issue before coming to Arsenal and he has hardly missed a game in three years.

 

[Borninthe80ts]

I think for clubs their willing to take a risk if the player is deemed necessary but they’ve had issues in the past. I think it’s also about perception to a certain extent as I’ve heard arguments about good and bad records for players even like Varane.


I’d like to know what the general consensus is in regards to what’s injury prone. Ie is 15 to 20 games an average as I’ve seen somewhere recently. Is it multiple seasons of niggles? Someone like Martial would be a clear candidate but it’s more those like De Ligt?

I’d like to see some comprehensive research into if injuries are getting more frequent due to the increase in games and maybe a link between injuries and mental health. Sure there are parallels in there somewhere.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I’d like to know what the general consensus is in regards to what’s injury prone. Ie is 15 to 20 games an average as I’ve seen somewhere recently. Is it multiple seasons of niggles? Someone like Martial would be a clear candidate but it’s more those like De Ligt?

I think the problem is that fans view it in isolation.

In reality, ‘Unavailable’ at City & Arsenal right now is judged on “Cannot perform at the best of their ability in a team challenging for the title”. If they’re not healthy enough to clear that threshold, they’re a liability.

‘Unavailable’ at a relegation threatened club is “Cannot perform better than our 23 year old (or 36 year old veteran) second choice centre back we signed from The Championship to add depth”. Those clubs will give injections and let key players skip training in order to get their best option on the pitch.

It’s not a binary threshold of ‘Fit to play or unfit to play’.

Of course that only applies to a players availability week on week and not to ‘real’ injuries such as muscle tears that stop a player training in any way, shape or form.

Increasingly, the better point of discussion over the last few years, seems to be ‘Who are the injury prone clubs?’ Often that’s a product of squad size (and the ability of any given players replacement), but it seems to be a result of on-pitch training intensity/volume vs classroom time. City and Arsenal players have spoken about how much classroom time they spend watching video and analysing past individual performances and next opponents, when compared to their previous clubs. As well as intensity of sessions.

Another point is to consider what ‘Injury Prone’ means at various clubs. Easiest example would be Trippier. Under no set of circumstances would he have made match day squads at City/Arsenal in March-May. He was completely cooked. He’d have been unavailable at those clubs, yet still got picked. He’s durable enough to get on the pitch for Newcastle, but if he was missing one game in four at a title chasing side, he’d be classed as injury prone or unreliable.

To actually address your question… I’d say that a player unavailable for 1/3rd of his teams matches for any reason, is ‘injury’ prone. But if a team can’t afford to rest them and keep them in their best condition, it’s a club problem, not a player problem.

To conclude my gobby Ted talk… we see far fewer players going off injured nowadays. Most substitutions are tactical. Injuries occur between matches far more than they ever did.

 

[Red_toad]

Giggs loved a hamstring injury which he over came. So fully dependant on what the injury is.
Context for Mazraoui, he's had less days out due to injury that AWB over the last 2 seasons.

 

[Borninthe80ts]

I think the problem is that fans view it in isolation.

In reality, ‘Unavailable’ at City & Arsenal right now is judged on “Cannot perform at the best of their ability in a team challenging for the title”. If they’re not healthy enough to clear that threshold, they’re a liability.

‘Unavailable’ at a relegation threatened club is “Cannot perform better than our 23 year old (or 36 year old veteran) second choice centre back we signed from The Championship to add depth”. Those clubs will give injections and let key players skip training in order to get their best option on the pitch.

It’s not a binary threshold of ‘Fit to play or unfit to play’.

Of course that only applies to a players availability week on week and not to ‘real’ injuries such as muscle tears that stop a player training in any way, shape or form.

Increasingly, the better point of discussion over the last few years, seems to be ‘Who are the injury prone clubs?’ Often that’s a product of squad size (and the ability of any given players replacement), but it seems to be a result of on-pitch training intensity/volume vs classroom time. City and Arsenal players have spoken about how much classroom time they spend watching video and analysing past individual performances and next opponents, when compared to their previous clubs. As well as intensity of sessions.

Another point is to consider what ‘Injury Prone’ means at various clubs. Easiest example would be Trippier. Under no set of circumstances would he have made match day squads at City/Arsenal in March-May. He was completely cooked. He’d have been unavailable at those clubs, yet still got picked. He’s durable enough to get on the pitch for Newcastle, but if he was missing one game in four at a title chasing side, he’d be classed as injury prone or unreliable.

To actually address your question… I’d say that a player unavailable for 1/3rd of his teams matches for any reason, is ‘injury’ prone. But if a team can’t afford to rest them and keep them in their best condition, it’s a club problem, not a player problem.

To conclude my gobby Ted talk… we see far fewer players going off injured nowadays. Most substitutions are tactical. Injuries occur between matches far more than they ever did.

Hahahaha I actually quite like ted talks mate and I don’t mind reasonable interpretation whatever the length.

There’s definitely levels in relation to the importance of said players who is injured and what level they can perform at and the impact they will have on the team and result. I would suggest also the importance those players had in setting a teams style and tone. Martinez for example, has a more detrimental effect when missing for us than a team that can replace those missing with a similar player.

The point about getting players match ready also stands out. Sometimes players can be not at their best and still influence a positive result and I think sometimes teams and players aren’t willing to take that risk as much as before. In relation to United I think previous managers have alluded to this too.

I think training methods at clubs have to be analysed if there’s a continuation of injuries and no real obvious reason as to why. I’m not surprised that both the top 2 teams focus on tactics rather than the physical aspect of the game. I think we as a culture are still learning about diet and health, especially in relation to the intensity of the league.


In relation to Trippier I think it’s a valid point and one that affect England this summer. Tired, out of form players not at their fittest but integral to the system. Only when rotated did we see positive play.


I think your response outlines the variables involved with the subject and that it’s not a straightforward issue. There’s many layers that add context and rationale. I do feel like training injuries are more regular too and it’s those that concern me the most.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

After such a terrible season with injuries, you'd think it's the most important thing.

But then again, would you rather have De Ligt and Yoro being injury prone... Or Maguire who was fit for a few whole seasons? I'd rather have the most talented players with injury problems than a stable, reliable player (like Harry) who's just not that particularly talented.

 

[fergiewherearethou]

After such a terrible season with injuries, you'd think it's the most important thing.

But then again, would you rather have De Ligt and Yoro being injury prone... Or Maguire who was fit for a few whole seasons? I'd rather have the most talented players with injury problems than a stable, reliable player (like Harry) who's just not that particularly talented.

I would agree with that if it wasn't a case for defenders.
Having injury prone defenders who cannot string 10 consecutive games together is a massive issue for any team.