TOMMY LEE

Devongone · 02-07-2016, 12:48

I think I just went mad. I think I just read on our website that Tommy Lee actually injured himself last season. It was known to be potentially quite a serious injury for a keeper. BUT WE LET HIM PLAY INJURED IN A MATCH THAT DIDN'T MATTER AT BRADFORD SOLELY SO THAT HE COULD GET A 100% RECORD FOR THE SEASON!

It was then decided to see if a close-season rest might help. It didn't. So now he has to have operation he needed late, he misses the pre-season and the start of the season AND WE HAVEN'T GOT A KEEPER.

Now here's a scenario. What if we'd played Aaron Chapman, who had never been given a single chance, at Bradford. What if we had won and Aaron had made the first team look easy? Instead of turning him into a wasted two-year investment we could have given him another year on his contract and had a genuine first-team keeper.

Some people might conclude that it is almost as if we didn't want to risk Chapman having a good game.

I would conclude that it is time for us to wake the fcku up and realise that Chesterfield is supposed to be a professional club.

Doh

bluepooch · 02-07-2016, 13:44

Hmmm not sure about your argument there dev .dont think the last game would have made much difference to tommys shoulder i didnt see him holding his arm or grimacing plus i think the decision on chapman had already been made by then.
Also it was a reasonable enough decision to see if the injury would settle or not .after all an op is a last resort surely.
Just putting another side to the argument of course .

**spireitematt** · 02-07-2016, 13:51

Dev's right Blue Tommy apparently needed an op. Richard Wright has just been released by City hasn't he. Lets get him then.

Devongone · 02-07-2016, 18:42

Pooch,

You'd barely play an injured keeper in the Sunday League just to get him a 100% record. Even if it did him no damage and didn't hurt at the time they risked him for nothing - a player so important to us that his last injury cost us relegation. And with that kind of injury you really can't tell how much it will hurt the morning after a game.

It was so unprofessional I'm shocked they revealed it.

What if something had happened and the result were the development of a career-threatening injury?

Getting a ball out of the top corner is a huge wrench of muscle taking off and landing ..... a bad toe you could carry, but a shoulder injury playing at a high level is ridiculous.

bluepooch · 02-07-2016, 19:09

I do not believe they would have made such a serious decision if they thought there was a chance he would miss the start of the season .Give them a bit of credit .These are a professional team of medics physios fitness coaches etc

Devongone · 03-07-2016, 11:43

(02-07-2016, 19:09)bluepooch Wrote: I do not believe they would have made such a serious decision if they thought there was a chance he would miss the start of the season .Give them a bit of credit .These are a professional team of medics physios fitness coaches etc

Pooch I would take notice and accept your opinion on almost any aspect of the club, because you are close to it, committed and very perceptive, but not this time. I hope you won't be offended.

A keeper not only has to play the game with all its risks, but he gets twenty five minutes of what purports to be a warm-up, diving all over the place prior to a game. Subjecting a very important player to this out of sentimentality was idiotic. It is the DUTY of a professional like Mr Wylde and the club itself to save an over-brave player from himself. They should have been telling Tommy they think too much of him to risk him in a match we didn't need to win.

Chapman could have been a disaster, but John Coleman at Accrington clearly doesn't think so. How on earth do we ever blood players in the first team if we refuse the opportunities that injuries to established players present?

Had the club said, we did this and it turned out to be a mistake I'd be moaning, but giving them credit for at least recognising there's a lesson to be learnt. But they clearly think Tommy wanting to play is a clincher. Well I want to play but I'm 64! They let Tommy, themselves and us down by poor decision-making.

bluepooch · 03-07-2016, 13:44

Chapman was on the fringes and sent on loan under cookie and saunders and Wilson decided he wasnt up to it .Sorry Dev ill have to trust their judgement .

SaltergateBorn · 03-07-2016, 15:39

As I`m sure we all know from personal experience, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If the club - and TL himself - had known that, by playing that extra game, he was going to be out of action for the beginning of the season, then I`m sure both he and they would have done things differently. They didn`t, of course. With the benefit of hindsight, it`s turned out to be an error of judgment maybe, but no more than that.

As you said yourself in another thread, Dev, nobody knows what the future holds; that`s why it`s called the future!

Devongone · (This post was last modified: 04-07-2016, 11:37 by Devongone.)

Of course I've got the benefit of hindsight, but we made two decisions that didn't fit. First we play him. The natural follow-up to that was that he could do no worse to himself and would immediately have an operation. But our follow up was no, maybe we can play him and then he can have a rest and maybe God will intervene.

We made the cheapest decisions didn't we? Private operations are expensive. We've played with a loyal but stupid employee's health. And now putting things right costs both the money for the operation and that the expense of two keepers.

If it had been a flashback to the 1960s, Ron Powell and us hoping to finish 14th in Division 4 it would've fitted.

If you'd ever played in goal with a known injury you'd know the temptation is to do things in a different way to which your body is accustomed. By doing so you are risking other injuries as well as further injuring the damaged shoulder (because you don't actually know what will damage it).

As to Chapman I didn't even want to keep both him and Tommy - I wanted one of them and a much younger development model. The truth about his loan at Bristol Rovers is that Chapman actually played in front of their regular keeper. So we risked injuring our best keeper to keep him out of our team? A keeper good enough for teams who are our natural rivals? In a match we were on course to lose which was of no importance to us? How anyone can think there is even an element of sense in that I dunno.

It won't be easy for a young player to break into the team if that's our thinking. My objection is that we would clearly do it again. Mr Wylde has good professional qualifications and he was a bloody good centre forward. But people make wrong decisions. Some have unforeseen consequences. I'm not a medic, but I do have a masters degree in decision making. This looks like a crap one to me. Goalkeepers are uniquely weird, centre forwards have to be aware that a goalie, unless he is close to death, is always going to tell you he is fit and wants to play. (Especially a few days before everyone's contract is up for discussion.)