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.)
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.)