WiganWarriorsFans.com

This is complete speculation, but we play a fairly attritional kind of game a lot of the time trying to force yards in contact rather than through moving the ball around. Our backs, many of them still fairly young, make a lot of carries coming out from defence. Does this mean that a) we take more tackles than other teams - if the ball is moving around there is a longer time between each tackle - and b) that the stresses on joints are more severe trying to make ground under the weight of tacklers. I think Joe Burgess's injury against Leigh seemed to come about in this way. Clearly this isn't the cause of some of the injuries, but so many knee injuries can't just be bad luck. Just a thought!

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:There are too many knee injuries for that to be coincidence

Totally agree. Are players over trained

thegimble wrote:

Wigan_forever19​85​ wrote:There are too many knee injuries for that to be coincidence

Totally agree. Are players over trained

I think they are and have been for a while. When Wane first took over and we lost a game you'd see tweets from players and even statements from Wane saying they were due a flogging in training the following week. You tend not to hear this much now but whether that is because they don't talk about it because it's no longer news or it doesn't happen anymore I have no idea.

They do have full contact training and in the past we have lost players to injuries picked up doing that.

The club will argue (and has already said this to the press) that the injuries are being picked up in games and they can see no trend to them but they don't seem to consider if what they are doing off the pitch is making injuries more likely on it.

I am sure that Dr Chris Brookes will be carrying out his own review, I would place my trust in him.

Bad luck, pure and simple, just look at the injuries that the players have picked up, how many are directly linked to training or trauma during a game situation?

Fan4Fifty wrote:This is complete speculation, but we play a fairly attritional kind of game a lot of the time trying to force yards in contact rather than through moving the ball around. Our backs, many of them still fairly young, make a lot of carries coming out from defence. Does this mean that a) we take more tackles than other teams - if the ball is moving around there is a longer time between each tackle - and b) that the stresses on joints are more severe trying to make ground under the weight of tacklers. I think Joe Burgess's injury against Leigh seemed to come about in this way. Clearly this isn't the cause of some of the injuries, but so many knee injuries can't just be bad luck. Just a thought!

And a credible one F4F

From atraining perspective, we should certainly discount a number of the injuries - Gildart assault, Sam Tomkins' mystery injury, Bateman's shoulder, Leuluai's cheek and Clubb's kidney. Any team could suffer those.
However, we have seen a wave of joint injuries, and these could be a consequence of technique, the physiology of the players we aim for, and possibly footwear. As they will arise from being in the wrong place, doing leg work that insufficiently strengthens the legs and/or a foot getting stuck when it needs to move.
This is a very serious matter for everybody - the players are at risk of having their careers curtailed, the club will win fewer games and the spectators are sick of this. We pay a fortune to watch the first team, not the under 19s. I am sure I am not at all reassured by the club saying they have looked into it and it's all fine. It is after all the same people that have made the mistakes in the first place carrying out the review.

Exiled Wiganer wrote:From atraining perspective, we should certainly discount a number of the injuries - Gildart assault, Sam Tomkins' mystery injury, Bateman's shoulder, Leuluai's cheek and Clubb's kidney. Any team could suffer those.
However, we have seen a wave of joint injuries, and these could be a consequence of technique, the physiology of the players we aim for, and possibly footwear. As they will arise from being in the wrong place, doing leg work that insufficiently strengthens the legs and/or a foot getting stuck when it needs to move.
This is a very serious matter for everybody - the players are at risk of having their careers curtailed, the club will win fewer games and the spectators are sick of this. We pay a fortune to watch the first team, not the under 19s. I am sure I am not at all reassured by the club saying they have looked into it and it's all fine. It is after all the same people that have made the mistakes in the first place carrying out the review.

Manfredi?
Burgess?
Williams?
McIllorum?
Flower?
Sutton?

Any of those linked to training? So out of our 14 missing players, what 9 to 10 are not linked to training and 1 is on international duty but lets keep the conspiracy theorists happy and say yes its down to training!!

Even Escare was during a game, McIllorum is suspended, maybe only Lockers and Gelling who continuously get niggles might have to look at their training regimes.

Training can make you more susceptible to injuries. If we don't do enough leg strength work then it stands to reason that in a game you could be more likely to pick up a joint injury than other teams. Lots of the injuries are leg joint injuries. As so many of them are backs, I doubt over training will be a factor, as their work loads are much less. Save for McIllorum's recent one, our big lads' injuries have not been joints - eye, Achilles and kidney.
Could be their boots, as well.

I'm sure Wigan players' boots are no different to any other league player. But we've heard the same arguments in football; that the now commonplace meta-tarsal injuries didn't seem to happen 'back in the day' when boots were of much sturdier construction. Is the increased risk of injury the price we pay for a more skillful, faster game? maybe.