So Yogi questioning a player/players desire to play through injury.

He obviously knows who he is targeting, but I can't help feeling it's a dangerous route to go down.

Given our players are a close bunch I can't see what good this kind of thing is going to do.

The reaction Yogi is looking for may work in the opposite way.

20 hours ago, Scarlet Pimple said:

Having just read Mr Meekings' Article today I see nothing  rude, abusive, derogatory or sarcastic in it, either towards Mr. J Hughes or anybody else, including the club. Josh leaves the indelible impression that he is tired of his  injury(ies) and would love to get back to full fitness and  regain his place in the team as soon as is feasible and allowed by the specialists that are attending to him.

 In fact his summations are factual, honest and it's extremely doubtful to me that J Hughes has harboured any rancour or resentment towards him personally. Especially when he sums up what he feels could be J.H's feelings about it all that have led to J.H's somewhat public statements. Josh demonstrates , IMHO, that he is  a very honest man and something of a diplomat to boot. And, from what I have read, I can't imagine anyone taking offense at his remarks;  so what's all the babble about anyway?

Let's face it though--if the players'  absence from the team en-masse affected the placing and success of the team at the end of the season in a very detrimental way, such that his job was then very much at stake and attendances were down, etc.,  leading to a possible financial crises for the club, then whose jobs and careers' would be the ones at risk? The players or his? Obviously not the players who could always claim injury prevented them from playing.

Furthermore, as the man responsible for putting  the best team on the pitch and also being responsible for the ultimate success of the club, his professional pride and future job placement(s) could be deeply affected as well. So, I see no fault at his expressing his passionately-held viewpoint publicly. Why?  Well, consider this:   If these same players, about whom J H might suggest were unwilling to play for the club because of niggling injuries, were self-employed, would they have the luxury of staying away from work until they felt that their serious injuries were sufficiently healed to allow them to resume work without fear of any complications? .The answer is NO... unless they were wealthy and were able to employ other people to do their share of the work in the self-employed business that he/she operated. Assuming they could not afford employees and in the building of their fledgling business their presence was vital to success, what choice would this businessperson have  since his/her absence would result in the loss of the business, the capital investment, his/her health (through stress) and possibly his/her marriage? The answer is, therefore, NONE. i.e. Regardless of any injury the modus operandi is ...."Play on MacDuff, or starve."

Therefore, the other side of the coin is that players nowadays are very well off. In fact some don't know how lucky, even mollycoddled, they actually are.  What with specialists and doctors and trainers aplenty to attend to their every need, together with good food probably supplied by the club, an interesting profession, together with  the many other perks that one can assume  are attendant on this trade. e.g...trips abroad etc. So, if players can play through minor injuries FOR the benefit of the club, can you see anything wrong with that expectation? I can't. In the case of very serious injuries, of course, a different scenario exists but I feel certain that these latter categories are NOT what the Manager is referring to.....?

Maybe the real issue here is actually not about hurt feelings (to which I answer..."Diddums.")  but whether or not J. Hughes is speaking the truth?

 

 

This topic is such a waste of time and proves nothing or adds anything to any debate. It really is a non story.

This is all about maintaining a tight knit group and the important togetherness factor. Josh was evidently taken aback by this and it is a shame that he has needed to defend himself in such a public manner. Yogi clearly has a beef with some, probably not Josh. But Yogis main fault is his apparent inability to make impulsive statements without considering the whole picture. All that Josh has succeeded in doing is to show that Yogi's comments were not aimed at him - but it evidently distressed him. These are the things that are better kept behind doors.

Agree with SP. This was an excellent piece by Josh Meekings - he has responded in a very mature way, making his thoughts clear, but without having a pop at JH in the process. Move on...nothing more to see here.