So then, how is "This injury to Mitch Barnett is a mark against Webster in this instance."?Well im arguing that they could have rested him not that origin and the turnaround caused the injury.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So then, how is "This injury to Mitch Barnett is a mark against Webster in this instance."?Well im arguing that they could have rested him not that origin and the turnaround caused the injury.
Because he could have said sit this one out, we are going well, its a busy schedule for you barney.So then, how is "This injury to Mitch Barnett is a mark against Webster in this instance."?
You are right, he was good to go, im just saying they could have given him the game off.
There it is, typed at the same time.I will also Caveat that my opinion is all in hindsight.
I will also Caveat that my opinion is all in hindsight.
How do you predict those injuries bro?This injury to Mitch Barnett is a mark against Webster in this instance.
Did we need Barnett to play on sunday? Turned out we didn't in the end, so im sure webby will learn from this. Barnett didn't need to back up when we are going well, a little game management here should have happened.
By waiting till the injury happens and then having an opinion on it!How do you predict those injuries bro?
We have two byes in quick succession coming up. It would be extremely rare if a player was 'rested' prior to that. And i dont understand the point that just because he didnt play many mins that 'we didnt need him'. Who is to say his replacement didnt leave a gaping hole or dropped the ball in the initial mins that handed Raiders points/ascendency which could have led to a different result. We only won by 6 points.Well im arguing that they could have rested him not that origin and the turnaround caused the injury.
Again I am not saying this was why he got injured, its more from a point of view that we didn't need to play him. Add in the hectic away schedule the warriors have had also.
I get webby loves thrashing the good ones.
Awesome that's why these places are great to vent our frustrations eh all the what ifs,By waiting till the injury happens and then having an opinion on it!![]()
I should really phrase that differently, should webby have given barney the week off?
I would much rather stub my nipple!We're like a family arguing at the hospital eh
"Would you rather stay at home, or go out with your mates and rupture your ACL??!!"
never mind guys..it is what it is...i've still got a positive vibe about how we'll go ATM..LOLI will also Caveat that my opinion is all in hindsight.
Disagree completely. Yes we did need Barnett to play - the vast majority of other SOO players also backed up.This injury to Mitch Barnett is a mark against Webster in this instance.
Did we need Barnett to play on sunday? Turned out we didn't in the end, so im sure webby will learn from this. Barnett didn't need to back up when we are going well, a little game management here should have happened.
Potentially was a factor but that’s sport.Yeah I don't see how he wouldn't play so no issue with that
Are we all completely sure fatigue had zero impact? I get it that done things like muscle strains are overtly more fatigue linked but if your muscles are knackered then maybe it's harder/ less likely you can brace yourself in collision?
A part of me just can't completely rule out that a battered and tired body / mind makes for an increased chance of these things