Conor Hourihane/Lewis Alessandra/Reuben Reid

I cannot remember these three missing a game this season, in league or cups.

Incredible in this day and age, particularly for Alessandra, as he runs forwards and backwards with intensity.

A testament to their fitness, stamina, conditioning, discipline and attitude.  

I am still flabbergasted by this.

Reid apparently has started 43 matches this season, Hourihane 42 and Alessandra 42 (although I don't recall either of them not starting). Pretty incredible in this day and age, with the pace and intensity of the game what it is, of aches and strains, bans and suspensions, injuries etc.

Could Reuben Reid finish the season having started every single match of the entire campaign? Is that precedented in Argyle history? Unless he missed a game, and I have just overlooked it...

In the old days when squads were much smaller and you were only permitted one sub, if you were a shoe-in in the first 11 you'd play the whole season regularly, barring injury. That's including playing on puddings of pitches a lot of the time too. There was no such a thing as being rested or rotated.

Players these days don't know they're born.

ejh wrote:

I am still flabbergasted by this.

Reid apparently has started 43 matches this season, Hourihane 42 and Alessandra 42 (although I don't recall either of them not starting). Pretty incredible in this day and age, with the pace and intensity of the game what it is, of aches and strains, bans and suspensions, injuries etc.

Could Reuben Reid finish the season having started every single match of the entire campaign? Is that precedented in Argyle history? Unless he missed a game, and I have just overlooked it...

Didn't Hourihane pick up five yellows....so missed a match through being banned.

Alessandra got dropped for the Pompey game but came on after and Reid didn't start at Exeter whilst Hourihane missed one from the bench. Reid and Alessandra have played some part in every game I think and have not often been brought off.

Czarcasm wrote:

In the old days when squads were much smaller and you were only permitted one sub, if you were a shoe-in in the first 11 you'd play the whole season regularly, barring injury. That's including playing on puddings of pitches a lot of the time too. There was no such a thing as being rested or rotated.

Players these days don't know they're born.

I agree...

And they're meant to be much stronger, fitter, and better prepared.

However they're also much faster and cover far more ground. I would love to have the OPTA stats for a left back in 1970 and say Luke Shaw now.

Exactly Trickle. I would hazard a guess that the modern player covers 3 times the ground a player from the 1950s did. Some games are played at a frightening pace, end to end, particularly in the Premier League. Tackles are faster and harder, and when teams aren't defending they are counter attacking.

Fair enough in the old days there was no culture of resting and rotating, but old football didn't push athletes to the very extremes of their physical capabilities.

And no 53 year old could ever play a top flight game now.

tackles are harder and faster   
players aren't allowed to tackle anymore,hence the swan lake ballet every game in the premier nonsense.

It's not dirty, like the 70s, but the tackling is intense.

I don't remember too many leg (tib + fib) breaks in the 90s, but plenty in the 2000s onwards.

ejh wrote:

Exactly Trickle.  I would hazard a guess that the modern player covers 3 times the ground a player from the 1950s did.  Some games are played at a frightening pace, end to end, particularly in the Premier League. Tackles are faster and harder, and when teams aren't defending they are counter attacking.

Fair enough in the old days there was no culture of resting and rotating, but old football didn't push athletes to the very extremes of their physical capabilities.

And no 53 year old could ever play a top flight game now.

Can't agree with that Ej. Tackles are not harder and faster, that's just crazy to say that. And can you remember the pitches on offer, and the  4 stone heavy ball they had to kick. On today's billiard tables, kicking a Frido is a breeze, literally, and 3/4 of the game is like an indoor 5-a-side game.
The game is more for "athletic prowess" these days, that's for sure, but they train and eat accordingly, and has more to do with "upper body" strength than anything, seeing as much of the game these days is akin to rugby with the holding and pulling. And the athletic thing is just a coach's taste, and players are chosen for that very quality. In the old days, it was straight out of bed from the pub, a quick full English, and onto the pitch, yet they still played all season. Any "athlete" worth his salt should be able to turn in 50 games a season, no problem.
What really hits the players game in game out is in the head, not in the legs. That's where constant competition can weed out the pussies. I actually think there are far more pussies now than there ever were. Let's be honest here, virtually every team has at least 2 or 3 players that play virtually every game even today, so why shouldn't the rest.

Does anyone remember one of our players cadging a fag off the crowd? Greenskin??

I'm pretty sure Hourihane hasn't missed any games all season except for Bury home when he was suspended.

We've played atm 35 league games, 5 FA Cup, 1 Carling Cup and 2 JPT. That amount to 43 games overall. Reid was definitely dropped to the bench (although he came on) for Exeter away.

That means that whilst he can't have started 43 games, he has at least played in each and every one of our 43 games this season which I think is VERY impressive. If we are to take it that this is games played rather than games started then the one Hourihane missed is Bury home. Alessandra  came off the bench for the Pompey home game but I can't quite recall which game it was that he missed altogether? Could it have been Swindon away in the JPT, perhaps?

I'm with ejh- in the era of much higher intensity football it's very impressive for three players to play so many.

It isn't impressive in the sense that they're excelling in something. They're just retaining their places consistently.

Hourihane for example is quite simply our captain and a very decent player. Because of that Shez has picked him to play each game and he hasn't had any injuries to contend with. Thus resulting in the number of games he's chalked up! If he's fit, he plays.

People will be wanting more murals up in a minute !

I always liked Gerry McElhinney, a rite old carthorse of a centre back

Seems like Alessandra has been the first to succumb to fatigue.

I am amazed he lasted this long with the ground he covers every match.

alannotivvy wrote:

I always liked Gerry McElhinney, a rite old carthorse of a centre back

as a teenager my favourite was Mark Smith. He always seemed to float everywhere. It maybe the rosiness of nostalgia but he was a very good footballer.

I agree Dick a real classy player. If he had had an ounce more pace I am sure he would have played for England.

Curtis Nelson has had 34 starts and 1 sub app this season also so far. Trotters has had 33 starts. Both stats from the League only. Some consistency in our line up must be helping.

players didn't get injured as much years ago because they had to walk everywhere makes lot of difference.

watch itv 4 big match revisited and say tackling is harder now, theres more tugging of shirts now where as then youd get hacked down.

also more wing play so more pressure on the wide defence. more crosses made a more physical ariel battle for the ball.

pitches a lot lot lot heavier than the one drop of rain MATCH OFF you get nowadays.

Tackling was harder granted but in the days where footballers could afford to go about with pot bellies, you'll never convince me that the intensity was easier.

The speed at which the ball gets moved around the pitch, and the speed at which defending players need to press/commit themselves is way faster than the days where they could afford to stand off a lot more because the play that was coming towards them wasn't so fast/intense. There wasn't so much pressing high up the pitch. Players didn't roam from position so much and cover as much ground. Players now have to be far more physically fit than then. Tackle as hard? No. But it isn't hard tackles (unless they're unlucky enough for one to break their leg) that tire players out on the whole. In the days of new football nutritionism etc, players HAVE to be athletes whereas in the days of drinks the night before the game etc they did not have to be. It's the high intensity and that's what makes today's game such a step up.

It's horses (or dogs) for courses...

You want something to run fast for a couple of races on a nice surface then need a rest.  Get a greyhound.

Need something to trudge around all season in mud taking knocks.  Get a donkey.

Or Jim Beglin...pisstaking C word

GreenSam wrote:

Tackling was harder granted but in the days where footballers could afford to go about with pot bellies, you'll never convince me that the intensity was easier.

The speed at which the ball gets moved around the pitch, and the speed at which defending players need to press/commit themselves is way faster than the days where they could afford to stand off a lot more because the play that was coming towards them wasn't so fast/intense. There wasn't so much pressing high up the pitch. Players didn't roam from position so much and cover as much ground. Players now have to be far more physically fit than then. Tackle as hard? No. But it isn't hard tackles (unless they're unlucky enough for one to break their leg) that tire players out on the whole. In the days of new football nutritionism etc, players HAVE to be athletes whereas in the days of drinks the night before the game etc they did not have to be. It's the high intensity and that's what makes today's game such a step up.

You obviously haven't seen much from the older days if you think today's football is such a step up.
Plus a lot of this so called faster play that you state happens around the halfway line and first third of the opponents half.
To sum up for me football as a whole is nowhere near as exciting as it used to be 20-30 years ago. The game now is all about not conceding instead of scoring which makes it boring in comparison.

I agree. Few defenders lunge in these days, they just sheppard. Long periods of play these days consist of back four tippy tappy. Enough time to have a snooze before that oh so quick spurt. You should see some old footage of England/Scotland games and then reassess if the game was slow in those days.
Wing backs are a new ask, but in some ways that exertion is no different than the up and down half backs of old. You never saw Johnny Hore at number 4 stand still catching breath for a second, hence the song.
You've never had football so good ? ... industry propaganda. It's just a different game, that's all, and I know what version of the game I prefer by a country mile.