 | Forum
Reply | Three-game weeks
at 22:44 27 Jan 2026
Apologies Brian, I mis-read your post.
And yes, Ben Williams was appointed in July 2023:
https://www.qpr.co.uk/players/
I suppose Williams might say that he deliberately prepped the players to start slow and hit peak fitness in the second half of the season.
But I can remember Paolo di Canio trying that approach when he was Sunderland manager, and he was sacked long before his players began to feel the benefit!
Personally I don't subscribe to the slow burn approach. The Championship is fiercely competitive and I don't believe we can afford to start the season slowly and let other clubs get away from us. |
| Forum
Reply | Three-game weeks
at 22:25 27 Jan 2026
I think that was partly down to Beale bringing back Willock and Amos before they were ready and seriously aggravating existing problems. And how have the careers of those two young players gone since then?
And without naming names I think we can say that some of those 'injured' players from the Beale/Critchley/Ainsworth season might have had a few motivation problems. |
| Forum
Reply | Three-game weeks
at 22:06 27 Jan 2026
But it's not just under Stephan that we have had these injury problems.
It was the same story last season under Cifuentes - The big difference being that Williams was working remotely from Dubai last season.
Whatever the explanation we can't keep going like this or the development/trading model will never get off the ground. The club should be making it a priority to fix this issue. |
| Forum
Reply | Three-game weeks
at 21:34 27 Jan 2026
I agree with what you say.
However, something that has been mentioned in Clive's match reports and on other threads is the way JS uses (or doesn't use) his subs. And I think that has to play into this discussion of player fitness.
Back in the days of Warbs Warburton he would often take players off after an hour or so and explain afterwards that this was on the advice of the physios that the particular player could only play a certain number of minutes and no more than that.
We don't seem to be seeing this under JS, even though the experts seem to agree that the game has become more intense and players are running and sprinting a lot more in recent seasons.
I think this raises some questions about what is going on behind the scenes.
Are the medical team not assessing/protecting the players in the same way as previous years?
Are they giving the same advice about player durability to the coaches?
Or are the coaches getting the guidance from the medics but not putting it into practice?
Burrell is a case in point. He was looking cooked several games before he finally snapped. And in the recent WLS podcast Kevin Gallen was saying he though Kone also looked like he was suffering from fatigue and might not have enough left in the tank to effectively lead the line for the rest of the season.
This doesn't just affect our league position. Injuries to our sellable young prospects will reduce their future sale value. Something we sadly saw with Chris Willock but don't appear to have learned from.
I know I have made this point on other threads but we have more sports science than ever before and we also have more (avoidable) injuries than ever before.
Something doesn't seem to add up. Is the science wrong or is the practice wrong?
Or are clubs just using the sports science to squeeze every last bit of effort from the players (hopefully) without breaking them? |
| Forum
Reply | Three-game weeks
at 20:57 27 Jan 2026
Big clubs aren't interested in judgement and compromise.
And to be fair, they are the ones collecting and looking at the data.
Their solution is bigger squads and more substitutes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
"Europe's top clubs, including some Premier League sides, have held discussions about using six substitutes per game to ease the workload on players.
Sides met at the European Football Clubs' (EFC) general assembly in Rome last week to discuss issues within the game.
It was not officially on the agenda, but clubs had informal, private discussions about utilising 28-man squads - up from the current 25 - and six substitutes.
Manchester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and Nottingham Forest were among those from the Premier League in Italy.
Football's rulemakers, the International Football Association Board (Ifab), would need to recommend any changes first, and it is unclear when, if at all, any changes would be made.
Five substitutes were introduced in the Premier League in May 2020 before football resumed during the coronavirus pandemic.
The league reverted back to three for the 2020-21 season, before five was voted in permanently from the 2022-23 season. An extra substitute is allowed to replace a player with a suspected head injury.
Three extra squad places are seen as being able to reduce the workload on players after threats of strikes." |
| Forum
Reply | Three-game weeks
at 17:11 27 Jan 2026
Where is the PFA in all of this?
They're supposed to be looking after the welfare of the players and if necessary campaigning on their behalf.
Four games over the Christmas period can't be good for the players and makes a mockery of what is supposed to be competitive sport.
There's also the argument some have made that switching to five substitutes has increased the intensity of games, placed greater pressure on those outfield players who play the full ninety minutes, and in turn led to a glut of injuries.
Sports scientists have been saying for years that soft tissue injuries are wholly preventable, but the data shows that these injuries are on the increase all across the game.
So when will the PFA sit up and take notice? |
| Forum
Reply | Christian Nourry - Two Year Anniversary
at 14:06 27 Jan 2026
I think I agree with most of what thehat has said.
What hasn't been touched on is playing style.
Even before Nourry breezed in we were talking about a set style of play for the club that new managers/coaches would have to play to.
When Nourry arrived he was on message with that and gave an interview where he talked about some variation of 4-3-3 possession-based football being the key to success at this level, and that this was what we would be doing!
Since then every time we have tried this possession-based style it has failed and both Cifuentes and Stephan moved to a completely different and more direct style. Nevertheless we kept reverting back to possession based football under Cifuentes, only for it to keep failing. And then we tried it again and failed again under Stephan.
So the question is have Nourry and the club swallowed their pride and given up on possession based football or will we be trying again at some point in the future? And if we have given up on possession football then what is the new vision that Nourry sees the club adopting as its in-house style?
And I'm not putting that out as a criticism of Nourry. I've got no problem with someone saying we got it wrong but have cut our losses and pivoted to something different. But we haven't had that assessment yet from the club, or any indication of where we go from here. |
| Forum
Reply | Sell Jon Varane ?
at 17:49 19 Jan 2026
DM apologised for it five days ago.
Try to keep up.
[Post edited 19 Jan 17:50]
|
| Forum
Reply | Rest of the Championship thread 25/26
at 10:52 19 Jan 2026
Fair point!
I did a quick search and most of the data on spectator injuries seems to relate to football matches.
There's a comprehensive breakdown on football spectator injuries here:
https://sgsa.org.uk/document/s
For some reason the data does not include illness so it's difficult to show if medical emergencies in grounds are on the increase or if they're just being reported more! (But I agree with you that it does seem to be happening a lot more often) |
| Forum
Reply | Rest of the Championship thread 25/26
at 10:27 19 Jan 2026
Possibly something to do with the fact the average age of fans going to games is increasing while younger fans are more likely to be digitally engaged.
In the most recent FSA supporter survey nearly 63% of the respondents were aged 46+
"9,675 fans filled in the survey, which ran online between 20th March and 18th April. Figures have been rounded to one decimal place, and certain questions allowed more than one response, or for respondents to prefer not to give an answer, so figures will not always add up to 100%.
Age breakdown
Under 18 – 1.4%
18 to 25 – 6.2%
26 to 35 – 12.8%
36 to 45 – 16%
46 to 55 – 18.8%
56 to 65 – 24.7%
Over 65 – 19.3%"
https://thefsa.org.uk/news/nat
https://www.theguardian.com/co
AI Overview
English football fandom shows a strong presence across adult generations, with younger fans (18-34) often leading in interest and digital engagement, while older fans (45+) form a significant core, though rising ticket prices create accessibility issues, leading to an aging average fan age (around 41) and concerns about future generations, with women's football attracting younger demographics.
Key Age Demographics & Trends:
25-34s (Largest Group): Represent a substantial portion of fans (around 29%), indicating strong engagement in early to mid-adulthood.
16-24s (Growing Interest): A large segment (around 27%) with high digital engagement, showing growing interest in the Premier League and women's football (WSL).
Older Fans (Established Base): Ages 35+ (45-54s, 55-64s) form a solid, yet aging, base, with older fans (56+) making up a large percentage in some surveys, though participation declines.
Average Age: The average age of a Premier League supporter has been noted around 41, highlighting an aging demographic, say the Football Supporters' Association and The Guardian.
Generational Differences:
Younger Fans (18-34): More digitally native, consume content across platforms (TikTok, YouTube), expect socially relevant sponsorship, and show high interest in the WSL.
Older Fans: May struggle with high ticket costs, leading to difficulties accessing live games, and are more likely to be traditional TV viewers, notes gipedo.io and The New York Times.
Key Concerns:
Ticket Prices: High costs are pushing younger and less affluent fans away from live matches, creating a future attendance problem, according to The Guardian and The New York Times.
Digital Engagement: While young fans are highly digital, clubs need to adapt content to capture this audience long-term, suggests Sport Insight Solutions.
In Summary: While football remains broadly popular, English football faces a challenge in bridging the gap for younger fans to become regular match-goers, balancing an aging core with a digitally-savvy, but often priced-out, youth demographic. |
| Forum
Reply | Stoke fans on QPR (whose side are you on?)
at 20:45 18 Jan 2026
Stoke inflicted Jonathan Gullis on the rest of the country. We're under no obligation to entertain them!
Only six teams have scored more than our 38 in the Championship so far this season, so we can't be that bad.
Just be grateful you aren't watching "the best league in the world"
[Post edited 18 Jan 20:47]
|
| Forum
Reply | threadbare squad
at 23:06 13 Jan 2026
And Barnsley had a lot of success with it, which is why it has now become common practice and contributed to greater intensity in the game overall.
But as Michael Cox points out the switch to five subs was originally a short-term measure designed to protect players from injury but has instead led to an increase in injuries. |
| Forum
Reply | threadbare squad
at 22:06 13 Jan 2026
This is precisely why the club needs to be asking serious questions of Ben Williams and the support staff.
I completely accept Nix's point that hamstring injuries are a growing problem in the game, but this can't be a Get Out of Jail Free card for Ben Williams to avoid scrutiny.
Our problems do seem far worse than most, and we can't ignore the fact that Ben Williams also had a bad record for injuries in his season with the Brooklyn Nets.
I'm not suggesting we sack Williams now because this deep into the season there isn't likely to be a magic wand to turn things around. But it is on Williams now to come up with answers for our injury problems and if he can't do that and the injuries continue to pile up into next season then his position will look untenable. |
| Forum
Reply | threadbare squad
at 15:56 13 Jan 2026
Quick PS to my own post.
Another theory for the increase in muscle injuries is that it's a side-effect of having five substitutes which has led to greater intensity in the game. It also means that clubs with stronger squads have an advantage over the rest. This was put forward by Michael Cox in The Athletic a couple of months ago. The link to the article and the full text are below:
https://www.nytimes.com/athlet
"Why the five-substitute era has not been good for football
By Michael Cox
Nov. 2, 2025
Amid reports that some of Europe’s major clubs have held discussions about the possibility of introducing a sixth substitute in league matches, it’s worth reflecting on the situation football has accidentally found itself in, with ‘only’ five permitted.
This was initially an emergency measure introduced in 2020, when football was forced into a demanding schedule to compensate for the three months lost to the pandemic. Entirely predictably, the temporary change became permanent.
Naturally, managers have taken advantage of the extra changes. Since the start of 2022-23, when the five-substitute rule was made permanent in the Premier League, managers have used (at least) a fourth substitute 72 per cent of the time. They evidently appreciate having more ability to rotate, and more scope for making tactical alterations.
But has it actually been good for football overall?
The concept of five substitutes was about easing physical demands on players, therefore guarding against injury and physical burnout. But it’s highly questionable whether this has had any serious impact whatsoever, and it’s arguably made things worse; this time last season, in particular, there seemed to be more injuries than ever before. Tottenham currently have 10 players out injured, for example.
Granted, it’s not an entirely fair test, because in what could be termed the ‘five-substitute era’, top-level players have become involved in more competitive games, because of the expansion of the Champions League and the introduction of the Club World Cup.
But football has completely overlooked the impact of introducing extra substitutes: it increases the tempo of the game, and the physical demands upon those who aren’t substituted. It’s a fairly straightforward equation: if no substitutes were allowed, the game would need to be played at a tempo that players could sustain for 90 minutes. At the other end of the scale, if 11 substitutes were allowed, every player could run themselves into the ground, knowing they could be replaced.
Football has ended up at a halfway house of five, which means that, going into the final stages, it’s not uncommon to have 10 outfielders with fresh legs up against 10 outfielders who are fatigued, but need to keep on sprinting at the intensity of the substitutes. Whereas once players with fresh legs were outliers, almost like a manager playing a ‘joker’, they’re now a more fundamental part of the game. It’s worth clarifying that the tempo in football has always increased decade on decade, and the five-substitute rule is not the only factor. But things do appear to have exploded dramatically in the last half-decade.
Of course, the increased intensity affects things tactically, too. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and many people are content for football to be played at an increasingly high tempo.
The danger, though, is that the game becomes so frenetic that talented technical players are denied an extra half-second on the ball, an extra few yards of space. The challenge, as always in football, is for those players to showcase their skill within the context of a high tempo. But this is perhaps an artificial high tempo, dictated by an unreasonable number of substitutes. This season’s Premier League has been notable for its underwhelming level of football, with teams seemingly looking elsewhere — to set-pieces — for creativity, at a time when playmakers are finding it difficult to create.
Then, of course, there’s the problem of inequality; more substitutes surely benefits the richer clubs.
First, they can afford to introduce top-class replacements, and five of them — rather than simply three — can completely overwhelm weaker clubs. Yes, in strict terms, the issue is not simply outright quality, but quality in comparison to the player being replaced. Still, it’s difficult to make a case that, say, Arsenal — who use their considerable budget to build a squad to compete in multiple competitions, and therefore have strength in depth — are not better off from the five-subs rule than, say, Burnley. It’s hardly a coincidence that the prospect of a further increase to six has been raised by the big clubs in particular.
Then there’s the long-term impact of depth and stockpiling players. Restrictions have been introduced on squad sizes in an attempt to tackle this problem. Ultimately, most footballers want to play and if a manager is using 16 rather than 14 every game, big clubs have more scope to keep more players involved. The same applies to matchday squads, which are now 20 rather than 18 in the Premier League, and 23 in some other European leagues.
Pep Guardiola wants an unlimited number of players on the bench, so more can feel involved. “I would love the Premier League to say, ‘You can allow on the bench the players you want’,” he said. “I would love it because everybody can play. More alternatives.” But it would be better for football, overall, if players on the fringes moved onto clubs where they will start matches.
The five-substitute era has probably made it harder for promoted teams to survive — things are set to be different this time, but the last six promoted clubs have all been relegated straight away. One of them, Ipswich Town — who found themselves in the Premier League after consecutive promotions — would have been placed 17th on a ‘first half league table’ last season, but 20th on a ‘second half league table’. Were Kieran McKenna’s tactics worked out by opposition managers during matches? Were Ipswich serial bottlers? Or were they simply unable to cope because the five-substitute era rewards established clubs with depth?
There’s also an argument — and maybe this is just one for traditionalists — that football is also supposed to be, on some level, a test of individual stamina and adaptability. Obviously, some substitutes are needed to replace injured and fatigued players, and sides should be able to make changes to tilt the balance of their side too.
But five substitutes is probably too many, and has likely had the opposite impact to what was intended. As a solution to the problem of fatigue, two extra changes has been the footballing equivalent of throwing a glass of water onto a chip pan fire." |
| Forum
Reply | threadbare squad
at 15:22 13 Jan 2026
My comments weren't aimed at you and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are trying to defend Ben Williams.
I agreed with your general point that there are more hamstring injuries in football. But there's also more sports science in football than ever before. So to repeat my previous comment "something doesn't add up!"
You also say all other teams are having this problem. I'm not so sure that is true, and certainly not to the extent that we are.
I'm not a sports scientist but from what I have read there are two big contributory factors with hamstring injuries:
1. Age - older players are more susceptible
2. Previous history of hamstring problems
We certainly don't have an ancient squad this season so it can't be that. And we signed Poku knowing that he missed a big chunk of last season because of his hamstring so that one does have to be on us.
My own pet theory (untested and unproven) relates to the amount of water we are putting on pitches. If you remember when we played at Forest in 2022 the pitch was very heavy because of a lot of rain before kick off. Willock and Marshall did their hamstrings for us and Scott McKenna also limped off with a hamstring problem. One match is no sort of scientific sample but three hamstring injuries in one match is a bit of an outlier.
But I've also heard climate, fatigue, etc put forward as possible explanations.
As I said in my previous post Ben Williams does appear to be a magnet for hamstring problems. Maybe that's just bad luck and maybe it isn't. But it is on him to understand the problem for us and find solutions. If he can't do that then maybe we do need to look at replacing him. [Post edited 13 Jan 15:26]
|
| Forum
Reply | threadbare squad
at 13:57 13 Jan 2026
"It can’t be down to how they are looked after as there is more emphasis on sports science than ever before."
That statement assumes that we're doing the sports science right!
I take your overall point that there has been an increase across football in soft tissue injuries and that must be down to factors that aren't controlled for or aren't yet fully understood. The sports scientists still say that these types of injury are wholly preventable. Nevertheless, these injuries are on the rise. So something doesn't add up.
Pointing at other clubs and saying that they have more hamstring injuries than us isn't an excuse or a justification for our own problems.
It might be unfair to bring up Ben Williams' stint with Brooklyn Nets but they finished last season with the most matches missed through injury, and second for most players injured:
https://www.rotowire.com/baske
It was their worst season for injuries since 2016/17.
I saw some data elsewhere showing that the Nets had seven hamstring injuries last season, which is freakishly high even for a sport where such injuries are commonplace.
Ben Williams seems to be a magnet for these things.
Maybe he's just unlucky. Maybe a lot of it is down to factors out of his control. But then again maybe he isn't unlucky and his methods are wrong.
Fairly or unfairly player performance is his remit and the buck stops with him. It's on him to understand why these injuries are happening and to find methods for preventing them.
Shrugging shoulders and pointing to someone else's problems isn't an answer. [Post edited 13 Jan 13:58]
|
| Forum
Reply | Cocaine
at 20:33 12 Jan 2026
Well, not since the Yanks repealed prohibition
 |
| Forum
Reply | Central Coast Mariners
at 19:36 12 Jan 2026
I think Ruben has a minority stake in Los Angeles FC.
To be multi-club ownership there has to be a controlling stake in more than one club.
So we're not there, yet! |
| | KensalT
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
