Half the season in the 'red zone' | Vital Football

Half the season in the 'red zone'

Spursex

Alert Team
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ne-one-six-england-players-spend-half-season/



Revealed: Harry Kane one of six England players to spend over half the season in ‘critical zone’

Scheduling of four Nations League matches at end of gruelling season has raised serious questions over welfare of Gareth Southgate’s squad

By Sam Dean 10 June 2022 • 11:29am


A series of key England players, including captain Harry Kane, have spent at least half of this campaign playing in the dangerous “critical zone”, at risk to their health and career longevity, it can be revealed.
Analysis by Telegraph Sport shows that Kane is one of six players in Gareth Southgate’s current squad who have played 50 per cent or more of their matches in the “critical zone” this season.
A player is considered to be playing in the “critical zone” if he has made two appearances of at least 45 minutes without a break of at least five days between those fixtures.
Fifpro, the global players’ union, has warned that cumulative exposure to these back-to-back matches can have a detrimental effect on a player’s health, performance and career longevity.
It comes amid rising unrest within the game over the congested fixture schedule, with a number of leading stars and managers criticising the timing of the current set of Nations League fixtures.
Louis van Gaal, the Holland manager, said this week that it is “ridiculous” for his team to be playing four games in 11 days after the end of the domestic season, while Kane himself has said his upcoming three-week break is not enough to fully recover ahead of the new campaign.
Kane has made 60 appearances for club and country this season, with 33 of those games counting as matches played in the “critical zone”, according to the Telegraph’s analysis.
Trent Alexander-Arnold, Harry Maguire, Jude Bellingham, Declan Rice and Tammy Abraham have also all spent at least half of this season in the “critical zone”.
Abraham, who has so far made 57 appearances in all competitions this season, has played the highest number of games in the “critical zone”, with 37. Such a workload is a result of his successful first season with Roma, which included victory in the Europa Conference League final last month.
TELEMMGLPICT000298609838_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq_015gmpDOnvmuD2JZwtarjesRR4pJOGpjt1_XaRpuHA.jpeg

Tammy Abraham has played the highest number of games in the “critical zone” this season Credit: GETTY IMAGES
A recent Fifpro survey found that almost 90 per cent of professional players are in favour of limiting the number of back-to-back matches in a bid to protect themselves against the heavy workload of the modern game.
More than 70 per cent of the respondents said the number of consecutive back-to-back games should be limited to four. Half of the respondents believe a mandatory break should be introduced after just three consecutive games in the “critical zone”.
The report also found that 88 per cent of high-performance coaches believe players should not play more than 55 matches per season.
In Southgate’s current England squad, there are four players who have exceeded that number in 2021/22: Kane, Abraham, Declan Rice and Mason Mount. Jarrod Bowen and Raheem Sterling will also reach that figure if they feature in England’s upcoming matches against Italy and Hungary.
Speaking ahead of Holland’s Nations League match against Wales this week, Van Gaal said he had changed all 11 players in his team because of the fixture demands. “We have to play four games in 11 days,” he said. “That is ridiculous.”
Kevin De Bruyne, the City and Belgium midfielder, has described the Nations League as “unimportant”, while Holland and Liverpool defender Virgil van Dijk said it is “strange” to have four more matches at the end of the campaign.
“I believe that, during these four games, there is more chance of injury after a long season,” said Van Dijk earlier this month. “That has to be observed, to be analysed and players should have an input in [the fixture list].”
Kane warned last week that the reduced break between seasons will ultimately lead to injuries, saying: “For sure I feel like three weeks off isn’t enough time to recover mentally and physically. I guess you adapt to that but for sure I feel like there is going to be a time where players are picking up injuries because of that.
“I am someone who would love to have a few more weeks to be able to prepare the body and recover from the hard seasons we have. But it is not our decision, it comes down to the competitions and where they can fit their competitions in.”
The importance of squad depth
The Telegraph’s analysis provides further evidence of the importance of having a big squad when competing in European competitions. The workload of the Manchester City players in the current England squad is indicative of this, with Raheem Sterling, Jack Grealish, Phil Foden, Kyle Walker and John Stones all regularly rotated by Pep Guardiola.
The numerous options at Guardiola’s disposal allows the City manager to prevent his players from being overly exposed to the “critical zone”. Sterling has only spent 15 matches in this state, for example, despite making 54 appearances in total. For Grealish, only 16 matches out of 49 were in the “critical zone”.
At West Ham United, by contrast, there was no such luxury for David Moyes, who is reliant on a smaller group of quality players. Europa League and Premier League commitments meant that Rice played 33 matches in the “critical zone”, out of 57 games in all competitions for club and country.
Thursday night football takes its toll
It is no secret that playing regular Thursday night football, in either the Europa League or the Europa Conference League, can have a hugely detrimental impact on a club’s season, and it is not hard to see why managers are so afraid of the dreaded Thursday slot.
Abraham’s remarkable number of appearances this season is testament to his physical and mental durability, but the amount of time he spent in the “critical zone” is proof of how taxing it can be to play in these European competitions. Roma went all the way to the final in the Europa Conference League, where they beat Feyenoord, which meant that Abraham was locked into a Thursday-Sunday cycle for much of the campaign.
Champions League teams also come under strain, of course, but generally speaking the finances on offer allow for these clubs to build bigger squads. There are also fewer matches in the Champions League: Roma and Liverpool both reached the final of their midweek competitions, but Roma played 15 European games compared to Liverpool’s 13.
The physical benefits of not playing in European competition are obvious. Arsenal’s Bukayo Saka has made a total of 50 appearances this season, but only 18 of those were in the “critical zone” as the breaks between matches allowed the winger to recover.
 
It annoys me that the domestic cup situation is rarely mentioned as a factor. Obviously the invention of the Europa Conference was ridiculous, and the scheduling issues are thanks to TV broadcasters thinking only about money, but have we not reached a point where having 2 domestic cups is too much?

I know that the likelihood of the LC being binned is zero, but spreading the FA Cup over the whole season would help. Also, give the winner of the FA Cup the 4th CL spot so it carry's even more weight, but thats a different matter.

Not that I give one shit about International football, and I think there are too many International breaks throughout the season, but it is clear that players are burning out way more often in England than in other leagues. It's been clear for years!
 
Such lazy journalism.

A player is considered to be playing in the “critical zone” if he has made two appearances of at least 45 minutes without a break of at least five days between those fixtures.

I mean, how flawed is this whole article if that is the definition of the "critical zone"? It loses a lot of credibility using just time based over health based attributes in its definition.

It's obviously not a flawed article. We all know these players are in the red zone.
 
It annoys me that the domestic cup situation is rarely mentioned as a factor. Obviously the invention of the Europa Conference was ridiculous, and the scheduling issues are thanks to TV broadcasters thinking only about money, but have we not reached a point where having 2 domestic cups is too much?

I know that the likelihood of the LC being binned is zero, but spreading the FA Cup over the whole season would help. Also, give the winner of the FA Cup the 4th CL spot so it carry's even more weight, but thats a different matter.

Not that I give one shit about International football, and I think there are too many International breaks throughout the season, but it is clear that players are burning out way more often in England than in other leagues. It's been clear for years!
The league Cup should at the very least be used to play fringe and youth players in early rounds.
 
The league Cup should at the very least be used to play fringe and youth players in early rounds.

But then the accusations of 'disrespect' start flying around and especially with us, we get accused of being 'beggars who choose...' because we havent won a trophy in so long.

Are we the only nation with 2 domestic cups? I forget if there are others.
 
On one side I do agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere to stop the inevitable march towards an NBA/baseball like season for football.

But to take the other side of the argument, big teams and international FAs have profited massively during this time. If they truly cared so much about the welfare of their players, wouldn't they rotate their squads more?

With clubs, given the money in the game they all have massive squads, many of whom are international stars. Can't they give some of the other guys more of a go? For nations like England, surely they must have another forward who they deem capable of playing for them? If not then that is one them to develop another striker or to give other players more of a chance.

I feel more sorry for smaller nations who are trying to compete with the likes of England or smaller clubs who can't afford to have quality in depth but also enough quality in the starting 11 to compete.

But at the end of the day, if it is a player safety issue then managers shouldn't be selecting the player, regardless of the on pitch consequences.

We have 2 choices. 1). Reduce the number of games played. 2). Teams actually use the squads that they have at their disposal.
 
On one side I do agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere to stop the inevitable march towards an NBA/baseball like season for football.

But to take the other side of the argument, big teams and international FAs have profited massively during this time. If they truly cared so much about the welfare of their players, wouldn't they rotate their squads more?

With clubs, given the money in the game they all have massive squads, many of whom are international stars. Can't they give some of the other guys more of a go? For nations like England, surely they must have another forward who they deem capable of playing for them? If not then that is one them to develop another striker or to give other players more of a chance.

I feel more sorry for smaller nations who are trying to compete with the likes of England or smaller clubs who can't afford to have quality in depth but also enough quality in the starting 11 to compete.

But at the end of the day, if it is a player safety issue then managers shouldn't be selecting the player, regardless of the on pitch consequences.

We have 2 choices. 1). Reduce the number of games played. 2). Teams actually use the squads that they have at their disposal.

I've never liked the assumption that players should reduce their international pitch time to sustain their domestic pitch time. In fact, I hate the fact that Southgate is devaluing what an international cap means. What he should be doing is what you say though. If someone like Abraham is Kane's main competitor, then he should be afforded more time on the pitch.

As for your other point, could there be a health test that could mean that a player is not allowed to play? Could it eventually be taken out of the manager's hands? In other industries there is a concept of fit-for-task. There is occupational health assessment and surveillance that controls whether you can work or not. Gets you wondering.
 
Such lazy journalism.

A player is considered to be playing in the “critical zone” if he has made two appearances of at least 45 minutes without a break of at least five days between those fixtures.

I mean, how flawed is this whole article if that is the definition of the "critical zone"? It loses a lot of credibility using just time based over health based attributes in its definition.

It's obviously not a flawed article. We all know these players are in the red zone.

It's not lazy journalism, it's based on critical research, perhaps some conclusions are overly dramatic, but their points stand.
 
It's not lazy journalism, it's based on critical research, perhaps some conclusions are overly dramatic, but their points stand.

Yes, but the critical research has been let down by the explanation. Using just a dimension of time to explain what is physiologically going on is the lazy piece. It doesn't address the "why" before it gets into the "what". That is basic stuff for a journo.

The article missed the key educational opportunity.