30 Apr 2026 14:20:46
We are too passive under DR. We never come out the block fast from the first whistle. I'll take you back to one of our best results beating Celtic at parkhead. We could have been 3 or 4 down at half time against Wilfred's team (fortunately we were not ) but my point is why are we not all over teams from the first whistle. This has to come from the manager we have all seen it over several recent games.
I'm for playing our best 11 every week not resting our best players ( if tgey are fit enough fur the bench tgey are fit enough to play) go win the game from the start tgen take players off and rest them. I read another poster saying we don't seem to have a style or identity, I agree.
30 Apr 2026 14:32:05
Came out fast against Motherwell, especially the first 10 mins, then it went downhill from there, mate.
30 Apr 2026 14:32:32
We have many saying Moore should have started, but after EHL explaining, it showed on data he wasn't fit enough to start the game. Others seem to think, because he came on at half time, he should have started the game, but if that data showed that, it would only cause us problems.
30 Apr 2026 14:37:23
If they are fit enough for the bench, they are fit enough to start. It is not going to wash with a head coach with a degree in Sports Science.
30 Apr 2026 15:01:35
It may not wash but it could have cost us the title so I know what I would rather go with ? it's pretty simple if you can play a half then it could have been the 1st. It's not rocket science.
Rab, I hope after the summer, and he gets more players in, we see a change in the way Rohl wants to play football. I hope anyway because we have been dire to watch for the majority of this season.
{Ed001's Note - if you can only play one half, you play them in the second, when the opposition is tiring and their lack of fitness is less of a hindrance.}
30 Apr 2026 15:12:03
Moore should have started because he's fit to be on the bench, and should always start with your best team. ? Then, if you're winning, you can then look at getting, in this case, Mikey Moore off. ?
30 Apr 2026 15:14:53
Ehl, the problem I have with sports science is it's all in probability, not factual. There is no guarantee that if Moore started that game, he would get injured.
Also, any football player can get injured at any time, no matter if sports science says they have less chance of an injury or not.
That's why I will never get behind sports science.
With 5 games to go, you play your best 11 every time unless they are suspended or already injured.
Let's not play someone in case they get injured, and it could potentially stop us winning the league. ?♂️
30 Apr 2026 15:19:03
Sws, if the data showed he is not fit enough to start the game, we can't start him unless you're willing to take that risk. If Spurs can see that data and he picks up the same injury, we would be in bother, mate.
30 Apr 2026 15:21:42
I have a BSc in Sports Science and I can tell you that not much of it is about injuries. I had one class in Sports Injuries, as did everyone else, and our knowledge of that subject is paddling pool depth. Sports therapists deal more with injuries, and that subject is occupied by a lot of women who deal with massages and sports injury taping, etc. Basically, the sports subjects are broken into 3 groups: Coaching, Science, and Therapy. The therapists need volunteers to practise their wrapping and massage on, so I had to do that with them as an aside.
If someone is injured and cannot run or whatever is going on with Moore then that steps into the realms of medicine. I believe you would need a doctor to perform scans or whatever it is they do to find out what the root cause is. A sports therapist can then wrap up your joints before games, and rub you down afterwards, etc.
If I was at a gym and someone came over to me and said they couldn't move properly, couldn't run, I'd tell them to see a doctor. Sports Science is human anatomy and physiology, biomechanics, nutrition, analysis and data collection, etc.
30 Apr 2026 15:30:25
Interesting RohlWithCheese, a significant part of my SportsScience degree was focussed on injury prevention - topics like Applied Biomechanics, Injury Epidemiology, Exercise Physiology and even Psychology of Injury.
30 Apr 2026 16:47:21
Rohl, I think you are at it, my friend. Sports Science with the data works on probabilities, I would think. Let's say the Sports Science team advised Rohl not to risk a key player, and he did, and then ended up injured for the rest of the season, how does that help the team.
30 Apr 2026 16:51:18
I am of the mold: if fit enough for the bench, then fit enough to start, especially at this business end of the season, hardcore old school Scottish mentality which is probably wrong. But I wouldn't want, firstly, to damage the boy or cross his own club who trust us with him.
Glad not my decision.
30 Apr 2026 18:05:30
I have a list of the individual subjects I took during the last year of my BSc and will post them here for the benefit of EHL:
- BIOL3009 Human Physiology: Training and Excretion
- BIOL3013 The Psychology of Exercise and Training
- BIOL3018 Biochemistry of Health and Sport
- BIOL3018 Studying Sport and Recreation
- BIOL3020 Motor Skill Acquisition
- BIOL3021 The Fitness Health and Exercise Industry
- PSYC3015 Psychology of Sport and Exercise
- SOCY3030 Sociology of Sport.
- SPOR3005 Introduction to Sports Injuries.
Note, the Introduction to Sports Injuries module was optional, not mandatory.
So as you can see, this is not a medical degree by any means. I'm not an expert in sports injuries. I know some information, but it's paddling pool depth. Sports Injuries was more focused towards those engaged in Sports Therapy.
I did a HND, then jumped to the final year of a BSc. The HND covered ground like Nutrition, Biomechanics, etc. I can only speak as to my own personal experiences. You are welcome to believe or disbelieve what I'm telling you. I have nothing to lose or gain here.
30 Apr 2026 20:58:55
Agreed, Storm. imo Sports Science is a gimmick; when football was great there was no such thing as sports science.
30 Apr 2026 22:07:48
The difference from players back in the day, 70s, 80s & 90s, was they were programmed like work horses, with the mentality to just keep going. Since the 00s until now, they are programmed more like race horses. Everything they do is meticulously recorded and analysed, with players having to stick to routine, instructions and set game plans.
That's where I think Sports Science has too much influence on the game. Our players don't appear to have that flowing freedom to enjoy the game as much as they and we would like.
30 Apr 2026 22:08:07
I honestly couldn't care less what you studied.
It's clear you struggle to differentiate between fitness and injuries - prevention and recovery.
30 Apr 2026 22:11:26
I am with you coops. Start your best team.
Ed I would always start my best team that's just my opinion that differs from you. On Sunday that way didn't work at all. Bringing him on 2nd half was too late.
{Ed001's Note - not every opinion is equal.}
01 May 2026 01:34:03
It is apparent with Sterling's drop-off in form that u need to manage players.
He's a better option for Hearts n Celtic. I said that about 3-4 games before the split.
He's been played constantly, and now he's lost form.
Looks like he's carrying an injury and needs dropped.
U need to manage players with next 3/4 games in mind.
The best team ues but for the good of the club and team not the individual game.