Jump to content

Jake Connor

Hullfan

Recommended Posts


Old Frightful

Old Frightful

Posted
Posted

Ruled out for 6 weeks.

Ar$e.

                                                                  :kolobok_sad:   Hull FC....The Sons of God....  :kolobok_sad:
                                                                     (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, SL17 said:

Minimum 6 weeks. If he's back in 4 weeks thats some amazing recovery. Best of luck to the fella.

Another serious injury.  It strikes me we should rename the game, "Russian Roulette"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure I consider this to be bad news tbh. I feared the worst. 6 weeks isn't so bad. MCL doesn't tend to be as serious as an ACL.

Didn't Connor have that same injury when we played Wigan in Australia and then played the week later? Or was that a lateral cruciate ligament? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hullfan

Hullfan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's scary Hulls strength in depth though. Connor covers Shaul whilst Kelly goes into the half's, Connor gets injured Shaul comes back in. Just heard KR are struggling to get a team for Sundays hammering with Wakeyfield

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hullfan said:

It's scary Hulls strength in depth though. Connor covers Shaul whilst Kelly goes into the half's, Connor gets injured Shaul comes back in. Just heard KR are struggling to get a team for Sundays hammering with Wakeyfield

Yep. If you listed the top 10 halves in SL we would have 3 of them imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, MZH said:

I'm not sure I consider this to be bad news tbh. I feared the worst. 6 weeks isn't so bad. MCL doesn't tend to be as serious as an ACL.

Didn't Connor have that same injury when we played Wigan in Australia and then played the week later? Or was that a lateral cruciate ligament? 

You are actually pleased, are sanguine, that Connor had a cruciate ligament one week and played the next.  You think that a cruciate injury can be not really all that bad??

These are serious injuries and even when recovered can relapse and make them worse.  Look at Manfredi, who made a comback and immediately relapsed and was out 2 years and then had yet another op on it and has to play this season. 

Look at Gale. Look at both McIlorum and Tomkins who have had 2 goes at treating foot injuries.  Every club has had serious long time injuries, in some cases several.

People need to get real and realise ask what is going on with these injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

You are actually pleased, are sanguine, that Connor had a cruciate ligament one week and played the next.  You think that a cruciate injury can be not really all that bad??

These are serious injuries and even when recovered can relapse and make them worse.  Look at Manfredi, who made a comback and immediately relapsed and was out 2 years and then had yet another op on it and has to play this season. 

Look at Gale. Look at both McIlorum and Tomkins who have had 2 goes at treating foot injuries.  Every club has had serious long time injuries, in some cases several.

People need to get real and realise ask what is going on with these injuries.

I am pleased (although pleased isn't the right word, more relieved) because I feared he was done for the season, as others have been already, as you say. 6 weeks, if that is what it turns out to be, is not so bad in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure what you suggest. It's a tough sport. Sometimes you get serious or persistent injuries. The players know what they are getting into to, they know the risks. If there was a way to reduce these injuries then I would be all for it. But so far I haven't heard anything productive whatsoever.

And Connor did play the week after a cruciate injury, and was fine. So yes, they can be not all that bad. Like anything there are lots of different severities. I never said I was happy with it. Just stating that he did since it's related to the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, MZH said:

I am pleased (although pleased isn't the right word, more relieved) because I feared he was done for the season, as others have been already, as you say. 6 weeks, if that is what it turns out to be, is not so bad in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure what you suggest. It's a tough sport. Sometimes you get serious or persistent injuries. The players know what they are getting into to, they know the risks. If there was a way to reduce these injuries then I would be all for it. But so far I haven't heard anything productive whatsoever.

And Connor did play the week after a cruciate injury, and was fine. So yes, they can be not all that bad. Like anything there are lots of different severities. I never said I was happy with it. Just stating that he did since it's related to the topic.

Yes the right word is relieved.  But he had an injury, he played the next week.  How does anyone know if that was not the start of of this latest one.  Obviously it might be the other leg! Lets remember he had a serious hamstring last season. And yes it's true medical science has improved, but to my mind such injured players are never the same. And gawd knows what they are like in later life. 

The game is faster and the men are as big as they used to be. And whilst we may not be bothered about it, it the same in RU.

We all carp against other clubs in one way or another, whether meaning to or half seriously. But I'm sure we hate to see injuries, and I believe we are getting too many. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes the right word is relieved.  But he had an injury, he played the next week.  How does anyone know if that was not the start of of this latest one.  Obviously it might be the other leg! Lets remember he had a serious hamstring last season. And yes it's true medical science has improved, but to my mind such injured players are never the same. And gawd knows what they are like in later life. 

The game is faster and the men are as big as they used to be. And whilst we may not be bothered about it, it the same in RU.

We all carp against other clubs in one way or another, whether meaning to or half seriously. But I'm sure we hate to see injuries, and I believe we are getting too many. 

 

 

Well it's possible I suppose, but if that injury he picked up in Australia did create a weakness then he went a year without showing any adverse effects. And as you say it might be a different leg anyway.

We should be doing all we can to prevent injuries, but often they just happen. This one to Connor was really a nothing incident. He just slid to field a kick and that was it. No 17 stone forward wrestling him in the tackle. No foul play. Just unlucky.

When all the stuff about concussions in the NFL started to come to light, a few players came out and basically said they don't care. The sport has given them a great life when they might have otherwise been stuck in a dead end job, or involved in a gang, or in jail etc. If that means they suffer dementure later in life then so be it.

That might seen callous, but I think there is something in that. RL players sadly aren't paid anywhere near what NFL stars earn, but it's still a privilege to play top level sport. If I had been good enough to play in SL I would have jumped at the chance. Even if it meant I needed a hip replacement at the age of 40, or couldn't climb stairs. Rugby League is just a dangerous sport by its nature, there is only so much we can do about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Given that Connor is better than Ellery, I am slightly surprised it isn’t 3 out of 10 of all time. Basically, it is Connor, daylight in the next 6 places, Sneyd, Alec Murphy and Kelly. 

Murphy? Not fit to lace Sneyd's boots. ?

In all seriousness though, looking around SL there aren't many that I would swap any of them for. All 3 would improve every other team imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lowdesert

Lowdesert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Given that Connor is better than Ellery, I am slightly surprised it isn’t 3 out of 10 of all time. Basically, it is Connor, daylight in the next 6 places, Sneyd, Alec Murphy and Kelly. 

I’m presuming that snipe is related to my recent post which was really aimed at giving Connor plenty of ball the same the GB coaches decided to do with Hanley.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Old Frightful

Old Frightful

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, MZH said:

Yep. If you listed the top 10 halves in SL we would have 3 of them imo.

And the best two wingers...

                                                                  :kolobok_sad:   Hull FC....The Sons of God....  :kolobok_sad:
                                                                     (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MZH

MZH

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

I’m presuming that snipe is related to my recent post which was really aimed at giving Connor plenty of ball the same the GB coaches decided to do with Hanley.

 

I think it was probably more to do with Denton saying that Connor has much more to his game than Hanley tbf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.