Is fit enough for the bench actually...

[Liberal Hibby]

...fit enough for the whole 90 mins?

There's been many people critical of CC for playng the same defence on Saturday as v Killie where it shipped four goals. The criricism is justified for the reason that if O'Hanlon was fit enought to be on the bench he was fit enough to play.

I'm neither a doctor or football manager, but is this really so? I'm not sure how one goes from being injured to being fully match fit without some intermediate stage.

[PeterboroHibee]

I think its alot of rubbish when people say that. O'Hanlons just back from injury, he most likely isnt up to match fitness, what reason would there be to not start him? Hes on the bench incase we either need him through a couple of injuries at the back, or to get some time at the end of the game. Given that we were chasing the game, we arent going to bring a CB on.

[Sir David Gray]

What would have happened if David Stephens or Paul Hanlon had got injured in the first minute of yesterday's match? Sean O'Hanlon would have had to come on and play for almost 90 minutes. When you're a substitute you've got to be prepared for all eventualities and coming on after a couple of minutes is one of those things.

The week before at Kilmarnock, he wasn't on the bench because he obviously wasn't fit enough to play. Yesterday he was on the bench so he obviously was.

I can understand why there may be a preference for easing someone back into the side after a few weeks out injured but when the defence put in such a shocking display last week, it makes no sense to keep the same back four when O'Hanlon was clearly fit enough to be included on the bench.

[lucky]

Just another baffling decision by CC

[greenlex]

Whafs the probem? The goals were gifted by Booth and Pallson. Would a half fit full fit O'Hanlon made a difference yesterday. Yes he will be better throughout the game talking to the inexperienced defenders(actually the whole team hopefully) but it may not have stopped the goals. We can only hope the "culprits" have learned from their mistakes. Is questioning why he was on the bench just another stick ti beat Calderwood with? Are we trying to say this is one of te reasons for the defeat?

[hibbytam]

It's not that unusual to have someone that has just came back from injury to be on the bench, with the possibility of giving them 25-20 mins. game time if things are going well.

There's a lot to beat Calderwood with already, I don't think this stick is needed.

[Sir David Gray]

Whafs the probem? The gials were gufted bt Booth and Pallson. Would a half fit full fit O'Hanlon made a dufference yesterday. Yes he will be better throughout the game talking to the inexperienced defenders(actually the whole team hopefully) but it may not have stopded the goals. We can only hope the "culprits have kearned from their mistskes.
Is questioning why he was on the bench just another stick ti beat Cakderwoid with? Are we trying to say this is one of te reasons for the defeat?

It's time to stop the drinking! :greengrin

[greenlex]

It's time to stop the drinking! :greengrin Big fingers wee phone. Sorted. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Your fitness deteriorates quite rapidly when you stop training. If someone is out for a couple of weeks and has only done some light training then imo you can be fit enough for the bench but not for the full game.

As for someone being injured in the first minute that's just a risk the manager is prepared to take.

The alternative might be no ch or a young player not deemed good enough.

[MB62]

What would have happened if David Stephens or Paul Hanlon had got injured in the first minute of yesterday's match? Sean O'Hanlon would have had to come on and play for almost 90 minutes. When you're a substitute you've got to be prepared for all eventualities and coming on after a couple of minutes is one of those things.

The week before at Kilmarnock, he wasn't on the bench because he obviously wasn't fit enough to play. Yesterday he was on the bench so he obviously was.

I can understand why there may be a preference for easing someone back into the side after a few weeks out injured but when the defence put in such a shocking display last week, it makes no sense to keep the same back four when O'Hanlon was clearly fit enough to be included on the bench.

We had both Murray and Palsson who would have been able to step in to the centre half position without having to call on the services of O'Hanlon.
Many more things to worry about with this Hibs team than O'Hanlon sitting on the bench I'm afraid.

[Cropley10]

What would have happened if David Stephens or Paul Hanlon had got injured in the first minute of yesterday's match? Sean O'Hanlon would have had to come on and play for almost 90 minutes.

The likelihood of that happening though is very, very small - and is therefore a risk worth taking.

I don't agree with this if you're fit enough for the bench argument - O'Hanlon might be described as walking wounded, walking wounded offer something that is better than nothing. He was there as emergency cover.

As others have said - 3 nil up and cruising might have given the chance to give him 20 minutes.