clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Roker Roundtable: Was it wise to make the injury to Sunderland’s Aiden McGeady public knowledge?

Sunderland fans were thrown off this week by the strange public announcement that Aiden McGeady is playing with a broken foot. Was it a wise decision to let that information get out, particularly ahead of Saturday’s game, or could there be more to it?

Getty Images

Q: What do you make of the decision to make Aiden McGeady’s injury public knowledge?

Damian Brown says...

Aiden McGeady strikes me as an old head in this game, and not the type to sabotage his own opportunities. The cynic in me wonders if this isn’t a calculated attempt to lure his opponents into underestimating him?

That’s only speculation of course but the reasoning is sound; he’s been round the block more than once, he knows how dependent we are on him, and I can’t for the life of me understand why he would highlight such an obvious weakness, nor why Ross would allow one of his best players to do so and inform the world that he’s given no recovery time and could easily be crocked at any given moment, rendering him completely useless for the final run-in. It just doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.

But assuming that it isn’t a smokescreen and he is in fact being completely (needlessly) honest, what else can I say but: what a f**king nightmare at this stage of our season.

I couldn’t possibly comment to say more than that because if it is indeed a fact that he’s injured and he’s revealed that with the blase attitude of a lad out on the drink. In fact, the more I speak about it the less I believe it. So, to be blunt, I think it’s a load of old b*ll*cks.

Getty Images

Chris Wynn says...

I can only think of two reasons why you make that public - either to avoid a negative reaction by the fans if he’s struggling or as a double bluff and he’s really not injured at all.

I think the second one is wishful thinking on my part, but unless you’re worried about fans getting on your back for not tracking back or getting a foot in etc, there’s every reason to keep it in-house.

If you’re an opposition full-back you’re over the moon that the best left sided player in the league, as voted by his peers, is not full strength.

Is there an argument that we should try and get him in a better place for the play-offs rather than push him during the remaining games?

It’s a fine line for what’s best for what is hopefully only three remaining games... I’m not sure my nerves are ready for potentially six.

Sunderland AFC via Getty Images

James Gutteridge says...

I’m not convinced that McGeady revealing his injury is the wisest decision.

It’s not a huge leap to think that a cynical opponent might decide to stamp on his foot at a set piece or go in that little bit harder in an early tackle and rule him out of a game.

That said, I love the level of commitment to play through such an injury and McGeady has still been outstanding.

As for allowing him to play, I’m not sure Jack Ross has much option when one of his few genuinely outstanding performers has made himself available to play. Sometimes managers might have to save players from themselves but McGeady is so crucial to Sunderland’s promotion hopes that leaving him out in order to preserve his long term fitness at the expense of current results almost wasn’t an option.