Our injury woes.

So Peter Hartley is the latest.  Are we just unlucky or is there more to it?  Our unkempt pitch for instance or our tiny squad which doesn't allow rest for niggles.  Or maybe as Derek seems to intimate at times there's a bit of feigning going on.  I suppose if I was facing unemployment in the summer I would do whatever to avoid serious injury, not suggesting this is the case of course.  Maybe we are just unlucky our injury prone players keep getting injured?

he was shit today it has to be said.

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

The same old Bollocks you've been coming out with after five years of shit! ... ps. you did'nt mention, stout knees, surrender Monkeys, Shoulder to Shoulder in the Trenches with Jimmy, Argo fans are shit, once? wassssssuppp!

....whilst yourself being entirely predictable you didn't mention X Throbber, brown nose or 'Newell's mate' once? wasssssuppp

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

has it though has it really done us well? last season if one player fell or returned to his club we struggled to replace him with a equally as good player from our squad to keep the team going and it cost us points and this season the same thing is happening.

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

The quality/quantity debate only holds if we are maxed out resource wise and I'll wager a pound to a penny that we are not spending all of the 55% of turnover on the team that the SCMP allows - so we are not maxed out. That in turn raises the question of where all of our money is going if it is not being spent on the team because with our attendances and pricing structure we should be swanking all over the shop like Billy Big Bollocks and we ain't.

The funding available then falls to the manager to do the best he can and there's always going to be a trade off between quality and quantity no matter who that manager might be.

However you look at it yesterday's team selection proved that we are short of numbers and it is a hard fact that if we had a bigger team budget then the manager would have made different decisions about the quality/quantity balance.

I suppose it all boils down to who you trust the most: manager or owner? And only one of them will carry the results obtained around on his CV forever so I can't accept that he'd want to be short of either of the Qs.

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a period of matches last season where we had insufficient players available to fill our bench? In fact, iirc we could only muster 3 or 4 subs for one match. Clearly lessons weren't learnt and the same lack of strengthening in January and short term loans strategy has been deployed again by the reluctant spender.

I think so Angry.

I don't recall five first team starters being crocked at once last season.

I also don't recall us falling out of the automatic places, this season or last season. Last season because we never got there, this season because we're still a healthy points margin above 4th.

Then there's the difference in general form. Last season it was feast then famine, this season the squad gets back on the horse quickly. We've not lost two on the bounce (league) all season so there's no evidence of a lack of players/quality causing the rug to be pulled out from under us.

As much as you'd like to if you're desperately seeking an underlying villain to blame, you can't compare the seasons, their paths are very different and this season is undeniably better.

Either way, fundamentally, the policies being attacked have been in place all season. So the bottom line is that one can't bemoan policies now that have seen us massively out perform last season up to now. To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

X Isle wrote:

I think so Angry.

I don't recall five first team starters being crocked at once last season.

I also don't recall us falling out of the automatic places, this season or last season. Last season because we never got there, this season because we're still a healthy points margin above 4th.

Then there's the difference in general form. Last season it was feast then famine, this season the squad gets back on the horse quickly. We've not lost two on the bounce (league) all season so there's no evidence of a lack of players/quality causing the rug to be pulled out from under us.

As much as you'd like to if you're desperately seeking an underlying villain to blame, you can't compare the seasons, their paths are very different and this season is undeniably better.

Either way, fundamentally, the policies being attacked have been in place all season. So the bottom line is that one can't bemoan policies now that have seen us massively out perform last season up to now. To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

I'll presume you were responding to me, not Angry.

I didn't say anything about 5 first teamers being crocked but when we lost many of our loan players back to their parent clubs, along with a few injuries and suspensions we were definitely short handed on the bench for a time. I'm almost certain it was last season but it could've been the one before, twas 100% under Shezzas reign.

As for your "policy being in place all season" spiel......many on here have been warning all season that the policy of short term loans coupled with the inevitable rise in injuries and suspensions and a barren Jan tran window would end in tears. And so it came to pass.

X Isle wrote:

To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

As compared, no doubt, with your legendary even handedness and faux conciliatory stone stepping.

Debate is debate. There's more of it here than across the river. And uncensored too.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

Problem one, when you have a small budget you have to take a chance on injury prone players or players returning from injury, always a gamble.
Problem two, our squad has been too small all season, it was predicted that by January we would struggle with injuries by our more senior posters and come to pass. WTF do we know though?
Problem three, we are too reliant on loan players, their parent clubs and no doubt the players themselves are reticent to be injured hence taking the safe route maybe with a slight knock instead of playing through it.
Problem four, short contracts, Brent has made all contracts as short as possible, players then think if he isn't making a 100% commitment to me and my career why should I commit to Brent?
One name is responsible, Brent, the buck stops with Brent, it's Brent's fault, we need Brunt replaed, we need McHugh replaced we need a full bench FFS, 10k at HP yesterday and the squad was the thinnest it's been since we were literally weeks post admin, for that Brent is to blame, it's Brent's fault.
Blame Brent, nobody else, just Brent.
Brent out.

But what if, by running a small squad, with loanees and short contracts we were able to bring in better quality players than we would otherwise have been able to within the context of a self sufficient ethos?

What if we had a manager who could work comfortably within the framework of the cards he's dealt and get the maximum possible out of them?

And what if that policy, I dunno, got us to the promotion places for months on end?

Compare and contrast to the previous seasons when we had more players, of lesser quality. Did we do any better?

Flippant devils advocatism there because clearly we're doing better under Adams.

Looked at pragmatically therefore there's really no need to start pointing fingers. By all means bemoan the bad luck of the injury pile up, but that's all it is, bad luck. It's not the fault of the squad size, loanee or contract policies which has done us very well to date...unless one retains an underlying agenda for 'anti this/that/other' of course.  

   

The quality/quantity debate only holds if we are maxed out resource wise and I'll wager a pound to a penny that we are not spending all of the 55% of turnover on the team that the SCMP allows - so we are not maxed out. That in turn raises the question of where all of our money is going if it is not being spent on the team because with our attendances and pricing structure we should be swanking all over the shop like Billy Big Bollocks and we ain't.

The funding available then falls to the manager to do the best he can and there's always going to be a trade off between quality and quantity no matter who that manager might be.

However you look at it yesterday's team selection proved that we are short of numbers and it is a hard fact that if we had a bigger team budget then the manager would have made different decisions about the quality/quantity balance.

I suppose it all boils down to who you trust the most: manager or owner? And only one of them will carry the results obtained around on his CV forever so I can't accept that he'd want to be short of either of the Qs.

On the funds front I can't comment on what you think about budgets and available funds, that's your opinion. I have been consistent in my belief that a sustainable model is best for our club given it's fanbase history. I will qualify that (as it's ATD ) that's not 'toeing the owners line' I would say that under ANY owner, past present or future.

All I would observe is that neither of us know the pounds, shillings and pence of the club/owners finances so it all boils down to uninformed speculation on both sides. You say there's a black hole in the finances, I get the impression that, above and beyond debt repayments, which we are still paying don't forget, money was spent on fewer but better key players. But hey, as was always thus, you say potato, I say potato. We'll get nowhere convincing each other to the contrary, so why try.

Going on to yesterdays team selection as your example of how we're 'in the same boat' as last season. For me it shows the exact opposite. As I replied to Angry (it took so bleddy long on my mobile I've now fired up the computer), last season five first teamers out would have floored us, we were frequently floored by loanee/injury/suspension disruptions. OK so we didn't have a full bench but, even with a pre game injury shuffle and yet another 'in game' injury shuffle those who came in matched an injury free Oxford side in good form and we got a deserved draw in a high stakes six pointer. I fail to see how that does anything but demonstrate we have more quality available than we did. And that's happened consistently all season, we've ditched Sheridan's 'feast or famine', we're more resilient to loanee/injury/suspension disruptions.

Les Miserable wrote:

...Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a period of matches last season where we had insufficient players available to fill our bench? In fact, iirc we  could only muster 3 or 4 subs for one match. Clearly lessons weren't learnt and the same lack of strengthening in January and short term loans strategy has been deployed again by the reluctant spender.

See above sir, I disagree. Yes we had only six subs yesterday but we never faced a situation last season where four first teamers were crocked pre game, then five by the end of the game. The situation is different IMO.

Les Miserable wrote:

X Isle wrote:

I think so Angry.

I don't recall five first team starters being crocked at once last season.

I also don't recall us falling out of the automatic places, this season or last season. Last season because we never got there, this season because we're still a healthy points margin above 4th.

Then there's the difference in general form. Last season it was feast then famine, this season the squad gets back on the horse quickly. We've not lost two on the bounce (league) all season so there's no evidence of a lack of players/quality causing the rug to be pulled out from under us.

As much as you'd like to if you're desperately seeking an underlying villain to blame, you can't compare the seasons, their paths are very different and this season is undeniably better.

Either way, fundamentally, the policies being attacked have been in place all season. So the bottom line is that one can't bemoan policies now that have seen us massively out perform last season up to now. To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

I'll presume you were responding to me, not Angry.

I didn't say anything about 5 first teamers being crocked but when we lost many of our loan players back to their parent clubs, along with a few injuries and suspensions we were definitely short handed on the bench for a time. I'm almost certain it was last season but it could've been the one before, twas 100% under Shezzas reign.

As for your "policy being in place all season" spiel......many on here have been warning all season that the policy of short term loans coupled with the inevitable rise in injuries and suspensions and a barren Jan tran window would end in tears. And so it came to pass.

Sorry, I can't account for your tears but I'm not crying.

Like my reply to Sir Franny it's a longstanding potato v potato situation...the glass half empty/full thing. I gave PASOTI a rest this weekend because of the pathetic reactionary wrist slitting going on...it's far easier on here because that way of thinking is endemic already, you're gloriously (if slightly unfathomably) consistent

On Saturday at 5pm though we could be ten points clear of the play-offs (Stanley v Scum draw then we beat Stanley). That's what a glass half full outlook gives you. That'd be a fantastic position to be in.

Conversely you guys will be looking at a Stanley win on Tuesday and Saturday and us just two points from the play-offs. I retain more faith in you guys to believe you actually want that, I'm just observing what the glass half empty view of the situation might look like. But even that, whilst it'd be disappointing, wouldn't be cause to take a cyanide pill.

We've had a very bad run of injuries. That's luck, bad luck, but that's all it is. I'd far rather though look to the spirited and capable performance from the squad yesterday in overcoming the shitty stick we've been handed than navel gaze or finger point looking for someone to blame.

We're still in the race and win, lose or draw next Saturday we'll STILL be in the race.

Positive thinking rarely scores approval over here, I know that, but I'm not going to deviate from my belief or outlook to try and 'fit in'...I think we've all established that'll never happen

Ffs, talk about swerving the question. Hey ho.

Lord Biro wrote:

X Isle wrote:

To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

As compared, no doubt, with your legendary even handedness and faux conciliatory stone stepping.

Debate is debate. There's more of it here than across the river. And uncensored too.

WTF, what exactly would be the point of trying to be conciliatory?

None, which is why I'm my own man, consistent wherever I choose to post.

I'm here for as wide a possible spread of views. It doesn't mean I have to agree with anyone, but even handed it is...more even handed than folk who just sit on one side of the site divide or the other throwing excrement over no mans land.

Debate is debate?, Hmmm. The reason I read this site much more than I post is only because "we're a bit shit" versus "no, we're incredibly shit", whilst indeed qualifying as a debate on a dictionary definition level, is actually on the narrow side of the debating spectrum. Don't get me wrong I love ADT, the Argyle world would be a poorer place without it, but come on, let's not kid ourselves it's a universally broad church

Les Miserable wrote:

Ffs, talk about swerving the question. Hey ho.

There's only one question in your posts. I answered it.

The rest were statements of your opinion, I am unable to assist you with how or why you form those

X Isle wrote:

Don't get me wrong I love ADT

Oh piss off with the Newellism's

X Isle wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Ffs, talk about swerving the question. Hey ho.

There's only one question in your posts. I answered it.

The rest were statements of your opinion, I am unable to assist you with how or why you form those  

No, you didn't. My primary question in response to your claim that we had more players in previous seasons, as opposed to your theory that this season we were doing things differently was..........."Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a period of matches last season where we had insufficient players available to fill our bench? In fact, iirc we could only muster 3 or 4 subs for one match. Clearly lessons weren't learnt and the same lack of strengthening in January and short term loans strategy has been deployed again by the reluctant spender".

Please try to answer the part regarding lack of players to fill the bench in previous seasons.

I am not anti the club being sustainably run either. You'll have to look long and hard to find a post I've made where I have advocated anything of the sort and once you've undertaken a few hours of fruitless search you'll give up and realise you've wasted your time.

That's a classic Straw Man argument on your part: focus on something of your own invention and then rubbish it.

And why would adhering to the rules and regs by spending all of the permissable 55% of turnover be unsustainable anyway?

And if there's nothing to hide regarding that 55% then why not publish proper accounts so that we could have a much better, more informed debate?

The absence of evidence regarding chicanery is not the same thing as evidence of the absence of chicanery.

As for a financial "black hole" (your phrase not mine) if there is no variant of such a thing then why could we not afford to pay for the iconic art deco facade to be painted, to buy the youth team a video camera, to have competent groundsmen, a planned ground maintenance programme and so on... Are these things not entirely predictable and justifiable things that a well-run, properly resourced club should easily be able to settle without pleading poverty?

X Isle wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

X Isle wrote:

To do so would not be even handed, but then the lack of even handedness comes as no surprise to me on either website.

As compared, no doubt, with your legendary even handedness and faux conciliatory stone stepping.

Debate is debate. There's more of it here than across the river. And uncensored too.

WTF, what exactly would be the point of trying to be conciliatory?  

An instrument of debate. Which is what you do. It doesn't have to be effective or believable, it just has to be offered as evidence of evenhandedness beyond comparison. One can only hope to come close to 7th place in the UK evenhandedness league two to such overwhelming balance. In the end, you do no more than Newell, you follow the wind that fills your own sails, with scant to no regard to the community project itself.
I happen to have always been a fan of small squads. However, I believe that a full sub bench is an absolute minimum. There is such a thing as an emergency loan. The owner has obviously seen fit to allow such an unprofessional situation to develop. Just what effect do you think that will have on the thoughts of the rest of the players ?

Les Miserable wrote:

X Isle wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Ffs, talk about swerving the question. Hey ho.

There's only one question in your posts. I answered it.

The rest were statements of your opinion, I am unable to assist you with how or why you form those  

No, you didn't. My primary question in response to your claim that we had more players in previous seasons, as opposed to your theory that this season we were doing things differently was..........."Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there a period of matches last season where we had insufficient players available to fill our bench? In fact, iirc we could only muster 3 or 4 subs for one match. Clearly lessons weren't learnt and the same lack of strengthening in January and short term loans strategy has been deployed again by the reluctant spender".

Please try to answer the part regarding lack of players to fill the bench in previous seasons.

Here's what I replied....

X Isle wrote:

See above sir, I disagree. Yes we had only six subs yesterday but we never faced a situation last season where four first teamers were crocked pre game, then five by the end of the game. The situation is different IMO.    

You 'see above'?... didn't you?

In both my response to you and Sir Franny did the penny at no point that with my pointing out of the different circumstances of the respective circumstances over the seasons that I was not, in any way, contesting the fact that it has happened before?

If you need it spelt out then... YES, IT HAPPENED BEFORE.

Of course, feel free to ignore, as you clearly already have, the contextual differences.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The absence of evidence regarding chicanery is not the same thing as evidence of the absence of chicanery.

Too right Frank. And this one simple thought is what most communally accepted science is based on. Everything depends on what subjects you actually fund to be evidentially examined, and which ones you forbid testing. It's why science is no more than the latest Church struttng it's stuff as incontrovertibly true, which of course, it isn't.

Hear no evil, see no evil, fear no evil.

Your going to get the team your attitude deserves you hollow eyed sap.