Why was it such a risky signing? So he did an ACL last year, so what? I'm not aware of it being a recurrent problem throughout his career. He was only 31 when he did it and is only 32 now, his capacity to recover from that injury would not be noticeably different from someone in their mid to late 20's. His odds were good to make a recovery, especially given they took a conservative approach to the surgery and to bringing him back.
Sure there was some risk and unfortunately it has been realised but people carrying on like it was inevitable and they "knew it was going to happen" are just being dicks to be honest. There's all kinds of risks that go with recruitment. I'm sure they took advice from doctors on the odds of recovery and made a call accordingly.
As I was trying to craft my own reply I saw this and thought Nelson's done it for me. I agree.
No one that I can remember saying that they "knew "it would happen,
A lot is us said it was a " big risk "to sign him ,especially as it was mainly a strategy from Taylor to try and make Farah think that he would be in reserves. .
Farah called his Bluff and away we go with a signing that was likely to be wasted.
If you've ever had a knee reco, you would know that there was a big risk to that knee again, as well as more chance at that age, of having problems with knees that had a previous injury or even knees that hadn't. Manly last year had reservations about him being able to recover, and they were proved correct.
No one knew for sure, but we jumped in anyway.
Now it looks like we'll tie up a spot in our top team for someone who's had TWO and will be 33\. As I said, Looney Toons is alive and well at WTs ( if true)