Hargreaves’ belated blame game & PR gaffe fails to be supported his injury history

One of Hargreaves best moments in the 2007/08 season - his match winning free-kick against Arsenal at Old Trafford

As the lead name in the world of PR, Max Clifford can smell a public relations gaffe from a distance. Manchester City’s Owen Hargreaves might be hoping that he’d had his presence around him before he went public to criticise his former team’s medical handling of him. Does Hargreaves’ medical analysis stack up?

A look back at the facts of Hargreaves’ injury history might vindicate United’s medical staff and prove his comments ill-advised.

In 2006, whilst playing for Bayern Munich, Hargreaves suffered a broken leg which saw him make a quicker than expected recovery, just in time to return for his club’s knockout battle against Real Madrid that season.

He then joined United for £17m in 2007, where he made 34 appearances in a league and European cup double success for his side. He showed exactly why he was much coveted by Ferguson as the midfield destroyer needed to succeed in Europe. There is no doubt that he played a major role in that season’s triumphs.

In a game against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge the following season began Hargreaves’ injury nightmare, where soon he travelled to the US to meet renowned surgeon Richard Steadman, hoping after succeeding in healing Alan Shearer and Ruud van Nistelrooy, Steadman would help him make a return to his club’s starting line up.

In an interview with the Daily Mail in 2009, Hargreaves revealed the surgeon’s morale sapping assessment of the former’s tendon: “Getting the diagnosis from Dr Steadman was a dark day. When I got to the clinic he said, “I’ve rarely seen a tendon look like that in my 35 years of working”.

In that interview, Steadman confirmed to him that his speedy recovery from his broken leg had been a reason why he had continued to suffer pain in his tendons.

A brief appearance for United at Sunderland at the end of the 2010 season was a false hope as he spent more time on the sidelines, misery capitulated by a four minute spell in a home game against Wolves. Hargreaves in the recent interview, admitted he wasn’t ready and hinted he was pressured into the game.

Thinking logically, it may be slightly truthful that United, keen to see him back in the side after a frustrating time out for both Hargreaves and his manager, might have pushed him ahead to play. But the point remains, a footballer is the only person – despite all the medical assistance – of knowing whether his body can sustain a 90 minute match. The Canadian born player should have asserted his view that he may not be ready.

Complaining of the injections he was advised to have by United’s medical staff, the latter can only work to what they feel is best, being educated in that profession. To some extent, any players follow the advice of the professionals. But as Steadman rightly noted, the broken leg suffered in 2006, the refusal to stop playing to allow himself a full recovery, damaging the tendons further by playing in his first full season at United should be the main reasons at the forefront of Hargreaves’ mind when looking back at this time out.

On the face of it, it is only correct for heartfelt sympathy – from all football supporters – for Hargraves, who has endured a horrendous spell on the sidelines since 2008. This has only allowed the former Bayern Munich midfielder only 12 minutes on the pitch in two years, a stat which must have been heavily in Sir Alex Ferguson’s mind when the Scot allowed Hargreaves to leave on a free transfer this summer.

With managers in the league not keen to gamble on his fitness, Hargreaves’ next move was limited – with all due respect – to mid-table mediocrity before United’s city rivals, sensing a chance to bring in an experienced European campaigner, stepped in to give him an unexpected lifeline to play at the top level.

Unlike Tevez’s transfer to City, which was filled with continual rants against his perceived treatment by United and the manager, Hargreaves’ move was received with a quiet acceptance and relief by United supporters that the 30-year-old will be able to get minutes on the pitch, albeit it with their local rivals.

He made a first start of his new club in the Carling Cup against Birmingham City at the Etihad Stadium, with a bonus of getting on the scoresheet with a brilliant right foot strike from the edge of the box that flew into the net. A vindication for Hargreaves that all the rehabilitation had finally paid off with playing football again.

A few days later, the euphoria of taking part again had been overshadowed by various quotes attributed to Hargreaves where he described himself as a “guinea pig” at the beck and call of United’s medical advice.

As expected, United – via their manager and a press statement on Friday – responded with full confidence in their medical team, but Hargreaves comments has not only stoked the flames further in a United-City clash but penetrated some ill feeling in United fans’ heart towards Hargreaves.

Whether his comments were designed to curry support from his new fans or if it was a genuine opinion to release frustration over his time on the sidelines, it is clear that Hargreaves would have been better remaining silent than speaking on the past.

Why the IPL, lack of preparation must be looked at the Indian cricket board for the England debacle

Dhoni's captaincy is safe after his World Cup heroics but he must face the challenge of evolution head on

As he makes the final preparations for tomorrow’s third one-day international against England, Indian captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni will be hoping that his side can restore some pride to what has been a damp squib of a tour compared to the bright rays of excitement that the cricketing world was expecting. A post-mortem should begin with questions asked of his board.

Enough has been written, listened and discussed about India’s abysmal performances since arriving in England a few months ago, after dispatching another South Asian team, Sri Lanka, England stormed to a series whitewash in the Test format before breaking into a 2-0 lead in the 50-over format, an area of their game which is supposed to be the weakest.

One has to sympathise with India, who’ve been left debilitated by injuries to key players – Zaheer Khan the most crucial – but the blame lies just as much on the cricketing bureaucrats in India as it does on captain Dhoni’s head.

On April 2^nd, the Mumbai skyline was littered with loud and visually exuberant fire works as India celebrated winning their second World Cup in their history and their poster-boy turned captain Dhoni was the centre of attention, and rightly so. Having been installed captain in 2007 and guided India to becoming world champions in the 20/20 format in the same year, the pinnacle of his captaincy had seen him bring unashamed joy for his fellow Indians by bringing the World Cup back to the sub-continent.

Celebrations for an Indian victory that had previously eluded them for 28 years only lasted ONE week as the majority of the Indian World Cup winning squad were disembarking to different parts of the country to represent their franchises in the Indian Premier League (IPL).

For what seemed an eternity, the Indian players had to quickly re-adjust their minds to playing 20/20 cricket without an opportunity to really come to terms with what they had achieved.

Dhoni, seemed unaware of what his cricketing brain was going through, evident by guiding his Chennai Super Kings to a second successive victory, a sign perhaps that the victory in Mumbai only energised the 30-year-old to gain more medals for his trophy cabinet.

Cricketers, – of all countries – unlike football players, are not in control of their own destiny. They can’t pick and choose which teams to represent whenever they fancy or just because another club offers a bigger pay packet. Mainly because they are representing their countries in this instance but also because central contracts dictate their schedule. The greed of the Indian cricket board to maximise the incoming cash flow through the cricket following of its one billion population has lead to the huge commercialisation of the 20/20 format which was once, a laidback and enjoyable system for players to play in.

At the conclusion of the recent IPL, talk was already brewing in the media of saturation but it remains doubtful whether the board of India will listen to any thought of a break or a reduction in the IPL schedule.

Whether the realisation of losing their Test number one ranking and the growing list of injuries to key players will make the Indian board assess the schedule, and follow England’s example – rotation of star players.

Kevin Pietersen, who racked up 533 runs in the successful Test series, was given a rest from the subsequent one-day internationals. Due to injuries, India don’t have that luxury but had they not had the IPL, would the likes of Khan broken down?

India arrived in England with only one tour game arranged – which was disrupted by the weather – and former captain Saurav Ganguly noted the lack of preparation as a reason for their poor performance.

The lack of game time a possible reason why their main bowler Khan was injured in the first Test and ruled out for the remainder of the tour, whilst his team-mates suffered the saddening fate of injuries ending their tours aswell.

India – their board, cricketers and coaching staff will hope they will be able to restore some pride tomorrow and finish the tour on an uplifting note.

 

If not, many observers hope that this will kick start a revolution within the upper echelons of Indian management to look critically within themselves, with the end result that their players will be the ones to benefit.