Kartoffel wrote: I didnt see JC make the comment. But my response is straightforward. Nobody contracts the flu and plays a professional football match at the level of intensity of a City-Dundalk game 2-3 days later.
So, one of 2 options:
1. We didnt have a match for 11 days. Maybe JC was referring to a situation where McNamee contracted the flu last weekend or even earlier, and was still suffering during the week (in other words, he still "had the flu" during the week), and just about recovered in time for Friday night (which would be about a 5-6 day period from initial contraction to playing the match, or possibly more); or
2. If JC were actually suggesting that McNamee "contracted" the flu during the week, then he would be engaging in that incredibly annoying "oh i had a bit of flu for 2 days but now i'm okay" talk.
However, the fact that there was 11 days between matches, i would assume it was the first case (unlike the suggestion of SK that Adorjan played 90 mins of professional football on the wednesday, contracted the flu thursday, and played another professional football match Sunday.
Out of interest, do you have the JC interview to hand? Id like to see the context. I hope he wasnt using it as an excuse! There was no excusing that performance really. We were beaten all over the park, and whether or not McNamee was under the weather shouldnt excuse that. I think Benno being missing was a big factor - once McNulty made the howler, Benno's calming influence was just what we needed. I was a bit disappointed with McCormack losing the head - game was over after 15 minutes.
There is another far more likely reason for JC's flu comment about McNamee:
He was spinning BS! (you have already alluded to the fact that Caulfield tends to be dishonest in post match interviews). It was most likely a simple selection choice - by reverting to his natural cautious instincts he selected Buckley instead of McNamee, but felt unable to say so
My guess is that this was the first Barry McNamee knew of having flu