What's The Difference Between Having Injuries

[Redhyde]

The Malcolm Christie rumour has stirred up a concept I've never been able to grasp. What's the difference between a player who suffers injuries and a player who's injury prone?

We all "know" that Darren Anderton is injury prone, likewise Kieron Dyer is. We all know that Frank Lampard isn't. Those are easy.

So what's the line?

I've read that Malcolm Christie is injury prone, in reality he's had 6 injuries i could name in his career. Unfortuanately they've been big ones and have kept him out for some time. Is that injury prone or bad luck?

Some people on the forum believe Enoch is injury prone, judging by last season he is. If you look at his previous career though he's been available when selected pretty much all throughout his career. Is it simply last season that has earned him that tag? Again at what point do you say he's injury prone?

He played more games than Scott Murray in the last two seasons for example. So is Scott classed as injury prone?

And how long does it take to shake off the tag? How many years and games?

So who have we got that's injury prone? Steve Brooker is a gimme

[Dolman_Stand]

From reading the Christie thread my perception would be that broken / fractured bones would be considered bad luck as this could theoretically happen to anyone, whereas ligament, hamstring injuries seem more dependant on the individuals physical make-up i.e. Brooker would be injury prone as his body now dosen't seem capable of sustaining regular football.