or he wasn't fit so shouldn't have played no difference in starting for thirty mins and coming on 2nd half for thirty mins in my book is there ?
Better to start him for 30 minutes and then sub off due to him running out of fuel or picking up yet another injury.
What if he comes on as a 3:rd sub in the second half and gets injured - not that impossible a scenario is it? Great to end the game playing with only 10 men!
When you know you are going to play him for 30 mins, it's not because you know that he is going to get injured, but because he is not match fit. No responsible manager will start an unfit player knowing that he will be subbed after 30 mins.
That is maybe the fact with the majority of all players, but IMO not with poor "Studs". You just never know when he will get injured again.
OK you could perhaps sub him on for the last 30 minutes of the game, but NOT as the last sub! 1:st or 2:nd would be fine for me, but not the last sub - for the reason explained above.
But as Sixties has already stated: Why not put him on from get go and hope to get the game kick started! After all he is usually quality - the best we have. His problem isn't game pace (which usually drops in the second half) - it's injuries as we all know.
For me no set back in getting him on for the first 30 minutes or so!
