[Archived] Is There Only Me And Mr Warnock Laughing Today

[philipl]

Yes 'drog, you are stuck in one of your ruts again.

On this occasion I agree it opens the door to corrupt practices but so do many things.

Quite simply define a weakened team.

Liverpool for instance have a fairly flat wage structure (Gerald excepted)- the team they played against Fulham would not have shown up as being dramatically under-paid.

It has been the case for as long as I can remember that there have been odd end of season results when "there has been Nothing to play for" for one team or another. Thankfully the extension of European places and place prize money means there are no meaningless games whereas back in the '60s there could easilly be over a hundred meaningless games every season.

Had Rovers been secure and playing relegation scrappers a week before the FA Cup Final, what would we have expected Mark Hughes to do? Put Bentley, MGP and Benni at risk of being kicked out of the game and the Final?

[thenodrog]

I just rem the days in the 60's and 70's when teams like LUFC and Liverpool were strongly warned by the FA against selecting weakened teams for certain fixtures. That is of course when the footballing authorities had real power to do so without the threat of high court actions and appeal upon appeal looming into the next season.

btw in answer to your last question ....I realise its a grey area but normally one or two players would be allowed to have 'knocks' in such circumstances, but certainly not half a team.

As far as defining a weakened team I guess the best way forward would be to appoint some sort of neutral panel to adjudicate. The threat would prob be enough to ensure that it wouldn't happen.

No doubt somebody will now suggest that it could leave the way open for teams to start with a full team and in our case Benni, Bentley and MGP could all pick up strains and knocks before half time.

btw what ruts?

[Grabbi Graeme]

Maybe it should be pointed out to Warnock that the Prem League is decided over 38 games, if Sheff Utd were good enough over a season then they would have stayed up on their own efforts and Liverpool playing a alleged weakened side would'nt have made any difference.

Sheff Utd are using Liverpool and West Ham as an excuse for their own failings.

[sussexrover]

That is generally true - however the argument that the best team stays up after 38 games is perhaps a bit simplistic.

West Ham stayed up because they were good enough with Tevez in their team (legitimately or not) - without him they quite possibly would not have

Fulham stayed up because they beat a weakened team - Sheffield United never had that chance - almost like a 3 point head start

[philipl]

This season really was a case of musical chairs- the music stopped after 38 games and Sheff U had lost their place:

15 West Ham 38 -24 41

16 Fulham 38 -22 39

17 Wigan 38 -22 38

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 Sheff Utd 38 -23 38

Relegated by one goal difference!

The financial interest in whether West Ham got docked points or not is clear to see for Wigan, Fulham, and Sheff U; all three stand to gain £475K each prize money if West Ham's punishment is found to be inappropriately light with the "prospect" of Sheff U surviving by one goal difference in the unlikely event that West Ham get docked three points.

My season's flash back is to the Jim Devine goal at Ewood- what a different tale it would have been had a hand ball, an offside or a ball not across the goal line been spotted. Any one of those three decisions given a different way and would West Ham have had the heart for their dramatics later in the season?

[thenodrog]

if West Ham's punishment is found to be inappropriately light with the "prospect" of Sheff U surviving by one goal difference in the unlikely event that West Ham get docked three points.

My season's flash back is to the Jim Devine goal at Ewood- what a different tale it would have been had a hand ball, an offside or a ball not across the goal line been spotted. Any one of those three decisions given a different way and would West Ham have had the heart for their dramatics later in the season?

I'm quite prepared to believe that Devine was bunged a wedge by the icelanders but Brads two penalty saves could easily be viewed in hindsight as the defining moment of their relegation season.

[brfc fan]

It's alright for the big four, they can rest they're whole side, possibly still with a chance of victory. I we rested all the first team we'd be thrashed. I think there should be a rule that makes bigger clubs think about this. :!:

[daren]

This argument is circular, as we can all see. First of all, if everyone always has to pick their "strongest team" then what the hell is the point in having a manager? Strongest team is a value judgement - the manager makes it. At times this season we've ALL been thinking "What the hell is <Insert Name Here> doing in the team?".

Would John O'Shea have scored the winner against Liverpool if there was some poxy "neutral panel"? A neutral panel would all have to come from Mars, or something, as well you couldn't find someone neutral to do the job unless you went to Mongolia or Darfour (or the US ). Match fixing is always a potential problem. It can be done subtly or blatantly, and it can be difficult to catch. For instance, in Spain, the Basque clubs traditionally get favourable results off each other if they're in relegation trouble. There's no money involved (no direct transfer of cash) but it's "match-fixing" nevertheless, surely? Even in the World Cup in 1990, Gullit (Holland) and McGrath (Ireland) agreed to stop attacking at 1-1 after 75 or so minutes, because both went through on that result. Match fixing? Sure, it is, but again, no cash changed hands. Is a gentlemans agreement open for prosecution?

This whole problem is intractable, unless it's blatant or money is caught moving we'll never know. It would be less of a problem if it was just pride at stake, rather than buckets of cash. Or maybe not less of a problem, but less of an issue.

For me, I reckon West Ham fielded an ineligible player AND misled the FA-Premiership and should have been docked points, if not demoted, anyway. But on the football field, West Ham stayed up because Sheffield United fell at the hurdle. End of story.