[Archived] Mick Mccarthy

[JC4LAB]

A hard game doesnt automatically mean you flop in the next so this is wrong..In fact a point,good performance or near win might have lifted them for Burnley..Stinks of doing Man U a favour gifting them three points without even trying to get a point from the match..Winning the championship relies on your comptetitors not taking three points from teams you are expected to beat..so the likes of Chelsea etc must be aggrieved and rightly so

[DaveyB]

First off, I don't agree with what McCarthy did, but as someone else has already said, I feel it's more a symptom of the problem than the cause of it.

And it has made me think - maybe this is what we need to get the competitiveness back into the Premier league. Let's face it, if every 'smaller' team did this, not just at OT, but also away at the rest of the Sky 4 it would force football to change, hopefully for the better.

Firstly, it might cause Sky and ESPN to show games that don't feature the 'Big 4' more frequently, as their games would be hopelessly uncompetitive (much like now tbh, but maybe even more so).

It would also eventually cause even those Big 4 clubs to want a change - they would be far less ready for CL games as they would not have relatively easy games to stroll through week in, week out. And maybe even they would start to struggle to fill their grounds - certainly no away fans would go, and I think maybe even home fans would stop being willing to pay as much, or just stop going altogether, as they would essentially be watching a reseve match.

So, in answer to the question, No I don't think he was right - but, ultimately, maybe it's not the beginning of the end for football, maybe it's the start of a revolution! Or perhaps I'm just an optimist...

[Eddie]

why

Because beating a big team doesn't make you a big team. I'm not defending his decision to rest players, I just don't think it should be illegal. On his head be it. If the fans and the board at Wolves have a problem with it then fine, but it shouldn't be an issue for the rest of us.

[den]

Really? I remember Ancelotti naming 9 of his 11 the other week in the press-conference before the game.

?

I said Martin Allen doesn't know the rules. The rules state that a club must play their strongest team at all times - so what's your point about Ancelotti got to do with that?

[Eddie]

I think he is focusing more on whether or not the side had been named before the kick-off.

[den]

I think he is focusing more on whether or not the side had been named before the kick-off.

Obviously.

[Amo]

I said Martin Allen doesn't know the rules. The rules state that a club must play their strongest team at all times - so what's your point about Ancelotti got to do with that?

Sorry, crossed wires.

Anyway, it's a pointless rule. How can you rule something that is entirely subjective?

[speeeeeeedie]

?

I said Martin Allen doesn't know the rules. The rules state that a club must play their strongest team at all times - so what's your point about Ancelotti got to do with that?

Define strongest? Should Berbatov play every game for Man U? The same with Robinho at City. They cost loads so they must be the strongest players they have. What if McCarthy said thay all had the flu? Or the team from the Spurs game all ate some dodgy food and had to stay in bed? They have a 1st team squad and all are deemed good enough to play.

McCarthy was right to do what he did. Fans that went to OT then complained that they didn't see quality want their heads seeing to. First off they are filling Man U's pockets, not Wolves, secondly should they not cheer on the club they support?

Part of me wants the FA to make an example out of this, so it will cause all sorts of issues.

Rovers lose to Bolton sending Portsmouth down. Pompey put a claim in because we didn't play Benni McCarthy - a Champs league winner.

Villa beat Champs league finalists Chelsea on the last day of the season to claim 4th. Spurs, who ended up 5th, put a claim in as Deco played instead of Ballack, Mikel instead of Essien, Joe Cole instead of Lampard, Kalou instead of Anelka, Alex instead of Carvalho, Bosingwa instead of Ivanovic, Hilario instead of Cech, and Ferreira instead of A Cole. To Rovers the replacements are all class players, but to Chelsea they are only 1st team squad players; just like the mob Wolves put out.

Joey big nose hit it for me too. Sort out the imbalance then teams won't have to resort to this.

[den]

Define strongest?

Obviously not the side that played at Manchester.

McCarthy was right to do what he did.

Well no, actually it was illegal.

Fans that went to OT then complained that they didn't see quality want their heads seeing to.

Why? They went to watch Wolves attempt to beat Utd, not hand them the game on a plate. What's your answer - allow this kind of thing to become regular, where people pay a shedload of money and then, unknowingly to them, watch their club concede the game?

Joey big nose hit it for me too. Sort out the imbalance then teams won't have to resort to this.

I think you'll find I said that right at the beginning of the discussion. That's the bigger issue.

Speeeeedie, I can't for the life of me see why rovers fans don't see past the Wolves game and visualise what this could mean for future of Prem football and the fans of all the clubs.

My flabber has never been so gasted. Rovers fans defending a lower PL club that has just played a game knowing, nay accepting defeat. You would accept rovers doing that? Forked tongue comes to mind.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Speeeeedie, I can't for the life of me see why rovers fans don't see past the Wolves game and visualise what this could mean for future of Prem football and the fans of all the clubs. That's all.

I think most fans acknowledge that there is a huge gulf in class and finance between those at the top and the rest. Problem is nothing is going to change. The only way i could ever see any parity is if every club in the league is owned by billionaires. If they wanted to the change the rules and regulations to make it a more fairer league then the big clubs will just block it or join some form of European super league.

We are stuck with the current system, might as well get used to it.

[bellamy11]

Say we play this team against somebody (I dunno, let's say Fulham or Sunderland) and beat them. It's not inconceiveable, although the defence is suspect. It could be argued that that is our best strikeforce and close to our strongest midfield.

Benni Di Santo

Dunn Grella Andrews Hoilett

Olsson Zurab Jones Salgado

Robbo

Should we be fined/fans get a refund for the lineup we played on Tuesday against Brum?

[den]

I think most fans acknowledge that there is a huge gulf in class and finance between those at the top and the rest. Problem is nothing is going to change. The only way i could ever see any parity is if every club in the league is owned by billionaires. If they wanted to the change the rules and regulations to make it a more fairer league then the big clubs will just block it or join some form of European super league.

We are stuck with the current system, might as well get used to it.

It isn't the "current system" we are talking about. It's about one PL club going in a completely different direction and handing the three points to another PL club.

I've said enough now. I just know you wouldn't accept rovers doing what Wolves did.

[RibbleValleyRover]

It isn't the "current system" we are talking about. It's about one PL club going in a completely different direction and handing the three points to another PL club.

I've said enough now. I just know you wouldn't accept rovers doing what Wolves did.

Wolves have taken a gamble, whether it pays off or not remains to be seen. If Rovers did it i wouldn't be happy, but at the end of the day the manager makes the decisions and their tenure will live or die by their actions, if Sam did the same thing then so be it.

[den]

Say we play this team against somebody (I dunno, let's say Fulham or Sunderland) and beat them. It's not inconceiveable, although the defence is suspect. It could be argued that that is our best strikeforce and close to our strongest midfield.

Benni Di Santo

Dunn Grella Andrews Hoilett

Olsson Zurab Jones Salgado

Robbo

Should we be fined/fans get a refund for the lineup we played on Tuesday against Brum?

Mark, it's not the rule, or interpretation of it that's the real debating point to me, because you are right - it's not an easy one for the PL to rule on. It's the fact that Wolves virtually handed the three points to Man Utd. They had no intention of contesting the game. It's the intentions behind that team selection that's the debating point. That's why the PL are looking at this one and not others.

You can field a weakened team and still intend to win the game. Rovers have done that regularly in the cup competitions. This one was different.

The thing is, the PL really had to look at it. Now they're doing that, they have to either accept that all clubs can give up on games, or try to stop it. Problems either way. Personally, I hope they charge Wolves and punish them, otherwise we could well see this becoming a regular occurrence. There's no way I want to see my club giving up on any game.

Interesting discussion though.

[Moppy]

I am glad MM has done this. I think it highlights something the big clubs have been doing for ages. When they have a Champion league game 4 days after the bottom of the league. They rest their key players. They do it as it gives them the best chance of doing well in both competitions. MM is doing the same here, doing what he thinks will give him the best chance in a competition - not just a single game. The scenario is basically the same!

Either its fine and allowed or not in both circumstances. Its bad for fans of clubs in both cases. And not just those of the clubs involved. i.e. in the big club scenario it gives more of a chance to the lower club hence giving them an advantage over their rival relegation candidates. And the 2nd has been done to death in this thread so i dont really need to add.

So if the league want to stop this, they have to apply a rule accross the board. i.e. Only x number of changes can be made from the last game, except where a fully recognised injury is varified by an independent doctor. Or if more than say 3 players are changed then x number should not be able to compete in ANY competition for 2 weeks. If the changes are for genuine injuries a 2 week rest shouldnt be a problem. And 3 changes should be enough for tactical/form reasons.

But the rule needs to be equal for all. And for the above I would say the rules should apply to match day squads not the first 11.

[CrazyIvan]

Mark, it's not the rule, or interpretation of it that's the real debating point to me, because you are right - it's not an easy one for the PL to rule on. It's the fact that Wolves virtually handed the three points to Man Utd. They had no intention of contesting the game. It's the intentions behind that team selection that's the debating point. That's why the PL are looking at this one and not others.

You can field a weakened team and still intend to win the game. Rovers have done that regularly in the cup competitions. This one was different.

The thing is, the PL really had to look at it. Now they're doing that, they have to either accept that all clubs can give up on games, or try to stop it. Problems either way. Personally, I hope they charge Wolves and punish them, otherwise we could well see this becoming a regular occurrence. There's no way I want to see my club giving up on any game.

Interesting discussion though.

I agree with you. If Rovers had done this, we'd be up in arms and some serious calling of heads would happen. I can promise that just based on what happens when we get beaten! I wouldn't accept it and I doubt anybody would say it was understandable and then say 'Oh well, that's the way it is. Anyway the first team would have lost...'. The first team may well have lost but that is really not the point. A couple of changes is ok in my mind. A few players may have needed a rest but all 10 outfield players? That's outrageous and wrong.

[den]

Good post and good suggestions Moppy. I too am Glad MM has done it. Everyone from the PL bosses to the club managers/CE's need to know that not competing is unacceptable.

[CrazyIvan]

I am glad MM has done this. I think it highlights something the big clubs have been doing for ages. When they have a Champion league game 4 days after the bottom of the league. They rest their key players. They do it as it gives them the best chance of doing well in both competitions. MM is doing the same here, doing what he thinks will give him the best chance in a competition - not just a single game. The scenario is basically the same!

Either its fine and allowed or not in both circumstances. Its bad for fans of clubs in both cases. And not just those of the clubs involved. i.e. in the big club scenario it gives more of a chance to the lower club hence giving them an advantage over their rival relegation candidates. And the 2nd has been done to death in this thread so i dont really need to add.

So if the league want to stop this, they have to apply a rule accross the board. i.e. Only x number of changes can be made from the last game, except where a fully recognised injury is varified by an independent doctor. Or if more than say 3 players are changed then x number should not be able to compete in ANY competition for 2 weeks. If the changes are for genuine injuries a 2 week rest shouldnt be a problem. And 3 changes should be enough for tactical/form reasons.

But the rule needs to be equal for all. And for the above I would say the rules should apply to match day squads not the first 11.

I disagree with this. Those teams who are in the Champions League have massive squads of top quality players. Changing your team between a game in the Premier League and the Champions League is something completely different from swapping all 10 outfield players between 2 Premier League games for a lower league side who have no other competition on the near horizon. The top sides have big squads to do just that, Mick McCarthy didn't sign all those players on the basis he might be playing in the Champions League this season did he? Between competitions is relatively ok but the way this was done is something completely different.

[Paul]

I agree with you. If Rovers had done this, we'd be up in arms and some serious calling of heads would happen. I can promise that just based on what happens when we get beaten! I wouldn't accept it and I doubt anybody would say it was understandable and then say 'Oh well, that's the way it is. Anyway the first team would have lost...'. The first team may well have lost but that is really not the point. A couple of changes is ok in my mind. A few players may have needed a rest but all 10 outfield players? That's outrageous and wrong.

I think you're quite right. I seem to remember a lot of outrage after our capitulation at Liverpool last season, a game in which we fielded a pretty good side but made no real attempt to win. I really cannot believe any Rovers fan would be prepared to accept putting out an entire reserve team away to a top four club. There is always a chance, targetting games in this way is just another form of the percentage football managers are beginning to adopt. Managers who target games are very foolish, because we all know there is always that unforseen event that turns a game, it may the only hope wolves had against Utd but stranger things have happened than Wolves winning at OT.

We are discussing sport and this means two things have to be considered; the objective is to win in any sport where two or more opponents face each other and secondly it's the taking part that counts. Taking part implies contributing to the overall sporting occassion, not trying to win contributes nothing to the game. Seems to me a lot of fans are swallowing the "it's a business these days" line. There are clearly many different aspects to the modern game but it is still a sport. If you don't try to win you're cheating the other participants. Pure and simple

I disagree with this. Those teams who are in the Champions League have massive squads of top quality players. Changing your team between a game in the Premier League and the Champions League is something completely different from swapping all 10 outfield players between 2 Premier League games for a lower league side who have no other competition on the near horizon. The top sides have big squads to do just that, Mick McCarthy didn't sign all those players on the basis he might be playing in the Champions League this season did he? Between competitions is relatively ok but the way this was done is something completely different.

Well said

[Rover Down Under]

I'd say it's very simple den. There's a large percentage of fans who won't give a monkey's about it, some will even defend the decision as in this thread, something which astonishes me. Fielding anything other than a team capable of winning the game, no matter how slim and I deliberatley avoid using the term "full-strength," is utterly wrong and completely indefensible. Anyone arguing otherwise has such a blinkered view of sport, or has been so tarnished by the PL, that it's impossible to have the debate.

That's all fine and dandy in theory Paul but lets try and bring in and debate the definition of "sport" before anything else. The current PL is not "sport", sport is about fairness, not just in rules but in relative equality of teams. To me the current situation is akin to a certain 4 or 5 teams being allowed to overdose on financial steroids and allowed to pummel the other 16 with impunity covered in lashings of bandwagon media ejaculatory praise. There is no "sport" in this. It is David v Goliath, Goths v Romans, Poland v Germany & USSR in 1939 etc.

Where do we draw a line? Some have mentioned we would be up in arms if Rovers did this. Well haven't we already? Is not 4-5-1 a capitulation? Does this not constitute "cheating" or fielding a "weak" team that does not seek to win? Winning is not a philosophy most PL teams live by now, survival is the key and as in nature adapting to the situation at hand is exactly how you ensure your continuity.

[philipl]

I think it is very clear that McCarthy acted in utmost bad faith.

To the Wolves and Man U fans attending the game in question.

To the clubs with whom Man U are in direct contention with at that end of the table

To the spirit of sportsmanship

If ever the game has been brought into disrepute, surely this is the instance.

[mellison24]

I think it is very clear that McCarthy acted in utmost bad faith.

To the Wolves and Man U fans attending the game in question.

To the clubs with whom Man U are in direct contention with at that end of the table

To the spirit of sportsmanship

If ever the game has been brought into disrepute, surely this is the instance.

Double standards. If you punish him for resting unfit players (mentally and physically) then yu punish every managerwho ever makes a change. I can understand the fans being mad, but as far as I;m concerned, Mick was well within his right to change his team as he see's fit. It's his job. If the fans don't like it then tough ######. We don't like what Allardyce does but we put up with it, because we have faith in his ability as a manager. I sincerely hope Wolves win 2moz so that he can shove 2-fingers up at his nay-sayers. He wasn't being unspioirtsmanlike in ANY way. It's called being tactical. ALL managers do it. ESPECIALLY the top sides. Now, just because Wolves aren't flying high, the media hates them for it.

[den]

Double standards. If you punish him for resting unfit players (mentally and physically) then yu punish every managerwho ever makes a change. I can understand the fans being mad, but as far as I;m concerned, Mick was well within his right to change his team as he see's fit. It's his job. If the fans don't like it then tough ######. We don't like what Allardyce does but we put up with it, because we have faith in his ability as a manager. I sincerely hope Wolves win 2moz so that he can shove 2-fingers up at his nay-sayers. He wasn't being unspioirtsmanlike in ANY way. It's called being tactical. ALL managers do it. ESPECIALLY the top sides. Now, just because Wolves aren't flying high, the media hates them for it.

You still don't see the difference between putting out a weakened team - yet still with the intentions of competing and hopefully winning, and McCarthy putting out a team that he decidedly knows will lose? It wasn't a case of resting a few players, it was a case of giving the game to Man Utd. There can be no other interpretation Mellison.

[JAL]

I think it is very clear that McCarthy acted in utmost bad faith.

To the Wolves and Man U fans attending the game in question.

To the clubs with whom Man U are in direct contention with at that end of the table

To the spirit of sportsmanship

If ever the game has been brought into disrepute, surely this is the instance.

Disagree philipl, Mick MaCarthy has shown up the premier league for being the non competitive league it has become.

Hats off to MaCarthy, fully hope Scudamore and co. are utterly embarrassed by this action and that other managers with weaker sides follow suit in the near future.

[philipl]

Double standards. If you punish him for resting unfit players (mentally and physically) then yu punish every managerwho ever makes a change. I can understand the fans being mad, but as far as I;m concerned, Mick was well within his right to change his team as he see's fit. It's his job. If the fans don't like it then tough ######. We don't like what Allardyce does but we put up with it, because we have faith in his ability as a manager. I sincerely hope Wolves win 2moz so that he can shove 2-fingers up at his nay-sayers. He wasn't being unspioirtsmanlike in ANY way. It's called being tactical. ALL managers do it. ESPECIALLY the top sides. Now, just because Wolves aren't flying high, the media hates them for it.

What has got into you?

Can't you tell that if splash a jug of water over you or shove you into seven foot of freezing water, there is a difference?

No doubt you'd say it was all water and just the same.