[Archived] Mick Mccarthy

[den]

What about the Rovers fans who paid for Arsenal and Liverpool last season? What about the United fans who paid to see the kids play last season against Hull?

Rovers made 10 outfield changes for those two games did they?

Thought not.

[Eddie]

No, but then ticket prices are simply too high. I love watching Rovers, but I won't go to Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge anymore to do it unless it's a cup game or particularly important match. I've been a few times and all I've managed as far as seeing us get a point is one 0-0 draw at Chelsea around 5/6 years ago now?

Where does that stop if you take that line of thinking? Most teams lose home and away against the big four, but particularly away. If the manager picks the wrong tactics should we refuse? We were thumped at Chelsea this season, worse than what happened to Wolves, but that was a strong side that we put out. Is that worse than fielding your second-string and being beaten? Did we walk away and think "well, that was horrible, but at least we tried!".

Your argument touches on a more serious problem facing premier league football, one that needs to be addressed, but it isn't only exposed by what happened on Tuesday night.

I give Wolves fans every right to be upset and if they had called for McCarthy's head that would have been fine by me, that's the right of a supporter. I just don't think it has anything to do with the league or other clubs. Teams are in charge of themselves. I trust that if Wolves fans were unhappy enough with McCarthy he would be gone. Fact is he has a promoted side, one that most predicted to go down, sitting in 13th spot right now.

[S15]

Rovers made 10 outfield changes for those two games did they?

Thought not.

Is it different to send out a 'weakened' team who will give their all as to send out your 'strongest' team who clearly have no intention of winning the match?

[den]

It's an interesting one.

I remember under Souness when we went to Arsenal in the FA Cup quarter final. We played an understrength team that day, resting a number of first team players. However, the players played very well that day and we ended up getting promoted.

Nobody complained, but we surrendered our place in the FA Cup at such an advanced stage of the competition.

Is this different?

The whole point is Shillito, that now the PL has asked Wolves for their comments regarding their team selection, the PL will now have to either

a] Accept Wolves's team selection. However, that would from then on, allow all clubs to put out teams that simply don't compete for the three points, at will. [ripping off supporters who pay a tremendous amount of money following their teams throughout the season]

or

b] Charge them.

Maybe the PL are wishing they had just ignored the situation.

Is it different to send out a 'weakened' team who will give their all as to send out your 'strongest' team who clearly have no intention of winning the match?

I don't think a team has played a game hoping not to win it. Do you?

[American]

Rovers made 10 outfield changes for those two games did they?

Thought not.

But neither of us went there to win. What's the difference? As someone asked earlier, how many changes are allowed? (And I like how you ignore the Hull/United match as United made a large number of outfield changes.)

[S15]

I couldn't give a s**t about that, I have no respect for the PL or their decisions as they'll just let it dither away and not do anything.

The entire thing is an interesting discussion for us though.

[Hasta]

The Premier League can't do anything because they let Liverpool off for making 9 changes back in 2007 before the Champions League final when they got beat at Fulham. That actually kept Fulham up. A defeat or draw would have seen them relegated instead of Sheff Utd.

Nothing happened to Liverpool so nothing can happen to Wolves now unless it's more gross double standards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6602879.stm

[den]

I couldn't give a s**t about that, I have no respect for the PL or their decisions as they'll just let it dither away and not do anything.

In that case all clubs will have the license to play youth players in games they don't think they can win.

How can that be right?

The Premier League can't do anything because they let Liverpool off for making 9 changes back in 2007 before the Champions League final when they got beat at Fulham. That actually kept Fulham up. A defeat or draw would have seen them relegated instead of Sheff Utd.

Nothing happened to Liverpool so nothing can happen to Wolves now unless it's more gross double standards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6602879.stm

This is the whole point I'm trying to make. If they don't charge Wolves, it's open house. A lot of people say they accept that, but if they were affected they wouldn't be too happy. They would be screaming from the rooftops.

[S15]

Two points.

1. If any manager thinks any game is un-winnable after this season, then it is their personality and employability needs questioning more than the rules.

2. The youth player point seems irrelevant as that hasn't actually happened.

[den]

Two points.

1. If any manager thinks any game is un-winnable after this season, then it is their personality and employability needs questioning more than the rules.

2. The youth player point seems irrelevant as that hasn't actually happened.

OK

1. If McCarthy thought they had a chance of beating Utd, he would have had to have played his strongest team wouldn't he?

2. Yet.

[S15]

1. Which asks more questions of McCarthy than the rules. Has this manager ever spent a season in this league that hasn't ended in relegation?

2. This wont happen as no manager would destroy a young players confidence by sending them out to Old Trafford to be slaughtered.

[den]

2. This wont happen as no manager would destroy a young players confidence by sending them out to Old Trafford to be slaughtered.

No it probably wont. Using youth team players as an example was a bit OTT.

Insert "reserves" instead.

[den]

What about the Rovers fans who paid for Arsenal and Liverpool last season? What about the United fans who paid to see the kids play last season against Hull?

American, me and you are debating different points. You're arguing that charging Wolves would be unfair because clubs have fielded weakened teams in the past. I don't think anyone has fielded 10 different outfield players before, but I'm not really bothered about that. I'm saying that now the PL has asked Wolves for their comments on the team selection against MU, the best outcome for the supporters would be to charge them.

[S15]

So having the manager not free to select his teams in what he perceives to be the best interest of the clubs season is the best outcome for the fans?

[den]

So having the manager not free to select his teams in what he perceives to be the best interest of the clubs season is the best outcome for the fans?

That's not the case is it. Managers are free to rotate their squad. It's the 10 outfield replacements, coupled with the reaction of the fans that has caused it to come to the attention of the PL.

It's not an easy one Shillts, I agree. The best outcome for the fans is for the clubs to realise that it's unfair to do what McCarthy did.

[S15]

I agree Mick took the p*ss and I'd be annoyed if I'd spent money to go as a fan.

However, not as angry as if my team got relegated, and todays result is a huge one for Wolves in their quest to stay up so you have to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now at least.

[CrazyIvan]

That's not the case is it. Managers are free to rotate their squad. It's the 10 outfield replacements, coupled with the reaction of the fans that has caused it to come to the attention of the PL.

5 or 6 rested and he might have been ok but 10 outfielders is outragious. I've said it before on this thread, if Sam had done that there would be many here calling for his head. There are people who complain bitterly about the players not bothering when we play the top 4 now with the full squad. Does anybody genuinely think they wouldn't blow up completely if Sam did what McCarthy did? I swear there would be head explosions and brains splattered everywhere from the rage!

[den]

5 or 6 rested and he might have been ok but 10 outfielders is outragious. I've said it before on this thread, if Sam had done that there would be many here calling for his head. There are people who complain bitterly about the players not bothering when we play the top 4 now with the full squad. Does anybody genuinely think they wouldn't blow up completely if Sam did what McCarthy did? I swear there would be head explosions and brains splattered everywhere from the rage!

Absolutely.

[Paul]

West Ham currently 1 - 0 up against Chelsea, seems to me if WHAM win it proves how wrong McCarthy was. You ALWAYS have a chance.

[Tom]

I dare say McCarthy wouldn't have done the same thing at home though

[Bobby G]

His decision was vindicated today.

Also, Wenger rested all his team against Olympiacos and went out and said he will do what he thinks is best for HIS TEAM.

I dont see the big deal at all over what Wolves have done.

[den]

His decision was vindicated today.

How? Everyone beats Burnley at home anyway.

[Bobby G]

When you are in the bottom 3, you cant take 3 points against the Dingles for granted. But get tired dingles from mid-week, then you have a better chance.

[den]

When you are in the bottom 3, you cant take 3 points against the Dingles for granted. But get tired dingles from mid-week, then you have a better chance.

Dingles are crap when they're not tired.

[philipl]

The Manc and Liverpool teams were chosen at the end of season so the argument could be made, tenuously, that players were exhausted, injured etc. there was no PL game following those games in which the cynicism of those selections could be held up for ridicule.

Wolves have just made ten changes then another nine changes in mid-season.

IF the PL want to act, they can do so without letting those earlier games set a precedence for doing nothing.