midds

Ashley young should start. Downing in the squad as cover. N'Zogbia can suck eggs.

No shit.

Looks poor from what I've seen of him. Nothing about his game looks Premier League. Or Championship for that matter...

The results have been far better than the performances this season. We've won loads of games by simply being less shit than the opposition. If Ashley and Llambias don't realise that a complete revamp of the squad is needed and try to do it on the cheap then we'll get tanked every week and come straight back down. Rinse and repeat....

thats bollox mate there skint aswell that wont happen Gold was directly quoted saying exactly that tbh. It wouldn't be West Ham as such, it would have been Gold personally lending them £10m. You're right though, it won't happen.

Wow.

If they are allowed to sell players outside of the window (which I've got my doubts about letting them do it) surely the players they do sell won't be eligible to play for their new team this season?

They're basically relying on the goodwill of the rest of the PL and the FA just to complete this season. I still think they'll survive the season somehow but they'll go under once they go down. The only way they'll start next season is if they sell all of their players, reduce the wage bill by something stupid like 90% and play kids for the foreseeable.

I imagine a mixture of common sense and looking at the team they regularly play in most games. If they consistantly favor a certain set of players over others & then drop a lot of them for one specific game then its clearly dodgy. No one saying anything about a side dropping one player are they. Surely McCarthy's common sense told him to rest them from a game they'd probably have lost anyway and save them for the 6 pointer a few days later? My problem with this whole shebang is, in my opinion, every manager should be allowed to play who he wants. The authorities shouldn't have the power to force managers to play players who he wants to rest. Also, the inconsistency in applying this fucked-up rule needs sorting. Very selective to pick on Wolves but let other clubs do it on a regular basis. If you think they should be forced by the PL or FA to play their strongest teams in every game then that's fair enough. If they're going to do that then it should apply to all teams in all domestic competitions. No exceptions.

Exactly. The point of the league is determine who's the best and who's the worst. If managers weaken their teams too often, chances are they'll finish lower. It's their choice to take the risk or not. Its very unlikely teams in the bottom half will beat sides in the top 4. It is quite likely that theyll do better in the following game if they rest their better players for those games. Its not really down to managerial ability, theyd be stupid not to. If one starts and gains an advantage from it, they all start. Shouldnt be allowed to happen. Just out of interest, Who actually decides which combination of players make the strongest team? The PL? The FA? Who? The manager? The fans? The bookies? How do they come to the decision? If they can't decide/agree on who those players are then how can they ascertain if the strongest team possible has been named? What happens if a manager wants to change the system and has to drop one of his better strikers to play an 'inferior' player to beef up the midfield? Is that allowed? There's no debate that the current "rule" is too vague to be properly followed. But it's still obvious that Wolves blatantly decided not to "show up" at one of the 38 league matches as they accepted defeat before the match was even played, and there should be implemented a rule that's not as vague as the current against doing something like that. If the rule is vague, that's not McCarthy's fault. He picked his team and they lost. End of story. Shouldn't have been charged in the first place.

Exactly. The point of the league is determine who's the best and who's the worst. If managers weaken their teams too often, chances are they'll finish lower. It's their choice to take the risk or not. Its very unlikely teams in the bottom half will beat sides in the top 4. It is quite likely that theyll do better in the following game if they rest their better players for those games. Its not really down to managerial ability, theyd be stupid not to. If one starts and gains an advantage from it, they all start. Shouldnt be allowed to happen. Just out of interest, Who actually decides which combination of players make the strongest team? The PL? The FA? Who? The manager? The fans? The bookies? How do they come to the decision? If they can't decide/agree on who those players are then how can they ascertain if the strongest team possible has been named? What happens if a manager wants to change the system and has to drop one of his better strikers to play an 'inferior' player to beef up the midfield? Is that allowed?

Exactly. The point of the league is determine who's the best and who's the worst. If managers weaken their teams too often, chances are they'll finish lower. It's their choice to take the risk or not.

In my honest opinion I think there should be a limit of how many changes you should be able to do between two matches (not counting injures/suspensions). 10 changes is just silly, whoever does it and for whatever reason they do it when none from the last match were injured or suspended. Would be a much more definite rule than "you should field your strongest team". How many is acceptable in your opinion then? Just out of interest. For the record, I do think McCarthy took the piss by resting 10 but I'd defend his right to name whatever team he likes for any individual game. And that's my point. It's up to the manager, NOT the FA of PL, to decide who plays.

So this means every manager from every team HAS to play his strongest XI in EVERY game. By resting a player he would, theoretically, be weakening his team and would be fined for doing so. Or is there a lmit as to how many changes he can make? Is 1 ok? What about 2? Would 3 get a fine? What about 7? It's bollocks. The FA need to stop interfering so much. Let the managers manage as they see fit. It has to be up to the individual manager to pick the team and he should stand or fall by his decisions. If Wolves go down by a point, it'll be on McCarthy. If they stay up by a point then he'll look back on the Burnley result and think he was justified.

Said at the time McCarthy had the right to pick whoever he wants for each and every game. If it goes wrong and he upsets people it's down to him and it's his responsibilty. That's the chance he took and it's ridiculous that they've been singled out for resting a few when it happens all the time, particularly towards the end of the season. Let's see how much Man U or Chelsea are fined when they do it.

He's very good in his own right but the balance he gives us is fantastic. We can now stretch teams across the pitch and come at them from both flanks. Looking like a superb signing and he'll get even better imo.

Never looked like losing that tonight - even going one down. They're turboshit and we weren't. Ran out easy winners and Harper could have had the night off. We'll not get an easier game at home this season.

Hadn't realised Fellaini was out for 6 months. That's a blow for Everton, just as Arteta is coming back too.

Nothing's changed, we've still got to win these 2 home games and hope Boro and Bristol do us a favour over the weekend. Would rather have seen Forest drop points tonight but there you go.

Simpson is absolutely average. He's competent at this level but would struggle most weeks next if we go up imo. I'd be looking at buying another CH and playing Taylor at RB. Simpson, purely as cover, would be adequate.

I'd be very surprised if we buy a RB now we have Simpson permanently. I agree. We've given him a long term contract for a reason. Aye, because he was cheap. Quite possibly, but at the end of the day because we want to use him as first choice RB for the next 3.5 years. Read that and physically shuddered.

I'd be very surprised if we buy a RB now we have Simpson permanently. I agree. We've given him a long term contract for a reason. Aye, because he was cheap.

Agree, but I can understand the frustration and need to try some unorthodox solutions to a long-standing problem.

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow. I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem. The playes you mentioned are top top players. Not scott parkers and joey bartons on 60k a week or a aging nicky butt on top $. BUt then again, would roman allow another highly paid player come in without letting one go? Parker, Butt and Barton are good examples of the overpaid ordinary players I mentioned. I think Roman would sanction it if it meant getting a Torres or a Messi. Chances are Ballack will be moving on soon anyway. The problem is that if Terry, Lampard et al are raking in £140k a week then the lesser players in the squad will expect their wage to be pretty hefty too. Agreed, their is also a rank culture with footballers with "i want what he is getting" without the effort going in to justify it. Players need to have a long hard word with themselves. Yep. The better players will always earn the most money and there's nothing wrong with that, they deserve it if they're filling the ground every week and winning things for their clubs. I just think clubs are going to look for 'value for money' players and, whilst still offering big money to top players, will look around for the right player before throwing £60k a week at them.

They'd make exceptions though. If Torres or Messi ever became available City and Chelsea would give them whatever they wanted to make sure they got them. Money is not an object to a handful of clubs and as they set the benchmark the rest of the clubs will follow. I don't mind players being paid £120k a week if they're earning it but there are far too many ordinary players being paid far too much. That's the problem. The playes you mentioned are top top players. Not scott parkers and joey bartons on 60k a week or a aging nicky butt on top $. BUt then again, would roman allow another highly paid player come in without letting one go? Parker, Butt and Barton are good examples of the overpaid ordinary players I mentioned. I think Roman would sanction it if it meant getting a Torres or a Messi. Chances are Ballack will be moving on soon anyway. The problem is that if Terry, Lampard et al are raking in £140k a week then the lesser players in the squad will expect their wage to be pretty hefty too.