Did Wolves concede the game to Man Utd

[Kaizero]

Looks like Everton made lots of changes tonight. Disgraceful.

 

Different scenario. Different approach to the game. Different attitude on the pitch. Pretty much nothing similar.

 

Manager decides what team to pick based on his opinion of the importance of the match.

 

It's no different at all.

 

The match has no effect on any of the involved parties, and very few people paid to come watch.

[Dave]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

[Guest Heneage]

Dave?

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/images/feelin_bitchy_cover.jpg

[Dave]

 

I can't be arsed with this any more tbh, so I'll leave it there. Massive storm in a teacup IMO.

[Kaizero]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

 

18242 out of 40157 isn't even half full. Last season their average attendance was 37955.

 

And they knew what they were coming to see, a match for absolutely nothing but honor. And Everton could and should've (imo) have won it with the chances they spurned. The players on the pitch appeared to be trying to win it even if it was a meaningless match as well, which you can't say for Wolves.

[Neil]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

 

18242 out of 40157 isn't even half full. Last season their average attendance was 37955.

 

And they knew what they were coming to see, a match for absolutely nothing but honor. And Everton could and should've (imo) have won it with the chances they spurned.

 

Fwiw, we created fuck all.

[Kaizero]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

 

18242 out of 40157 isn't even half full. Last season their average attendance was 37955.

 

And they knew what they were coming to see, a match for absolutely nothing but honor. And Everton could and should've (imo) have won it with the chances they spurned.

 

Fwiw, we created fuck all.

 

I watched the match as well mate, you had two or three chances which should've gone in. Like that (i can't remember his name, aggard?) shot just before the end of it. BATE had pretty much fuck all and got lucky.

[Neil]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

 

18242 out of 40157 isn't even half full. Last season their average attendance was 37955.

 

And they knew what they were coming to see, a match for absolutely nothing but honor. And Everton could and should've (imo) have won it with the chances they spurned.

 

Fwiw, we created fuck all.

 

I watched the match as well mate, you had two or three chances which should've gone in. Like that (i can't remember his name, aggard?) shot just before the end of it. BATE had pretty much fuck all and got lucky.

 

I'll very rarely say this, but they had most of the control of the match. If they had better attacking players, they'd have won by more.

[Kaizero]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

 

18242 out of 40157 isn't even half full. Last season their average attendance was 37955.

 

And they knew what they were coming to see, a match for absolutely nothing but honor. And Everton could and should've (imo) have won it with the chances they spurned.

 

Fwiw, we created fuck all.

 

I watched the match as well mate, you had two or three chances which should've gone in. Like that (i can't remember his name, aggard?) shot just before the end of it. BATE had pretty much fuck all and got lucky.

 

I'll very rarely say this, but they had most of the control of the match. If they had better attacking players, they'd have won by more.

 

They were shit man That being said, the match itself was pretty shit in general.

[Neil]

18,242 did actually. Unless it was free in?

 

18242 out of 40157 isn't even half full. Last season their average attendance was 37955.

 

And they knew what they were coming to see, a match for absolutely nothing but honor. And Everton could and should've (imo) have won it with the chances they spurned.

 

Fwiw, we created fuck all.

 

I watched the match as well mate, you had two or three chances which should've gone in. Like that (i can't remember his name, aggard?) shot just before the end of it. BATE had pretty much fuck all and got lucky.

 

I'll very rarely say this, but they had most of the control of the match. If they had better attacking players, they'd have won by more.

 

They were shit man That being said, the match itself was pretty shit in general.

 

Of course they were. But with the team we had out, we were worse.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Thats such a simple but mint point actually. Why is it worse to accept defeat and rest the team for the next match than to accept victory and rest the team for the next match?

 

You're asking why its worse to accept defeat than to go for victory ?

 

No, to presume victory.

 

Dont see the difference

 

You put out a side you think realistically capable of a victory & you're going for the points. Thats the whole point of the game.

 

If you have sides lower in the league giving up in advance that just ruins the point of them even playing eachother. Seems obvious why thats worse.

 

I was just posing the question really. As in what's worse, to accept that no matter what you do you will lose a match and cut your losses for the more important battle? Or to put out a weak team presuming that you will win irregardless and jeapordise your chances of picking up 3 points. There's no definitive answer on which is worse, yet there's a definitive view that the former are cowards but never that the latter are cavalier. Do you see where I'm coming from with this?

[Kaizero]

Thats such a simple but mint point actually. Why is it worse to accept defeat and rest the team for the next match than to accept victory and rest the team for the next match?

 

You're asking why its worse to accept defeat than to go for victory ?

 

No, to presume victory.

 

Dont see the difference

 

You put out a side you think realistically capable of a victory & you're going for the points. Thats the whole point of the game.

 

If you have sides lower in the league giving up in advance that just ruins the point of them even playing eachother. Seems obvious why thats worse.

 

I was just posing the question really. As in what's worse, to accept that no matter what you do you will lose a match and cut your losses for the more important battle? Or to put out a weak team presuming that you will win irregardless and jeapordise your chances of picking up 3 points. There's no definitive answer on which is worse, yet there's a definitive view that the former are cowards but never that the latter are cavalier. Do you see where I'm coming from with this?

 

Your computer at home? I can't see you, mind. You're quite a bit of distance away from me, so I'm just assuming that's where you're coming from with that.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Thats such a simple but mint point actually. Why is it worse to accept defeat and rest the team for the next match than to accept victory and rest the team for the next match?

 

You're asking why its worse to accept defeat than to go for victory ?

 

No, to presume victory.

 

Dont see the difference

 

You put out a side you think realistically capable of a victory & you're going for the points. Thats the whole point of the game.

 

If you have sides lower in the league giving up in advance that just ruins the point of them even playing eachother. Seems obvious why thats worse.

 

I was just posing the question really. As in what's worse, to accept that no matter what you do you will lose a match and cut your losses for the more important battle? Or to put out a weak team presuming that you will win irregardless and jeapordise your chances of picking up 3 points. There's no definitive answer on which is worse, yet there's a definitive view that the former are cowards but never that the latter are cavalier. Do you see where I'm coming from with this?

 

Your computer at home? I can't see you, mind. You're quite a bit of distance away from me, so I'm just assuming that's where you're coming from with that.

 

Im that bloke outside in the tree naked with the laptop for a head.

[Kaizero]

Thats such a simple but mint point actually. Why is it worse to accept defeat and rest the team for the next match than to accept victory and rest the team for the next match?

 

You're asking why its worse to accept defeat than to go for victory ?

 

No, to presume victory.

 

Dont see the difference

 

You put out a side you think realistically capable of a victory & you're going for the points. Thats the whole point of the game.

 

If you have sides lower in the league giving up in advance that just ruins the point of them even playing eachother. Seems obvious why thats worse.

 

I was just posing the question really. As in what's worse, to accept that no matter what you do you will lose a match and cut your losses for the more important battle? Or to put out a weak team presuming that you will win irregardless and jeapordise your chances of picking up 3 points. There's no definitive answer on which is worse, yet there's a definitive view that the former are cowards but never that the latter are cavalier. Do you see where I'm coming from with this?

 

Your computer at home? I can't see you, mind. You're quite a bit of distance away from me, so I'm just assuming that's where you're coming from with that.

 

Im that bloke outside in the tree naked with the laptop for a head.

 

Oh, I was wondering who that guy was. His penis was so small I was starting to worry it had frozen off in the -23 degrees.

[Crack Head]

I think the problem that the FA have is that this is pretty much as close to match fixing as a manager can get. I'm not suggesting that MMc had that in mind - I see his reasoning, although I don't agree with it.

[cp40]

As I've already said - I expect every team-sheet to now be scrutinised. Resting numerous players = enquiry. The PL have set a dangerous precedent.

 

And it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

It is. The Premier League are meddling in affairs that should frankly have nothing to do with them. The only people McCarthy should have to answer to, if any, are the fans.

 

Do they only support the club if all of the top players are taking part? 

 

 

 

will they be celebrating if the fresh players win this weekend.

[Jayson]

No idea how people can compare this to the Everton game but yeah.

 

From now on lets just have all the sides lower in the league resting their players against the best sides so theyre better able to compete in the easier to win game afterwards & half of you would see no issue. As its "down to the manager". Itd also be down to the manager if they chose to rest their best players against one of their mates sides, so thats fine to. Why doesnt the other sides chairman just give theirs a load of money for it even, just so they can invest more in the first team? All very logical & about thinking fowards.

 

Ruins the point of the league quite massively, but lets gloss over that.

[Guest Roger Kint]

To be fair to Wolves:

 

Arsenal (home): Tried to play and got raped 4-1

Chelsea (away): Tried to play and got raped 4-0

 

Also went away to Spurs, mackems etc full strength showing how much of a fluke that Spurs win was.

 

They actually picked a better side away to Man Utd in the Carling Cup and got easily beat off their reserves(with 10 men for 60 odd mins) so its not as if they made a habit of it like big clubs do at the business end of seasons where defeats to West Ham & Fulham saved those teams from relegation or rather cost others.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

If Wolves had won the game there would be no interest from the FA about the team they put out. We all complained when Man U played their kids (and it was mainly their kids, not their reserves) in the last game of last season. Turned out Man U won and Newcastle lost so it didn't change anything.

 

The only people who have a right to be upset are the Wolves fans who paid to watch it.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

No idea how people can compare this to the Everton game but yeah.

 

From now on lets just have all the sides lower in the league resting their players against the best sides so theyre better able to compete in the easier to win game afterwards & half of you would see no issue. As its "down to the manager". Itd also be down to the manager if they chose to rest their best players against one of their mates sides, so thats fine to. Why doesnt the other sides chairman just give theirs a load of money for it even, just so they can invest more in the first team? All very logical & about thinking fowards.

 

Ruins the point of the league quite massively, but lets gloss over that.

 

To be honest its just a natural part of the evolution of football under Sky et al.

 

Money attracts money, which then allows the richer teams to improve at a faster rate than those with none, creating leagues within leagues. It's then only natural that teams concentrate on beating the teams from within their 'own mini league'.

 

Its going to become more and more common I'm afraid, and it won't be long before its teams fighting for the last UEFA cup spot who are doing similar, not just those fighting off relegation

[Ant1815]

No idea how people can compare this to the Everton game but yeah.

 

From now on lets just have all the sides lower in the league resting their players against the best sides so theyre better able to compete in the easier to win game afterwards & half of you would see no issue. As its "down to the manager". Itd also be down to the manager if they chose to rest their best players against one of their mates sides, so thats fine to. Why doesnt the other sides chairman just give theirs a load of money for it even, just so they can invest more in the first team? All very logical & about thinking fowards.

 

Ruins the point of the league quite massively, but lets gloss over that.

 

So what's the solution, make every manager submit a team selection to the FA for approval before each match?

 

The FA can't do a damn thing about this because the fact is that they've been letting the big boys get away with it for years. Let's just be clear here. You either play by the rules or you don't, you can't make it up as you go along when it suits.

 

The rule states that you have to play your strongest side. It doesn't state that you have to play your strongest side...unless you happen to be Manchester United. It doesn't state that you have to play your strongest side...unless you think the reserves have a good chance of winning. It simply states that you have to play your strongest side. The top four have been flouting this rule for donkey's years (and to be fair the other teams in European competition too)

 

What Manchester United did against Hull at the end of last season was just as bad. It gets glossed over because ManU won, and the game didn't end up mattering anyway, but that's not the point. It might have mattered to us, and ManU might have lost. Does anyone seriously think that had they gone in to that match needing three points that that would have been Fergusson's team sheet? They broke the same rule, clear and simple.

 

Of course it's a rule that's realistically unenforceable anyway. Who's to say exactly what the 'strongest team' is? The only one who can do that is the manager surely? There's no alternative, unless you take up the option I pointed to earlier.

 

I agree that this seems to be the first time that a team have appeared to deliberately 'thrown' a competitive match, but if you have a rule that is designed to prevent such a thing...and then spend years blatantly ignoring said rule, it's what's known as 'painting yourself in to a corner' Which is exactly why the FA won't be abl to do a thing, and if they do then it's blatant hypocracy.

[TRon]

The best scenario all round would be a Burnley victory on Sunday, that way McCarthy will have damaged his own side more than anyone else with his daft tinkering. I know lots of the big sides rest players but they usually still think they can win games, it's hardly the same as the abject surrender which McCarthy did.

[Guest optimistic nit]

i can understand the fan's being annoyed at this decision, but in no way should the FA get involved, its no different to when the likes of arsenal and man u play their reserves

 

It is very different. As mentioned time and time again, Man Utd and Arsenals reserves can easily beat almost any team in the Premier League, even Wolves first team have a hard time doing that. Man Utd and Arsenal play their reserves still looking for a win, Wolves just threw the match not caring about trying.

 

McCarthy should be fined, or Wolves should get a fine IMO. Point deduction would be taking it too far.

 

i dont think you can really say because wolves didnt try to win the match they should be punished, plenty of teams go to the likes of the top four and dont play to win, but just because he chose to rest players, he should be made to look different to those teams?  

 

 

 

Playing for a draw is different to admitting defeat before the match is played, and I dare say most managers don't change their entire usual starting XI before a match against the top four, most teams actually want to try to get something from them as getting something from the top four is not only confidence building, it's valuable points if their opponents do like Wolves.

 

I'd be ashamed and almost feel violated should Newcastle ever field a team of reserves against Man Utd just because the manager didn't think we could beat them.

 

which is why i can understand the fan's anger, but not the FA's, its MM's decision to do that and a manager has enough problems without having the FA telling him who he should and shouldnt play. it was the wrong decision by MM, but that dosnt mean he should be singled out, as what he has done isnt all that different from clubs playing for draws or clubs playing their second string.

 

Not trying at all is different though. That's why it's all so appaling. If he'd played his reserves, and they'd actually given it a go, it'd imo be a different story altogether.

 

 

unless mccarthy is completely insane i very much doubt he went out there and told the team not to try, i saw our team play without trying in pretty much every game i watched last season.

[Delima]

A dignified response. Mick has done nowt wrong.

 

 

SKYSPORTS

 

Mick McCarthy has launched a stinging attack on the critics who have been lining up to lambast his infamous team selection at Manchester United on Tuesday night.

 

McCarthy changed all 10 outfield players from the weekend win over Tottenham at White Hart Lane for the Old Trafford clash and watched his side suffer a 3-0 defeat.

 

Numerous pundits, former players and rival managers have had their say on the matter, with many taking aim at the Molineux boss.

 

But McCarthy, who insists he made the changes to prevent injuries to key men ahead of Sunday's clash with Burnley, has now hit back.

 

He said: "I have got more integrity and honesty in that little finger than most of those who are accusing me. Whoever it is, I am not bothered.

 

"I go through the season and I complain not one jot about anybody. I try my best not to complain, I try my best not to get involved in anyone else's politics or football club or anything like that and I am not going to get involved.

 

"It is laughable. I have had lots of messages of support, not because anyone thinks I need it because of the decisions that I made, but because of some of the ridiculous, scathing, outrageous comments that have been made about me and what I did."

Tiger Woods

 

McCarthy was even able to find humour in the situation as, with his tongue firmly in his cheek, he added: "I had a lovely letter from Tiger Woods thanking me for taking the pressure off him.

 

"I believe he is now driving round Florida in an open top car singing 'super Mick McCarthy'.

 

"My latest email is from Thierry Henry who seems to think I have taken the heat off him as well."

 

And while McCarthy believes most of the attacks on him have been unwarranted, one person he feels does have a right to complain - Burnley boss Owen Coyle - has already offered his support.

 

"The one person who has the right to bleat at me is Owen Coyle," said the former Sunderland boss. "He has seen it was the right thing to do and said it. No-one else has any bearing at all.

 

"He is a proper bloke. He has come up through the school of hard knocks. I don't give a monkey's about anyone else.

 

"It is the people here at Wolves I am worried about. In the three-and-a-half years I have been here, if I have upset one or two people I think they will forgive me for what I have done here. Everybody else, I don't give two hoots about that."

 

Best interests

 

Many of the travelling Wolves fans vented their frustration on Tuesday night, having shelled out £42 for a ticket to watch the game, but McCarthy has again urged them to look at the bigger picture.

 

"If I upset or offended the ones who went to the game then rest assured that was not intentional," he said. "It is in the best interests of us moving forward.

 

"My job is to maximise the resources of this football club.

 

"That is what I am doing and I would do it again. It doesn't guarantee that we will beat Burnley, Liverpool or Manchester City in our next three games but it guarantees over the Christmas period we will all be better prepared for those games.

 

"If we are then that is for the good of the team and the club. I am paid to make decisions. I make them and stand by them. I take the heat."

[Keefaz]

It's a bit daft, obviously, but the rule about fielding your strongest team is there for a reason: to ensure the league is a fair as possible. Wolves handed Man Utd 3 free points. That is indisputable, imo. If he fails to provide the same easy points for other teams then he has given Man Utd an unfair advantage.