Wolves handed suspended £25000 fine...

[Jayson]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

 

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.

 

[Exiled in Texas]

 

[What If Scenario]

 

What if a team (say, Newcastle) comfortably mid table, decided to play 10 reserves against the 18th placed team to give them 3 points and push 17th placed team (say, Sunderland) into relegation spot and down they go. Legal?? Fair??

 

[/What if Scenario]

 

 

Legal?? Yes, according to some

 

Fair?? Yes, according to some

 

Funny??  Hell YES, according to all 

 

[Kaizero]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

 

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.

 

 

I'm in agreement there, it would ruin the league as you don't need to watch those games anymore. As whilst now one team is major favourites, you never know what might happen if the opposition has a good day and so on. You would know who'd win before the match started if teams start doing like Wolves, their fans wouldn't need to turn up to cheer on their club.

[Neil]

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. 

 

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.

 

More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes.

 

I don't follow. What if there are injuries/suspensions? So if there are 6 injuries/suspensions that require a change of player, the manager is unable to change anyone else? 

 

I said discounting injuries/suspensions earlier in that discussion, you don't follow.

 

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".

 

It'd be a ridiculous rule though. Managers can do what they like with team selections ultimately, why on earth should they have restrictions? Losing the game was punishment enough and he would have had egg on his face if they'd lost their next game but as it was, he'll see it as a justified decision. Good on him if it keeps them up.

[Kaizero]

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. 

 

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.

 

More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes.

 

I don't follow. What if there are injuries/suspensions? So if there are 6 injuries/suspensions that require a change of player, the manager is unable to change anyone else? 

 

I said discounting injuries/suspensions earlier in that discussion, you don't follow.

 

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".

 

It'd be a ridiculous rule though. Managers can do what they like with team selections ultimately, why on earth should they have restrictions? Losing the game was punishment enough and he would have had egg on his face if they'd lost their next game but as it was, he'll see it as a justified decision. Good on him if it keeps them up.

 

I would like few things more than see Wolves go down and never come back up. If it was up to me McCarthy should've been sacked for blatantly throwing a game, just unprofessional and detrimental to the game, even if their three points at Burnley keep them up. Their best players should be able to manage 38 matches, they did 46 in the Championship ffs, resting them is no excuse and the players should've been more than pumped up for testing themselves against one of the best teams in the league.

[midds]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

 

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? 

[Neil]

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. 

 

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.

 

More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes.

 

I don't follow. What if there are injuries/suspensions? So if there are 6 injuries/suspensions that require a change of player, the manager is unable to change anyone else? 

 

I said discounting injuries/suspensions earlier in that discussion, you don't follow.

 

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".

 

It'd be a ridiculous rule though. Managers can do what they like with team selections ultimately, why on earth should they have restrictions? Losing the game was punishment enough and he would have had egg on his face if they'd lost their next game but as it was, he'll see it as a justified decision. Good on him if it keeps them up.

 

I would like few things more than see Wolves go down and never come back up. If it was up to me McCarthy should've been sacked for blatantly throwing a game, just unprofessional and detrimental to the game, even if their three points at Burnley keep them up. Their best players should be able to manage 38 matches, they did 46 in the Championship ffs, resting them is no excuse.

 

I agree the players shouldn't have beem tired but that's the decision he made. I think it would be a total disaster if managers' hands were tied regarding who they could and couldn't pick - injuries and suspensions usually limit them enough.

[Kaizero]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

 

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.

[Kaizero]

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. 

 

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.

 

More than 7 is taking the piss. Think the limit should be 6 changes.

 

I don't follow. What if there are injuries/suspensions? So if there are 6 injuries/suspensions that require a change of player, the manager is unable to change anyone else? 

 

I said discounting injuries/suspensions earlier in that discussion, you don't follow.

 

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".

 

It'd be a ridiculous rule though. Managers can do what they like with team selections ultimately, why on earth should they have restrictions? Losing the game was punishment enough and he would have had egg on his face if they'd lost their next game but as it was, he'll see it as a justified decision. Good on him if it keeps them up.

 

I would like few things more than see Wolves go down and never come back up. If it was up to me McCarthy should've been sacked for blatantly throwing a game, just unprofessional and detrimental to the game, even if their three points at Burnley keep them up. Their best players should be able to manage 38 matches, they did 46 in the Championship ffs, resting them is no excuse.

 

I agree the players shouldn't have beem tired but that's the decision he made. I think it would be a total disaster if managers' hands were tied regarding who they could and couldn't pick - injuries and suspensions usually limit them enough.

 

Fair enough my "rule" suggestion might be shit But there should still be some sort of proper rule preventing a team from throwing matches, which is blatantly what Wolves did. That said, I'd be less bothered about it had the players fielded at least tried to do something to win, but they didn't. And it was so obvious they went out there just waiting for the 90 mins to be over.

[midds]

So it'll be fine if all the managers of sides in the bottom half rested their entire side when playing the top 4, aslong as they get to choose we'll ignore whether the point of the league actually holds any value.

 

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.

[Guest jonlane86]

This is the FA opening a massive can of worms.  How can any association allow squad football after this ruling?  Are we now to have an independent panel examine every squad to choose their 'best players' and if they don't stick to it they get fined?

 

A manager should be entitled to choose whichever 11 he sees fit to play that match, otherwise what is the point in having a squad?  If Wolves are getting fined for resting their best players for Burnley, surely Man United should be fined for resting their best players for Barcelona when they went to Hull at the end of the season.

 

And don't get me started on the League Cup/FA Cup where sides are always resting their top players, usually if they feel the club doesn't have a chance of winning the tournament.  Its not match fixing, its just about making sensible squad rotation for their season strategy.  Hence why McCarthy rested his top players when they went to Old Trafford.  It was a sensible move which paid off.

[Kaizero]

The "25 max number of players in the first team squad" thing can't come quick enough tbh.

[Jayson]

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? 

 

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.

[midds]

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? 

 

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. 

[Jayson]

His common sense made him choose an option which devalues the entire point of the league his team is competing in. The league itself comes before a manager winning games in that league. Every manager can play who he wants to an extent, its fairly obvious when a side is throwing a match like wolves did.

 

I see no reason to make every single team in the league play their best side, whats happening now is fine. The rubbish teams that cannot rest their entire sides without creating crap non competetive games should be punished for doing so & the teams who can rest more players and still compete for points should be allowed to do so aslong as they do compete. Whether that fits to exactly the way some crap generalized rule is written out doesnt matter much. Aslong as the reason the rule was put in place is stuck to, they can carry on.

[doublecrown]

I think teams should be able to play whoever they want out of their roster of 25 players, whenever and wherever they want. A 3-0 result at Old Trafford is hardly throwing a game.

[JH]

What's the point of having a squad if you can't play half of them?

[Guest John McClane]

good im glad they got fined for lying down and taking a f***ing from the red scum

[midds]

Interesting to notice that most of the Wolves team that beat West Ham this week played in the game against Man U earlier this season when they got fined for fielding a 'weakened' team.

 

Wonder if they'll get fined again?

 

Surely if the Premier League are going to be consistent then they need to fine them again for playing these, obviously, inferior and inadequate players. To do anything less would be ridiculously inconsistent....

[Guest firetotheworks]

Couldn't Mick McCarthy just say 'that was my best team for that match, prove otherwise.' and totally stump them?

[midds]

He did that before and the thick twats fined him. They obviously knew better...

[Mowen]

Grant was threatening to play his reserves for the rest of the season, saving them for the cup and their summer transfer. Would that be ok too?

[Tisd09]

This is a difficult one, because surely the aim to get to the premier league is to enjoy nights at Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, The Emirates and such. However, who defines the strongest team, as someone pointed out the majority of the team that beat West Ham the other night in a massive game played against Man Utd at Old Trafford. I suppose McCarthy went about it all wrong, sort of owning up to it before hand didn't help his cause. Maybe he could have said something along the lines of, "its a busy period, I have picked a team tonight and will pick a team on Saturday v Burnley that I feel will give us the best chance of achieving maximum points over the next few days". Surely the FA/PL would find it difficult to punish Wolves off the back of that? Why wasn't Man Utd punished goven what Wolves have been punished fot, okay they won the league, but surely they had responsibilities to other teams in the league, namely us in the eyes of the PL.

[ads]

Utterly ridiculous really. How can the FA justify this fine really?

 

He's the manager of a football team for god sake, he's employed to do what he sees best for the good of the club surely?

 

In realistic terms he's obviously accepted defeat before the match took place and rested his better players for their big games (i.e. against other relegation fodder), is this really the basis for a fine? All the players were registered to play for Wolves. What if they'd have gone on to win? I doubt the fine would have been imposed then.

 

It's absolutely crazy.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Should ask for the suspended fine to be removed.