Was Mick McCarty right to play a B Team against Man U?

ShiverinEskimo

Atari Saipan

Fuhrer wrote: »

I didnt guarantee it, I said it would make the game mroe winnable.


But of course im wrong, what top teams ever bother resting players before important or big games?

How exactly would it make the game more winnable?

What is this magic game winning formula that comes from not playing against a top side?

Nalz

No

Brien wrote: »

Teams have more than 18 players for a reason. Let them play the league how they see fit

Yep, thats it really

Xavi6

Atari Saipan

Fuhrer wrote: »

Oh no, please come back!


I love explaining to someone how a manager of a newly promoted team with a thin sqaud might think that he doesnt have much of a chance when playing against a nearly full strength champions team away from home when the game at the weekend will be much easier if he rests some players.

And I love explaining the flip side of the coin.

Imagine, debate on a....wait for it....discussion forum. Whatever next? :eek:

opr

Trilla wrote: »

Right or wrong, the rules are not definitive enough so Mick McCarthy has done nothing wrong. Epecially as it was 2 or 3 days after defeating a top 6 side in their own back yard.

I am not saying what he did was wrong in terms of thinking solely about his club. I actually think its just being a clever manager and what he did makes perfect sense. The problem being that it has much wider implications for the league as a whole.

Opr

Ush1

Lads, it's obvious there is case for both fielding full strength and what Mick did and that's why it's divisive. But you can't be shocked by it like....

magma69

No

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

How exactly would it make the game more winnable?

What is this magic game winning formula that comes from not playing against a top side?

Having all your best players well rested so they can keep up a high performance for 90 minutes. I would have thought that blatantly obvious. :rolleyes:

kenon

No

The manager has the right to play any squad he likes, as long as they are all registered.

With Wolves only having a two day gap from their last game, I can understand why he made such comprehensive changes to the team that played against Spurs, on Saturday.

Premier League rule 20, section E, says teams must field a full-strength side in all top-flight matches.

Due to fatigue, the team put out last night could well have been full strength compared to the Saturday team. Just my opinion. Anyway, MM went up in my books.

ShiverinEskimo

Atari Saipan

magma69 wrote: »

Having all your best players well rested so they can keep up a high performance for 90 minutes. I would have thought that blatantly obvious. :rolleyes:

You'd swear the games were the next day. You don't think 5 days is enough rest for a professional footballer? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

gustavo

No

Hope it works out better for Mick than it did for Paul Cook

Dun laoire

Atari Saipan

magma69 wrote: »

There is much controversy over Mick McCarty's decision to make 10 changes to the side that beat Spurs at the weekend. Much of the Wolves fans are incredibly disgruntled at his defeatist attitude to the fixture. Do you agree?

I personally think it was a wise move from McCarty. The team worked their socks off at the weekend to grind out a win and there would undoubtedly be tired legs last night if the same 11 were picked. Let's be realistic here. Even if their strongest team played they would still most likely lose to a United team wanting to bounce back from a home defeat. The chances of them getting a draw were slim and getting the whole 3 points would be extremely unlikely so what is so silly about doing what he did. They are not like Liverpool or Arsenal who can beat anyone on their day. I know it is never nice to see your team admit defeat but pragmatism should come first and I say fair play to McCarty for saving his players for a game where they can go get 3 points.

P.S. Mods. I don't know how to make a poll would be appreciated if you could. Thanks.

Unless he beats Burnley at the weekend then no.

IvySlayer

I was shocked when I heard it. And I can't understand it. Man Utd were shaky, a full team, especially with Kevin Doyle, Wolves might have nicked something.

And considering their next match is FIVE DAYS away. And Burnley are playing Arsenal today.

He is the manager and while it is his decision, it shows a defeatist attitide. He played his full team at Old Trafford in the League Cup didn't he?

But I do think the FA have no business asking him about his selection.

Mars Bar

Atari Saipan

I voted no because I was hoping to a good game of football, but some of the points being made here and the financial importance of staying up in a realistic manner, I wish I could change my vote to yes.

Y2J_MUFC

No

This is ridiculous that this has even come up. Mick McCarthy is the Wolves manager, he decides the team. Should United be penalised for playing Gibson instead of Fletcher? Technically, we didn't field our strongest side either. Its for the manager to decide who he plays, not the FA.

I think Wolves are being victimised a bit here. United and Liverpool have done it before, and the FA didn't bat an eyelid. Why did the FA not treat United (Hull 2009, Sheffield United 2007, Chelsea 2007) and Liverpool (Fulham 2007) the same?

The players are registered to play in the competition so he is entitled to pick who he likes. Hes the manager, he makes the decisions, he is entitled to make the calls as he sees it for the good of his club.

fergiesarmy

No

Mick knew there was going to be a backlash from united after losing to villa and even if he played hias first 11 they still would have been beaten. Maybe it was a masterstroke. Time will tell

Beau x1

No

All teams do it.

He is the manager.

He can do what he likes.

Someone made a point about the confidence issue of the key players though, that's the most severe consequence of his actions in my eyes.

magma69

No

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

You'd swear the games were the next day. You don't think 5 days is enough rest for a professional footballer? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's 4 days rest and yes. Considering how much they have to close down a superior team like Man U in possession of the ball for most of the game. It was the same against Spurs, they had to run their socks off. Even Kevin Doyle said he was absolutely knackered (more so than usual) in an interview after the game at the weekend. I think the physios at Wolves have a bit more understanding of fitness levels of their players than you do somehow.

P.S. All that eye rolling is bad for your vision. One per post is sufficient

magma69

No

IvySlayer wrote: »

I was shocked when I heard it. And I can't understand it. Man Utd were shaky, a full team, especially with Kevin Doyle, Wolves might have nicked something.

And considering their next match is FIVE DAYS away. And Burnley are playing Arsenal today.

He is the manager and while it is his decision, it shows a defeatist attitide. He played his full team at Old Trafford in the League Cup didn't he?

But I do think the FA have no business asking him about his selection.

Yup and still and lost to a 10 man United team. Some see it as a defeatist attitude, some see it as a pragmatic, realistic one.

Pepe LeFrits

Too early to say.

Could work in his favour but there are plenty of ways that this could backfire on him.

opr

Once he has mathematically ensured survival he should just send the first team on holidays so that they will be well rested for next season!

Opr

ctrl-alt-delete

No

Johner wrote: »

I don't make the rules.

Premier League rule 20, section E, says teams must field a full-strength side in all top-flight matches.

But this clearly was a full strenght side, mayeb not the strongest starting 11 but the rules don't state anyhting like that. All teams are guilty of this, resting players for bigger more important games to the club, sure look at what goes on in the Carling Cup?

I myself think that rule refers to that "middlesbrough" situation, where a club must field a full strength starting 11 and not try opt out of a match because their strongest 11 are sick/injured/not fit whatever.

I have no problem with what Mick McCarthy done last night, why the big furore now? It's been done before.

kida

kida wrote: »

would imagine its a team consisting of first team squad players which it was

did any Wolves players make their debut last night?
how many had palyed fewer than 20 first team games?
how many are still youth players

just how weak was it anyway?

to add to this how many of the team were reserves?

to people complaining answere these questions you might be surprised

ShiverinEskimo

Atari Saipan

magma69 wrote: »

It's 4 days rest and yes. Considering how much they are have to close down a superior team like Man U in possession of the ball for most of the game. It was the same against Spurs, they had to run their socks off. Even Kevin Doyle said he was absolutely knackered (more so than usual) in an interview after the game at the weekend.

You're ignoring all the positives that can come from playing against what turned out to be a fairly lacklustre United. Your top players will rise to a game like that and a decent performance against the champions could go a long way to upping confidence before a relagation battle game.

I think the physios at Wolves have a bit more understanding of fitness levels of their players than you do somehow.

P.S. All that eye rolling is bad for your vision. One per post is sufficient

I severely doubt the physios recommended to Mick McCarthy that their players aren't fit to play 180 mins across a 4/5 day period. If that's the case then I probably do understand more about professional fitness levels than the wolves physios.

If two relegation games came back to back I doubt the physios would be calling for players to be rested.

The attitude he has shown to his players is one of no faith and it's defeatist. It will do far more damage to his first team's confidence than a couple of days extra rest will do to benefit it.

whatnext

No

This debate could go on for years.

But when I came to answering the pole I was hit with a conundrum.

Did I think he was right? No

But if you were tos ask me "Do you think he was wrong to field the team he did?" I would also answer no

As for those wanting the book thrown at Wolves / McCarthy to bring it onto an extreme level you could take action as follows http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/03/barry-ferguson-allan-mcgregor-rangers to justify selection?

I think it was perhaps a little immoral but not illegal and even if it were illegal its is totally unenforceable as a rule.

There are definately bigger issues to be considered though, if the practice became wide spread you could end up with a two tier league :eek: oh yeah like the current one

eagle eye

No

opr wrote: »

I am not saying what he did was wrong in terms of thinking solely about his club. I actually think its just being a clever manager and what he did makes perfect sense. The problem being that it has much wider implications for the league as a whole.

Opr

The Premier League has been a complete joke for a long time now.

Its only now you are noticing it as it might affect your club. Like last season Manchester United had the league won and sent out a second team in the final match of the sesaon against Hull. As things turned out they won the game and it wouldn't have mattered with the sides that could have relegated Hull both losing but they still did it. And its been going on for years with the big four resting players before a big Champion's league game.

Its nothing new, only now a weaker team has finally decided to do the same thing.

I voted yes, because if the big four can do it, the rest are well entitled to do the same thing.

kinaldo

Seems like double standards to pick on Wolves. Neil Warnock and Sheffield United did the same thing at Old Tafford a couple of years back, and I don't remember a Premier League inquiry into Ferguson's team selection against Hull on the final day of last season.

mike65

No

My Guardian blog reply shall do for this -

Mick McCarthy was quite right to manage his squad to the fullest. Three games in 8 days for his team is not something to dismiss lightly. They have lost 3/4 first team players to injury in the last couple of weeks. What would be gained by putting out the strongest 11 and picking up a couple more knocks when the game was almost certainly going to be beyond them anyway and Burnley are the opposition on Saturday?

Also as has been noted in that blog discussion McCarthy only bloodied one player last night, the rest have played in the league - a number of them several times this season. So it wasn't the youth 11 or anything near.

Guy:Incognito

He can play whatever players he wants, but players being "too tired" to play twice a week is ridiculous.

If they need a rest dotn have them train for a day, or have handy trainign sessions.God love them that they cant run for a whole 180 minues a week.

Xavi6

Atari Saipan

mike65 wrote: »

My Guardian blog reply shall do for this -

Mick McCarthy was quite right to manage his squad to the fullest. Three games in 8 days for his team is not something to dismiss lightly. They have lost 3/4 first team players to injury in the last couple of weeks. What would be gained by putting out the strongest 11 and picking up a couple more knocks when the game was almost certainly going to be beyond them anyway and Burnley are the opposition on Saturday?

Also as has been noted in that blog discussion McCarthy only bloodied one player last night, the rest have played in the league - a number of them several times this season. So it wasn't the youth 11 or anything near.

Jaysis Mike, Richo might need to do some editing before he reads that slander out! :pac:

opr

People seem to be arguing different points.

mike65 - I think everyone fully agrees with what your saying. We can all see the logic behind what Mick did and in terms of the best thing for his team his decision was more than likely correct.

The problem I have with the situation is if all the so called weaker teams now start following suit on a regular basis it will actually start to directly effect the chances of certain teams to finish Top 4 or who wins the league based on what other teams decide to do against you ? Your messing with the integrity of the league that each team goes out to try and gain as many points as possible in each game. Instead you have teams playing a chess like strategy that will be more beneficial to them overall but this will directly impact opposing teams differently depending on how they fit into your strategy.

Opr

Dave!

No

opr wrote: »

Once he has mathematically ensured survival he should just send the first team on holidays so that they will be well rested for next season!

Opr

When United had won the league last season, we put out a bunch of kids to play against Hull (who were fighting for survival) Were you up in arms about that too?

I wouldn't have any trouble with MM putting out his second string team for the last 2 or 3 games of the season anyway, no. There are fringe players in the squad that would benefit from the game-time and it would be to Wolves' advantage the following season if those players got some experience.

opr wrote: »

People seem to be arguing different points.

mike65 - I think everyone fully agrees with what your saying. We can all see the logic behind what Mick did and in terms of the best thing for his team his decision was more than likely correct.

The problem I have with the situation is if all the so called weaker teams now start following suit on a regular basis it will actually start to directly effect the chances of certain teams to finish Top 4 or who wins the league based on what other teams decide to do against you ? Your messing with the integrity of the league that each team goes out to try and gain as many points as possible in each game. Instead you have teams playing a chess like strategy that will be more beneficial to them overall but this will directly impact opposing teams differently depending on how they fit into your strategy.

Opr

It's not a particular team's job to worry about other teams. They all have their own targets that they aim towards. Wolves shouldn't have to worry about propping up Liverpool or some relegation battler, they got themselves into the situation they're in and each team should just concentrate on their own job.

mike65

No

All I can say is that if I were him I'd do the same, three games in 8 days, an unexpected win for the first that involved 90 mins of defending then to Old Trafford to do the same? The cost could have been far greater than not winning any points. In the longer term tired players get injured much more readily, and as mentioned Wolves are loosing players atm. Squad management is the name of the game. Unless the FA/PL expressly force managers to play the "best 11" every game then such pragmatic thinking will continue.

If the authorities did try to enforce a rule who would decide what the the best 11 of any squad was? The manager or some clipboard merchant parachuted in by the league?

GavRedKing

No

Smart move, he has 3 points out of 6 and before these two games he would expect maybe a point at most, well done Mick.

If they had lost to Spurs they probaly would have been a different attitude and team played against United.

Its funny though, I remember chelsea and United a feew years back was billed as a title decider and when Chelsea screwed up they both sent out there weakest possible 11 and its called resting and when a small team does it its considered illegal, the FA should really cop on.

Id argue that the 11 players that started played the best in training all week so why not start them, its to much of a grey area to do anything other then warn them IMO.

GLaDOS

I don't buy the "what if every team start doing it" argument. Wolves had 2 big teams then a 6 pointer in 8 days, that doesn't happen every week

opr

Dave! wrote: »

When United had won the league last season, we put out a bunch of kids to play against Hull (who were fighting for survival) Were you up in arms about that too?

The point of the league is to win it. Not to record the highest points total ? Once you have achieved this goal the nature of a league system means that things like the above are going to happen. In the same way the constraints of a league system would mean if Mick needed 3 points going into the last day of the season and it was against Man U he's not gonna field a weakened squad.

The difference as I see it last night is that Mick while still needing 3 points didn't play to win the game to full extent of the clubs abilities. The league only works so well because each team is trying to win every point they can up until such a time as this becomes moot.

Opr

opr

opr wrote: »

Imagine a situation were all smaller clubs start to pick and choose the games they think are most win-able and field a team based on this. This would have a massive impact on the league and very much to its detriment.

Opr

opr wrote: »

It hurts me to say this as I am a Liverpool fan but at present I think mangers would identify Liverpool far above Man U or Chelsea that they may be able to get something. So they decide that against Chelsea and Man U they will play the reserves and against Liverpool they will field a full strength side. How the fcuk is that fair ?

This is only one of a million things I can think of that just don't seem right about this.

Opr

opr wrote: »

People seem to be arguing different points.

mike65 - I think everyone fully agrees with what your saying. We can all see the logic behind what Mick did and in terms of the best thing for his team his decision was more than likely correct.

The problem I have with the situation is if all the so called weaker teams now start following suit on a regular basis it will actually start to directly effect the chances of certain teams to finish Top 4 or who wins the league based on what other teams decide to do against you ? Your messing with the integrity of the league that each team goes out to try and gain as many points as possible in each game. Instead you have teams playing a chess like strategy that will be more beneficial to them overall but this will directly impact opposing teams differently depending on how they fit into your strategy.

Opr

All excellent points. Good man.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I don't buy the "what if every team start doing it" argument. Wolves had 2 big teams then a 6 pointer in 8 days, that doesn't happen every week

Every games is a 6 pointer.

opr

Taking a really extreme example to try and show what I mean. Lets say all the teams in the bottom half of the table decide that Chelsea are just too good and have little or no chance against them. They are also very physical and the risk of injuries is pretty high so against them we will field a much weaker side but against everyone else we will play the full team.

Opr

eagle eye

No

opr wrote: »

The point of the league is to win it. Not to record the highest points total ? Once you have achieved this goal the nature of a league system means that things like the above are going to happen. In the same way the constraints of a league system would mean if Mick needed 3 points going into the last day of the season and it was against Man U he's not gonna field a weakened squad.

The difference as I see it last night is that Mick while still needing 3 points didn't play to win the game to full extent of the clubs abilities. The league only works so well because each team is trying to win every point they can up until such a time as this becomes moot.

Opr

They also did it before the league was won against Middleborough at the start of May.

MementoMori

No

I think Mick McCarthy made the right decision as to what was best for Wolves.

People are saying their next game isn't until Sunday but I think it was more to do with the game Saturday. I watched the Spurs game and there were under the cosh for pretty much the entire 90 minutes. They got the goal early on and clung on for dear life to keep Spurs out. They put in a huge effort in terms of chasing/harrying the Spurs players for the entire game and it was clear to see the players was extremely fatigued at the end. Doyle looked like he could have done with oxygen in the post-match interview, even a couple of minutes after the game. Also Mick made a comment about the fact that if you play a game three days after a game the risk of injury rises substanially and I think this came into his thinking. If I were Mick I'd be asking the FA about the scheduling of their fixtures especially in the run-up to the traditionally busy Christmas period.

I'm hopeful he rests some more of his players when they come to Anfield next week.

28064212

There's a problem with the question being asked here, and it's not just that McCarty is supposed to have an 'h' in it. "Was he right to do it?" Right for who? For the good of the league? For the Wolves fans? For the long-term future of the club? For the players?

If you're talking about it at a club level, whether he was right to do it is almost completely unmeasurable. It was a managerial decision, and it's impossible to tell what impact the alternatives could have had. He could have played the same 11 as against Spurs, they could have went out and lost 10-0 and Doyle could have been injured for the season. Was Ferguson wrong to play Vidic? He went off injured and might miss the next game. On the other hand, Vidic got the vital 2nd goal, without which it could have been a very different game. It's the same situation. It's ridiculous to try second-guessing managerial decisions. Whether he's wrong or right is irrelevant (except to a Wolves fan).

From a legal standpoint, and even a "fair-play" standpoint, he's done nothing that hasn't been done by every manager at one stage or another, especially over the busy Christmas period. The FA have absolutely nothing they could charge him with without having to retrospectively charge every other team. Any manager who tries to bring up the issue will have to play their first-choice 11 in every game for the rest of the season.

MementoMori

No

opr wrote: »

Taking a really extreme example to try and show what I mean. Lets say all the teams in the bottom half of the table decide that Chelsea are just too good and have little or no chance against them. They are also very physical and the risk of injuries is pretty high so against them we will field a much weaker side but against everyone else we will play the full team.

Opr

Each manager is going to make their team selections in every game to maximise their results. What happened last night was a freak occurence (in a statistical sense) and is mainly as a result of bad fixture management by the FA. If more teams started doing it, I'm sure the FA would come up with some rule to minimise it.

opr

eagle eye wrote: »

They also did it before the league was won against Middleborough at the start of May.

I get that this happens and while I don't remember the particular game. The thing is I presume Ferguson fully believes that the team he sends out should win that game. I mean he has to as overall he knows until the league is won winning every game is of vital importance.

Opr

Dave!

No

opr wrote: »

The point of the league is to win it. Not to record the highest points total ? Once you have achieved this goal the nature of a league system means that things like the above are going to happen. In the same way the constraints of a league system would mean if Mick needed 3 points going into the last day of the season and it was against Man U he's not gonna field a weakened squad.

That's the point, but it's not the aim of most of the teams if they're being realistic is it?

United, Chelsea and Arsenal are all aiming to win the league. Liverpool, Villa, Spurs and City are all aiming to get a Champions League place this season (maybe Birmingham too !). Most of the mid-table teams are aiming to get as high as possible and maybe get into the Europa League. The lower teams and usually the newly promoted teams are hoping to (a) avoid relegation, and (b) consolidate their status as a Premiership team.

They all have different priorities and thus they all have different strategies.

Their targets and aims change throughout the season depending on (a) injuries, (b) their form, (c) their opponents' form, among other things.

And their targets also change from season to season based on (a) last season's position, (b) whether the squad was strengthened or weakend during the summer, (c) new manager, (d) new chairman, and so on.

It's naive to believe that it's a league of 20 teams, so there must be 20 teams playing to win it.

Some competitions and some matches are prioritised based on a variety of factor, with the ultimate goal of reaching the target the team sets.

FrostyJack

Atari Saipan

I can understand why people are defending his actions (mainly United fans) as a business decision it makes sense, but as a moral and football decision he may as well as mugged someone. If he drops his players for the Arsenal and Chelsea games I will say fair enough, but we know he won't. The straw man arguements of Liverpool doing it before Champions League or United doing it in Carling cup are stupid. Liverpool "rested" certain players but there B team was better than most A's even beating Arsenal if I remember. The Carling cup is a joke, and as a cup it make no difference to other teams if you lose on purpose, you don't gain or lose points. United were down a number of players and playing pony at the moment a draw was a strong possiblity.
Looking ahead in the fixture list, Wolves play Hull after Liverpool and Stoke after Arsenal, will he do the same? Oh but guess who they play before Burnley next year lol.

jaykay74

No

FrostyJack wrote: »

I can understand why people are defending his actions (mainly United fans) as a business decision it makes sense, but as a moral and football decision he may as well as mugged someone. If he drops his players for the Arsenal and Chelsea games I will say fair enough, but we know he won't. The straw man arguements of Liverpool doing it before Champions League or United doing it in Carling cup are stupid. Liverpool "rested" certain players but there B team was better than most A's even beating Arsenal if I remember. The Carling cup is a joke, and as a cup it make no difference to other teams if you lose on purpose, you don't gain or lose points. United were down a number of players and playing pony at the moment a draw was a strong possiblity.
Looking ahead in the fixture list, Wolves play Hull after Liverpool and Stoke after Arsenal, will he do the same? Oh but guess who they play before Burnley next year lol.

Sheff Utd were relegated in part because liverpool rested players against fulham and lost and Utd rested players against west ham and lost. Is this wrong also ? People at the time just said, well if they got enough points in their other games this wouldn't have been an issue.

So were Liverpool and Utd right to play b teams in those games against sheff Utds rivals ?

eagle eye

No

opr wrote: »

I get that this happens and while I don't remember the particular game. The thing is I presume Ferguson fully believes that the team he sends out should win that game. I mean he has to as overall he knows until the league is won winning every game is of vital importance.

Opr

He had a huge Champion's League semi-final against Arsenal, and while I'm not 100% certain I believe Wenger did also.

Either way, its either every team can do it or nobody can do it.

Fuhrer

Xavi6 wrote: »

And I love explaining the flip side of the coin.

Imagine, debate on a....wait for it....discussion forum. Whatever next? :eek:

If you have such great love for debate maybe you would have engaded in some rather then going straight for the


"YOU OBVISOULY NOT WORTH MY TIME TO TALK TOOOOOO"


arguement

Fuhrer

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

How exactly would it make the game more winnable?

What is this magic game winning formula that comes from not playing against a top side?

It would stop injury, fatigue and suspensions of first choice players?

It might stop injury, fatigue and suspensions of first choice players.
It might also anger the same players or cause aggro due to the manager showing a lack of faith or belief in his players. They will also now be under even more pressure to win than they would be because of the furore.

Fuhrer

Deleted User wrote: »

It might stop injury, fatigue and suspensions of first choice players.
It might also anger the same players or cause aggro due to the manager showing a lack of faith or belief in his players. They will also now be under even more pressure to win than they would be because of the furore.

Yes it might.


And the reserve team might beat United 20-0.


It might.


Which is more likely?

ShiverinEskimo

Atari Saipan

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yes it might.


And the reserve team might beat United 20-0.


It might.


Which is more likely?

Which is more likely? What he said - infinitely. What's your point?