Another shocking example of double standards........

kippy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

therein lies the problem. FA had to act once McCarthy admitted it.

They didn't have to do anything. What they have to do is enforce the rule equally for everyone. The only precedent this charge sets is that managers need not admit to playing a weakened team and they wont get charged.

Columbia

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

McCarthy put out a weakened team and he must have known it was going to get in trouble. He took a risk and it didnt pay off.

What do you mean it didn't pay off? They won their next game, which was the whole point of playing a weakened team against United. It went precisely how they expected it to go! They threw the kids to the lions to rest their first team for the next match.

Ridiculous decision, the FA has no right to decide which line-up clubs use. The Wolves fans at the game are the only ones I would feel sorry for, completely cheated out of their money. I only get to a few games a year, costs about 110 euros a pop (travel, hostel + tickets), and if I got to one and was watching the Everton reserves I'd be absolutely fuming.

Pro. F

Aargh! This decision annoys me no end. It's totally flawed.

Mick's decision was the absolute correct decision from a strategic point of view. His team played Burnley 3 days later and they won. Fielding any sort of first eleven against United would have been stupid.

I know that McCarthy caused a problem by admitting that he prioritized a different game and said he expected to lose against United. But, unless the FA are going to start strictly enforcing this rule now (which of course they won't) then the only thing they've done is punish Mick's honesty. Actually, maybe the FA will start to enforce this rule now where a breach is obvious - as in, when the smaller teams do it, because the bigger teams' ability to nearly continuously rotate players would cover their tracks.... ah it's just stupid!

I really wish Wolves hadn't accepted this fine, would have been great to see it go to the CAS.

5starpool

This is a great thread. Thumbs up from me.

Silly decision by the FA. It was wrong when Liverpool did it (although getting Warnock in a hissy fit was a plus point), it was wrong when Utd did it, and it was wrong when Wolves done it, but at the same time I don't think the FA should pick and choose when to punish teams for it, even if it is a mediocre suspended fine.

citytillidie

SantryRed wrote: »

So what do you think of Benitez ''throwing the game'' against Fulham a few years ago which relegated Sheffield United?

I thought a season goes over 38 games Sheffield United did not get enough points over them 38 games to stay up. Liverpool did field a weakened team but a team that the manager thought was good enough to beat the team he was playing.

Nothing would be said about from Neil Warnock is a moaner just look at how many times he has been fined by the FA

Yes its double standards as its no different to what Wolves or Man Utd have done.

The only difference is Rafa and Alex Fergusion did not say they had no chance of winning the games they fielded the weaked teams.

Mick McCarthy gave an interview on Sky Sports the day after, after the chants by the Wolves fans of "£40 to see the reserves" and "we want out money back", he admitted that players were tired from the Spurs game he said Wolves had no chance of beating United and since the players were tired were more likely to pick up injures so he fielded the weaked team to save the players for the Burnley game

jaykay74

citytillidie wrote: »

I thought a season goes over 38 games Sheffield United did not get enough points over them 38 games to stay up. Liverpool did field a weakened team but a team that the manager thought was good enough to beat the team he was playing.

Nothing would be said about from Neil Warnock is a moaner just look at how many times he has been fined by the FA

Yes its double standards as its no different to what Wolves or Man Utd have done.

The only difference is Rafa and Alex Fergusion did not say they had no chance of winning the games they fielded the weaked teams.

Mick McCarthy gave an interview on Sky Sports the day after, after the chants by the Wolves fans of "£40 to see the reserves" and "we want out money back", he admitted that players were tired from the Spurs game he said Wolves had no chance of beating United and since the players were tired were more likely to pick up injures so he fielded the weaked team to save the players for the Burnley game

Your paraphrasing of Mick doesn't match the quotes. "no chance" versus "could have got beaten". Can you find quotes to match your version of micks interview ?

"We had a great result at Spurs and every player rated it 9 to 9.5/10 in terms of how hard it was," he said.

"I need to protect them. If you have another match of that magnitude, you can't cope. We have big games coming."

"We could have got beaten whatever team I put out and I might have lost somebody with a hamstring or calf strain because they were all struggling after beating Spurs," stated McCarthy.

"It's my decision and the responsibility lies with me."

"I can understand the supporters' reaction but at the end of the season I will be judged on whether Wolves have stayed in the Premier League or not," he said.

"It was a hugely difficult game against the champions and I thought we did OK. None of them let me down.

"We have 21 fit players and three players facing operations. The Spurs game really took it out of them. The 10% chance of injury increases to 30-40% if you have another game like that.

"I'm not prepared to get injuries before the weekend. You can't argue with the scoreline with United but there are some plusses," he added, highlighting "outstanding" performances by on-loan Chelsea defender Michael Mancienne and midfielder Andrew Surman.

"I'm not bothered about the reaction from anybody else," insisted McCarthy. "When I go into their office at Chelsea or Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger comes into my office at home, there was no sympathy for me, they had just turned round and slapped me.

"I make decisions for what I think is the good of my players and the good of the club. I knew those questions would be asked of my decisions but what I haven't got is any more injuries."

PHB

I think what the FA are worried about is the potential for this to become widespread.
Let's be honest, United are going to beat the bottom 5 on a regular basis. Why shouldn't they all do this? Wolves got 3 points out of the Burnley and United match, that's a good return. If more and more managers did this, it would become a very bad thing.

I do think there is a distinction between United's squad rotation and what Wolves did. United still try and win every game [except a few cases which I'll come back to]. They play a team that they think can win, and rotate in order to be ready for anything. This is different to what Wolves did.

At the same time, United will happily play a weakened team if it suits them. If we've already won the league and the CL final is there, they'll play a weakened team. If there's a big CL tie and we can afford the loss in the league, they'll play a weakened team.

Boggles

If Wolves had won or drawn, would they have been fined?

CHD

Boggles wrote: »

If Wolves had won or drawn, would they have been fined?

If your Aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

_blank_

CHD wrote: »

If your Aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

Not seen that one around here in a while, nice one CHD

jaykay74

CHD wrote: »

If your Aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

More generally then, if you rest 10 players and win anyway should you be punished for fielding a weakened team.

JimsAlterEgo

The FA would have a point if the team put out was a youth team or had very little appearances before but I seem to remember it was actually a decent team they put out.

CHD

Des wrote:

Not seen that one around here in a while, nice one CHD

Thanks Dessie. I felt the situation warranted a comedic yet to the point straight shooting answer and I feel I have achieved this with my post. The very fact you feel it is a nice one and it possibly brought a smile to your face makes it all the more worthwhile and makes me happy that the time and effort I put into my post didn't go to waste and is appreciated. Have a great day fella.

jaykay74 wrote:

More generally then, if you rest 10 players and win anyway should you be punished for fielding a weakened team.

If your Aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

~Rebel~

jaykay74 wrote: »

More generally then, if you rest 10 players and win anyway should you be punished for fielding a weakened team.

Well, the precedent which has been set now would seem to indicate that if you rest 10 players and win, no hassle. But, if you rest 10 players, win, and then come out saying "Jaysus thats some miracle, I dropped the good team since we were afraid of injuries and sent them useless reserve feckers out to lose as we couldn't give a fuk about even trying to win this game, but fair fucks to them they pulled it off!" you might get a fine.

It seems to be the admission that you are not treating each game over the course of the season in an equally competitive manner that gets you in trouble.

astrofool

Managers should be able to play the team that will give most benefit to their season. Whether they talk about it or not, shouldn't make a difference. McCarthy is managing to keep Wolves out of the relegation places so far, probably learning his lesson from last time with Sunderland (when he fielded a full strength team at Old Trafford and got a draw incidentally, Utd were chasing Chelsea, and were expected to use the match to improve their goal difference at the time).

As for Spirit/Bay, this factual youtube video should help you in determining whether you have won your argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

pickarooney

I'd be happy if somehow Burnley beat Wolves to 17th thanks to the points they took from the top 4.

Boggles

CHD wrote: »

If your Aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

If you had balls would you be your Aunts nephew?

CHD

Boggles wrote: »

If you had balls would you be your Aunts nephew?

If you had a brain would you be a good poster?

Boggles

CHD wrote: »

If you had a brain would you be a good poster?

Booooooooooooo.

rossie1977

SantryRed wrote: »

Hilarious, what really gets me is this is a game United were going to win either way

utd were going through their worst spell of the season, they didn't have any defenders ffs, fulham tore utd apart a few days later, wolves in all but words threw the game

what about the year Sheffield United went down and Benitez played a second string side in the second last game against Fulham, Fulham won one nil and stayed up because of that result. I thought these ridiculous decisions only happened in Ireland.

complete and utter myth created by the media and latched onto by fans, that liverpool second team against fulham

Reina, Arbeloa, Paletta, Hyypia, Insua (Finnan 75), Pennant (El Zhar 65), Alonso, Sissoko, Gonzalez (Kewell 77), Fowler, Bellamy

liverpool team vs sheffield utd first day of that season

Reina, Kromkamp, Hyypia, Carragher (Agger 34), Riise (Gonzalez 26), Gerrard, Sissoko, Zenden, Aurelio, Fowler (Pennant 83), Bellamy.

wow such a difference, 5 players started both games, gonzales started vs fulham and played 75 mins against sheffield utd, alonso came in for gerrard, pennant for zenden

arbeloa >>>> kromkamp with his eyes closed
paletta complete tripe alrite

CHD

Boggles wrote: »

Booooooooooooo.

:pac: you

IvySlayer

Ohhh Ohhh insult me next CHD

SantryRed

rossie1977 wrote: »

utd were going through their worst spell of the season, they didn't have any defenders ffs, fulham tore utd apart a few days later, wolves in all but words threw the game



complete and utter myth created by the media and latched onto by fans, that liverpool second team against fulham

Reina, Arbeloa, Paletta, Hyypia, Insua (Finnan 75), Pennant (El Zhar 65), Alonso, Sissoko, Gonzalez (Kewell 77), Fowler, Bellamy

liverpool team vs sheffield utd first day of that season

Reina, Kromkamp, Hyypia, Carragher (Agger 34), Riise (Gonzalez 26), Gerrard, Sissoko, Zenden, Aurelio, Fowler (Pennant 83), Bellamy.

wow such a difference, 5 players started both games, gonzales started vs fulham and played 75 mins against sheffield utd, alonso came in for gerrard, pennant for zenden

arbeloa >>>> kromkamp with his eyes closed
paletta complete tripe alrite

This thread is as good as dead but I have to bring this up. From the start of the season isn't the point! It's from one game to the next.

Liverpool made 9 changes from the Chelsea game 4 days before.

copacetic

SantryRed wrote: »

This thread is as good as dead but I have to bring this up. From the start of the season isn't the point! It's from one game to the next.

Liverpool made 9 changes from the Chelsea game 4 days before.

No, the point is you made a big deal that Liverpool fielded a 'second string' side to throw the game. It's not true, you are just repeating some rubbish you read somewhere, without actually looking in to it.

The team listed above proves it, Liverpool fielded a team they thought could still beat Fulham and most sane people would agree that that team probably would. The same way Utd or Arsenal field 'weakened' sides, but still expect to win.

The difference with the Wolves case is they sent out a team to lose, bascially they threw the game. If they are let away with it every bottom 6 team could field reserve teams for every game they felt they were going to lose, putting the integrity of the league at risk.

Iago

Stay on-topic or take a break from the forum. On-topic means the conversation at hand, not taking pot shots at each other

Fuzzy_Dunlop

The thing I don't agree with what McCarthy did was to assume that his team didn't have a chance against Utd. Wasn't the match at the height of their injury crisis when they had something like 7 defenders out? They had just been beaten by villa and then proceeded to lose 3-0 to Fulham a few days after the Wolves match

KittyeeTrix

Teams should not field weaker teams in any bloody circumstance. It is wrong and is terribly unjust to the other teams in the league but feck it, we live in an unjust world and so we must just get on with it!!!!!!!

SantryRed

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Teams should not field weaker teams in any bloody circumstance. It is wrong and is terribly unjust to the other teams in the league but feck it, we live in an unjust world and so we must just get on with it!!!!!!!

So it should be the same 11 every single game?

Spiritoftheseventies

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Teams should not field weaker teams in any bloody circumstance. It is wrong and is terribly unjust to the other teams in the league but feck it, we live in an unjust world and so we must just get on with it!!!!!!!

How will this suspended fine work. Will it be imposed if Wolves do it again?

KittyeeTrix

SantryRed wrote: »

So it should be the same 11 every single game?

Of course not, can you not help yourself man??? I'm bloody worse for responding but feck it, I need a break from the study!!!!

The strongest team should always be put on the field but there are times when this is not possible. I can understand why McCarthy did what he did but it does not make it right.
Not everything is black and white, why is that so hard to understand??

And if that response doesn't sit right with any of ye here's an alternative:

Yes, the same 11 should start every single game.:rolleyes:

KittyeeTrix

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

How will this suspended fine work. Will it be imposed if Wolves do it again?

No clue

Spiritoftheseventies

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

No clue

Im guessing a suspended fine means that fine will be held off on provision of Wolves good behaviour. I think its a good idea. This way Wolves get off and will discourage them from doing it again. Double standards or no double standards Wolves have not been unduly punished here.

kippy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Im guessing a suspended fine means that fine will be held off on provision of Wolves good behaviour. I think its a good idea. This way Wolves get off and will discourage them from doing it again. Double standards or no double standards Wolves have not been unduly punished here.

What do you mean they havent been "unduly" punished here?
They've been made an example of and have been given a punishment as a result of it. Whether it is suspended or not is irrelevant. Again, McCarthys honesty is what has been punished and it sets a POOR example for other teams in the league.

I look forward to those matches at towards the end of the season where United Chelsea and possibly arsenal are "resting players".

Spiritoftheseventies

astrofool wrote: »

Managers should be able to play the team that will give most benefit to their season. Whether they talk about it or not, shouldn't make a difference. McCarthy is managing to keep Wolves out of the relegation places so far, probably learning his lesson from last time with Sunderland (when he fielded a full strength team at Old Trafford and got a draw incidentally, Utd were chasing Chelsea, and were expected to use the match to improve their goal difference at the time).

As for Spirit/Bay, this factual youtube video should help you in determining whether you have won your argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Yeah know the video astro. You can come to my tea party anytime :rolleyes: