Posted 08 May 2007 - 11:49
Also, Liverpool wouldn't have done that if it wasn't neccessary, they are still fighting for third place so it was a gamble on their part which didn't pay off.
Plus, I'm confused with all this talk of a weakened side, of course it wasn't Liverpools best 11 but it was hardly a weak side. I could only see 2 players (youngsters who need the first team experience) who probably haven't played more many games for the club and also Robbie Fowler isn't the man he used to be. So that's a maximum of three players I see that aren't good enough of being in the strong Liverpool line up. Think the lesser clubs are just clutching at straws trying to shift the blame to other clubs.
Posted 08 May 2007 - 14:37
It makes no difference if its the 1st week or the last week of the season, to give 3 points away to any team by not fielding your strongest side is totally out of order and should be stamped on now.
We have been at the wrong end of the table on many occasions, are you peeps telling me that if we had have gone Down because somebody did that to us, you wouldnt feel aggrieved, I sure as fook would have been,
Its not playing the game if you dont do all you can to win every match.
Ive said it before and i'll say it again ...... if these clubs complain that they are playing too many games and having to rest their players the answer is simple, dont enter all the competitions, when are the FA going to stop Falling over themselves to help out these money grabbing clubs, its all about greed, and wanting more money.
SO STOP FOOKIN COMPLAINING WHEN YOU HAVE TO PLAY MORE GAMES.
(i went off on one there ..... sorry)
Posted 08 May 2007 - 15:42
Now put the other shoe on...if we were in the CL final and DM played our strongest team in the Premier League and say one of the star players gets injured, would you not be pissed that DM decided to play our best team in a match that didn't mean that much. Or say we were in Fulhams situation, and we played a weakened Arsenal side would you still be moaning.
If Man U did it against West Ham then fair enough imo. The youngsters needs first team experience. So you need to test young players would you not agree? Surely when we started playing Anichebe and Vaughn they weren't our strongest players available so would that mean teams have a right to complain about us?
Still think my point about Liverpool only playing two youngsters stands. The other players are hardly weak players so can't see why other teams can complain about Liverpools selection against Fulham.
Posted 08 May 2007 - 16:04
The FA made a ruling once and fined a team for doing just that, but i think they bowed down to the ""Big Clubs"" because it seems to have been forgotten about.
"If Man U did it against West Ham then fair enough imo."
I think you would see it a bit differently if we were in Wigan or Sheffields position this weekend.
Posted 08 May 2007 - 16:27
As I said, of course I'd be pissed off if we were in Wigans position but I still stand by the fact that teams have to look out for themselves rather than other teams. I don't see it against the ethics of the game as they aren't going out to lose, and Liverpool didn't want to lose as now third place is still up for grabs. Teams have to test out youngsters at some stage or another, people need to be giving chances to prove themselves if they haven't had many games. When the season is wrapped up, like Man Utds is, it's the ideal time for them to test out youngsters. Maybe not play a complete 11 but certainly try out a few players to see if they are good enough and give possible future 1st teamers some vital experience. If they can't do it now, when can they do it?
So how would you feel if a star player for us got injured in what is essentially a nothing game when we have a CL final in a couple of weeks?
Posted 08 May 2007 - 16:45
We had to bring on Cahill and Arteta late on against Peterborough to win it, if we had lost it because we didnt play a full strength side from the start i'd have been well pissed off.
But you have your view and i have mine, so be it.
Posted 08 May 2007 - 16:49
Anyway, the cup weakened side is a totally different issue. I think it's more disrespectful to field a weak side against a low league club but I'm not going into that topic
Posted 08 May 2007 - 23:31
Read my post again, it doesnt matter if its the first or last game, by not playing your strongest side and doing all you can to try and win, is against all the ethics of the game
Mind if I throw a few hypotheticals at you? Since you said that, I'm curious about your perspective on these scenarios now.
Question #1: What's your view on teams that go into games against ManU or Chelsea intending to play 90 minutes of negative football and come out of it with a draw. Are you suggesting that those teams are being unethical by trying to steal 1 point instead of opening it up and attacking and going all out to "win," when they'd probably lose by 4 or 5 if they did that?
Question #2: Which would you consider more ethical from a team: going balls to the wall trying to win every single game and finishing tenth because their first string has nothing left in the gas tank by April, or pacing themselves to a fifth place finish because they played their guys strategically all season and didn't always use their best available 11?
Question #3: Hypothetical scenario. Let's say you have two league games coming up, against Team A on Thursday and Team B on Sunday. Your star striker is coming back from an injury and the team doctor tells you that he can only play in one of those two games - he could be selected on Thursday, but then there's no chance he'll be cleared to play on Sunday. The Thursday game might affect the title chase (which you aren't involved with), but means nothing to your team, while the Sunday game is a critical match against one of the teams you're competing with for a spot in Europe. So which game do you play him in - the first one that he's available for, or the one that's more important for your team?
Posted 09 May 2007 - 07:03
""Are you suggesting that those teams are being unethical by trying to steal 1 point instead of opening it up and attacking and going all out to "win," when they'd probably lose by 4 or 5 if they did that?""
Taking one point from any of the "Big Teams" rather than being thrashed 5 - 0 is a victory of sorts, and was probably well earned.
For the second Hypothetical question, i would refer you to Wigans Performances of last season, and Readings performances of this season, both teams where short odds favourites to go back down, but they played without fear and attacked every team they played, and got their rewards for doing so.
The third question is nonsense, why can he only play in one of those games, is he fit or not ??
if he's fit enough to play in the first one, why cant he play in both.
Think i've said enough on this subject, each and every member will have views that differ, thats fair enough,
but to explain them in depth to every Tom, Dick or Harry who comes up with another hypothetical scenario can become rather tiresome.
Posted 09 May 2007 - 14:52
And regarding #3 it isn't complete nonsense. We often have scenarios like that in American sports. Not exactly like the one I proposed, but you might see a manager over here who has an aging star on the team rest him sometimes when there is too short a turnaround between games (like having games scheduled two nights in a row, which sometimes happens with basketball and hockey and is routine in baseball) and he can't recover quickly enough. Reasons vary - he may have some kind of chronic injury like arthritis or tendinitis or a bad back that doesn't respond well to being asked to play two in a row, or he may not have as much stamina as the younger guys and the manager thinks that giving him days off will keep him fresher and healthier for the end of the season and (with our sports) the playoffs. Or in hockey, for instance, it's standard practice when a team has games on consecutive nights to play their first string goaltender in only one of the two games - usually against the stronger of the two opponents - and let his backup play the other one, simply because the position is so demanding. That's why I was curious to know more about your take, because I'm coming from a different sports culture with a totally different perspective on the issue, but also one where the seasons are much longer (82 games for basketball and hockey, 162 for baseball, plus playoffs in every sport) and games are played more frequently.
Edit: I just saw this article where SAF talks about the issue of resting players in relation to ManU's games with Chelsea and West Ham this week. Just thought I'd pop it up here since it touches on some of the points already raised in this thread.
Edited by JD in DC, 09 May 2007 - 15:03.
Posted 09 May 2007 - 15:58
proud claim"if you know your history"......Any way 26th May 1985,championship already in
the bag,and Everton were faced with an away game against relegation threatened Coventry.
With I guess an eye on an up and coming cup final we played what could be described as
perhaps not our best team....and by reports at the time seems even the established players
didn't exactly give it 100%!!Result Coventry 4 (champions)Everton1.
That's half the story,because as a result of this result Coventry were safe,BUT poor old Norwich
City were relegated...AND living in Norfolk some Norwich fans still remember that Coventry
result and hate us for that!!!!!
Dirty game not playing your best team!but will always happen,even we've done it!
I can remember Howard Kendall saying he hoped Chelsea wouldn't be wearing their FLIP FLOPS
when they played Bolton,when our survival depended on Bolton losing!!To Chelsea's credit,and
remembering they had a cup final coming up....they did us the huge favor of beating the ever
physical Bolton.In my mind a bit of a Kendall master stroke and not a small bit of Chelsea pride!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users