West Ham complain about Fulham team selection

Xinn · 1 Apr 2010 at 15:55

Clicky

Will be interesting to see what the EPL do about this, if Wolves got fined for fielding a 'weakened' team then so should Fulham.

I don't agree with it personally, the manager should be able to pick what team they like but I wouldn't be surprised if they turn the blind eye.

The Running Man · 1 Apr 2010 at 15:58

its such a tough one to deal with.

i mean who is to determine what the strongest squad is? do the FA care about team priorities?

would resting torres and gerard in the leage for the sake of the champions leage constitute punishment? should it?

but is it fair if the league winner runs away with it and then fields reserves for the last few games?

its a crass ruling tbh but still somewhat needed all the same!

CliffyBiro · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:02

Surely saying some of them picked up a slight knock would get around this?

Gilly · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:03

It was only a matter of time. Clubs should be free to field whatever side they want.

The Running Man · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:03

but if a rule is fallible that you can just lie your way through it, whats the point in having the law at all?

nikebee · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:06

I don't get this weakened side malarky... big teams have been doing this for years and nothing has ever happened to them.

United/Arsenal/Pool/Chelsea will always rest key players and give backup players a chance ahead of big games.

Heck remember a few years back before the United/Chelsea FA Cup final we basically saw a reserves game in the premier league as both United and Chelsea put out almost virtual unknowns?

Fulham should have every right to rest players ahead one of their biggest games of the season.

We rested Rooney and Ferdinand last weekend - so we surely put a weakened team out again Bolton?

Psycho Sonny · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:11

their complaining they had to play against a weaker team? :eek:

i thought they would be over the moon that a side had rested some of its better players, making it an easier match for them.

a team should be able to pick whatever players they chose to do so, after all its them that are in charge of the players / pay their wages, etc.

jakeke · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:12

If West Ham go down it's because they've not been good enough.

CliffyBiro · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:13

Psycho Sonny said:
their complaining they had to play against a weaker team?

i thought they would be over the moon that a side had rested some of its better players, making it an easier match for them.

a team should be able to pick whatever players they chose to do so, after all its them that are in charge of the players / pay their wages, etc.

Fulham played a weaker team against Hull, not Wet Spam.

Gilly · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:15

Psycho Sonny said:
their complaining they had to play against a weaker team?

No, their complaining that there relegation rivals played against a weakened Fulham side.

Psycho Sonny · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:16

skippi90 said:
Fulham played a weaker team against Hull, not Wet Spam.

oh right, makes more sense now, i would be angry too, but its up to the team whatever they choose to do, so you would just have to bite your tongue and get on with it.

semi-pro waster · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:19

Psycho Sonny said:
their complaining they had to play against a weaker team?

Not quite, West Ham are complaining that Fulham rested some key players when they played against Hull City thereby giving Hull an easier game which they won 2-0.

However it's a nonsense, a manager is expected to do what is best for his team, they should not have to second-guess what the governing body will say or field a different team to do favours to another club. As jakeke says if you don't stay up then you weren't good enough and didn't gain enough points - simple as that, you should not be relying on anyone else to do it for you. Not incidentally it's somewhat hypocritical - has there ever been a team complain when someone has rested players against them and they've won a surprising victory?

//edit ok the complaint has been explained now, I'm just slow at typing.

m0r94n · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:21

Seems as if Sullivan and Gold should start trying to push the club forward rather than dragging everyone through the mud with name calling and finger pointing. I can't think of a single positive thing they've done since they took over.

Yes Fulham put out a weaker side, however iirc they have one of the smallest squads in the Premiership. They can't be expected to field the same team week in week out, maybe Benitez should be fined for using a rotation system at Liverpool?

The Running Man · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:24

However it's a nonsense, a manager is expected to do what is best for his team, they should not have to second-guess what the governing body will say or field a different team to do favours to another club.

thats what they thought in F1 until the governing body didnt appreciate teams reshuffling their cars to ensure a specific place finish for each driver.

i can see where these guys are coming from. it isnt fair that one team has to play a full strength team and that another plays one that isnt. But i think you enter football knowing this.

im sure west ham might have entered an understrength team in the cup at some point - or even in the league themselves, which isnt really fair but sometimes that is how it goes!

CliffyBiro · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:26

Nickg said:
thats what they thought in F1 until the governing body didnt appreciate teams reshuffling their cars to ensure a specific place finish for each driver.

i can see where these guys are coming from. it isnt fair that one team has to play a full strength team and that another plays one that isnt. But i think you enter football knowing this.

im sure west ham might have entered an understrength team in the cup at some point - or even in the league themselves, which isnt really fair but sometimes that is how it goes!

West Ham's team is always understrength.

physichull · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:33

Yet another reason why money has RUINED football.

I'm a Rugby League convert and I won't be going back to watch Hull City, CCC or EPL.

cheets64 · 1 Apr 2010 at 16:44

West Ham would do the same.

Greenlizard0 · 1 Apr 2010 at 17:00

Gilly said:
It was only a matter of time. Clubs should be free to field whatever side they want.

Aye they should, I think the rule is a bit daft to be honest. In the main summer competitions it's different. I remember a few years ago Germany (I think) moaned that the Czech Republic fielded a weaker side for the final game of their group. FIFA responded that having won the first two and already qualified "[the Czech Republic] had the right to field [who they wanted to]".

semi-pro waster · 1 Apr 2010 at 17:35

Nickg said:
thats what they thought in F1 until the governing body didnt appreciate teams reshuffling their cars to ensure a specific place finish for each driver.

It's a different sport but I think it's equally as stupid there if that helps any.

Nickg said:
i can see where these guys are coming from. it isnt fair that one team has to play a full strength team and that another plays one that isnt. But i think you enter football knowing this.

im sure west ham might have entered an understrength team in the cup at some point - or even in the league themselves, which isnt really fair but sometimes that is how it goes!

I can appreciate that it may not seem fair to a team if they play their opponents at full strength but rivals benefit from playing them when half their team is rested but such is life. You've got to gain enough points by your own efforts, relying on and bitching about the results of other teams is a rather futile exercise.

Gilly · 1 Apr 2010 at 17:36

m0r94n said:
Yes Fulham put out a weaker side, however iirc they have one of the smallest squads in the Premiership. They can't be expected to field the same team week in week out, maybe Benitez should be fined for using a rotation system at Liverpool?

Does that go for Wolves too?

physichull said:
Yet another reason why money has RUINED football.

I'm a Rugby League convert and I won't be going back to watch Hull City, CCC or EPL.

I don't understand what this has to do with money. Seems to be an egg chaser taking a pop at a superior sport for very little reason.

However, you can rest assured that money won't ruin Super League. The administrators will do that with money or without (it will always be without in the sport, there is no money in it).