West Ham complain about Fulham team selection
- Thread starter Xinn
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You need to realise why this was done, its because Fulham are STILL sueing West Ham for 500k because of a place Fulham lost due to Tevez playing.
Its likely just a way to get Fulham to drop their case, which is IMHO even more bogus and pathetic. But Hodgeson apparently on TV publically stated he was resting players for a more important game.
Yes this has always gone on, and every single team pretty much ever in the premier league has rested players for games they thought they couldn't win, or when a more important league or cup game is coming up and they should have every right to do so.
As I said, its got more to do with getting Fulham to back off as they are heavily in debt and 500k + the money spent on lawyers is a drain on a club at the limit.
Its likely just a way to get Fulham to drop their case, which is IMHO even more bogus and pathetic. But Hodgeson apparently on TV publically stated he was resting players for a more important game.
Yes this has always gone on, and every single team pretty much ever in the premier league has rested players for games they thought they couldn't win, or when a more important league or cup game is coming up and they should have every right to do so.
As I said, its got more to do with getting Fulham to back off as they are heavily in debt and 500k + the money spent on lawyers is a drain on a club at the limit.
Especially when 8 of those Wolves players played when Wolves beat West Ham 3 -1. The Premier League set a precedent with the ridiculous decision to punish Wolves and I don't see how Fulham have a leg to stand on unless the Premier League decide to back track and rescind the punishment on Wolves.
Really good point, they opened this up themselves.
They're only in debt to MoMo though and he's not exactly ordering the money back instantly
I'm looking at the Fulham team sheet here and although I agree that there are some major absentees, Hodgson has still put out a fully capable side. The Wolves team that played United was a reserve side. I don't think I've seen half of those players feature since. You've also got to look at the game before in which they beat Spurs with their first team lineup, the 10 changes compared to Fulhams six really showed a statement of intent going in to a game that they were heavily expected to lose.
8 of the team Wolves put out at United played at West Ham and won 3 - 1.
Personally I reckon this FA ruling about having to field a strong team is an absolute joke, managers should be able to field whatever XI they see fit (providing they are all registered etc), and if that includes 11 teenagers, so be it.
They are the ones with their necks on the line if they don't succeed.
If Wenger puts out a reserve team against Wolves tomorrow with one eye on the trip to the Nou Camp I won't be demanding my 50 quid back, that's his perogative.
They are the ones with their necks on the line if they don't succeed.
If Wenger puts out a reserve team against Wolves tomorrow with one eye on the trip to the Nou Camp I won't be demanding my 50 quid back, that's his perogative.
I too think managers should be allowed to field whatever team they want but the problem is that the FA don't like the idea that a particular result is more or less known prior to kick off, or at least that a manager is writing off a result before a ball is kicked.
If Wolves are fielding their weakest team in order to rest their better players for the next game - a game the manager feels they have a greater chance of winning or a greater need of winning - then it's as though the manager is saying ''there's no point competing with them so we'll just cut our losses''. That to me is not competitive and not in the best interest of football.
It's a tricky situation and one which I don't know the answer to. For instance, Wolves using second team players is nowhere near the same as Manu fielding second team players is it?
The FA have to do something to stop it before it escalates into something along the lines of top teams using their best players against other top teams and using their second string players against the lower teams. Or the lower teams saying there's no point playing so and so in that game, as we're going to lose anyway, so we'll be better off saving him for the next game which we need to win or have a better chance of winning.
If that starts to happen then it isn't a football game that's deciding the result, it's the managers making it.
If Wolves are fielding their weakest team in order to rest their better players for the next game - a game the manager feels they have a greater chance of winning or a greater need of winning - then it's as though the manager is saying ''there's no point competing with them so we'll just cut our losses''. That to me is not competitive and not in the best interest of football.
It's a tricky situation and one which I don't know the answer to. For instance, Wolves using second team players is nowhere near the same as Manu fielding second team players is it?
The FA have to do something to stop it before it escalates into something along the lines of top teams using their best players against other top teams and using their second string players against the lower teams. Or the lower teams saying there's no point playing so and so in that game, as we're going to lose anyway, so we'll be better off saving him for the next game which we need to win or have a better chance of winning.
If that starts to happen then it isn't a football game that's deciding the result, it's the managers making it.
It's ridiculous really. Yes the team might have been weaker, but those 'rested' have played a competitive 45-50 games already this season, and a few carrying knocks.
The ones replaced were Zamora, Duff, Etuhu, Kelly and Hughes. Zamora, Hughes and Kelly were carrying knocks and Etuhu is not far back from a few injuries, so he was rested. Duff has played most games this season which has stretched to 50-55 games already thus far.
I guess fielding players that have played against Roma, Basle and other european teams isn't a full strength team at the time.
If we get the £25k fine, like Wolves it'll be ridiculous, they changed 9 well and true first team players. We've been trying to play competitively with up to 13-14 'first' team players for over a few weeks. A squad is there to be used, and we did.
From Hodgson;
The ones replaced were Zamora, Duff, Etuhu, Kelly and Hughes. Zamora, Hughes and Kelly were carrying knocks and Etuhu is not far back from a few injuries, so he was rested. Duff has played most games this season which has stretched to 50-55 games already thus far.
I guess fielding players that have played against Roma, Basle and other european teams isn't a full strength team at the time.
If we get the £25k fine, like Wolves it'll be ridiculous, they changed 9 well and true first team players. We've been trying to play competitively with up to 13-14 'first' team players for over a few weeks. A squad is there to be used, and we did.
From Hodgson;
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,950
- Location
- Surrey
Technically they should be charged because Wolves were. In reality this whole think is just stupid and neither team should have been charged.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
How many changes did Wolves make?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
So 66% more than Fulham changed. Would be surprised if anything comes of this.
Me too. The team we picked was good enough to win, but just didn't - oh well. They're all internationals, the ones that were brought in (apart from Smalling, but technically hes a Utd player
).Dikgacoi played against West Ham and got sent off, maybe that was a weakened team again?
Not only that, the game we 'rested' players for....won against Wolfsburg..
Last edited:
Against Man Utd:
* 13 Hahnemann
* 03 Elokobi
* 23 Zubar
* 26 Hill
* 27 Mancienne
* 28 Friend (Jarvis 61)
* 32 Foley
* 12 Surman
* 15 Halford (Jones 76)
* 35 Castillo
* 33 Maierhofer (Iwelumo 54)
Substitutes
* 01 Hennessey,
* 16 Berra,
* 08 Henry,
* 14 Jones,
* 17 Jarvis,
* 09 Ebanks-Blake,
* 19 Iwelumo
Against West Ham:
* 13 Hahnemann
* 03 Elokobi
* 06 Craddock
* 16 Berra
* 23 Zubar (Halford 80)
* 27 Mancienne (Guedioura 86)
* 32 Foley
* 08 Henry
* 14 Jones
* 17 Jarvis (Ward 71)
* 29 Doyle
Substitutes
* 01 Hennessey,
* 11 Ward,
* 15 Halford,
* 20 Milijas,
* 34 Guedioura,
* 09 Ebanks-Blake,
* 19 Iwelumo
Imo the team against West Ham looks stronger, especially in attack.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 318
- Location
- Wolverhampton
It was actually 9 as Dave Edwards got injured against Spurs the last game before so wouldn't have played against United anyway and he has only been fit since last week.
As i see it Fulham should get fined as they fined us for it. Can't be one rule for one and another for others. However i will say it's up to the manager who he plays not the PL or FA.
Why?
In theory there is no difference at all. The fact that manyoo can attract and retain a higher calibre of reserve players than Wolves can should be neither here nor there.