West Ham complain about Fulham team selection

[Chong Warrior]

If West Ham can complain about Fulham fielding a weakened side against Hull then Spurs should do the same, as Fulham fielded a weakened team against Man City the other week. Allowing Citeh 3 points I don't think they would have got away against a full strength Fulham.

If City pip Spurs or Liverpool to 4th place by a single point isn't it the same thing?

It's just the way football is. They're pathetic, West Ham should shut up.

 

[Eddie]

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.

The problem is that the FA don't want a manager writing off a result even before a ball is kicked. Obviously, the top clubs like ManU can field a weaker team against the weaker clubs and yet still get a positive result, whereas the weaker clubs have to field their strongest team against both weak and strong opposition in the hope of getting any sort of positive result.

So, if there is a 'one rule for all' policy, fair enough Wolves got punished for fielding a weak side, but how can the FA punish ManU for fielding a weak side if they got a positive result? On the flip side of that, if a manager effectively writes off a result even before a ball is kicked, is that in the best interests of football as a whole? Should he/the club not be punished in some way so as to keep the league as honest and as competitive as possible?

I appreciate that it may be in the best interest of the particular club to write off a particular game in advance, and I agree that managers should be free to put out whatever team they want, but at the end of the day it is to the detriment of the Premier League (and football as a whole) if the result of a particular match is being decided somewhere that isn't on the actual football pitch.

It's the integrity of the league that the FA are trying to protect. Obviously at the moment only a couple of clubs have done it, but the FA will not for one second like it if more clubs start doing it on a more regular basis. Which is why they feel the need to punish managers/clubs - it's an attempt to stop it escalating, or at least to show that they are trying to stop it escalating. The FA decided to punish Wolves without thinking it through properly imo, for if they had thought it through properly they would have realised that a 'one rule for all' policy would not work for the simple reason that ManU can field a weak side against Wolves and yet still get a positive result.

 

[mmj_uk]

They weren't complaining when they beat Man UTD and avoided relegation the last game of the season a few years back.

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

Exactly, as long as they're registered squad members a manager should be free to select them whenever he wants.

 

[Nogimmix]

Now I'm a hammers fan and I think this is such a silly action by West Ham. Fulham put out a decent team and they got beat - it happens.

I feel the real reason why the West Ham board are doing this is that Fulham are seeking £500,000 from West Ham over the Tevez saga many years ago.

Zola has came out and said that he supports Hodgson over his team selection so that will caused more friction between him and the board.

 

[HangTime]

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 still a football game deciding the result, the manager can't get a pen out and write down the score he wants, it's based on the goals scored on the pitch.

Managers always have, and always will have some bearing on the result because they pick the team, dictate the tactics, make the subs and so on. If managers aren't allowed to the pick the team they want then we should do away with them altogether and just have the football pools panel picking every team, despite the fact that they've probably never even seen some of the youth players in training and have no idea what they're capable of. In 10 years time we'll have sides playing with an average age of 35 because nobody is allowed to grant a debut to anybody.

 

[Eddie]

It's still a football game deciding the result, the manager can't get a pen out and write down the score he wants, it's based on the goals scored on the pitch.

When I say the 'result' I mean who the winners are, not the actual score line. Of course the manager isn't deciding what the score line would be, but he is more or less deciding whether his team have a fighting chance or not prior to kick off.

So if the manager of a relegation threatened club feels his team have next to zero chance of winning against ManU (or anyone else), he picks his team accordingly, which is effectively picking his team knowing he's going to lose that particular game. But by doing that he's given his players more of a chance of winning the next game, which is a far more important game to the club than a game against ManU is, as the next game is against one of the other relegation candidates. The manager obviously feels that winning the relegation battle is far more important to the survival of the club. Losing against ManU is meaningless to this manager as he just doesn't care about that game, he's far more concerned with getting three points from one of the other relegation candidates.

As we all know, football is a funny old game, a relegation threatened club has beaten a top club before and they can be highly entertaining and exciting games to watch. But this only has a chance of happening if the manager of the relegation threatened club feels his team have any sort of chance. If he decides they don't have a hope in hell of winning the game and writes the game off then some of the competitiveness is removed from the league, i.e. it isn't allowing for the uncertainty of football, the unpredictable result that pops up during relegation battles, teams managing to get their best result of the season and managing to avoid the drop, etc.

I can understand why the manager might do it but no single team is more important than the league itself. The FA want to keep their 'product' honest, competitive, exciting and unpredictable so as to keep the PL as attractive as possible. A manager writing off a result before a ball is kicked is detracting from that so the FA feel that they must do something to nip it in the bud.

 

[Azza]

Lets see them moan today when we give them a good thrashing.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I can understand why the manager might do it but no single team is more important than the league itself. The FA want to keep their 'product' honest, competitive, exciting and unpredictable so as to keep the PL as attractive as possible. A manager writing off a result before a ball is kicked is detracting from that so the FA feel that they must do something to nip it in the bud.

I'm pretty sure managers have "written off" games from almost the first time football was played in a competitive league. The FA are decades if not a century too late on this one, no great surprise in their tardiness however. And perhaps perversely I wouldn't automatically assume that just because a manager puts out their 'second' team that the result is now predictable, sure a lot of the time games will still go with the form book but often enough to keep it interesting the second string players have a point to prove and will beat the favourites.

 

[Eddie]

I'm pretty sure managers have "written off" games from almost the first time football was played in a competitive league. The FA are decades if not a century too late on this one, no great surprise in their tardiness however. And perhaps perversely I wouldn't automatically assume that just because a manager puts out their 'second' team that the result is now predictable, sure a lot of the time games will still go with the form book but often enough to keep it interesting the second string players have a point to prove and will beat the favourites.

Oh I agree, just because a manager rests players it doesn't automatically mean that he thinks they are going to lose or is writing off a result prior to actually playing the game. But in the case of Wolves, the manager admitted that that is exactly what he was doing. For the ManU game the manager rested most of the team who got a win against Spurs in the previous game in an attempt to keep his best players fresh for the next game against Burnley, which as far as Wolves' PL survival goes, is a much more important game than playing against ManU.

Personally, I don't remember this coming up before, I was always under the impression that a manager would try to get a good result against whatever team his club are playing. Obviously there are exceptions to that, say for example if ManU had already won the league with one game to play and had a trip to Wembley or something coming up. In that situation I think a manager should be free to field a youth team or whatever he wants, he's basically won the league so he's not overly bothered what the result of his final league game is as it has no bearing to his club. But Mick McCarthy blatantly admitted that he was resting players for the reasons stated above. That to me is an extremely negative view, uncompetitive and a very bad thing for footy as a whole, so I can understand that the FA felt they needed to punish him. I also understand that a manager should be free to field whatever team he wants, but definitely not if his team selection directly affects the integrity of the football league as a whole.

 

[Shamikebab]

Lets see them moan today when we give them a good thrashing.

Azza learns the vital lesson of staying quiet before a game

 

[semi-pro waster]

Oh I agree, just because a manager rests players it doesn't automatically mean that he thinks they are going to lose or is writing off a result prior to actually playing the game. But in the case of Wolves, the manager admitted that that is exactly what he was doing. For the ManU game the manager rested most of the team who got a win against Spurs in the previous game in an attempt to keep his best players fresh for the next game against Burnley, which as far as Wolves' PL survival goes, is a much more important game than playing against ManU.

snipped the rest for space

You may be right and it hasn't been a problem before/managers have always picked their strongest team but I'd be rather surprised if that was the case, it seems more likely that Mick McCarthy is the first one honest/stupid enough to admit to it. It's a fairly logical business decision to target resources where they are most likely to yield the desired result so if it hasn't been done in the past then some people have been rather idealistic at best.

If the FA are going to implement a rule whereby you've got to play your strongest team at any point to ensure "fairness" then they should apply it unequivocally so whether you've won the league with 10 games to go or whether you're in a relegation scrap until the final game you must put out what is your best team (statistically? based on current form? based on how well they play together in training? some other measure entirely?) as otherwise it would run completely counter to their stated intention of making it fair if it was only when you were successful you could target resources or experiment.

I understand that it may appear to be a negative approach from Mick McCarthy but ultimately it's his job to lose if he fails to produce enough performances that yield points. If a manager keeps up with the negative performances then there's a good chance that they won't stay in the league and the FA gets its wish by default but starting down the road of this ficticious best team looks very much like a hiding to nothing.

 

[Eddie]

You may be right and it hasn't been a problem before/managers have always picked their strongest team but I'd be rather surprised if that was the case, it seems more likely that Mick McCarthy is the first one honest/stupid enough to admit to it. It's a fairly logical business decision to target resources where they are most likely to yield the desired result so if it hasn't been done in the past then some people have been rather idealistic at best.

If the FA are going to implement a rule whereby you've got to play your strongest team at any point to ensure "fairness" then they should apply it unequivocally so whether you've won the league with 10 games to go or whether you're in a relegation scrap until the final game you must put out what is your best team (statistically? based on current form? based on how well they play together in training? some other measure entirely?) as otherwise it would run completely counter to their stated intention of making it fair if it was only when you were successful you could target resources or experiment.

I understand that it may appear to be a negative approach from Mick McCarthy but ultimately it's his job to lose if he fails to produce enough performances that yield points. If a manager keeps up with the negative performances then there's a good chance that they won't stay in the league and the FA gets its wish by default but starting down the road of this ficticious best team looks very much like a hiding to nothing.

So far we've maybe only seen a couple of instances of it, but what if more teams decide to do it? What affect will that have on the PL as a whole? The FA seem pretty sure that they don't like it and feel the need to punish, so as to deter other clubs from doing it. But I just can't think how they are going to enforce it as I don't think the 'one rule for all' policy works for reasons I've already mentioned.

We all know what type of bloke Mick McCarthy is and tbh I think he did the right thing in saying what he said. He knows if he doesn't get to a satisfactory position at the end of the season he may well lose his job and/or the club are relegated. So you could say, looking at it from his/the clubs point of view, he's being very positive and thinking long term. So like I say I don't blame him for doing it, I just don't like the idea that a manager will or can do it.

 

[Th3D0n]

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

i agree with you

 

[HangTime]

I can understand why the manager might do it but no single team is more important than the league itself. The FA want to keep their 'product' honest, competitive, exciting and unpredictable so as to keep the PL as attractive as possible. A manager writing off a result before a ball is kicked is detracting from that so the FA feel that they must do something to nip it in the bud.

It's too subjective though, as SPW intimated. How do you decide what a 'weakened team' is? Isn't the reality that enforcing such a rule would be actually be anti-competitive, because it would be removing the ability of managers to make changes for a given fixture. They would be too scared to give Wayne Rooney his debut ahead of Duncan Ferguson because they might get a slap on the wrists from the FA. They would be too scared to leave out a 70% fit Fabregas with his bruised leg because they might be deemed to be picking a weakened team.

As for unpredictability, surely there is nothing more unpredictable than every team fielding the same eleven players, week in, week out?

In my opinion the right of a manager/club to select the team is sacrosanct and when it comes to being 'honest', it's an absolute disgrace to think that anyone from outside the club should be fit to decide what the best team for any given fixture is.

 

[Eddie]

It's too subjective though, as SPW intimated. How do you decide what a 'weakened team' is? Isn't the reality that enforcing such a rule would be actually be anti-competitive, because it would be removing the ability of managers to make changes for a given fixture. They would be too scared to give Wayne Rooney his debut ahead of Duncan Ferguson because they might get a slap on the wrists from the FA. They would be too scared to leave out a 70% fit Fabregas with his bruised leg because they might be deemed to be picking a weakened team.

As for unpredictability, surely there is nothing more unpredictable than every team fielding the same eleven players, week in, week out?

In my opinion the right of a manager/club to select the team is sacrosanct and when it comes to being 'honest', it's an absolute disgrace to think that anyone from outside the club should be fit to decide what the best team for any given fixture is.

I agree with most things you say there, but the fact remains that at the moment it is entirely possible for a manager to write off a result in advance of a ball being kicked in anger. You've got all the points you and others have raised on one side of the coin and the possibility of a match being written off on the other. The FA felt the need to punish Mick McCarthy for doing it, so obviously they are concerned about it. But by punishing Mick McCarthy they have opened up a can of worms imo, as I just can't see how they can enforce it fairly.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, I certainly don't think we've heard the last of it by a long chalk. The FA will probably try to sweep it under the rug I'd imagine, hoping it goes away, but I honestly don't see it going anywhere. To me it's one of the biggest things to happen in football in a long time, as it effectively means that the winner of an upcoming match is predetermined, i.e. fixed, and that is the one single worst thing that could ever happen to football.