Wolves handed a suspended fine for fielding a weakened team

BullBoyShoes said:
you are missing the point.
Wolves won away at spurs 3 days earlier. The only player to start at man u that also played at spurs was the keeper.

Its basically condceding the game before its even kicked off, what makes it worse is that man u were in questionable form at the time
Click to expand...

If that was aimed at me I'm not missing the point in the slightest. They'd played - and won - at Spurs, then 3 days later against manyoo, then IIRC days later against another relegation candidate.

The Spurs game aside, the important game was the 6 pointer, not the manyoo game. The stronger side was put out against their relegation rivals, not someone they were unlikely to beat anyway.

It's a joke that it got to this point.
 
to rest 1 or 2 players before a big match is acceptable, but to rest the entire outfield team?

I`m guessing that spurs were favourites too?

Its just a really negative attitude to have from a manger. "We`ll try harder against spurs than against man u because were probably gonna lose anyway"
 
BullBoyShoes said:
to rest 1 or 2 players before a big match is acceptable, but to rest the entire outfield team?

I`m guessing that spurs were favourites too?

Its just a really negative attitude to have from a manger. "We`ll try harder against spurs than against man u because were probably gonna lose anyway"
Click to expand...

Suggesting they weren't trying hard is ridiculous anyway. What makes you think those players weren't trying? Surely they'd be eager to prove their worth to the manager?
 
It's a stupid decision, the rule simply states you must field a full strength team. Surely this would mean that you can't even rest any single player never mind a full team.

Wonder if and of the "big 4" will get fined when they rest a player against a lower placed team who isn't genuinely injured.

BullBoyShoes said:
to rest 1 or 2 players before a big match is acceptable, but to rest the entire outfield team?
Click to expand...

It it acceptable though? Going by the rules means resting 1 player would mean you aren't fielding a full strength team. Or is it up to the premier league to decide which players are better than others now?
 
They have to appeal this, they could choose any game this season and say xxxx didn't play for xxxx in this game, fine them.
 
Peg said:
How does it work against the big teams. They just turn a blind eye to the big teams doing it. How much did Man Utd get fined for the game against Hull away last reason? Nothing.
Click to expand...

bit stupid comparing it to something over 6 months ago if EPL are NOW trying to crack down

I posted exactly how it works against the big teams - they cant develop players as they would wish (they arent going to put them into the big matches straight away - thats just daft to expect that to ever happen)
 
It just seems ridiculous double standards considering, for example, the United team that played Hull (?) at the end of last season, that game could have decided who got relegated, and yet presumably because MU won there were no reprocussions...

Good question Peter, after the above example I would imagine not?
 
Utd had already won the title before the match hadnt they.....and I dont believe Hull were in danger of going down (or was it the season before they werent in any danger?)
 
I don't think Wolves should be fined for fielding a weakened team, it's their choice who they choose to play. In any other business arena focusing your resources to where they have the greatest potential beneficial impact isn't a reason for complaint, it's simply expected practice.

There are of course some distinctions with sport as it's slightly awkward in that there is the potential for collusion between teams, implicit or explicitly. However it shouldn't matter unless there is clear evidence of attempted match fixing or similar - playing a team, even one full of different players to the previous match, is the choice of the manager and having it second guessed as to whether it will pass muster according to what someone else believes ex post facto is not helpful in the slightest.
 
AS said the biggest problem is that he publically admitted it, where as Fergie(though might not be correct about the last game last season) doesn't come out and say "screw this game, we'll put out a stupid team and move on to the next game".

But as said, lots of teams have done this before, big and small, in different leagues also, in all the competitions, in the world freaking cup also.

Frank, it DOES matter what happened months ago because it will end up exactly like the Eduardo situation. They aren't cracking down on it everywhere, they've chosen one team to make an example of, while ignoring the rest.

IF they want to start cracking down, they have to do so by telling everyone they are going to do it, BEFORE the season starts and apply the rule to EVERYONE EQUALLY.

THats where they went wrong with Eduardo, other than it being no where near the worst case of diving, it was completely selective and punitive punishment. Had they started doing that before the season started and Eduardo was just one of many to receive the same treatment I wouldn't have had the slightest issue with it.
 
Brapsta said:
still a premier league game though, rules dont change because its the last game
Click to expand...

I never said rules did change - but the EPL may have HAD to do something IF Newcastle actually won, and Man Utd won anyway

The weakened team won - so thats good management, IF they had lost and A N Other team was relegated because of that result alone then yes it would look very dodgy if the EPL didnt do something - NEITHER happened though
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom