LOL at West Ham

[weybridgewanderer]

Complaining about Fulham resting players for last weeks game v Hull

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 599239.stm

Have West Ham have never rested players, or benefitted from another team resting players?

[leww_rfc]

Hodgson proves last night that he was right to rest players for Wolfsburg.

[Sun Tzu]

Managers must be allowed to select teams, not be forced to pick sides based on some Championship Manager style 'rating'.

As long as they do this in a reasonable manner then no problem. 'Reasonable' would suggest selecting players from their first team squad (not youth or Academy players en masse). If a player is part of the squad then selecting him is fair enough.

[gazzer, loyal royal]

did West Ham not do it the week before the Wolves game when Parker and Cole were on the bench and they started with MIdo and Ilan. Surely thats an understrength team?

[Messiah]

All these complaints about resting players and weakened teams really pisses me off. Who are the FA to decide what is a suitable team to be played?

Wolves got unfairly penalised, and then put near enough the same team out recently and they won the game. Also, the 'weakened' team that got put out at Old Trafford has largely turned into their strongest line up (I got that off SSN, so apologise if that's a little off), and Wolves went on to win their game after United, so in both cases MM was proved right.

No one other than the manager should dictate who plays and when. Keep your noses out and fcuk off.

[ZacNaloen]

If the players are tired then any manager will argue that playing them would be a weakened side and that they need the rest.

[Barry the bird boggler]

But there has to to be some guide here so that teams who do take the **** get penalised.

For example if ManUre dropped half their "first team" (for some cr*p european game) to play a struggling team in the league they should get the book thrown at them.

Likewise if smaller sides with smaller squads do it it's a much more noticeable clearer case.

Plus I think the FA/PL should throw the book at the offender win, lose or draw.

[cmonurz]

But there has to to be some guide here so that teams who do take the **** get penalised.

For example if ManUre dropped half their "first team" (for some cr*p european game) to play a struggling team in the league they should get the book thrown at them.

Likewise if smaller sides with smaller squads do it it's a much more noticeable clearer case.

Plus I think the FA/PL should throw the book at the offender win, lose or draw.

Most Premier League clubs have the equivalent of two full sides in their first team squad. Most of those sides will play close to 50 games in a season, the bigger clubs will play 60+. It's not for the FA, or struggling opponents, to dictate which of those squad players plays each game.

You make the point about smaller clubs with smaller squads - in their case being able to rest their players at some point during the season may be even more important. Better to rest a star player for a game or two than risk losing him to injury for two months.

The FA should butt out of this.

[Sun Tzu]

Trouble here is whoever Zola picks he's fielding a weakened side so would he get fined by the league every week ?

How would you decide what was a 'weakened' side in say September ?

In fact how would you decide it full stop ? Didn't Rafa go over 100 games at one point without fielding the same side in successive games, and Wenger chops and changes constantly.

What if a team gets thumped by 7 or 8 one week and the manager makes 10 changes the next. And the team that thumped them also made 10 changes. Would one get punished and one not ?

What if a team has 3 games in a week. They win game 1 (against a mid table side), make 3 changes and draw game 2 (against a struggling side) then make three additional changes and lose game 3 (against a top side). At what point was their team 'weakened' ?

It's a fine principle to say managers should always field their best side, but like the ban on fox hunting it may be totally correct to have a rule but can you enforce it or even decide if it has been broken ? ?

[Barry the bird boggler]

In the 70s and 80s clubs that won the league used to have to turn up for 42 league games not just the 8 or 10 that's needed these days. They also had smaller squads and played overall roughly the same number of games as today. Don't recall too much resting players then.....

[Sun Tzu]

In the 70s and 80s clubs that won the league used to have to turn up for 42 league games not just the 8 or 10 that's needed these days. They also had smaller squads and played overall roughly the same number of games as today. Don't recall too much resting players then.....

Indeed, Liverpool won the league one year using 12 players (not at the same time of course).

And huge numbers of players from that era were left with crippling injuries when they packed in at 30.....

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

In the 70s and 80s clubs that won the league used to have to turn up for 42 league games not just the 8 or 10 that's needed these days. They also had smaller squads and played overall roughly the same number of games as today. Don't recall too much resting players then.....

Indeed, Liverpool won the league one year using 12 players (not at the same time of course).
.

I'm sure it was Villa with 14 in 80/81.

Teams didn't rotate their squads back then simply because they didn't have the players to do so. One occasion I can remember it happening was when Spurs made the UEFA Cup final. The league wanted them to play Saturday, Monday and then (1 leg of) the final on the Wednesday. They rested most of the team for the Monday match, and Southampton beat them 5-0.

[Dirk Gently]

The game was a bit slower then, though and a lot lessintensive - in those pre-"total football" days.

Certainly the formations were a lot more rigid and the distances that players ran in each game were a lot less.

[Rex]

So how are the Premier League the winners out of this. It's opened up the can of worms and they set the precedent. Clubs will now be seen to be 'gifting' points to other clubs to the detriment to other clubs looking at the drop. Resting players and replacing them cannot be gauged on ability - only reputation and experience.

[floyd__streete]

The cheek of West Ham appealing this after Tevezgate a season or two back. Wretched club, hope they go down and go bust.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

The cheek of West Ham appealing this after Tevezgate a season or two back. Wretched club, hope they go down and go bust.

Its all set up for Tevez to send them down on the last day.

[The whole year inn]

The cheek of West Ham appealing this after Tevezgate a season or two back. Wretched club, hope they go down and go bust.

Its all set up for Tevez to send them down on the last day.

..the stuff dreams are made of. I would LOL for days

[Barry the bird boggler]

I'm forever popping bubbles, cheating bubbles in the air. They rise so high, nearly reach the sky then like west ham they fade and die.

[Royal With Cheese]

Would still have Hull relegated over them.

That shows you all how much I hate Hull.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Portsmouth are gone, Burnley are going so that leaves, IMO, Hull and West Ham fighting to preserve their status. Personally I sadly think West Ham have the nous to just about survive even with Hull's game in hand

Remaining games

Hull City

10 Apr - Burnley (h)
17 Apr - Birmingham (a)
21 Apr - Aston Villa (h)
24 Apr - Sunderland (h)
01 May - Wigan (a)
09 May - Liverpool (h)

West Ham

10 Apr - Sunderland (h)
19 Apr - Liverpool (a)
24 Apr - Wigan (h)
01 May - Fulham (a)
09 May - Man City (h)