Tottenham Hotspur Message Board
I see Whinger has slated Wolves for putting out their reserves against Manure and thereby "giving" them the points. What ever you say about the pro's and con's of fielding so many reserves, it's the managers decision. McCarthy's focus is in staying in the PL. Would he have got a result at manure? Probably not. Will his team be better off by resting some first teamers? Yes probably. Will that help the team stay in the PL? Will the Wolves fans remember or care about the reserves being beaten at Manure if they manage to stay in the PL? No way. Not sure if it is right or wrong but I can see why he did it.
The bigger question is - would that hypocritical, blind, French t0sser be slagging off Wolves if they had put the reserve side out against his Ar$e side???? Of course not!! Bl00dy two faced w4nker.
Thats all fine and dandy but what about this bigger question...
The final points tally is in come May and Spurs miss out on the CL for the first time because Manchester United beat them by 2 points to 4th place would you still find it ok that Wolves fielded a weakened side costing Spurs a place in Europes biggest club competition?
- 2 Replies to A Yahoo! User
Fair point Sally - of course if that situation came about I would be mad but I could point to several games through the course of the season as being the reason for missing out on the CL place. Our result against Wolves for example or another game where manure got a winner in the 15th minute of added time!!!
Take your point on board but a team/Manager has got to do what he feels is right for his team. In this case McCarthy weighed it up and didn't think his first team were likely to get any points against Manure so concentrated on keeping his resources for the next game. I can't argue with that.
good question. i think peoples answers will depend on what team u support and how it effects u.
if u ask west ham fans etc they will be happy wolves have another game gone with no points as it keeps them closer or below them. if i comes to the end of the season and we miss cl place cos of it i will be pissed off but right now i kinda think it was right to do .
its a squad game nowadays isnt it.
IMHO it's wrong. You play football to win and you never know what will happen on the day. So to 'cop' out (and I say that meaning 'to put out a team that you don't think will win') before the game starts does two or three things - 1) It says to your first 11 'you're not good enough' (as how does Mick know they couldn't have got a draw or a win?) 2) It says to the fans 'we don't give a stuff about you' and 3) as Arsene says, it gives an unfair advantage to the team you play.
(Doing it Mick's way, why bother playing at all? Why not just get all the managers together at the start of the season and decide who will beat who. The whole season could be over in a day. Saves all those expensive wages and fans travelling - then they could get CGI games made up for the punters to watch.)
I was disappointed when 'arry did the same in the UEFA.
The question is debatable now though, given that teams have to have squads of 20+ players - so what is a first or second string? If Mick actually thought the team he fielded could win or get a result, then fine. This goes back to the same argument re the Woolwich team fielding a 'second string' in the CC.
So, to me, the question isn't whether the team is first, second, third, fourth string - it's whether the manager is putting out a team to try to win or at least get a result.
- 1 Reply to Jlock
I understand the differing opinions on this thread but what about the responsibilities of a manager?
Some will say his responsibility is completely to his employer ie his football club.
But what about his responsibility to the game of football with all the intrinsics that that means?
For sure football is too far down the financial road to even consider fair play. IE..As in putting your best available team out to try your best to win it!!!!!
Not to say that Wolves did put their best available 11 against us but then Mick knew he didn't have to.
Haven't read all the responses, so forgive I repeat anything here.
Agreed (with Sfer...don't worry, I won't make a habit of it...also glad to see that you seem to be back to your ol' battling self), the manager makes the decision with the best outcome for the team in mind...and its true that at the end of the season it could come down to points lost or points won by these two teams and the affect on that has on the teams around them, but my point is this...
What message did Wolves send us by playing a full squad...and what message do you think Owen Coyle has told his boys for the upcoming match...the way I see it McCarthy fancied at least a point against us...and he thinks his team are capable of beating Burnley...ok, ours was before the fact (and the Irish Xmas party), but Burnley should be steaming made at being belittled, because even if it wasn't meant that way, that's what it was...I'll put money on that proud team from the North hammering the mustard-coloured shirt wearers this weekend 1-4 (damn! the jinx is in...NOT!!)
So, what do you think?
- 1 Reply to RAMBR0
I agree Rambo - McCarthy obviously thought he might be able to get something out of the game against us (and he was right wasn't he!) and obviously not against Manure but there is no surprise there is there?
And yes Burnley may well feel aggrieved that Wolves are looking at that game as one that they can get something but again, no surprise there either. They will both be thinking that - it's just that McCarthy has (in his mind at least) improved his chances by resting some of his regulars. I am sure Burnley will be up for the game but it will be a little bit tired versus a little bit fresher. I don't care who wins really. That was not the point of the thread which was Whinger's hypocrisy.
As I have said already, the Wolves fans may have been upset because McCarthy put out his reserves (and I can see why they would be) but they will forget all about that if they stay up and McCarthy will be a hero.
Sfer - but when people finally realise that it is just big business and that business doesn't care about the fans (the people who make the business what it is), then that sounds the death knell for football as we know it. Football **is** the punters - they only get more money in the CL - as the CL attracts the TV audiences - ie the fans. The CC and Europa leagues don't attract the audiences. If it gets to the stage where the EPL, because of teams playing 'lesser' known players, starts losing the following, then that becomes a major issue.
To me it's all a nonsense - as I'd rather watch a really entertaining game of football, than a bunch of higly paid prima donnas playing for a strategic boring draw. How many CL games have been like that? The high expectation ends up in a crap game? I've seen better games (maybe not with such talented players) at my local club, than I have in the EPL. The league/division can't guarantee the level and quality of the game. But having said all that, the punters in general pay to watch the big and known names - they want their managers to try to win each game. What I'm trying to say there is, that Mick's players may have made the game entertaining for the punters to watch - as that team had nothing to lose and (I didn't see the game) could go hell for leather for the win.
So here's a question for you all:
If Spurs played the most exciting football ever and tried to win each game, but because of that lost their place in the EPL. But continued to play the same in the Championship (and maybe then Div 1 and 2) - would you prefer seeing that and watching consistent exciting football irrespective of the division - or would you prefer to watch tactical games and stay in the EPL? IE cudos over entertainment? (thinking about it, it's like style over substance - would you rather have a logo on your shirt saying some designer name that falls apart at the first wash, or a shirt that's well made and fit for purpose?)
As that appears to be the question posed by the big clubs (and even the lesser ones now) as virtually all the EPL clubs would I think put out a second string team if they think they can get away with it.
Obviously the question isn't that black and white, and you can have a mix of both entertainment (and football played for what football is about ie winning) and tactical play.
I completely understand and appreciate Johns view and if you are looking at football as just an emotional game then he is of course absolutely right. On the other hand if you look at it as a business (which it has sadly most definitely become) then you have to say that the Manager has to do whatever he feels right in order to stay in the PL and make money.
If he doesn't do that he is out of a job. Also, whilst as a fan I would be pi$$ed off if it happened I would be even more pi$$ed off if we slipped out of the PL by a point that we could have saved if the manager had made this decision.
Play the first team against Manure, lose, get a couple of first teamers injured, lose against Burnley and get relegated = manager is a tw4tt and gets sacked and the fans hate him.
Play the reserves against manure, lose, keep your first teamers fit, win against Burnley, stay in the Pl for another year = Manager is a genius, Fans forget Manure game back in December, keeps his job, earns more money, gets tapped up to take on a bigger club. NO BRAINER.
There is no right or wrong answer and anyway when I started this thread I was hoping that there would be a massive bandwagon rolling calling Whinger the biggest hypocrite since .................................Tony Blair said "Education, Education, Education"
Fab - you been dreaming again!!!