I think everyone agrees that ten changes went a bit too far.
So what is acceptable? One, two, three or what ?????
The point I'm making is that you say what he did was unacceptable,,,I don't disagree with that....but what IS acceptable??
Difficult question isn't it?

I'm not subscribing to this sympathy at all. What MM has done not only affects his team, bit every team in that league and sets a dangerous precident for the future.

I hope MM looks back at the end of the season when they are relegated by one point and see what a missed opportunity he had.

One last point, the Wolves fans ARE livid and so would I be. Anything can happen in football and they were more than capable of beating a severly weakened Manure team. Teams should play to won every game they're involved in. No excuses!

Wolves are certainly not the first team to have done it so they're far from setting a precedent.

If they lose out by one point they'll still look back and realise they'd have got sod all even if they'd put the reserve team out plus the first team!!

Wolves are certainly the first team that I know of to make 10 changes, so they are setting a precident. Especially if they dont get punished for it.

They might have got something from the game. I'm sure the 3000 fans who went to watch them would have appreciated a bit of professionalism from the club that they support.

The fact is what he did was rip off his own fan's. But is it fair to all the other teams in the league.

If for example Wolves were playing Man U in a rearranged game towards the end of the season and Wolves required points to avoid relegation what would he have done???? Even if the next game after it was against a team fighting relegation , he would have played his strongest team.

If they beat Burnley and avoid relegation due to winning the game against Burnley, any fine will be irrelevant as they will recoup it due to staying up.

Like other's I can see why he did it, but that doesn't make it right at best it's morally wrong. In a cup game it affects no one other than the opposition, in a league game it affects every other club.

Is there still a law which states you have to play your strongest team. No one says anything when any of the so called big teams do it against lesser opposition, because they have a big game coming up a couple days later.

What would be funny is if someone like Arsenal have qualified for the Champions League towards the end of the season but couldn't catch Man U for a better place finish so they played a "weak" team against a team in a relegation battle and lost causing Wolves to be relegated. What will McCarthy be saying then?????

What is happening here is no one agrees with what he did and everyone agrees that it wouldn't go down well if Turner did it.
Some of us understand why he did it, but that doesn't mean we agree with it.

There is more to it than that though.

If we are against ten changes, for all the reasons given, how many changes would sit ok with us?

If we were to resurrect the " you must play your strongest side" rule, who is going to decide the strongest side?

It is a minefield................

i dont think it is

as fans, all we are asking for is for the manager to put a team out who are capable of competing in a game of 11 v 11.

Id stop going to games if I didn't think we had a chance in every game we played in

So how many changes is acceptable to you.

I never doubted for one second Burnley would beat Man United.

Wolves would have got fck all at Old Trafford, I know it, you know it, everyone on this thread knows it!!

And I'll say what the fck I want!!

Right............so who decides what is the best team?

What I can't stand is the media & Premier League hypocrisy (particulary from The Independent). Arsenal do it in the cup and that's okay, Man U did it for the last game of last season - but that's okay because they had the 'right' to do it because they had already won the league and a more important European Cup game was coming up(and the fact Hull were involved in a relagtion battle doesn't matter, according to the journalist).

Man U were not asked to explain themselves (presumably because they won that game) yet Wolves have to (presumably because they lost). You can't differentiate between the two because of the result or as the top 4 have better squads - it should be the same rule for all.

I can see why Mick McCarthy did it (more important game coming up - parallel with Man U's situation I mentioned above), and I can see why the fans are upset. In the end, if the gamble fails then it's the manager who will have to take what comes his way.

As a football fan, I would like my team to put as strong a team out as possible for every single game that I pay my hard earned cash, and give up my time to go and see. The club can't survive without fans so I reckon they should be pri-feckin-ority.

No one can tell me that McCarthy thought that the team he put out was his strongest or had any chance of winning that game. That to me is cheating. It is cheating the fans, it is cheating the other teams chasing the title, it is cheating the teams trying to avoid relegation.

We all know why McCarthy did it. The whole thing is wrong. Teams should be docked points for doing it imo. This applies to all teams worldwide!

I sincerely hope they get dicked in the next match. Nothing against Wolves fans you understand.

This cannot be done how do you dock teams points and were is the land drawn in the sand at dropping 2, 3, 4 etc. In order to enforce a law and point deduction it has to end and start somewhere. I agree with what you are saying but its never going to happen, also why are people and fa picking on wolves there are plenty other who do it. Wasnt Beckford rested for leeds the other day?

Come on.

They rested TEN players.

We all know it happens. We all know all teams do it. I would like to see a points deduction for such blatant disregard for the other teams in their professional league. Maybe it would stop happening.

I'm not stupid enough to think that it will happen, it's just what i'd like to see.

Putting out 10 reserve players is wrong. Teams should have to justify it. Plain and simple. The fans are the main victims here.

We all know that they made TEN changes.
You want to keep telling us however. So why not tell us what IS acceptable/reasonable. At what point will your points deduction kick in????

Re read my posts instead of just reading the last one and you'll find that I said that it should be assessed when teams are clearly taking the piss.

I also said that it would never happen either and that it was my opinion.

People who are willing to put up with such shit are contributing to the downfall of the game in my opinion!

I agree, but who is, in your opinion, willing to put up with such shit??? No one on this thread is backing such shit, so who are these people who are prepared to put up with it.

You are not answering the questions.
You want points docking.............at what point.
I have read all your posts, you are quick to criticise but you don't offer alternatives apart from point docking, so where would you draw the line. At which point would you dock points?

I am interested in a solution.............you haven't got one.

No, I haven't got one that the fa would accept, which is why I've said I'd like it to happen in my opinion.

You seem pretty desperate to shoot me down so it's my last post on the matter. My feeligs have been made very clear on the matter.

I'm off to drink cheap ale and watch The Charlatans. Happy days!

Verily, aye verily.
The lesson here is that managers have to be allowed to manage and people who question that have to be prepared to be questioned themselves.
Sometimes we have to accept that.

No mate, I don't want to shoot you down, I am simply looking for a solution.
Enjoy your drink.

Mick McCarthy was only doing what he considered to be best for his club.

Arsene Wenger does exactly the same, i.e. what's best for his club, and rightly so.

Teams have squads and anyone one from those squads should be expected to play for their club. If the big clubs didn't hoover up a lot of the surplus talent to warm their benches up, the lesser teams may have better squads to field better players to give the 'big 4' more of a challenge in games.

Basically, Wenger is a two-faced moaning get.

You really enjoy 'looking for a solution' don't you Derwent.

we all know that you want to know what you think is a reasonble amount of players to rest, you want to keep telling us however move on

It'll all kick off again if Burnley beat Wolves.

Not only is he 2 faced but probably in the top 2 of the all time hypocrite list of football managers.

He accused McCarthy of damaging the "international credibility" of the Premier League, saying "We compete with Manchester United over 37 games instead of 38."

YET in the last round of group games in the Champions League he made 11 changes against Olympiakos. Arsenal lost 1-0 which meant Standard Liege had no chance of progressing to the knock out stages. Where's the "International credibility" there, maybe if Standard Liege had only competed over 5 games instead of 6 they would be in the knock-out stages.

As the saying goes "let those without sin cast the first stone".

I'd be interested in the details of that diet.

Wrong.
I want to know from the people who think that ten changes is unacceptable what they think is acceptable.
It's gotta be one of the easiest questions to understand but it's proving real difficult to answer.
I don't keep telling you, I keep asking you.

If you like mate, but I really find it amusing that people are prepared to come out with instant, media led criticism but haven't a clue how to solve the problem.
Talk about sheep...............baaaaaaaa

Look, the numbers thing is irrelevant. We can argue over this till the cows come home.
Might I suggest that the spirit of the game is that you go out to win every game and that logically involves putting out your strongest side and not so called 'managers', who are hardly burdened by brilliance in the first place, indulging in football techno tactical bollox .
It was wrong.

Couldn't agree more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/robborobson/ ... _mick.html

couldnt have put it better myself!

Good rant that from Robson.
What good will it do? Not a lot.
Why? Because the manager makes the selections, and he stands or falls on his decisions.
As a matter of interest the players involved the other night have been involved in approx 86 premier league appearances this season. I did a quick count so may not be hundred per cent accurate, but it makes the point that they all weren't wet behind the ears. The club has won four games in the premier league this season, so the players left out haven't really been pulling trees up have they?

Personally, as I said in my first post, I wouldn't have gone as far as Mick went but he is obviously desperate for points and has obviously targetted the Burnley game.

As Robbo says in his rant, the idea is not a new one and no doubt it will be done again unless the league step in ( don't hold your breath), although what they can do is another question.

It is a very interesting debate and one which may ( unfortunately) gather momentum as more and more managers, under pressure to survive in the top tier, try to do similar things.

Football used to be 11 v 11, then substitutes came in, then benchfuls of substitutes. We now have 18 names on the teamsheet, and can use 14............for how long I wonder. Big, powerful clubs with financial clout are able to monopolise the best players and squads of 50 or more are becoming the norm. They will exert pressure on the authorities to such an extent that we could end up with unlimited substitutions.

I think we are only at the beginning of the potential farce.

Wolves 2 up.

Mccarthys interview was class, really like the bloke.

With Oldham and Gillingham at home coming up, you reckon a you should put out your reserves for us on boxing day?

The reserves don't get paid enough to get in so it'll be the first team I'm afraid.

Er, but what's to say they still wouldn't have been if they put out a full strength team at Man U. All this has done is make the bloke look as though he know's what he's doing.... he doesn't.