whatever about fielding a weakened team, he should look for a new keeper as that clown Hannamen is awful, and always has been.Is Hennessy injured?(not that he's great either)
Printable View
whatever about fielding a weakened team, he should look for a new keeper as that clown Hannamen is awful, and always has been.Is Hennessy injured?(not that he's great either)
IMO he was completely wrong in what he did. Not for the integrity of the Premier League but because he's lost the momentum and confidence that they gained from beating Spurs. I think they would have had a fair chance of gaining at least a point from the game with their strongest 11 since United are in awful form and are savaged by injuries at the back.
Also, the pressure has been heaped onto the players now for the game against Burnley - they know the media and fans will hang them if they lose. It was an awful decision by McCarthy.
I don't agree Lionel. For a start, United aren't setting the World on fire but to say they're in awful form just isn't true. Before the blip against Villa they had scored 11 goals in their previous 3 PL games, reached the Semi Finals of the Carling Cup and topped their group in the Champions League. If that's awful form the rest of the PL should be very worried. Chances are Wolves would have lost at OT and the momentum you speak of would have been broken anyway. This way, they got a good rest after their exploits against Spurs and the actual Wolves side that played that match should still have the momentum to carry them into Burnley.
As for the ethics of the whole thing, it's certainly no worse than United fielding a new team against Hull on the final day of last season. To be honest I don't think Arsenal, Chelsea, etc. would be too bothered as I'm sure they pencilled in 3 points for United, long before the teamsheets were announced. It's a part of the game now and although McCarthy took it to the extreme it would be opening a serious can of worms for the FA to pull him on it. Like Shakermaker said above, McCarthy is the boss and it's his decision. Whether we agree that he was right to do it or not I'm sure he had Wolves best interests at heart, and that's what he's there for.
I really despise this line of argument. No one will tell you that the players can't do this. The question is simply whether or not their performance dips. It does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Burnley and Villa beat United this season. Sunderland drew at Old Trafford. And the Burnley and sunderland results were against much better United teams than what Wolves faced.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
You say its no better than United fielding a weak side against Hull. Thats complete nonsense. Everyone still expected United to beat Hull with their second string - which they duly did. The fact is the top four can afford to weaken their sides and still win, the likes of Wolves can't. McCarthy basically handed United the 3 points before kick off. How can anyone say thats a good decision??
I think what your saying is far greater nonsense. By United fielding the team they did against Hull it put Newcastles PL safety at a far greater risk. Just because United managed to scrape the 3 points is neither here nor there really. I was talking about ethics when I used this example, and although I feel that they had the right to field whatever team they liked, surely they had more of a morale dilemma than Wolves? Also, Villa and Sunderland are far better teams than Wolves and home advantage was a big factor in the Burnley win. Anyway, I'm not really saying McCarthy was right to do what he did, there's arguments for and against, but I do believe he was entitled to do what he thought was best.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionelhutz
They would have lost and he might have injured some of his better players, so it was a non-brainer decision really.
Come the end of the season, Burnley V Wolves may prove to be a relegation 6 pointer.
Wolves won't stay up by putting out their best team against Man Utd and squad players against the likes of Burnley.
Dead on.Quote:
Originally Posted by drummerboy
I don't see people complaining when ManUtd rests Giggs or Liverpool rests Torres.
There is NO difference.
Out of interest, why was this thread moved, but the Brian Kerr, Faroe Islands thread seems good enough for the Irish section?
Well Done Mick. Got it spot on!:)
Well done, Mick.
So, how many of those who were having a pop off Mick would have won 6 points from Wolves last three matches?
delighted for him.
After reading through this thread, its amazing to see how many idiots there are out there. How can anyone in their right mind, or with half a brain for that matter, think that giving a walkover to any team in a competitive match as McCarthy did during the week could be a positive thing for his team??
It's a ludicrous suggestion - and its even funnier to see the idiots above say McCarthy has been proven right by their victory against Burnley today. Pure moronic stuff. If wolves had given the United game a proper go,why would they not have beaten burnley today??
And before we hear more of the same stupidity in previous pages about wolves players being tired or getting injured in the United match - let me ask ye this, have wolves never played 3 games in a week and picked up 3 results from those games?? Out of interest has any team played 3 games in a week and got 3 results, or this now impossible!! After reading yer posts, it must be impossible.
Also, does this mean if wolves have 3 games in a week later in the season, McCarthy will have to drop his team for the midweek game as they are incapable of playing 3 games in one week??
He's the manager he can pick whatever team he likes
I'd say three points at home To Burnley and your striker coming out saying that they were fresher and sharper might point to it being positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
I don't agree with this. I think the striker (Doyle) was asked a leading question by the interviewer. What was he going to say? No??Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadend
It is silly to say he was "vindicated" by the decision, as the SKy interviewer said. Wolves finished comfortably ahead of Burnley in the Championship last year. Burnley haven't won away from home all season. Whether Wolves played mid-week or not, they should have beaten Burnley which they did, rested or not. What we will never know is whether Wolves may also have picked up an extra point or three against a totally out of form and weakened Man U side (stuffed 3-0 by Fulham).
I think if we are honest, we'd say that Man Utd vs Wolves is like a heavyweight boxer fighting a middle weight. Yes the middle weight would land some punches but would suffer a lot of punishment in doing so.
If Wolves beat United but lost to Burnley due to having injuries, suspensions and tired players, this would have been the worse outcome.
Burnley v Wolves is a relegation 6 pointer. Beating United wouldn't be worth as many points to Wolves. With that result Wolves have probably condemned Burnley to a relegation fight and may have secured a mid table finish to the season for themselves. Had the reverse happened, Wolves would be in relegation trouble.
Good decision by Mick.
McCarthy picked from a squad of first team players.
Should we even pretend it was the best 11? No.
Should we even pretend McCarthy didn't sacrifice a (remotely) possible result at Old Trafford to better his chances (as he saw it) against Burnley? No.
But they were in the first team squad, and he played them, not reserves. He has the power to do that, and he should have nothing to explain to anybody.
We'll also never know whether they would have beaten Burnley if they'd played a full strength team at Old Trafford.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
That's also the point I am making. We don't know either way. They would probably have beaten Burnley whether they played Man U or not and they probably would have been beaten by Man U. However, it is not true to say he was "vindicated" as the Sky commentator said.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
If Wolves go down by a point, I expect the virtual non-fullfilment of the fixture at Man U (since that is what it was) to be brought up again.