Owen Garvan

[tricky_colour]

What did he say about his squad selection?I don't think the video is available outside the UK.

Garvan can't play in the league until January, but he would have been able to play in the cup if they'd not been knocked out.

This is what he said:-

"We have lost five games since we announced the 25-man squad and I feel there's something wrong there. I don't feel we've got the same spirit,"
the manager said. Maybe we changed too many, but that squad is what we have got until January, so they better buck up."

It seems Owen knew a lot of the players would not be happy with his new squad, including and probably in particular his own omission.
That's how I read it anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...to-Fulham.html

[DannyInvincible]

Hadn't really expected Garvan to out-live Holloway at Palace when I first read his tweet a few months ago, but, for his sake, I'm pleased to see he was right in the end. Seems the squad selection really damaged morale at the club. Shame Garvan can't play for the club again until January, mind.

However I am not sure if I understand why he has to stick with that squad, I thought you could play who ever you liked, apparently not.

Every Premier League club has to select a 25-man squad for the season at its outset. As Charlie points out, that can be amended in January after the transfer window has re-opened. It's been that way since 2010. More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/8858634.stm

In and around this year's usual summer transfer gossip, you may have noticed the mention of 25-man squads and home-grown player quotas.

The 2010-11 Premier League season will see top flight clubs forced to comply with rules over the size and make-up of their squads.

The Premier League says the new rules are designed to increase the number of young 'home-grown' players in the Premier League, with a long-term aim of giving more options to the England manager.

But what will they actually mean in practice? BBC Sport explains the key points of the new system:

- Clubs register a squad of up to 25 players, which must include at least eight 'home-grown' players, at the end of each transfer window.
- Home-grown players do not have to be English; home-grown players are defined as those who "irrespective of nationality or age, have been affiliated to the FA or Welsh FA for a period of three seasons or 36 months prior to 21st birthday"
- Clubs can supplement squad with unlimited number of players under the age of 21.
- Changes can be made only during transfer windows, although in exceptional circumstances (eg goalkeeping injury crisis) moves could be allowed.
- Players loaned to Football League clubs cannot be replaced, but can regain their spot on return to parent club.
- Rules apply only to Premier League matches, not European, FA Cup or League Cup action.
- First deadline is 1700 BST on 1 September (24 hours after end of August transfer window).

In spite of that, clubs can also be punished for fielding what the league perceives to be a less than "full strength" selection. I find that ridiculous since all 25 players have been registered for the season and, thus, a manager should logically be entitled to select from that squad whomever he feels is best suited to delivering the best result for his team on any particular day. Who are the Premier League to decide what constitutes a "full strength" selection? Not only should questions of team selection (within the boundaries of the squads registered with them) be outside their realm of authority, it's impossible to quantify something so subjective anyway.

[tricky_colour]

Hadn't really expected Garvan to out-live Holloway at Palace when I first read his tweet a few months ago, but he was right in the end. Shame he can't play for the club again until January, mind.



Every Premier League club has to select a 25-man squad for the season at its outset. As Charlie points out, that can be amended in January after the transfer window has re-opened. It's been that way since 2010. More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/8858634.stm

The bit that confused me was Owen played the first couple of games or so, I guess that was before the transfer window closed.

It would make more sense to me have everything sorted out before the season starts.

[DannyInvincible]

Puzzled me too. I had Garvan in my Fantasy Premier League team and all. Was gobsmacked by his omission. Holloway had nerve!

What was the supposed nature of his "attitude problem"? Did he and Holloway fall out over something in particular?

[CraftyToePoke]

Also, wouldn't Owen and Palace be better served by sending him on loan, then or even now, than having him disgruntled around the place sending tweets like that. Should have been in that 25 comfortably anyway.

[DeLorean]

What was the supposed nature of his "attitude problem"? Did he and Holloway fall out over something in particular?

"In fact if it wasn't for a conversation we had the week before, because he wasn't going to be in the starting XI, he would have been in my 25.

"He made it totally clear to me that he didn't want to be in the 25 if he wasn't starting almost every week. I couldn't guarantee him that." - Ian Holloway

[Charlie Darwin]

That sounds like a huge cop-out. It's not Garvan's place to decide if he's in the squad or not. Sounds like Holloway got a bee in his bonnet and decided to lay the blame on the player.

[DannyInvincible]

Exactly. If Holloway had wanted him in the squad, he could have registered him whether Garvan liked it or not. And wouldn't he have beeb obliged to play anyway, or to fulfil the duties to which he was contractually bound, in other words, even if he didn't want to?

[Charlie Darwin]

He would have been obliged to play, and it's not like he's a star player who can afford to hold a club to ransom. He'd have done as he was told and probably would have set out to prove his manager wrong.

[DannyInvincible]

I mentioned how English Premier League clubs can be punished for fielding sides not deemed by the authorities to be "full strength" a few posts back. Of course, both Wolves and Blackpool suffered punishment in recent seasons as a result of this dubious and inconsistently-enforced rule. I would assume that the English League Cup has a similar rule in place to which competing clubs are "supposed" to adhere, but, looking at some of the line-ups from games in that competition this evening, I'm forced to wonder how clubs can get away with fielding whole teams of players that wouldn't see first-team action otherwise were it not for the status of the game and their club's lesser opinion of the competition.

[Charlie Darwin]

Rule 6.2 of the Football League Cup:

6.2 Each Club shall play its full available strength in and during all Cup Competition matches, unless some satisfactory reason is given. The Board will from time to time issue a policy as to what constitutes 'full available strength'. In the event of the explanation not being deemed satisfactory the Management Committee shall have power to impose such penalties as they shall think fit. The provisions governing disciplinary matters in relation to the Competition are contained in Rule 23.

Obviously not enforced. I suspect the Football League knows which side its bread is buttered on and that many of the stronger Premier League teams (not under the League's remit, remember) would happily pull out of the competition entirely and concentrate on more commercially-fruitful competitions.

[tricky_colour]

I mentioned how English Premier League clubs can be punished for fielding sides not deemed by the authorities to be "full strength" a few posts back. Of course, both Wolves and Blackpool suffered punishment in recent seasons as a result of this dubious and inconsistently-enforced rule. I would assume that the English League Cup has a similar rule in place to which competing clubs are "supposed" to adhere, but, looking at some of the line-ups from games in that competition this evening, I'm forced to wonder how clubs can get away with fielding whole teams of players that wouldn't see first-team action otherwise were it not for the status of the game and their club's lesser opinion of the competition.

That kind of ties in with my views on Roy Keane not playing friendlies, clubs often keep players out of cup games, especially against inferior sides in order to try and achieve the best possible
result over the season. Alex would never make Roy play every minor cup game, indeed nor would Mick McCarthy field his strongest squad for many cup games, indeed I seem to recall
Mick McCarthy being rapped on the knuckles by the FA for not fielding his strongest side in cup matches. Yet oddly he expected Roy to play every international friendly.
So to me Mick seems to be adopting a bizarre double standard there, he seems to believe resting players is good for his club side but not for the international side.

Hence I also believe the FA are wrong on expecting the manager to field their best side for every game no matter how minor. Managers have the clubs best interest at heart
so they should be allowed to get on with it and field whatever team they like. Fielding a weaker side in the early stages of cup competition in most cases will increase the
chances of them winning the cup as they preserves their best players for the tougher later stages, I don't see anything wrong with that. If they get beaten in the
early stages because of it, so be it, that is the risk they take, but they calculate the risk is worth the potential benefit.

You see similar thing in other sports, for example in cricket they often put in a 'night watchman' to protect a top batsman from facing the opening bowling twice.
Sometime it works sometimes it's a disaster.

[tricky_colour]

Rule 6.2 of the Football League Cup:



Obviously not enforced. I suspect the Football League knows which side its bread is buttered on and that many of the stronger Premier League teams (not under the League's remit, remember) would happily pull out of the competition entirely and concentrate on more commercially-fruitful competitions.

Well apart from anything else I think essentially the rule is unenforceable, the Football League would have to determine which players are fit and who isn't and what is
the strongest side. If you were to take it to it's logical conclusion the and FL official or panel would have to select the team the subs and decide what subs were made
and when, thus making the manager redundant. Obviously ludicrous!!
The FL should stay out of trying to micro manage teams, it's not their job.
I also think top sides fielding weakened teams is good for the cup, everyone likes seeing a giant killing act in the cup, just so long as it is not the giant they support!
Certainly I prefer to see a 'minnow' taking on one of the big clubs in the later stages of the club, it makes for a more interesting tie almost everyone will be
supporting the smaller side.

[DannyInvincible]

I agree with you that it ought to be a manager's prerogative as to who he wishes to select for a particular match and that it should be no business of the governing authority so long as he selects eligible players or players already registered for a specific competition with the authority. As you say, the role of manager is undermined, or theoretically nullified even, if the ultimate judgment rests (at least in law) with the governing authority.

As for the Roy Keane issue, his selection or omission would have been Mick's decision to make; not Roy's.

[geysir]

Mick McCarthy being rapped on the knuckles by the FA for not fielding his strongest side in cup matches. Yet oddly he expected Roy to play every international friendly.
So to me Mick seems to be adopting a bizarre double standard there, he seems to believe resting players is good for his club side but not for the international side.

When did Mick state that expectation of his about Roy?

[DeLorean]

Come on now lads, take this to the Seamus Coleman thread where it belongs

[geysir]

I'm not going anywhere until I get a plain and simple answer. In one line please Tricky.
I do hope you're not faking an argument against Mick.

[tricky_colour]

I agree with you that it ought to be a manager's prerogative as to who he wishes to select for a particular match and that it should be no business of the governing authority so long as he selects eligible players or players already registered for a specific competition with the authority. As you say, the role of manager is undermined, or theoretically nullified even, if the ultimate judgment rests (at least in law) with the governing authority.

As for the Roy Keane issue, his selection or omission would have been Mick's decision to make; not Roy's.

Well he can omit Roy from his selection, but he cannot force him to play for him, as it happened it seemed
Roy made the decision because he could not bring himself to play in such a set-up. You can blame who you like for that.
Maybe a 1/3 each to the FAI Roy and Mick.

[tricky_colour]

When did Mick state that expectation of his about Roy?

Well I assume he did unless proved otherwise.

[Charlie Darwin]

Lads, take this to the eligibility thread.