How clueless are the FA?

Hi, seeing as though you seem so intelligent, I was wondering if you could name Wolves so called strongest 11?

McCarthy has struggled all season, so it will be relief to let him know such talented individuals such as yourself and the FA are there to offer some help.

It’s not true that Wolves played a weakened team at Old Trafford. Wolves had a very young team in the Championship last year, with Craddock the only player over 27, and no players with extensive and successful experience of the Premier League were bought last summer. So you would expect some of last season’s starting members not to make the grade and for the team to slowly improve.
The first team that lost 0-3 at Old Trafford did better than the reserve team that McCarthy had previously been playing. Why was the early-season team not so good? Because McCarthy couldn’t drop last season’s regulars without giving them a chance. Having given them that chance, by December it was obvious that some of them would not make the grade and changes were needed.
Wolves have a squad. The team has not been convincing this season–that’s why it’s important to look at alternative players. As a direct result of the Old Trafford match Hahnemann, Zubar and Foley have since established themselves as regular members of the 1st XI, with the result that Wolves are showing improved form.
Wolves “top-three” games (all lost):
Nov 07: Arsenal (h) 1-4
Nov 21: Chelski (a) 0-4
Dec 15: Man Utd (a) 0-3
Feb 20: Chelski (h) 0-2
With these results, how come Wolves can be accused of fielding a weakened team at Old Trafford, when Wigan lost 1-9 at Tottenham. Are the FA saying Wolves are several classes superior to Wigan or that Man U are much weaker than Arsenal and Chelsea?
Why do the FA say Wolves fielded a weakened team? Because they are ignorant tossers who are totally clueless!
Long live Mick McCarthy, the honest manager!

I appreciate that only Mick McCarthey knows his strongest team, but at the time of the match the players had so few starts between them that it was certainly not an established team – regardless of how good it was. With that information alone one can infer that there was no intention to challenge for a win.

Personally I feel it is slightly depressing how managers choose which games are winnable and which ones are not – a la Gary Cook’s infamous trajectory – and act on that basis in the same way that politicians tend to select areas where they would be the most successful rather than effect change in their own. What McCarthy did was not in the spirit of the game but I can completely understand why he did it with regards to the financial incentives from doing so.

It should also be noted that Capello chose his strongest team against Ukraine as he knew that a win for Ukraine would guarantee them a place at the World Cup at the expense of Croatia. England lost anyway but had they effectively thrown the game away then there certainly would have been controversy over that. In the same way teams such as Burnley could feel aggrieved if they are relegated due to the points not attained from the game against Wolves in which the opposition had manufactured an unfair advantage for themselves.

p.s. thank you for pointing out that I had confused the FA and the Premier League, Diablowolf.

The team did not do that badly against Manchester United all things considered, the sad fact is that Manchester United were playing so poorly at the time that Wolves had a good chance of taking something from Old Trafford – and I do not say that out of bitterness as I am a Manchester United fan myself. Ultimately the fans are happy so Mick McCarthy’s ploy worked – especially, as already pointed out, as the fine incurred is nothing compared to the potential reward of Premier League survival.

To refer to the comment made about Burnley not doing the same as Wolves, Burnley’s squad is so much smaller. The argument about playing weaker teams has come up far later than it should have consdiering that some managers, especially Sir Alex Ferguson, have been doing it for a long time. The problem is that the ‘moral code’ that says that you should try to win every game definately favours richer teams with bigger squads who can rest key players and still field a team capable of winning. Mick McCarthy does the same and is immediately found out.

What I am trying to say is that this debate goes far deeper than simply why managers should have the right to do what McCarthy did. It also involves the shift from a team-game to a squad-game and relative poverty in the leagues that is only going to increase unless every proffessional team in England is bought by an Arab billionaire.