Fielding "weakened" teams in the FA Cup

[rabidbee]

Some of those clubs don't even play their 'strongest' side week-in week-out...

Because the managers rotate the squad to ensure that the players remain fit and fresh.

[Hoop Blah]

Some of those clubs don't even play their 'strongest' side week-in week-out...

Because the managers rotate the squad to ensure that the players remain fit and fresh.

Yep, and I don't have a problem with that.

Personally I don't think the work load is that great that they need to be rested too much, but most of those teams that use rotation are involved in big European cup games and travel all over the place to play them. That adds quite a bit onto their plate in my book.

The theory that Player X is on £100k a week and so should be able to play twice a week every week doesn't really wash with me because there are limits on what the body can do, paying someone more money doesn't change those limits.

[Stranded]

Which teams put out their best sides then Vic?

Liverpool
Everton
Hull
Newcastle
Arsenal
Aston Villa


Need any more?



Fulham
West Brom
Sunderland
Bolton
West Ham
Need any more?
Barnsley
Bristol City
Burnley
Blackpool
Cardiff
Need any more?
BTW those that didn't included :-
Chelsea
Pompey
Stoke
Man City
Reading

Enough clubs there for the poster to pick an alternative club I would have thought.

Liverpool WRONG (as previously mentioned)
Everton WRONG ( Feillani left out)
Hull WRONG (7 changes made )
Newcastle WRONG
Arsenal WRONG
Aston Villa WRONG

I've not the time to check the rest of your lists but given the first 6 you listed are all wrong then its not really worth the effort to check as you clearly didn't.
The only side ive seen that you could honestly say picked their strongest available line up was Cardiff. Lets be honest they struggled.

Villa played the strongest XI that they had available - the changes made were inforced due to injuries suffered in the past few weeks. Agbonlahor was taken ill on the morning of the game but was originally in the team.

[rabidbee]

The theory that Player X is on £100k a week and so should be able to play twice a week every week doesn't really wash with me because there are limits on what the body can do, paying someone more money doesn't change those limits.

Quite.

[Vision]

Liverpool WRONG (as previously mentioned)
Everton WRONG ( Feillani left out)
Hull WRONG (7 changes made )
Newcastle WRONG
Arsenal WRONG
Aston Villa WRONG

I've not the time to check the rest of your lists but given the first 6 you listed are all wrong then its not really worth the effort to check as you clearly didn't.
The only side ive seen that you could honestly say picked their strongest available line up was Cardiff. Lets be honest they struggled.

Some of those clubs don't even play their 'strongest' side week-in week-out, so it's very difficult to say they didn't play their strongest side in the cup.

At the end of the day the majority of the side is one that is selected week-in week-out when it really matters and their all used to performing together in the first team. With that in mind it's still pretty much their first time and not a thrown together reserve team.

I said last week I'd be happy to see two or three changes to the side to give youngsters or the likes of Murty a game with the first team, but the way we've approached this game is, like a lot of Sven's England friendlies, just useless and miles away from being our strongest available team.

And if they don't play their strongest team week in week out in the league are they not devaluing that competition? I fail to see why people make a big deal about devaluing the integrity of the FA cup when as you say it happens all too frequently in the Premier League anyway. Surely from a moral perspective its more important for league matches than cup games given the potential impact on other sides. (eg Liverpool's reserves swanning up to Fulham 2 seasons ago )

The last 2 seasons in the FA cup we've taken both Spurs and Man Utd to replays so to use your phrase from earlier i think we have had a pretty decent stab at it to be honest.

One point i think is worth making thiss year rather than the last few was that in previous seasons the "cup team" actually was a team. The vast majority had played together for the reserves and in the cups so theres an argument that it was more of a team than if we'd just made 2 or 3 changes. This season with fringe players coming and going out on loan, lack of reserve fixtures and us appearing (to me at least) to have used more players in the first team than before, it just looks far more disjointed this season than previously.

[Vision]

Villa played the strongest XI that they had available - the changes made were inforced due to injuries suffered in the past few weeks. Agbonlahor was taken ill on the morning of the game but was originally in the team.

Debatable. Theres ill and theres ill. If it was the final game of the season, chances are he'd have risked it. Luke Young was injured i take it. Gareth Barry? Delfuneso up front ahead of Harewood? Shorey at left back...(only joking)

[eleventh earl of mar]

As mentioned somewhere on this site, the team of 78/79 played 3 games in 4 days with mostly the same players.

Reading drew the second game 0-0 against a team that finished near the bottom of the table (Bournemouth), and then won the third game against a team that was playing its second game in two days (Aldershot). Also, whilst Reading played three games in four days (13, 14 and 16 April), they had only played one previous game in the month, on the 7th. Portsmouth had played on the 3rd and 7th, also played 3 games in four days, with a win and a draw in the other two. Bournemouth had played on the 3rd, the 7th, and the 10th before playing us on the 14th. Aldershot had played on the 3rd, the 7th, the 9th and the 14th before playing us on the 16th. Between 30 March and 16th April, Reading played 5 games, whilst Pompey, Aldershot and Bournemouth played 6.

Fair comment, but the fact is that at the time Reading played Portsmouth the fact of playing 3 games in 4 days is irrelevent as it was the first of the three games. I am guessing that you assume all of these teams played exactly the same players even allowing for smaller squads?

[Arch]

...Shorey at left back...

Talk about devaluing the competition!

[readingbedding]

We should get the clubs in each League to play home and away twice like they do in Scotland.
I mean, they all earn loads of money now and therefore means that they can play more and more and more.

Actually, I would flood the pitch for the first few months, get the players to have a nice break and start from January.

[Victor Meldrew]

Just out of interest and replying to Mr Angry's suggestion that players nowadays go on till their late 30s I'm still waiting to hear about those many who are still playing.
Looking back at some Reading players from the 60s onwards these are the ages that some players finished league football at (disregarding the fact that some went on to play non-league into their 40s):-
Pat Terry 36
Johnny Walker 37 (Good to see him looking sprightly at the Saints away game chatting up birds at 80 years of age)
Martin Hicks 36
Jimmy Quinn 39
Stuart Beavon-still playing local amateur football?
Delusional?

BTW 20 games to go so our players if they play every game need to be at their peak for 30 hours over a period of 4 months.
Some will earn about £300,000 for that and ,unlike players of yesteryear,will not have to subsidise their income during the summer months by taking on part-time jobs.
It's a hard life for some.

Hmmm, did any of those players you list play physically demanding football? Footballers these days need more than one day to recover after getting through a game where they ran and ran and ran and ran.

You really cannot be serious.

[Thaumagurist*]

Just out of interest and replying to Mr Angry's suggestion that players nowadays go on till their late 30s I'm still waiting to hear about those many who are still playing.
Looking back at some Reading players from the 60s onwards these are the ages that some players finished league football at (disregarding the fact that some went on to play non-league into their 40s):-
Pat Terry 36
Johnny Walker 37 (Good to see him looking sprightly at the Saints away game chatting up birds at 80 years of age)
Martin Hicks 36
Jimmy Quinn 39
Stuart Beavon-still playing local amateur football?
Delusional?

BTW 20 games to go so our players if they play every game need to be at their peak for 30 hours over a period of 4 months.
Some will earn about £300,000 for that and ,unlike players of yesteryear,will not have to subsidise their income during the summer months by taking on part-time jobs.
It's a hard life for some.

Hmmm, did any of those players you list play physically demanding football? Footballers these days need more than one day to recover after getting through a game where they ran and ran and ran and ran.

You really cannot be serious.

Yes. Those players you list played most of their football in the bottom two divisions. The quality of fitness wasn't really high in those divisions back then, was it?

[Hoop Blah]

And if they don't play their strongest team week in week out in the league are they not devaluing that competition? I fail to see why people make a big deal about devaluing the integrity of the FA cup when as you say it happens all too frequently in the Premier League anyway. Surely from a moral perspective its more important for league matches than cup games given the potential impact on other sides. (eg Liverpool's reserves swanning up to Fulham 2 seasons ago )

There is a big difference between teams making wholesale changes to their line ups and what you see in the league when teams rest one or two players here and there via a bit of squad rotation.

Some teams have been quite heavily criticised for their rotation (see the end of season games that have influenced relegation battles over the last few seasons or Sheff Utd resting players against Arsenal (??) in order to save them for a more winable league game the following week).

The last 2 seasons in the FA cup we've taken both Spurs and Man Utd to replays so to use your phrase from earlier i think we have had a pretty decent stab at it to be honest.

One point i think is worth making thiss year rather than the last few was that in previous seasons the "cup team" actually was a team. The vast majority had played together for the reserves and in the cups so theres an argument that it was more of a team than if we'd just made 2 or 3 changes. This season with fringe players coming and going out on loan, lack of reserve fixtures and us appearing (to me at least) to have used more players in the first team than before, it just looks far more disjointed this season than previously.

I see where your coming from, but disagree.

How many times has Murty played right back alongside Pearce & Bikey with Henry infont of him then?

When was the last time Long played upfront with Lita?

How many times have those 4 midfielders been together?

More importantly, when was the last time any of that lot really played a competitive 90 minutes?

[Victor Meldrew]

Good luck finding one in the top 2 divisions that picks its strongest possible line up for the 3rd round.

So not their strongest possible line up then.? 4 changes from the side that beat Newcastle 5-1.[/quote]

Oh FFS man-they didn't play their strongest side v Newcastle and I am pleased to say played like Champions.
A poor argument from an otherwise normally sensible poster.
The same comment goes for Mr Angry.
What's got into you two in 2009? you're getting more like Spacey by the day.[/quote]

Just because it doesn't fit in with your pre-conceived notion. Just changing the keeper means they didn't field their strongest side. End of story really but if you think Ryan Babel is part of Benitez best 11 then you might have to ask Benitez why he's only started 3 Premier League games. Probably resting him for the their priority FA Cup games.

Vision (or is it Spacey?)
How pedantic.
The change of keeper ,somebody expected to have very little to do v Preston,hardly weakens a wonderful side like Liverpool.
Anichebe played for Everton because at last they had one fit striker so you can't play twelve you know therefore a midfielder was replaced.
You even go on about Villa where the commentator said that O'Neill had told him that this was genuinely his strongest side but you choose to question the honesty of both commentator and manager to try to score a few sneaky points.
I think you have been on this site for too many years dealing in pedantry rather than seeing the big picture.
The majority of sides from the top two divisions fielded teams that contained at least 9 players that with a fair wind and in normal circumstances might be expected to play in the previous or next league game.
As I see it that is as near as you can get to being the strongest side.
Reading didn't pick anywhere near their strongest side and reading through posts on here a lot of fans are not happy.

[brendywendy]

if we had a squad capable of challenging for two or three competitions a year
then we would always be playing a strong squad
as it is our squad consists of prem quality players, good championship players, some old heads who can step in, and some kids looking to make it
teams in the top 8 of the prem tend to have whole squads who are at least low average prem players.

when we have a squad that contains mostly around average prem players we will be in a position to compete for the league and cup treble
until then im more than happy with our current policy


when did a team last win the cup from the 2nd tier?
even the sprinkling of teams who werent top 4 prem sides whove won cups in the last 20 years....tottenham, everton, pompey etc clearly had squads way in excess in terms of quality than ours

of the others who lost in the final, how many were adversley affected by their run in the cups

[Sun Tzu]

Reading didn't pick anywhere near their strongest side and reading through posts on here a lot of fans are not happy.

Reading fans not being happy with something doesn't make it wrong....

Ideal world we'd have picked the first team. Doyle gets a bad knock, Ivar gets sent off and we'd have a lot of fans unhappy again....

Coppell is paid to make these decisions, he's never hidden is approach and there are enough examples of cup runs derailing league ambitions to suggest it is at least a reasonable approach.

As has been mentioned before, Coppell has delivered unprecedented league success doing things his way. Anyone fancy telling him he's wrong (even if he is ??)

[Scarface]

Thanks chaps, Villa it is for me in the FA Cup untill Coppell jacks.

No one can argue it wasn't virtually a reserves side. Yes all the players have played in the first team, but as a current 11 that was reserve side, apart from the keeper (who isn't first choice usually anyway). Lets see how many of them start on Friday.

Like others I can see why resting a few players (if they have knocks) is sensible, but it wasn't a midweek fixture and we hadn't played many games over Christmas, so IMHO we should of fielded our strongest team. If clubs are going to persist with resting players, then the FA cup round 3 should be played midweek and not get allocated it's own weekend.

[Vision]

I merely pointed out that scarface would be hard pushed fo find a team that fielded its strongest possible team in the 3rd round. You then listed a whole raft of teams and when i looked at the first 6 it turned out they didn't. Hull made 7 changes.

Coppell said he wasn't fielding a "weakened" team just a "different" one. O'neill says its his strongest possible team. Both sidestepping the issue that if it had been a must win league game they would have sent out a different team.

My point still stands. Very few if any in the top 2 field their strongest possible side in the 3rd round of the FA cup so if thats what scarface is looking for, he's not going to have the choice you claimed. Just because they made less changes than us doesn't alter that fact.

[Mr Angry]

In answer to Victor Meldrew, first sorry I haven't replied before - work gets in the way at times!

As for Stanley Matthews - I read somewhere that Alan Ball was told as an apprentice at Blackpool that he HAD to pass to the great mans feet, as he wouldn't run for the ball; when Alan Ball passed it ahead of Matthews, the old man just stood on the spot, pointed at his feet screaming "HERE!!!" to which Alan Ball's reply was "F**K Off you Old C**t"; so much for "playing" top flight football at 50!

In my original post I didn't say there were vast numbers of players playing TOP FLIGHT football into their late 30's; you added that bit. But for the record, as an example, how old was Sheringham when he quit? How old is Gary Speed? And anyway, players at the top level earn so much these days that they have no need to carry on playing beyond 35 (the official age for a player to be able to claim his pension) if they don't want to.

You also seemed to ignore my point about players playing on with injuries because of cortisone injections; nowadays, the MAXIMUM number of cortisone injections a player can have IN HIS CAREER is 3 - even as late as the 1980's it was not uncommon for players to get 2 or 3 a season. I repeat, many of those players from those days are crippled as a result of this. Today, players are rested far more and generally won't play with anything beyond a relatively minor niggle. For those players who do so (and John Terry comes to mind) I would bet that he doesn't continue beyond 35.

You also failed to address the point about fringe players having more incentive to do well in these sorts of games than established players.

As for how football has changed, well the obvious way is that clubs have much bigger squads than they did, and a Manager needs to man-manage his players the best way he can; rotation is one way, as is giving fringe players the chance in cup games. How would Coppell have known that A Fed could step up to the plate if needed if he hadn't excelled in the Cup games over the last couple of seasons? He might have been able to guess that he might, by reserve games (I bet he learnt loads watching him against Woking earlier this season!) or in training, but seeing him in competitive matches against teams like Man Utd and Spurs showed he could do the job.

The other way that football has changed is the vast amounts of TV money that a club can get by being in the Premiership; you and others who are frothing at the mouth about Coppell's decision seem to dismiss this with a jolly wave of the hand, but the reality is that the money made from getting into - and staying in - the Prem is massively more than winning the FA Cup, let alone getting to the 4th round. I'm sure there are Millwall and Southampton fans who will say that there greatest footballing moment was watching their team at The Millenium Stadium on Cup Final day, even if they were both humiliated on the day, and thats fine and dandy. But will those grand day's out help their clubs to long term survival?? I'm sure Coppell is GUTTED at a few fans feeling upset at being knocked out of the FA Cup in the 3rd Round, as they can't brag about the cup run, or have no reason to have more than a passing interest in the cup draws, but he has a far bigger responsibility than that.

Finally, just because someone has a different opinion to yourself, or who happans to agree with someone who you constantly disagree with, that is no reason to start calling people names. So grow up.

[Vision]

And if they don't play their strongest team week in week out in the league are they not devaluing that competition? I fail to see why people make a big deal about devaluing the integrity of the FA cup when as you say it happens all too frequently in the Premier League anyway. Surely from a moral perspective its more important for league matches than cup games given the potential impact on other sides. (eg Liverpool's reserves swanning up to Fulham 2 seasons ago )

There is a big difference between teams making wholesale changes to their line ups and what you see in the league when teams rest one or two players here and there via a bit of squad rotation.

Some teams have been quite heavily criticised for their rotation (see the end of season games that have influenced relegation battles over the last few seasons or Sheff Utd resting players against Arsenal (??) in order to save them for a more winable league game the following week).

The last 2 seasons in the FA cup we've taken both Spurs and Man Utd to replays so to use your phrase from earlier i think we have had a pretty decent stab at it to be honest.

One point i think is worth making thiss year rather than the last few was that in previous seasons the "cup team" actually was a team. The vast majority had played together for the reserves and in the cups so theres an argument that it was more of a team than if we'd just made 2 or 3 changes. This season with fringe players coming and going out on loan, lack of reserve fixtures and us appearing (to me at least) to have used more players in the first team than before, it just looks far more disjointed this season than previously.

I see where your coming from, but disagree.

How many times has Murty played right back alongside Pearce & Bikey with Henry infont of him then?

When was the last time Long played upfront with Lita?

How many times have those 4 midfielders been together?

More importantly, when was the last time any of that lot really played a competitive 90 minutes?

Actually thats exactly the point i'm making. In previous seasons that wasn't an issue because the "cup team" was a side that had played together. This year it looks more disjointed because that clearly isn't the case.

[Alan Partridge]

I merely pointed out that scarface would be hard pushed fo find a team that fielded its strongest possible team in the 3rd round. You then listed a whole raft of teams and when i looked at the first 6 it turned out they didn't. Hull made 7 changes.

Coppell said he wasn't fielding a "weakened" team just a "different" one. O'neill says its his strongest possible team. Both sidestepping the issue that if it had been a must win league game they would have sent out a different team.

My point still stands. Very few if any in the top 2 field their strongest possible side in the 3rd round of the FA cup so if thats what scarface is looking for, he's not going to have the choice you claimed. Just because they made less changes than us doesn't alter that fact.

Surely you can see the slight difference between a team nameing a core of say 7,8 or 9 of their 'best 11' and then a couple of changes, some of those changes of neccesity with injury/illness or whatever. So most on that list certainly named either the strongest 11 they could field or a slight variation of it. If Coppell had done that I personally would have no problem, nameing a reserve side is taking the biscuit IMO and that's what he did with 8 or 9 changes or whatever it was.

Blackpool for 1 certainly named as strong a side as they could put out at Torquay. Changes but due to them losing their loanees, but of their remaining staff it was their strongest 11.