UK time is: 05:57:27
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It is Vital'

Report Abusive Comment

Thank you for the alert, before you submit it, PLEASE make sure it is a worthy alert.

We canít cater for whether you like another user or not, and please do bear in mind all our editors are in full time jobs and as an independent network, we are low on resources. Valid alerts are very welcome, please make sure your alert is valid!

If you require an answer, please make sure that your registered email is a current one. Please note we canít guarantee that we will respond to every alert but every alert will be looked at.

We thank you for your help in keeping Vital the leading place for sports fans views.


Please enter a category.
As a Wolves fan and, more importantly in this case, a football, I would not have made so many changes. However, Wolves is not the only team to rest players (and I mean in the Premier League, not just in Cup competitions which now seems to be an accepted breaking of the rules). I believe Portsmouth (of all clubs) made 5 or 6 changes the following night. Do they get a £12,500 suspended fine? We all know that the top teams rest players when they have a Champions League game a few days later but nobody seems to wet their pants over that any more. Is it because this may have an effect at the top of the Division (Wenger reckons that Man Utd have, in effect played one less game than Arsenal) so something has to be done? How many changes ARE you allowed to make from one game to the next? With such large squads these days, that are full of internationals, who should be appointed to judge a Manager's "best team"? Should an FA official be on hand every day at every training ground to monitor who is injured or fatigued? Should all teams have to nominate their best 11 players? Or should we, as fans, and Managers of other clubs, stop looking for excuses to explain why our teams get relegated or don't win the League? In my opinion, the problem lies with the Premier League and the Monster they have created. Is the gap between the top and the bottom so massive that teams almost accept they are going to drop points against certain teams? We all do. You know, when you are looking at the fixture list and estimating how many points your team could get and you estimate ZERO when playing the big boys - "and anything else is a bonus". Should the playing field be levelled a little or should, as in Society in general, the rich continue to get richer and the les rich continue to be less rich (Note that I don't use the word "poor"). Should the big boys be allowed to continue owing mega-millions, simpy because they are "able to service their debt"? Yes, Mick McCarthy may have fielded a weaker team. Maybe if Wolves had debts of £700, 000, 000 (or whatever the figure is) he would have been able to promote a Michael Owen and a Gary Neville from the bench but the International players he promoted from the bench are not household names so it becomes more noticably a "weakened team". Is it Ok for so-called "Pundits" to in one breath tell us how important it is to beat the teams around you when you are fighting off relegation but then in the next breath criticise managers for acting upon such wisdom by giving themselves a better chance against such rivals? So, in summary, it is still wrong to play weakened teams, but Wolves have been used as a scapegoat highlighting something that has been going on regularly for quite a while in various competitions. The problem lies with the Premier League and the utter fear that has been created about getting relegated and the "stay-up-at-all-costs" attitude that has developed. Unfortunately, top flight football is no longer about "our best XI v. your best XI". Its too big for just that - or should that be there's too much money and greed involved these days? I'll get back to work now!

Posted By: Ralphdog

Date/Time: 24/02/2010 11:25:00


Please add any additional comment you feel may be relevant