25 man-squad, yet you have to play your strongest side?

The rules daft. End of story. If I've got a twenty five man squad, I should be able to pick who the damn well I like.

Dean wrote:The rules daft. End of story. If I've got a twenty five man squad, I should be able to pick who the damn well I like.

This.

Simpletons

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Simpletons

Who?

You and Dean. It's a complex issue and Dean comes in and says 'The rules daft. End of story.', it's classic simpleton behaviour, reducing the argument down to a very very low level that even a mental spastic could understand and then drawing a conclusion based on it. I don't know what's worse though, someone saying it in the first place or someone else endorsing it as though what they think actually means something by itself.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You and Dean. It's a complex issue and Dean comes in and says 'The rules daft. End of story.', it's classic simpleton behaviour, reducing the argument down to a very very low level that even a mental spastic could understand and then drawing a conclusion based on it. I don't know what's worse though, someone saying it in the first place or someone else endorsing it as though what they think actually means something by itself.

Fuck off

blackskar wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:You and Dean. It's a complex issue and Dean comes in and says 'The rules daft. End of story.', it's classic simpleton behaviour, reducing the argument down to a very very low level that even a mental spastic could understand and then drawing a conclusion based on it. I don't know what's worse though, someone saying it in the first place or someone else endorsing it as though what they think actually means something by itself.

Fuck off

Haha!

Well that's proved me wrong.

Didn't set out to prove you wrong, muppet.

Just wanted to tell you to fuck off

Pretty tired of your posts lately.


Next time I'll be sure to construct a 5000 word argument to please you and your higher intelligence.

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

At the end of the day RR, (which it is, get to bed) it's basically the league telling teams they cannot play certain players together because they aren't good enough. Therefore i have to agree with the naysayers, because that's bollocks.

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

That wouldn't be impractical, and injuries cannot be avoided - teams making conscious decisions to field weakened sides can.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

That wouldn't be impractical, and injuries cannot be avoided - teams making conscious decisions to field weakened sides can.

It's unfair on other teams though. This is apparently an issue of fairness after all.


Why should a team be forced to play a full strength team when resting players would suit them more? That's unfair on them.

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

Don't be silly Dan, if a team has an injury crisis then the strongest possible side they can field would of course be the players that are avaliable to play. Injuries are a part of the game, 11 changes to a team because they have a cup final the week after isn't.

Steadman wrote:

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

Don't be silly Dan, if a team has an injury crisis then the strongest possible side they can field would of course be the players that are avaliable to play. Injuries are a part of the game, 11 changes to a team because they have a cup final the week after isn't.

Teams have rested players for years.


Like I said, to Wazzock. 'Why should a team be forced to play a full strength team when resting players would suit them more? That's unfair on them.'

Dan wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

That wouldn't be impractical, and injuries cannot be avoided - teams making conscious decisions to field weakened sides can.

It's unfair on other teams though. This is apparently an issue of fairness after all.


Why should a team be forced to play a full strength team when resting players would suit them more? That's unfair on them.

This. The PL seem to think that teams make changes because they want to gift points to the opposition, whereas it can be hugely beneficial when teams are playing games all over the place

It's an issue of practicality as well. And it's not unfair on them at all to make them try to win matches. In fact, it gives them an unfair advantage in other competitions, take Liverpool reaching the Final of the Champions League on two occasions, and Milan winning the competition in 2007. These feats were achieved basically because they rested their best players every week before taking on better teams who were fighting in title battles, which is damaging to the integrity of the Champions League.

ricky//habana wrote:This. The PL seem to think that teams make changes because they want to gift points to the opposition, whereas it can be hugely beneficial when teams are playing games all over the place

Nobody thinks that, everybody knows why the clubs do it, but it's damaging to the integrity of the Premier League.

Dan wrote:

Steadman wrote:

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

Don't be silly Dan, if a team has an injury crisis then the strongest possible side they can field would of course be the players that are avaliable to play. Injuries are a part of the game, 11 changes to a team because they have a cup final the week after isn't.

Teams have rested players for years.


Like I said, to Wazzock. 'Why should a team be forced to play a full strength team when resting players would suit them more? That's unfair on them.'

Why is it unfair on them? If a team plays in the Premier League they should commit to every league game the same, with the strongest possible selection they can.

RR. You keep saying that. It doesn't wash, not after they tried to get the Old Firm in, and get a game played overseas.
They want the best players in the 20 teams to play every week, to get the PL watched more to bring more money in. Clearly a flawed ambition if they expect the same players to play every minute of every game.

Steadman wrote:

Dan wrote:

Steadman wrote:

Dan wrote:

James ♠ wrote:I'm stuck in the middle here. I see RR's case.

It isn't fair that Birmingham, Wolves etc had to go to Old Trafford and play a full strength Man U team yet Blackpool are going there to face a lesser team. It is okay saying there was 37 games to stay up but if you go down by 2 points because your rivals beat a weakened top team when you had to play their full strength, it isn't fair.

What if a team has an injury crisis? Shall we have them not play for a while, because some teams will be playing them in their weakened state. It wouldn't be fair on everyone else after all.

Don't be silly Dan, if a team has an injury crisis then the strongest possible side they can field would of course be the players that are avaliable to play. Injuries are a part of the game, 11 changes to a team because they have a cup final the week after isn't.

Teams have rested players for years.


Like I said, to Wazzock. 'Why should a team be forced to play a full strength team when resting players would suit them more? That's unfair on them.'

Why is it unfair on them? If a team plays in the Premier League they should commit to every league game the same, with the strongest possible selection they can.

Why should they pick their best team and risk players getting injured (Blackpool won't be going in easy) when they've got a massive game next weekend?

Of course it's unfair on them. They have a duty to their club and their fans, nobody else.

blackskar wrote:Didn't set out to prove you wrong, muppet.

Just wanted to tell you to fuck off

Pretty tired of your posts lately.


Next time I'll be sure to construct a 5000 word argument to please you and your higher intelligence.

Just ban the twat Black, he's a clear wind up merchant. He's not far off Liam to be honest and he got banned, so why not RR?

I never said the Premier League are perfect.

Dean wrote:

blackskar wrote:Didn't set out to prove you wrong, muppet.

Just wanted to tell you to fuck off

Pretty tired of your posts lately.


Next time I'll be sure to construct a 5000 word argument to please you and your higher intelligence.

Just ban the twat Black, he's a clear wind up merchant. He's not far off Liam to be honest and he got banned, so why not RR?

If you don't like me then add me to your ignore list, don't go telling tales to moderators like a pathetic fairy boy.