Should Egypt be Forced to Play with their Senior Team?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:You should be able to name any combination of players from the 25 man squad without question. Who decides which player is better than which? They've hardly stuck 11 players in the 25 man squad and filled it out with part time plumbers and builders after giving out leaflets at the pub. They're all professional footballers who should be capable at that level to some degree. If they are eligble to play for your team under the regulations, then there should not be an issue. You've got to look at the season as a whole.

What about the teams around their opponents? It's hardly fair on them is it?

If anything, it helps the opponents, as they will probably be facing up against an inferior team. Anyway, a team should be allowed to play any member of their squad. I encourage teams to rest their top players in unimportant matches, as it gives the rest of the squad a chance to get their game and prove themselves.

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:You should be able to name any combination of players from the 25 man squad without question. Who decides which player is better than which? They've hardly stuck 11 players in the 25 man squad and filled it out with part time plumbers and builders after giving out leaflets at the pub. They're all professional footballers who should be capable at that level to some degree. If they are eligble to play for your team under the regulations, then there should not be an issue. You've got to look at the season as a whole.

What about the teams around their opponents? It's hardly fair on them is it?

If anything, it helps the opponents, as they will probably be facing up against an inferior team. Anyway, a team should be allowed to play any member of their squad. I encourage teams to rest their top players in unimportant matches, as it gives the rest of the squad a chance to get their game and prove themselves.

That's the whole fucking point! It helps their opponents, and gives them an unfair advantage over their immediate rivals.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They should show respect for the other teams in their League.

Just like the other teams are respecting them by calling the 11 players on the pitch shit? They're using 11 of their own players that they pay for under contract named within their 25 man squad. All of these players are professional football players and should be able to be picked as and when the manager chooses. The other teams can cry about it all they like.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:You should be able to name any combination of players from the 25 man squad without question. Who decides which player is better than which? They've hardly stuck 11 players in the 25 man squad and filled it out with part time plumbers and builders after giving out leaflets at the pub. They're all professional footballers who should be capable at that level to some degree. If they are eligble to play for your team under the regulations, then there should not be an issue. You've got to look at the season as a whole.

What about the teams around their opponents? It's hardly fair on them is it?

If anything, it helps the opponents, as they will probably be facing up against an inferior team. Anyway, a team should be allowed to play any member of their squad. I encourage teams to rest their top players in unimportant matches, as it gives the rest of the squad a chance to get their game and prove themselves.

That's the whole fucking point! It helps their opponents, and gives them an unfair advantage over their immediate rivals.

Ah right, I misread what you were saying before and took it in the wrong way.

Anyway, as far as the teams around them are concerned, they have plenty of other games throughout the duration of the season to distance themselves from the respective team who play against a side that is not at full strength.

I'd use the game against Hull in 2009 as an example. Sure, the likes of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland could have complained about the side we fielded, but they had 37 other games to make sure that they were not in the relegation zone. We had more important issues to worry about with an approaching Champions League final, so I do not see why we should have cared about a relegation battle that was irrelevant to us.

Simonc89 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They should show respect for the other teams in their League.

Just like the other teams are respecting them by calling the 11 players on the pitch shit? They're using 11 of their own players that they pay for under contract named within their 25 man squad. All of these players are professional football players and should be able to be picked as and when the manager chooses. The other teams can cry about it all they like.

They're not calling them shit, and being professional footballers doesn't mean they are as good as the players who are above them. Only an idiot would think that.

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:You should be able to name any combination of players from the 25 man squad without question. Who decides which player is better than which? They've hardly stuck 11 players in the 25 man squad and filled it out with part time plumbers and builders after giving out leaflets at the pub. They're all professional footballers who should be capable at that level to some degree. If they are eligble to play for your team under the regulations, then there should not be an issue. You've got to look at the season as a whole.

What about the teams around their opponents? It's hardly fair on them is it?

If anything, it helps the opponents, as they will probably be facing up against an inferior team. Anyway, a team should be allowed to play any member of their squad. I encourage teams to rest their top players in unimportant matches, as it gives the rest of the squad a chance to get their game and prove themselves.

That's the whole fucking point! It helps their opponents, and gives them an unfair advantage over their immediate rivals.

Ah right, I misread what you were saying before and took it in the wrong way.

Anyway, as far as the teams around them are concerned, they have plenty of other games throughout the duration of the season to distance themselves from the respective team who play against a side that is not at full strength.

I'd use the game against Hull in 2009 as an example. Sure, the likes of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland could have complained about the side we fielded, but they had 37 other games to make sure that they were not in the relegation zone. We had more important issues to worry about with an approaching Champions League final, so I do not see why we should have cared about a relegation battle that was irrelevant to us.

Two teams might be extremely close in quality - hypothetically, Newcastle going down because we take our match against them seriously and beat the piss out of them, while treating the game against Hull like a joke and getting beat, because we're in a European Cup Final, how the fuck can that be fair?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They should show respect for the other teams in their League.

Just like the other teams are respecting them by calling the 11 players on the pitch shit? They're using 11 of their own players that they pay for under contract named within their 25 man squad. All of these players are professional football players and should be able to be picked as and when the manager chooses. The other teams can cry about it all they like.

They're not calling them shit, and being professional footballers doesn't mean they are as good as the players who are above them. Only an idiot would think that.

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

What about the teams around their opponents? It's hardly fair on them is it?

If anything, it helps the opponents, as they will probably be facing up against an inferior team. Anyway, a team should be allowed to play any member of their squad. I encourage teams to rest their top players in unimportant matches, as it gives the rest of the squad a chance to get their game and prove themselves.

That's the whole fucking point! It helps their opponents, and gives them an unfair advantage over their immediate rivals.

Ah right, I misread what you were saying before and took it in the wrong way.

Anyway, as far as the teams around them are concerned, they have plenty of other games throughout the duration of the season to distance themselves from the respective team who play against a side that is not at full strength.

I'd use the game against Hull in 2009 as an example. Sure, the likes of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland could have complained about the side we fielded, but they had 37 other games to make sure that they were not in the relegation zone. We had more important issues to worry about with an approaching Champions League final, so I do not see why we should have cared about a relegation battle that was irrelevant to us.

Two teams might be extremely close in quality - hypothetically, Newcastle going down because we take our match against them seriously and beat the piss out of them, while treating the game against Hull like a joke and getting beat, because we're in a European Cup Final, how the fuck can that be fair?

It probably isn't fair, but at the end of the day, we can't afford to worry about other teams. We have to put ourselves first. If the teams were in opposite situations, do you think that Newcastle would have cared about Man United?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They should show respect for the other teams in their League.

Just like the other teams are respecting them by calling the 11 players on the pitch shit? They're using 11 of their own players that they pay for under contract named within their 25 man squad. All of these players are professional football players and should be able to be picked as and when the manager chooses. The other teams can cry about it all they like.

They're not calling them shit, and being professional footballers doesn't mean they are as good as the players who are above them. Only an idiot would think that.

So say they aren't as good, my point is that they should still be able to do a job for the team, or else why sign them? What right do opposing managers have to tell another set of players that they shouldn't be playing? At the end of the day it's all about doing what's best for your own team. It's a 38/46 game season and the manager has to think about the bigger picture for their own team rather than which other teams benefit from a decision.

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They should show respect for the other teams in their League.

Just like the other teams are respecting them by calling the 11 players on the pitch shit? They're using 11 of their own players that they pay for under contract named within their 25 man squad. All of these players are professional football players and should be able to be picked as and when the manager chooses. The other teams can cry about it all they like.

They're not calling them shit, and being professional footballers doesn't mean they are as good as the players who are above them. Only an idiot would think that.

cheesy wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

cheesy wrote:

If anything, it helps the opponents, as they will probably be facing up against an inferior team. Anyway, a team should be allowed to play any member of their squad. I encourage teams to rest their top players in unimportant matches, as it gives the rest of the squad a chance to get their game and prove themselves.

That's the whole fucking point! It helps their opponents, and gives them an unfair advantage over their immediate rivals.

Ah right, I misread what you were saying before and took it in the wrong way.

Anyway, as far as the teams around them are concerned, they have plenty of other games throughout the duration of the season to distance themselves from the respective team who play against a side that is not at full strength.

I'd use the game against Hull in 2009 as an example. Sure, the likes of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland could have complained about the side we fielded, but they had 37 other games to make sure that they were not in the relegation zone. We had more important issues to worry about with an approaching Champions League final, so I do not see why we should have cared about a relegation battle that was irrelevant to us.

Two teams might be extremely close in quality - hypothetically, Newcastle going down because we take our match against them seriously and beat the piss out of them, while treating the game against Hull like a joke and getting beat, because we're in a European Cup Final, how the fuck can that be fair?

It probably isn't fair, but at the end of the day, we can't afford to worry about other teams. We have to put ourselves first. If the teams were in opposite situations, do you think that Newcastle would have cared about Man United?

You put it down to selfishness and you're right, we can't afford to worry about other teams, that's why the Competitions should severely penalise any team who does decided to disrespect the competition, to the extent that no-one wants to do it because the punishment is so severe. I'd be in favour of points deductions, if you want to urinate on another team's chances because you can't be arsed putting a full side out then expect the same treatment. It's tantamount to match fixing, only the benefits of it are less direct, and the harm is towards other teams.

Simonc89 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Simonc89 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:They should show respect for the other teams in their League.

Just like the other teams are respecting them by calling the 11 players on the pitch shit? They're using 11 of their own players that they pay for under contract named within their 25 man squad. All of these players are professional football players and should be able to be picked as and when the manager chooses. The other teams can cry about it all they like.

They're not calling them shit, and being professional footballers doesn't mean they are as good as the players who are above them. Only an idiot would think that.

So say they aren't as good, my point is that they should still be able to do a job for the team, or else why sign them? What right do opposing managers have to tell another set of players that they shouldn't be playing? At the end of the day it's all about doing what's best for your own team. It's a 38/46 game season and the manager has to think about the bigger picture for their own team rather than which other teams benefit from a decision.

Sign them for backup, the Premier League has every right to protect its own integrity.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:United should have been fined for that, or at least made to justify why Ferguson felt that was the strongest team they could put out. I reckon you could make a decent argument that if he'd played the full XI then they'd have been reluctant to make any tackles for fear of injuring themselves.

This is a really good point. That's why Egypt is playing a youth side for their next game. They don't want a bunch of ACL injuries to their starters before 2013 ACON qualifiers. It's quite understandable.