+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: Huddersfield's 10 changes

  1. #31

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa View Post
    Point 1, they rested all of their star players. Players like Mooy, Schindler, Lowe, van la Parra and Wells have started almost every game, whereas Bunn and Holmes-Dennis were making their 5th and 3rd starts of the season. It is fine to rotate but when you chuck an entire squad of players that have barely played, you regularly get results like Saturday.
    Point 2, they have 2 wins out of 24, before Saturday. So before that, they'd won half their games. Birmingham have been awful post Rowett, and they were given an easy task.
    Point 3, Manchester United played the weakened side, allowing West Ham to win and relegating Sheff Utd. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/6627803.stm
    West Ham won on a penalty taken and scored by an illegal player.

    Sheff Utd had to win at home to f*****g Wigan but lost to a penalty! It was all in Shef Utds hands, nobody else.

    League to blame, not clubs.

  2. #32

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    ‘It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth’

    http://talksport.com/football/it-lea...-weakened-team

    The rules say Huddersfield were wrong, there are precedents which say they were wrong and now our manager is saying it was wrong.

  3. #33

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    ‘It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth’

    http://talksport.com/football/it-lea...-weakened-team

    The rules say Huddersfield were wrong, there are precedents which say they were wrong and now our manager is saying it was wrong.
    No shit Warnock has a nasty taste, he needed a win at home against Wigan but failed to a penalty....nothing to do with any other team other than his and the referee in THAT game.

    Again if its wrong, league need to make it clear and simple not teams!

  4. #34

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    ‘It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth’

    http://talksport.com/football/it-lea...-weakened-team

    The rules say Huddersfield were wrong, there are precedents which say they were wrong and now our manager is saying it was wrong.
    Can't believe your getting your knickers in a twist about this! Can you explain to me, with all your football knowledge, why Huddersfield should give a shit about Forest, Blackburn etc?
    We laugh when club owners try to interfere with a managers team choice or tactics, but you think it's ok for the FA to do the same?
    Huddersfield have a legitimate, pre season named squad, like every other team in the world. How they use that squad should be up to the manager alone.
    Wasn't too many of our fans complaining when Malky played a weakened team against Macclesfield, resulting in the worst result in our history.
    Good luck to the terriers. I hope they get their promotion. The likes of Forest and Blackburn should have won more points throughout the season.

  5. #35

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by OurManFlint II View Post
    No shit Warnock has a nasty taste, he needed a win at home against Wigan but failed to a penalty....nothing to do with any other team other than his and the referee in THAT game.

    Again if its wrong, league need to make it clear and simple not teams!
    I would have thought that having it in the rules and fining sides who have done it in the past was making it clear and simple .

  6. #36

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    I would have thought that having it in the rules and fining sides who have done it in the past was making it clear and simple .
    So strange then that team persist with something that is clear and simple

    I thought the league confirmed the result will stand, as it did when Shef Utd failed to win at home

  7. #37

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Kris View Post
    And BLACKBURN. Everyone is ignoring them, is it because they won on Saturday?

    Let's also not forget that some of the ones who feel Huddersfield were wrong were criticising Slade last season for not playing kids at the end of last season.
    Why do I think you're referring to me there? If you're going to make accusations like that at least get it right. I didn't criticise Slade for not picking youngsters at the end of the season last year, it was the year before that when we had two months of the season when we had nothing to play for - last season we were still in with a chance of promotion until our forty fifth match, so I was hardly going to be slagging Slade off for not picking youngsters then was I.

    As I acknowledged a while back, I was partially wrong to have a go at Slade in about half of the games we played in those last two months in 14/15 because we were up against sides that still had promotion/relegation issues when we played them, but there were plenty of other matches where he could have experimented a bit that wouldn't have affected the top and the bottom of the table.

  8. #38

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by William Treseder View Post
    Can't believe your getting your knickers in a twist about this! Can you explain to me, with all your football knowledge, why Huddersfield should give a shit about Forest, Blackburn etc?
    We laugh when club owners try to interfere with a managers team choice or tactics, but you think it's ok for the FA to do the same?
    Huddersfield have a legitimate, pre season named squad, like every other team in the world. How they use that squad should be up to the manager alone.
    Wasn't too many of our fans complaining when Malky played a weakened team against Macclesfield, resulting in the worst result in our history.
    Good luck to the terriers. I hope they get their promotion. The likes of Forest and Blackburn should have won more points throughout the season.
    Loads of city fans complained about the Macclesfield game. Far more, on here, were unhappy than happy.

  9. #39

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    Why do I think you're referring to me there? If you're going to make accusations like that at least get it right. I didn't criticise Slade for not picking youngsters at the end of the season last year, it was the year before that when we had two months of the season when we had nothing to play for - last season we were still in with a chance of promotion until our forty fifth match, so I was hardly going to be slagging Slade off for not picking youngsters then was I.

    As I acknowledged a while back, I was partially wrong to have a go at Slade in about half of the games we played in those last two months in 14/15 because we were up against sides that still had promotion/relegation issues when we played them, but there were plenty of other matches where he could have experimented a bit that wouldn't have affected the top and the bottom of the table.

    It could have effected who finished 9th or 14th or 17th though.

    So, when is the integrity of the competition less legitimate?

    Here's an example for you.

    Team A and Team B are both guaranteed to be in the play offs and there are 2 games left. Team A are playing 2 mid table teams with "nothing to play for". Team B have 2 games, one against a side battling relegation.

    The EFL tells the manager of Tram B that he MUST pick his strongest team for the match against the relegation threatened team. Team A has no restrictions placed on it.

    Team A play Team B in the semi finals. Where's the integrity in that playoff competition - with both teams having earned the right to rest players, but one team being prevented from doing so because of the fixture list?

    It's a squad game over 46 matches. Teams go down because they're not very good.

  10. #40

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by lardy View Post
    Loads of city fans complained about the Macclesfield game. Far more, on here, were unhappy than happy.
    Sorry Lardy. Think your wrong there. There were far more posters who didn't give a shit about it than those who did.

  11. #41

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by TISS View Post
    They had 31 points after 21 games. I don't see your point?

  12. #42

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by OurManFlint II View Post
    West Ham won on a penalty taken and scored by an illegal player.

    Sheff Utd had to win at home to f*****g Wigan but lost to a penalty! It was all in Shef Utds hands, nobody else.

    League to blame, not clubs.
    Yes the League were to blame as well but Manchester United gave West Ham a greater chance to win? Surely you can see that by not playing Ronaldo etc it gave West Ham a massive helping hand? This is just one example of this happening.

  13. #43
    International TH63's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Thornhill
    Posts
    13,579

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by lardy View Post
    It's in the EFL rules, according to their spokesman.

    http://www.skysports.com/football/ne...nst-birmingham

    How you define strongest team is another matter.
    That's an excellent point, especially with a large squad. If NW picks Bamba and Morrison at CB can he expect a call from the FA asking why he left manga on the bench?

  14. #44

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by TH63 View Post
    That's an excellent point, especially with a large squad. If NW picks Bamba and Morrison at CB can he expect a call from the FA asking why he left manga on the bench?
    It's a good question, having said that, in this case it is pretty clear cut it isn't their strongest side. The FA have only enforced this rule when a manager has made sweeping changes, although I'm sure Mick McCarthy dropped his entire side once after a defeat...

  15. #45

    Re: Huddersfield's 10 changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa View Post
    Yes the League were to blame as well but Manchester United gave West Ham a greater chance to win? Surely you can see that by not playing Ronaldo etc it gave West Ham a massive helping hand? This is just one example of this happening.
    Fine margins, both game decided by penalties and as mentioned HAD Shef Utd won their game at home to Wigan they might not have been relegated.

    West Ham should have been in bigger trouble for illegal players but Man Utds side didn't impact the Shef Utd result, they lost!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •