Why Mick McCarthy’s Weakened Wolves Team Might Be a Bizarre Moral Victory for Smaller Clubs

By: Daryl | December 16th, 2009

2020106 I had vowed not to write about my team, Wolves, here on the front page this year. We already have one Wolves Offside and don’t need another. But Mick McCarthy has forced my hand with his team selection against Man Utd last night.

Mick McCarthy sent out a severely weakened Wolves team to face Man Utd at Old Trafford. How weakened you ask? Well, from the starting XI that beat Spurs 1-0 on Saturday, McCarthy made 10 changes. That’s every single player, except for goalkeeper Marcus Hahnemann. The severely second string line-up featured a right back playing centre midfield, and three left backs.

Unsurprisingly, Wolves lost 3-0. Equally unsurprisingly, McCarthy’s team selection was the subject of many many more headlines than the result. Headlines like the outraged Mick McCarthy cheated football and Wolves fans in the Daily Telegraph’s football blog and the obvious but brilliant Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing on the Castrol Rankings blog.

But there’s also an argument to be made for fielding a weakened team, if that’s what McCarthy thinks is best. Because if the big clubs can field weakened teams, then why not the smaller clubs?

Depending on where you stand, here’s Mick McCarthy’s explanation/excuse for his plan to fight fire with very inexperienced fire.

“I read an article somehow where (Chelsea manager) Carlo Ancelotti had said that the risk of injury in one game is 10%. And then that goes up to 30% or 40% if another intensive game follows in three or four days. We believe that anyway, but that came from the Milan Lab research centre set up by AC Milan.

“That was the best team available to me because it was fresh legs and I thought we were as competitive as we were against Chelsea and Arsenal.

“I can understand why people might not be too happy. But I’ve got a squad of players to pick from and they are all first team players. I hope supporters can understand why but it’s my job to make those decisions. If we do stay up then maybe everyone will look back and say they were all good decisions.

“It’s my job to keep this club in the Premier League and I’m making decisions which I believe are right. I took the decision knowing full well the questions that would be asked and what has happened that we’ve come out without any more injuries.

“I’m here to look after this club and I make decisions which I believe are for the good of this club.”

It’s not a bad argument, and in many ways you’ve got to admire the balls on the man. Remember, this is Mick McCarthy. The manager who took on an angry Roy Keane at the 2002 World Cup and had the courage to not back down.

But there’s also an argument that Mick McCarthy didn’t make, which is that he just did what Ferguson at Man Utd, Wenger at Arsenal and Benitez at Liverpool have been doing for years, and selected a weakened team based on where his priorities lie.

When Man Utd’s priority in May 2009 was the Champions League, Fergie sent a weakened Premier League team out to face Hull in May 2009. The big difference of course is that Man Utd still won that game 1-0. But the principle is basically the same. Ferguson deliberately lowered Man Utd’s chances of winning that game because he had other priorities. Just like McCarthy deliberately lowered Wolves chances of getting a result at Old Trafford because he had other priorities.

Wolves priority is survival, which means beating teams like Burnley this Sunday, not chasing teams like Man Utd around at Old Trafford.

If you agree with this link of thinking (and I’m sure not everyone will) then Mick McCarthy’s team selection is actually a sort of bizarre moral victory for the Premier League’s smaller teams. If the big boys are allowed to field weakened teams for whatever reason, then the smaller teams should be allowed to exactly the same thing.

Some Related Stories:

Category: English Premier League

« SoundOff: Your Favorite Football Character. | Home | Daily Dose: December 16th, 2009, Featuring the Top 20 Italian Players of the Decade »

The Offside RSS Feeds

Jose59

One of the smell tests in ethics to determine whether an act is right or wrong is asking the question "what if everyone acted this way?"

This means that lower teams are choosing who to give up points to. Sure, rest your starting 11 against ManU and Chelsea. But what about Manchester City? Arsenal? If more teams did this (even if you had only like 3 teams doing this), that would just perpetuate the success of the top teams and give the 4-7 range no chance at catching up to them.
wazza

Wholeheartedly agree, Daryl. Super, Super Mick...
yaniv

my last say on this matter is that this also is a team game.. And when i say team, i mean squad.. Yes, those outside the starting 11 may not be as good as the starters, but they're in the squad because then can do a job.. I'm sure mick picked them because he thought they'd be competitive.. I guess its but obvious that at some point of the season each and every one of those players woulda have played.. Yes, to play then all at once is a bit far, but they are all wolves, if thats the right terminology for your players.. :)
DJ

The biggest losers here were 3,000 Wolves fans who paid £42 a ticket, plus travel expenses plus a nightmare journey on the M6 through the road works. I think a lot of them would have stayed at home if they had known what the team was going to be. Everyone seems to think this was a game Wolves could not win. Well last time Wolves were in the Premier League they beat Man Uts at Molineux and were unlucky to lose 1-0 at Old Trafford. If people know what games Wolves might win then do I presume they predicted a Wolves win at Spurs and a Portsmouth win at Molineux? People that bet on football would be very rich if it was all predictable. Albion played weak teams in some games against top four teams then went on to lose the games against the weaker teams they were saving themselves for. I hope this all becomes justified with a Wolves win on Sunday against Burnley - but maybe they would have got that anyway.
yaniv

but ultimately this is a game of passion.. And players live to play at great venues like ot n anfield.. Who can forget havant n waterloo (hope i got the name somewhere near the real name) giving liverpool a run for their money in the fa cup? One might say that teams not putting out their biggest names in such a match is detrimental to the league, but a league isnt judged no the reviews of a match or all its matches.. Its about watching the match.. And although last nights match isnt a great example, generally speaking, the matches are very good to watch, and thats what really matters in my opinion..
john

Jan eloquently expressed my concerns exactly. What McCarthy did was deepen the shade of cynical predetermination that is already so prominent in the Premier League (and other top leagues as well).

While it might not seem fair that teams like Chelsea and United can field a second choice team and it be seen as a smart, tactical, long term decision (and probably still have an edge on the opposition), whereas when a team like Wolves does it it seems more like just lying down, there are plain differences. Daryl calls it 'fighting fire with fire' at one point, but it seems closer to snuffing out completely what 'fire' remains in the game.
Daryl

That's true yaniv, and sad as it sounds, 3-0 away to Man Utd isn't all that bad a result.

In many ways I also agree with Jan though. From a league-wide perspective, it could be very very bad news if every team towards the bottom of the table decided to field a weakened team against the big boys. That would be a lot of mismatches.

What I would say though is that this was a somewhat rare occasion. It's not all that often that teams have to play a big game on Saturday and then go away to Man Utd on Tuesday, so I'd say I can agree with Jan in general principle but still defend McCarthy's decision by arguing that was a somewhat exceptional set of circumstances.
yaniv

totally agree with daryl on this one.. And this question is open to any wolves fan, not just daryl.. Was the teams performance really that woeful?? I watched the match, and i must say that the performance was that of a team thats in the bottom half of the table.. I get the reaction from those fans in the stadium, as they've actually said quite a lot of money to get there, and would have loved to see a team with a bit more belief.. But as a spectator at home, i dont think it was that bad.. After all, we got to see a bit more of surman, who i think is a great prospect.
Jan

The problem is that the existing hierarchy in a league is further cemented.

E.g. an ambitious team like Tottenham wasn't granted Manchester's privilege of playing a weakened Wolves team and dropped points - while also having to put in an extra effort to try and equalize/win and players would also be more willing to take risks (injuries) when fighting for a ball. Manchester not just got three points they were also given a game where they didn't have to put in the extra effort and risk injuries either.

When the top teams decide to rest key players for a league match against lower opposition, they actually risk making the league more open, competitive and unpredictable. That's a major difference for me.

But I usually also like to follow a league as whole and not just be a fan on an isolated island that is my football club. Maybe as a more purist fan of just a club I might also back my coach's approach to rest players. But it really hurts the experience of a league as a whole.
Elliott

Daryl I agree with you for another reason - small teams need to be just as cunning to avoid a relegation fight. If the EPL is going to pack midweek games into fixtures, then lower league clubs should be allowed to shift lineups. What shocks me is that the FA has not written a similar letter to Arsene Wenger for his cup selections
Daryl

With you on that alessio. I think as long as one team isn't deliberately helping another team, then all is good.
vespo

I think he made a great call. As an Arsenal fan, I applaud Wenger when he fields a weak side for the Carling Cup (or as he did in our final group stage match against Olympiacos last week). When the priorities are elsewhere, protecting your best players for the most important games is an intelligent and admirable strategy.
Adam

“I’m here to look after this club and I make decisions which I believe are for the good of this club.”

That's the end of the discussion in my book.