Playing Weakened Teams in Cups plus having top players on bench

[Fox]

I don't get it, why do teams do it?

So Arsenal rest some key players in the cup when they have not won anything in 8 years, lose and then lose anyway to Bayern and the rested players did not look any fresher.

Brendan is in the press today saying he rested too many players in the FA CUP and played too many youngsters. WHY ??? Why the fuck when you are going to win fuck all else take the fucking risk.

Rafa used to do it, all managers do it and I don't get why. Did Ian Rush get rested when he played in every competition going and he was nowhere near as fit as players today.

If you want to blood a few youngsters or play some non first team players why not use the strongest team from the kick-off, get well into the lead and then bring your top blokes off and play others.

How does putting your best players on the bench so called resting them, then having to bring them on with 20 to go and make them run around like loonies trying to recover a deficit.

Surely playing them first at 0-0 is better

Modern day footy

 

[Tal]

Because winning isn't everything. In fact, for most teams it's an unwelcome distraction to getting as much money as they can from a higher league position.

 

[nealmac]

It's all about priorities. Is 4th place more important than an FA cup? To me it absolutely is. But I accept that everyone has their own opinions. So if a cup game isn't deemed to be important, and you're up against a weak team, resting players makes perfect sense. However, if you're focusing all your energy on doing well in the cup, then it's a bit silly to rest your best players. I'm guessing Wenger is more concerned with getting 4th place.

 

[Fox]

How is 4th got anything to do with it. Arsenal were not playing a league game again for a week.

We were not worried about 4th when we played weakened team in FA cup

 

[hmmmmm1]

Whats the point of having a squad if they cant beat Oldham/Blackburn.

The teams put out by BR and Arse should have been expected to beat those teams.

 

[Fox]

Maybe but why risk it. Being the squad players on when winning easily. They get the same amount of time on pitch

 

[LarryHagman]

Fox, I agree with you. If a 20 odd year bloke can't play footy twice in a week he needs to go the fuckin doctors.

 

[Torv V.2]

If you can rest your star players to avoid injuries in games, which the squaddies should be able to handle, why not?

 

[nealmac]

How is 4th got anything to do with it. Arsenal were not playing a league game again for a week.

We were not worried about 4th when we played weakened team in FA cup

4th spot has everything to do with it. It's not just a case of resting players. Managers also do this to avoid risk of injury.

And who said we weren't worried about 4th place when we played Oldham? We didn't play Gerrard, Downing or Lucas as far as I can remember. In any case, maybe Rodgers wasn't worried about 4th. Different priorities for different teams/managers.

 

[Dreambeliever]

I've always been of the mentality of winning each game and worrying about the next game after that.

Unless you have a very deep squad its often backfires.

 

[Fox]

How is what they do lower risk to
Star players it's the opposite. In both Ars and our FA cup games our star players had to come on with 20 mins to go and run around like headless chickens trying to rescue the game. More likely to get injured doing that after sitting in your kit on bench for an hour

Play to players from start its goaless you dictate the pace. Get a good lead then get them off.

How's that not better ?

 

[gkmacca]

I agree with you completely, it drives me crazy.

 

[Torv V.2]

Again, these are games, which the squaddies should be able to handle. That's why we have squaddies, so that it's not necessary for star players/first teamers to have to come to the rescue. If star players need to rescue the games, then the problem lies elsewhere.

Moreover, the increased likeliness of injuries to occur playing for 20 minutes vs. 60-70 minutes doesn't make much sense to me. I understand your sentiment of rescuing a game, so they have to throw bodies in more, but I doubt that that is supported by facts. To me, it's just mathematics, if you play more, there'll be more contacts and you'll be more likely to get injured.

There's a reason why we scream our heads off when Gerrard plays 70 minutes against...oh let's say Macedonia.

 

[gkmacca]

Yeah, but we don't scream out heads off when it's for LFC. Coming on to try and save the game against, say, Oldham was silly, when he could have started the game, dictated the tempo and style of the team and then left the pitch for a rest.

 

[Torv V.2]

Yes yes, but the point is we shouldn't even need them to play. Playing star players from the start would expose them to more playing time, thus more chances of injuries.

For example, If we're playing against Oldham and a week later, we play United. Let's say we're fighting for 4th (again, depends on what you see as a priority), does it not expose Suarez to more risks in getting injured if we start him against Oldham, knowing full well we need him to be in top condition against United?

 

[nealmac]

You're all missing the point. You don't start your top players, because you fucking assume your weakened team will still beat the opposition. The idea being that you shouldn't have to being on anyone to try and save the day. This isn't all that difficult to grasp.

 

[Torv V.2]

Well shit, that's pretty much what I said. I just wanted to give a reason as to why it's beneficial to do so.

 

[nealmac]

I wasn't aiming that at you mate.

 

[gkmacca]

So don't include them in the squad at all. But if your other players aren't good enough, and you keep doing it, you're irresponsible.

 

[nealmac]

You include them in the squad as a secret weapon if things aren't working out. Ultimately, your starting 11 should be up to the task, and you shouldn't need to bring the big guns on.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that this method is better than the other one (ie starting your best players and subbing them as early as possible). I'm simply saying that they are two different options. Personally, I prefer resting players at the start, as there will be a chance you don't need to play them at all, therefore they get 90 minutes of a rest. With the other method, you know you defintely have to start them.

 

[gkmacca]

Most clubs have two settled sides - the first team and the reserve team. The problems start when you try to mix them up. That risks providing the opposing team with an incoherent, under-confident and under-strength team. So the key thing is judgement: if it's going to be done, it needs extremely careful planning, with excellent coaching and clear instructions. That doesn't happen enough.

 

[nealmac]

Most clubs have two settled sides - the first team and the reserve team. The problems start when you try to mix them up. That risks providing the opposing team with an incoherent, under-confident and under-strength team. So the key thing is judgement: if it's going to be done, it needs extremely careful planning, with excellent coaching and clear instructions. That doesn't happen enough.

Well maybe that's our problem.

 

[Oncy]

I agree with Fox and Macca.
I would play my strongest team.

 

[Dreambeliever]

You include them in the squad as a secret weapon if things aren't working out. Ultimately, your starting 11 should be up to the task, and you shouldn't need to bring the big guns on.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that this method is better than the other one (ie starting your best players and subbing them as early as possible). I'm simply saying that they are two different options. Personally, I prefer resting players at the start, as there will be a chance you don't need to play them at all, therefore they get 90 minutes of a rest. With the other method, you know you defintely have to start them.

Your star players are secret weapons? Ha

 

[nealmac]

Your star players are secret weapons? Ha

You know what I mean.

 

[Oncy]

I wouldnt bet on it.

 

[nealmac]

Now that you mention it.....