Hudds to hand 'arry a lifeline?

[Braggfan]

Firstly I don't think every situation is the same. I think teams can use their squads, and are entitled to. But there is a difference between utilising squad depth and playing for a defeat. Wagner said before hand they were going to play smart, made changes and lost to a ten man team that hadn't won in 14 games and won 1 in 25. Huddersfield clearly wanted to avoid Fulham because everyone at your club from manager to fans are running scared of them. And I think you know that because otherwise you wouldn't be on an opposition forum trying to defend your teams shoddy tactics.

 

[Simster]

Firstly I don't think every situation is the same. I think teams can use their squads, and are entitled to. But there is a difference between utilising squad depth and playing for a defeat. Wagner said before hand they were going to play smart, made changes and lost to a ten man team that hadn't won in 14 games and won 1 in 25. Huddersfield clearly wanted to avoid Fulham because everyone at your club from manager to fans are running scared of them. And I think you know that because otherwise you wouldn't be an opposition forum trying to defend your teams shoddy tactics.

Playing smart would be changing 3 or 4 key players in a couple of games to give them all a rest, and I really wouldn't have an issue with that as you could easily argue that it reflects a good squad rotation policy. However, making TEN changes is taking the piss, pure and simple. It makes a mockery of a league system when teams lack integrity like that.

 

[Fnd_hudds]

Sorry, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view, so you can give up with your "plucky Town" bollocks.

Had you been playing, say, Brentford or Preston then fine, but you were playing a team fighting against relegation. Did you play a weakened team at Blackburn or Forest? Of course not. If we had been one of those teams, I think I'd be furious.

Yes, although you could easily argue that Rochdale only had a very slim chance of sneaking into the play-offs anyway. On the other hand, Huddersfield effectively handing their opponents 3 points had a major impact on the league table.

OK, but why is it our responsibility to pick a side based on the situation of the opposition?

Also, the two sides we picked for Birmingham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39676171

and Forest 3 weeks earlier (who also beat us 2-0):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39464956

They're pretty much the same (give or take a few substitutions).

 

[Simster]

OK, but why is it our responsibility to pick a side based on the situation of the opposition?

Also, the two sides we picked for Birmingham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39676171

and Forest 3 weeks earlier (who also beat us 2-0):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39464956

They're pretty much the same (give or take a few substitutions).

It is Huddersfield's responsibility to pick a team that doesn't call into question the integrity of the competition. You've blatantly failed to do that. As I say, rest 3 or 4 players by all means - football is a team game and it is rare in this division for a team to be genuinely carried by 3 players. But 10? For F**KS SAKE.

Oh and those two sides are quite clearly NOTHING LIKE each other. What planet are you on?

The only reason I'd not be calling for a points deduction is that you've broken no rules as far as I know, but like the play-off format itself, I think this sort of thing should prompt a good look at the rulebook.

 

[wellquickwoody]

You haven't got a clue lad

Patronising northern monkey alert.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Also, the two sides we picked for Birmingham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39676171

and Forest 3 weeks earlier (who also beat us 2-0):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39464956

They're pretty much the same (give or take a few substitutions).

Hahahaha. Did you think people would not actually click the links?

Those are wildly different sides, with the Birmingham one massively weaker.

Smith , Billing and Homes-Dennis are the ONLY players that started both.

Then its your reserve keeper over Ward, 49 year old Hudson and back-up Cranie over your clear first choice CB pair of Schindler and Hefele.
The utterly crap Whitehead and Payne instead of your POTS Mooy and best player Hogg, The non-league Lolley and Bunn over RVLP and top-scorer Kachunga out wide, and Quaner over your star striker Wells.

You utter MONGBEAN

 

[pasty]

OK, but why is it our responsibility to pick a side based on the situation of the opposition?

It's not. But it is your responsibility to pick a side to try and win the game, not roll over and have your tummy tickled so you don't have to face Fulham in the play off semi.

 

[pacman]

We made 10 changes for the Reading game, were we cheating then too?

That argument doesn't hold up as that match was after you played city in the FA cup and had made 7 or 8 changes from the last league game

 

[Simster]

That argument doesn't hold up as that match was after you played city in the FA cup and had made 7 or 8 changes from the last league game

I had wondered about that without bothering to check. But now it seems he shares Wagner's total lack of integrity by essentially LYING about the facts. Fcking dildo. He's making me hope Huddersfield sink like a stone. I have gone from hoping they go up to being humiliated by any of the teams they play, including Reading and Sheff Weds.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

10 changes is a joke. I don't care what the punishment is from the EFL, but I sincerely hope they get smashed in the playoffs now.

 

[pasty]

I had wondered about that without bothering to check. But now it seems he shares Wagner's total lack of integrity by essentially LYING about the facts. Fcking dildo. He's making me hope Huddersfield sink like a stone. I have gone from hoping they go up to being humiliated by any of the teams they play, including Reading and Sheff Weds.

I'd quite enjoy the irony of seeing them get to the final only to be absolutely humiliated (again) by Fulham, the side they were trying to avoid.

 

[SAC]

If Forest or Blackburn are relegated it will be because they haven't picked up enough points over the season. I like Forest and have a Forest supporting mate who I occasionally go to matches with, he's very upset that Brum managed to win but also doesn't think that Huddersfield have done anything wrong.

When Ranieri was manager of Leicester, he would rest players before Champions League matches, I don't see what the difference is. Interesting that the new Leicester manager (I forget his name) didn't rest players and they got knocked out. Who knows if the result would have been any different.

 

[sparkie]

Don't see anything wrong with Huddersfield's team selection.

Forest and Blackburn need to look a bit closer at themselves in their previous 44 games to see where their problems may lie.

Birmingham lucked out with the fixture computer but so do all teams with respect to suspended or injured opposition players. Over a season you hope it all evens out.

Massive were nice and rested last year before they played us and it cost us dear - That's the way the cookie crumbles until the playoff structure is overhauled to give more advantage to the team finishing 3rd.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It's a form of cheating within the rules and should be condemned. You could equally apply the same argument to managers who don't stop or condemn players who dive for penalties. It's wrong, it's unfair, it's against the spirit of the game and the rules need to be changed.

If it was Brighton in this position you would want the same, I would even say if Palace was in the Blackburn position you would be laughing about it.

Teams rest teams in cups, this is no different - the play offs is now a different competition.

The sides that are going to go down had 44 games to get more points, if Blackburn go down I imagine its down to them having 3/4 managers this season and a clueless board, the same with Forest.

 

[Simster]

Forest and Blackburn are not Huddersfields problem.

It's called doing the best for the club you manage

Yes they are. They are everyone's problem, that is what integrity is all about.

It's a shame there aren't slightly different circumstances for the Chelsea/Spurs title run in. I'd love to see your reaction if your Spurs team were level on the final day with just 3 or 4 goals separating Spurs from Chelsea and Chelsea had, say, a Man United team due to play in the FA cup final the following week. I can just imagine you frothing at the mouth if Man Utd then duly made 10 changes the week before while you visited a full-strength Hull.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Yes they are. They are everyone's problem, that is what integrity is all about.

It's a shame there aren't slightly different circumstances for the Chelsea/Spurs title run in. I'd love to see your reaction if your Spurs team were level on the final day with just 3 or 4 goals separating Spurs from Chelsea and Chelsea had, say, a Man United team due to play in the FA cup final the following week. I can just imagine you frothing at the mouth if Man Utd then duly made 10 changes the week before while you visited a full-strength Hull.

It would not be down to one game would it?

happened in the past and will happen again - we lost out on top 4 because West Brom played the stiffs.

was not down to that, it was drawing with a 10 man Villa that did us.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Yes they are. They are everyone's problem, that is what integrity is all about.

It's a shame there aren't slightly different circumstances for the Chelsea/Spurs title run in. I'd love to see your reaction if your Spurs team were level on the final day with just 3 or 4 goals separating Spurs from Chelsea and Chelsea had, say, a Man United team due to play in the FA cup final the following week. I can just imagine you frothing at the mouth if Man Utd then duly made 10 changes the week before while you visited a full-strength Hull.

Given their 'strength of feeling' over a poorly-heated lasagna, I'd imagine they'd be quite upset.

 

[Simster]

It would not be down to one game would it?

happened in the past and will happen again - we lost out on top 4 because West Brom played the stiffs.

was not down to that, it was drawing with a 10 man Villa that did us.

Not really - you're just cherry picking a single unexpected bad result to suit your argument. Chelsea lost at home to Palace a couple of weeks ago, so bad results happen, who knew? It doesn't validate your argument.

If WBA did play the stiffs at the expense of league integrity, they should have been punished too. It doesn't make what Huddersfield have done any less wrong.

 

[Diego Napier]

If it was Brighton in this position you would want the same, I would even say if Palace was in the Blackburn position you would be laughing about it.

You're wrong, I wouldn't. Don't assume to judge me by your own moral and ethical "the ends justify the means" standards.

Last year we suffered because Wednesday rested players before our play-off games against them and I thought that was wrong. Not only would I have your level of integrity but I'd also be a hypocrite if I accepted situations where it benefitted us but condoned those where it didn't.

The rules need changing.

 

[Mellotron]

More than anything, it's just monumentally embarrassing for Hudds. Being fined and bringing the integrity of the game into disrepute all because they're so SCARED of a team below them in the league. Really starting to dislike Wagner as well.