I liked Ward when he played against us at the Amex. If anyone fancies putting a screengrab or gif of that up, I won't stop them...
Hudds to hand 'arry a lifeline?
- Thread starter Jam The Man
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I liked Ward when he played against us at the Amex. If anyone fancies putting a screengrab or gif of that up, I won't stop them...
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,960
By that logic, He'd have played Saturday.
You must be absolutely FUMING if that's true?! Probably cost you a top two spot in that case.
Yeah it's not ideal, but Coleman will have learned a lot this year for when he's our #1 next season.
Seeing as whenever you open your mouth on here, sh!t falls out, I thought I'd check these figures against your own site:
http://www.htafc.com/stats/player-stats/index.aspx?playerid=400037
League starts before Saturday:
Coleman 3
Smith 40
Hudson 21
Cranie 13
Holmes-Dennis 8
Whitehead 14
Billing 23
Lolley 18
Payne 22
Bunn 15
Quaner 14
Total league starts before Saturday: 191, or 38.6% of total league appearances, so not 240 appearances and not half of all league appearances at all.
That stat looks even worse when you consider some of those players who did actually play have since lost their starting place to better players.
Last edited:
Diego Napier
Well-known member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 4,416
Again, you make the mistake of judging people by your own woefully poor standard of integrity.
I see from other comments on this thread that you're a tottenham troll. That explains a lot. Having Bent 'arry managing you for 4 years, I understand why not only your moral compass may be awry, it probably confirms that you ain't got a fecker.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
FFS, no-one is saying they "really wanted to throw the game" are they?
OK so 40% starts rather than "c.half the season".
(They weren't my stats).
While you're there how many sub appearances do they have also?
I've no idea, and am not inclined to check seeing as that fact is largely irrelevant. Does it matter that Mooey came on for a 23 minute jog with the game already lost?
No, as in how many times have the team that played on Saturday come on as subs in the season? The 40% stat was starts only.
We were pushing to get back into the game when Mooy came on, which is why Scannell also came on at the same time and why we brought on a striker for a left-back at half time. That doesn't really fir your agenda that "we tried to lose the game to miss Fulham" though does it.
Even those figures are rubbish.
Taking the first TWO, for example:
Coleman had made just two starts prior to Saturday (and one forced sub appearance).
The figure of 21 for Hudson, includes FIVE sub appearances, (in four of which he came on after the 85th minute)
That's not my agenda. For what it's worth, I don't believe Wagner did that at all, although clearly there are people on here who did. I think he did it simply to keep his best players fresh at the expense of league integrity.
But whilst we're on agendas, you clearly have one - you've lied several times on here from the outset in an effort to make out your team did what is reasonable. They clearly didn't.
Why is it not acceptable to make changes to our side when we so wish. The rules state a team must play their strongest side but who can make that decision other than Wagner. Kachunga is injured and won't play against Cardiff next week, Brown has only just come back from 8 weeks out and with Palmer gone for the season he'll want to be careful not to lose him, Van La Parra has played a huge amount of games and is rarely subbed so could have done with a rest. Three selections of the top of my head but all have their own reasons. Billing played instead of Mooy and is now injured for the season with knee ligament damage. We are looking out for the best interests of Huddersfield Town, we are not hear to try and save Blackburn, Forest or Birmingham. We've had a rotation policy all season and made 10 changes for Wigan away earlier this season, it wasn't a problem then. And Bradford City made 9 changes to their team at the weekend, will they have to sit in front of the EFL and explain why?!! No they won't.
Creaky
Well-known member
The same question could be asked about almost every cup game we've played in the last 10 years!
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
There's a bit of a difference between a one-off Cup game, and a League game that has a MASSIVE bearing on several teams battling against the drop.
Still, Harry has weighed in now, justifying Huddersfields reserves taking a beating:
"He can't be worrying about other teams. I would have done the same," Redknapp said. "I did it at QPR. We got to the play-offs, the last two games I made loads of changes. They made a lot of changes but they have still got good players. They have got a good squad. I don't think it's anything to do with anybody. It's Huddersfield's business."
"They have got to the play-offs. Your only concern is your own club. It's not their fault other teams are in a relegation battle. Why should they take care of us or Blackburn or Nottingham Forest ? It's not their job. It's not his fault that we are stuck down there. So they threw the game, so what ? Worked out alright for us didn't it. Blackburn should've won a few more games and they wouldn't be in trouble would they. Now get out of my face you mug".
Marshy
Well-known member
Its a tricky one this.. would I have expected us to leave out players if we were in the play offs... YES
10 changes.... maybe not, maybe 5 or 6... certainly key players would be rested, would that then be acceptable ?....
Is it unfair on Blackburn.... not really, when you get to this stage of the season there is always the chance of this happening.
10 changes.... maybe not, maybe 5 or 6... certainly key players would be rested, would that then be acceptable ?....
Is it unfair on Blackburn.... not really, when you get to this stage of the season there is always the chance of this happening.
MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,875
My position on this is that while I find the wholesale changes distasteful, I think it's right that the manager has the ability to field whatever team he likes, regardless of how weakened it is, or what the impact may be on the rest of the league. A few reasons for this:
-If you're in a position to rest players then it's simply because you've accumulated enough points to do so.
-It isn't guaranteed to offer any competitive edge for the game that you're saving your players for, and has backfired on many an occasion.
-There aren't any rules in place that would allow the EFL to punish them (happy to be proved wrong on this)
-Creating rules around weakened teams would be tricky - who's to say the precise number of 'allowed' benchings? How many is too many?
-There is a reputational cost associated with this.
It's a bit like 'free speech' allowing people to say offensive and idiotic things. I defend their right to say whatever they like, and they must expect me and others to rightfully state that they are acting like complete ****wads.
FWIW I like Wagner and think he's been a highlight of the Championship this year. I think he's misjudged this one though.
-If you're in a position to rest players then it's simply because you've accumulated enough points to do so.
-It isn't guaranteed to offer any competitive edge for the game that you're saving your players for, and has backfired on many an occasion.
-There aren't any rules in place that would allow the EFL to punish them (happy to be proved wrong on this)
-Creating rules around weakened teams would be tricky - who's to say the precise number of 'allowed' benchings? How many is too many?
-There is a reputational cost associated with this.
It's a bit like 'free speech' allowing people to say offensive and idiotic things. I defend their right to say whatever they like, and they must expect me and others to rightfully state that they are acting like complete ****wads.
FWIW I like Wagner and think he's been a highlight of the Championship this year. I think he's misjudged this one though.
Key word being Cup.
