Two choices.

[lake district canary 0]

If you are going to win a cup these days you are going to do it with squad players.  You are not going to risk overusing key players.   So if your squad is good enough you will win - if it is not you won''t.   So - Choice 1 - play your squad players and hope they are good enoughChoice 2  -   play your strongest 11 and hope they are good enough - and don''t get injured.

We played a weakened 11 yesterday in a 442 - and were not good enough.   If we had played our strongest team in a 4441 and won  we would be celebrating - but would we win on Saturday against Wigan.    We have to think that the priorities these days dictate that the League is the most important thing to focus on.  if you progress in the cup, all well and good.

Imo the FA cup is much more interesting because - if we continue to do well in the league and secure premership status early enough, then the risks that can be taken by fielding a stronger 11 in the fa cup games are much more worth it.   Get through the third round and secure enough premiership points and then go for the fa cup with a stronger approach.   

Capital Cup?  Too early in the season to take risks - that is why top teams don''t push it too hard - and we are a top team, currently in the top 12 clubs in the country.      We should recognise that and move on.

[Mungo Bumpkin 0]

Playing with thirteen outfield players may be deemed underhand by some...

[87canary 0]

If we''d played a 4-4-4-1, I''d have a serious look at the referee that allowed that many players on the pitch :P

Joking aside, the league will always be more important than the cup. Cups would be nice, but I''d rather take the "play the squad players and hope they''re good enough" option. 

If we''re enough points clear of the bottom 3, or virtually safe from relegation when the next round of the FA Cup is played (provided we beat P''Boro), I''d like us to have a good crack at it. But if it''s going to jeopardise our survival in the league, I''d put out the squad players again.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="87canary"]If we''d played a 4-4-4-1, I''d have a serious look at the referee that allowed that many players on the pitch :P

Joking aside, the league will always be more important than the cup. Cups would be nice, but I''d rather take the "play the squad players and hope they''re good enough" option. 

If we''re enough points clear of the bottom 3, or virtually safe from relegation when the next round of the FA Cup is played (provided we beat P''Boro), I''d like us to have a good crack at it. But if it''s going to jeopardise our survival in the league, I''d put out the squad players again.

[/quote]

Ok, I know, 4411, my bad, but the point remains - if you secure prem status early enough - say 40 points by the fourth round of the fa cup - then there is more reason to go for that cup.    Its hard for us supporters to take a loss, but there is a bigger picture, like it or not - and the squad players do earn a lot of money - they need to be given the chance to contribute and get game time. 

  

[Vazzza 62]

I''m sorry LDC but I do not buy into this.

The guys are young professional athletes. If they can''t play 2 games in a week there is something very wrong IMO. I know injuries is something you cannot control, but then if you have good enough cover in key positions, which we do, that shouldn''t be a problem.

I know the Xmas break is fixture heavy and players are going to be going through a lot of games, but 2-3 games a week should not be a problem. In my younger years (around 18) I used to play 11-a-side football twice a week, 5-a-side once, then fit squash and training into the other days. Other than the intensity levels not quite being on par, I don''t see any reason why professional footballers cannot play 2-3 games in a week on a regular basis.

[NC 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]If you are going to win a cup these days you are going to do it with squad players.  You are not going to risk overusing key players.   So if your squad is good enough you will win - if it is not you won''t.  

So -

Choice 1 - play your squad players and hope they are good enough

Choice 2  -   play your strongest 11 and hope they are good enough - and don''t get injured.


We played a weakened 11 yesterday in a 442 - and were not good enough.   If we had played our strongest team in a 4441 and won  we would be celebrating - but would we win on Saturday against Wigan.    We have to think that the priorities these days dictate that the League is the most important thing to focus on.  if you progress in the cup, all well and good.


Imo the FA cup is much more interesting because - if we continue to do well in the league and secure premership status early enough, then the risks that can be taken by fielding a stronger 11 in the fa cup games are much more worth it.   Get through the third round and secure enough premiership points and then go for the fa cup with a stronger approach.   


Capital Cup?  Too early in the season to take risks - that is why top teams don''t push it too hard - and we are a top team, currently in the top 12 clubs in the country.      We should recognise that and move on.



[/quote]

 

Pedant alert: the above is only one choice between two options.

Anywho, was the team really weakened that much? A number of injuries (Ruddy, Whit, RB, Tettey, Turner returning), only rested Garrido and Patches. Garrido has played probably played too many games to play 3 more in a week, and some believe that Patches goals/assists contribution is too low to guarantee selection.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Vazzza"]I''m sorry LDC but I do not buy into this.The guys are young professional athletes. If they can''t play 2 games in a week there is something very wrong IMO. I know injuries is something you cannot control, but then if you have good enough cover in key positions, which we do, that shouldn''t be a problem.I know the Xmas break is fixture heavy and players are going to be going through a lot of games, but 2-3 games a week should not be a problem. In my younger years (around 18) I used to play 11-a-side football twice a week, 5-a-side once, then fit squash and training into the other days. Other than the intensity levels not quite being on par, I don''t see any reason why professional footballers cannot play 2-3 games in a week on a regular basis.[/quote]

This is the major issue. I think that professional players in the modern game probably play (and train) with an intensity we can''t match as amateurs or semi-professionals and as you go higher and higher up the football pyramid, the demand only gets harder. I''m sure if you asked say Morison, who was playing non-league not too long ago, he would''ve thought he trained and played hard then, but that''s nothing compared to now. Why do you think so much money is spent on fitness coaches, physiotherapists, dietitians and analysts in the modern game? Because every single player needs to be at peak physical fitness at every single game. Most sports analysts note that when a player is required to play more than one game a week, many players performances decrease due to fatigue. This is not just them being physically tired, but mentally as well. There''s a reason squad rotation has become such a big part of modern football at the highest level, its necessary to change players who become fatigued over games.

[Vazzza 62]

Well I definitely can''t argue with that [:P]

Although, if you knew you are going to be having 2 games in a week, or a busy patch such as the Xmas period, surely lighter/cancelled training schedules can go a long way to keeping players on track and not overplayed.

I don''t really know exactly how it works, but after a game I believe they normally have 2 days off training? So if having 2 games a week, have 1 training day where you are actually on the field, then spend the rest of the time in ''the classroom'' talking tactics and getting everyone mentally ready for the match, then a light jog or something just to keep the muscles loose and lungs going!

As you say, these guys are at the peak of physical fitness, that doesn''t sound like too much of a workload to me. But then I have never been playing at a level higher than under-6 morris dancing, but I did smoke through it!

[Beefy is a legend 224]

I thought we actually picked a pretty strong side, as did Villa. The only obvious one was Garrido, which was highlighted by Tierney having a bit of a stinker.

Other than that, the other players missing from Saturday had knocks and it would be madness to have risked Tettey getting injured last night when we so badly need him for the upcoming PL games. Morison, who came in for Wes effectively, had a good game IMO, certainly more effective than Holt.

I expect that Tettey, Wes and Whittaker will have had the benefit of a week''s rest and will probably all be back for an important game with Wigan - if we can get to 25 points before Christmas that puts us in a great position to stay up and have a tilt at the FA Cup. The thing about the FA Cup is that it has allocated weekend fixtures and so places a lesser burden on the squad, at least until say the quarter finals.

[Lets be aving you! 0]

"Choice 1 - play your squad players and hope they are good enoughChoice 2 - play your strongest 11 and hope they are good enough - and don''t get injured."

 

It is not as black and white as this.

 

Last night we had Snodgrass, Johnson, Bassong, Holt, Pilkington and Bunn on the pitch from the start, all of whom may be classed as being in our "first XI" (given Ruddy''s injury).

 

We need to hope that they recover quickly, because some of them (particularly Bradley) are starting to look burned out. This has been reflected recently in our second-half dips against Sunderland & Swansea after storming first halves.

 

Let us also hope that the injuries to Tetty and Hoolahan are not serious because they are badly needed. The midfield last night was outplayed by some slick Villa passing, and this put too much pressure on our defence.

 

This was in some ways a game that we did not really need based on the thinness of our squad (as shown by Tierney and Barnett last night) and the key importance of Saturday''s match against Wigan.

 

I suspect that next season, after Hughton has brought in much stronger replacements for our more marginal squad members, this would be a game where you could make a much more compelling argument for playing a really strong team. Last night, Hughton did a mix & match job, but must be hoping that it did not take too much out of those "first teamers" who did play.

[Salopian 1]

The choice was largely dictated by injury, or less than full recover from, - Whittaker, Turner, Ryan Bennett, Wes, Tettey. From the decision not to risk aggravating injury, and with the vital match on Saturday, was there really much that CH could have done?

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Choice 2  -   play your strongest 11 and hope they are good enough - and don''t get injured.
[/quote]

No choice about it. 26,000 people paid £25 to watch. You play best team avaliable.