Just good player management on their part isn't it? I don't really have a problem with teams doing this. Likewise, I don't have an issue with them exercising their right to postpone the game. They can't guarantee players getting called up, just like we can't guarantee our players not being called up. If the boot were on the other foot, I suspect people may feel a little differently.
I hope you’re being ironic @YorkExile. I think it’s absurd that the rules permit a club, especially of Ipswich’s stature and squad size, to call a Saturday fixture off simply because a couple of youngsters (who’ve probably only played a few times in the first team, anyway) are unavailable or likely to be unavailable.
I am being quite genuine on this occasion @micra. Your post is littered with irrelevancies which surprises me from you! The "stature and size" of the club is irrelevant, there clearly has to be one rule for all clubs playing at a given level. Whether they've "probably only played a few times in the first team anyway" is also irrelevant.
Take our squad of a couple of seasons ago. We had about 20 to choose from when all were fit. We regularly couldn't fill the bench. Suppose we had a matchday squad of 16 and three youngsters who we'd picked up on loan, and were essentially squad fillers, were selected at their age group level. Throw in some of the international call ups we have actually had in recent years (e.g. Kevin Betsy, Aaron Pierre). Is it really implausible to envisage a situation where it could have a serious impact on a club playing at our level if the rule was not in place?
Could you throw in caveats re: injuries? I don't think so, as if clubs are really willing to try and use these rules to their advantage as you seem to be implying, they would just state that certain players were not fit to play. I can't imagine they'd be asked for a doctor's note.
Do Ipswich really want a Tuesday night November fixture pile-up (see Rochdale game postponed earlier in the season and no minor surgery to key players booked in that I am aware of)? I wouldn't have thought so, for any number of reasons.
Good balance there @YorkExile , as like @micra (as per my last post) I'd have thought means testing how often someone has played was worthwhile.
But yes, in our very unusual setup it could have been costly. But then we'd have known the rules, and not signed fringe players with international status because of that!
But Betsy was a good point. I remember he was a regular for us, got international status, then never got back in to the team. On another note.
Ipswich have less of a fixture pile-up in November than Wycombe do, despite their rearranged fixture against Rochdale. They have one EFL Trophy match compared to Wycombe's two, so the Rochdale fixture evens that up, but they also get the first weekend off as they were originally scheduled to be playing Bury on 2nd November.
I think the rule makes sense and it would be ridiculous to assess postponement requests on size of squad, other forthcoming fixtures, etc. I can guarantee we’d do the same if we had 3 call ups. Also, I wonder if any lower teams have had just 2 call ups. If they’re both regular starters, maybe a leading scorer and a goalie, how do you think they feel, having to fulfill a fixture? The 3 player rule might not be perfect but it treats every team equal, regardless of how ‘big’ they are. Isn’t that the way it should be?
@Doob said:
I think the rule makes sense and it would be ridiculous to assess postponement requests on size of squad, other forthcoming fixtures, etc. I can guarantee we’d do the same if we had 3 call ups. Also, I wonder if any lower teams have had just 2 call ups. If they’re both regular starters, maybe a leading scorer and a goalie, how do you think they feel, having to fulfill a fixture? The 3 player rule might not be perfect but it treats every team equal, regardless of how ‘big’ they are. Isn’t that the way it should be?
If there was no allowance for internationals that would also treat every team the same.
Comments
Just good player management on their part isn't it? I don't really have a problem with teams doing this. Likewise, I don't have an issue with them exercising their right to postpone the game. They can't guarantee players getting called up, just like we can't guarantee our players not being called up. If the boot were on the other foot, I suspect people may feel a little differently.
I hope you’re being ironic @YorkExile. I think it’s absurd that the rules permit a club, especially of Ipswich’s stature and squad size, to call a Saturday fixture off simply because a couple of youngsters (who’ve probably only played a few times in the first team, anyway) are unavailable or likely to be unavailable.
Short term advantages aside, I always think fixture congestion can come back and bite you in the arse.
They surely have to means test this rule. Surely the players missing should have to have actually made a decent contribution to the side?
And then you have whatever the Checktrade Johnson Paints cup is called these days, insists you have a certain number of starters!
I am being quite genuine on this occasion @micra. Your post is littered with irrelevancies which surprises me from you! The "stature and size" of the club is irrelevant, there clearly has to be one rule for all clubs playing at a given level. Whether they've "probably only played a few times in the first team anyway" is also irrelevant.
Take our squad of a couple of seasons ago. We had about 20 to choose from when all were fit. We regularly couldn't fill the bench. Suppose we had a matchday squad of 16 and three youngsters who we'd picked up on loan, and were essentially squad fillers, were selected at their age group level. Throw in some of the international call ups we have actually had in recent years (e.g. Kevin Betsy, Aaron Pierre). Is it really implausible to envisage a situation where it could have a serious impact on a club playing at our level if the rule was not in place?
Could you throw in caveats re: injuries? I don't think so, as if clubs are really willing to try and use these rules to their advantage as you seem to be implying, they would just state that certain players were not fit to play. I can't imagine they'd be asked for a doctor's note.
Do Ipswich really want a Tuesday night November fixture pile-up (see Rochdale game postponed earlier in the season and no minor surgery to key players booked in that I am aware of)? I wouldn't have thought so, for any number of reasons.
Good balance there @YorkExile , as like @micra (as per my last post) I'd have thought means testing how often someone has played was worthwhile.
But yes, in our very unusual setup it could have been costly. But then we'd have known the rules, and not signed fringe players with international status because of that!
But Betsy was a good point. I remember he was a regular for us, got international status, then never got back in to the team. On another note.
Ipswich have less of a fixture pile-up in November than Wycombe do, despite their rearranged fixture against Rochdale. They have one EFL Trophy match compared to Wycombe's two, so the Rochdale fixture evens that up, but they also get the first weekend off as they were originally scheduled to be playing Bury on 2nd November.
I think the rule makes sense and it would be ridiculous to assess postponement requests on size of squad, other forthcoming fixtures, etc. I can guarantee we’d do the same if we had 3 call ups. Also, I wonder if any lower teams have had just 2 call ups. If they’re both regular starters, maybe a leading scorer and a goalie, how do you think they feel, having to fulfill a fixture? The 3 player rule might not be perfect but it treats every team equal, regardless of how ‘big’ they are. Isn’t that the way it should be?
If there was no allowance for internationals that would also treat every team the same.