"I would rather lose a tournament than break my word to a player"

[Dribble]

You started to LOSE it a while ago mate. We won, Manuel kept his word and Willy turned out to to be our hero in the penalty shot out.

Pellegrini has earned the right to use hyperbole. He could have said "I'd rather burn down an orphanage than bow to the demands of a handful of members of a forum"; do you think our owners would have agreed with that? Who gives a shit? No orphanage got burnt down AND he still managed to not let anyone tell him how to do his job.

Unlike the example above, Manuel kept it classy (as is his MO) and his statement does nothing other than send out the message that when we win we do it in a dignified manner that shows loyalty and character.

Good PR, good result, good job.

Again you've completely missed the point. If you can get past the 'I'd rather LOSE' bit that's fine. Being the type of person who'll do everything in my power to win, that statement is alien to me.

I suppose it comes down to whether people's livelihoods depend on your boss being willing to risk everyone's future just so as not to break a promise. I'm sure if your job and mortgage depended on whether your boss was willing to take that risk with your family's well being you'd see it from a different perspective.

 

[Dribble]

I think your worry is just make believe. Getting caught up in the 'i'd rather lose' comment and focussing exclusively on it, in an attempt to overstate it's importance to the detriment of everything else said is laughable.

It's the equivalent of a player who just won a game saying ' l'd have rather died, than lose that match' and someone then going off for days arguing the club has a suicide threatening player on its squad. It's a cute, but somewhat silly conclusion to reach. Even though the factual claim States it.

In reality, common sense suggests all the player is really saying, is that he is 'committed' not that he'd actually die. Manuel too is simply saying he is 'principled' not that he'd actually lose.

Clearly for example, if Willy had a cast on his leg a week before the final certainly Manuel wouldn't have played him. Equally, if he was terrible in practice or prior games too.

Like I said, the point is quite simple, 'I'd rather LOSE' doesn't compute with me. Personally I'd rather not lose, but this has nothing to so with whether Willy played or not. I was seemingly in the minority who wasn't bothered either way as I thought the hyperbole surrounding Willy's performance against Chelsea was way over the top by a clear margin as turned out to be the case.

I was more arsed about Manuel playing 442 with Yaya as one of the 2 with Silva on the right. When I saw the line up and formation and Willy's first save, I knew we'd be OK.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

Again you've completely missed the point. If you can get past the 'I'd rather LOSE' bit that's fine. Being the type of person who'll do everything in my power to win, that statement is alien to me.

I suppose it comes down to whether people's livelihoods depend on your boss being willing to risk everyone's future just so as not to break a promise. I'm sure if your job and mortgage depended on whether your boss was willing to take that risk with your family's well being you'd see it from a different perspective.

But your whole argument demands that I take the whole statement out of context. First of all the fact that this was a figurative statement made after we won and therefore having no impact on reality. Secondly, you're making out that only the first half of the sentence is important when it is actually qualified by what is said after; if Manuel was to say "I'd rather lose than shake Klopp's hand" instead of "I'd rather lose than break my word", that would mean something completely different.

Again, we won and I would rather avoid losing altogether but there is absolutely no problem with what Manuel has said, how he said it and when it was said. Like I said, you're issue with the statement seems to rely solely on taking the whole thing out of context when there is actually no need because it's all ifs and buts.

 

[Dribble]

Your analogy is ridiculous.

Come back to the real world.

Well done son!

Now you're getting it, this is the real world and one which I face every day. I have a duty of care to my company and colleagues and no way would I rather lose a lucrative important contract just so I could keep my word to someone that he/she could lead the project. If I took such an unnecessary risk with my company's future just so I could keep my word to a colleague that would be a dereliction of my duty of care to not just my company and colleagues but to my client's who place their faith in us to deliver.

I can see you never had to face anything like this yourself or you'd see the reality of what I'm saying. Just ask any business owner you know.

 

[Dribble]

But your whole argument demands that I take the whole statement out of context. First of all the fact that this was a figurative statement made after we won and therefore having no impact on reality. Secondly, you're making out that only the first half of the sentence is important when it is actually qualified by what is said after; if Manuel was to say "I'd rather lose than shake Klopp's hand" instead of "I'd rather lose than break my word", that would mean something completely different.

Again, we won and I would rather avoid losing altogether but there is absolutely no problem with what Manuel has said, how he said it and when it was said. Like I said, you're issue with the statement seems to rely solely on taking the whole thing out of context when there is actually no need because it's all ifs and buts.

At least we're getting somewhere now. My whole point is and always has been about 'I'd rather LOSE' not whether Willy played or not or whether we won or not.

What's really funny is that I was one of the few who didn't mind Willy playing before kick off, so on that score Manuel had my support. Where did you stand in Willy playing?

 

[Rolee]

Well done son!

Now you're getting it, this is the real world and one which I face every day. I have a duty of care to my company and colleagues and no way would I rather lose a lucrative important contract just so I could keep my word to someone that he/she could lead the project. If I took such an unnecessary risk with my company's future just so I could keep my word to a colleague that would be a dereliction of my duty of care to not just my company and colleagues but to my client's who place their faith in us to deliver.

I can see you never had to face anything like this yourself or you'd see the reality of what I'm saying. Just ask any business owner you know.

Like I said mate, your analogy is ridiculous.

You're comparing risking people's livelihoods through making business decisions to sticking by your principles in a game of football.

 

[blueparrot]

My business has lost money when we had to close because I put a member of staff and staff morale first. But guess what I find it very easy to get new staff, I find it very easy to get staff to do a bit extra and go out of their way. My business is growing because of the bigger picture and good , happy , motivated staff. That is the real world so ask this business owner and Manuel got it spot on and will have the backing of his bosses.

 

[kunaguero10]

But then how do you keep any reserve keeper, not just Willy, happy and match fit if we can't at least offer cup games, and once you've offered cup games that has to include any final we get to the promise is unspoken, break that and how do you recruit the next keeper, or keep that keeper match sharp in case of injury loss of form with Joe ?
Plus in my opinion Pep will probably do exactly the same.

As others have said there is no easy fix, but I would prefer they were given assurances that they will play around 10 games over the course of the season, with them being selected based on a mixture of fixture congestion/threat of physical and mental fatigue, stature of game/opposition, form, general rotation, intuition of the manager etc. After all, isn't that how it works with outfield players?

There should always be a caveat that means a player is not guaranteed to play in any game.

 

[kunaguero10]

We will not. Guardiola played Pinto (back up at Barca) in multiple cup finals.

You have to believe in your squad. Show faith in back up keeper's in key situations. If you wouldn't let them play the big game. You hurt your club as well as their development and readiness to step in.

Thats fair enough, but they have to show they are good enough for me to have faith in them. In the same way I didn't have faith in Jo when he was playing upfront.

 

[fatbloke]

Again you've completely missed the point. If you can get past the 'I'd rather LOSE' bit that's fine. Being the type of person who'll do everything in my power to win, that statement is alien to me.

I suppose it comes down to whether people's livelihoods depend on your boss being willing to risk everyone's future just so as not to break a promise. I'm sure if your job and mortgage depended on whether your boss was willing to take that risk with your family's well being you'd see it from a different perspective.

So basically you're saying you'd go against your morals and values as a man to win?

To me that tells me more about you and your character than anything else, I'm glad I don't know you away from this forum in all honesty.