Varney refused to play?

[Aces]

If he is leaving and it looks like he is, why did BMcD even ask him to play?

I'm a fan of the manager, but asking a player who's leaving to play is a poor decision if you ask me.

[Deleted User 130]

I can't blame him. He gets nothing but stick from the fans, even when he plays well he is the scapegoat. He is obviously leaving and good luck to him, I wish he had done better here but I don't blame him at all for doing this.

With total respect TJ, it just isn't true that he's always the scapegoat. He has had his critics - deservedly much of the time - but he also has had plenty of support, even if maybe the Varney Army song was originally a pee-take. He DID miss a genuine open goal v Southampton after all.

But anyway, if it had been me then I would have played but it was his choice and if he is that keen to go to Blackburn then I respect his decision. As said here already though, I think we would have won had he played.

[Deleted User 2]

He was treated a bit more fairly this season, but he is still a favourite for ridicule from the fans, second only to Michael Brown. It would be hypocritical to complain he didn't show loyalty - we barely showed him any! Not a very professional gesture to refuse to play, but what club and manager is in the position to think a player is crucial to the success of a game, while said player is being shown around other clubs and urged to be moved on? He's the only significant wage we've been able to shift this transfer window, and if him not playing yesterday ensured it, I have no qualms with it whatsoever.

And I genuinely don't think he alone would have made the difference last night. We were barely in the game yesterday until the penalty, and the equaliser helped to mask another inept performance and game plan.

[Deleted User 130]

I thought we were the better team in the first half, while any crosses that did reach danger zones were never met because there was no one who can head a ball...

Let's not forget that Varney hardly tried to endear himself to the fans last season but conversely he was NEVER as bad as some made out. And 'Varney Army' made a regular appearance and not in a p-taking manner. That Southampton game in the LC said it all about him - he tore their defence apart and also missed a genuine open goal. Like I say, I don't agree with him not wanting to play but if he really thought it best not to then Brian McD had it right - 'what point would there have been to foece him to play?

[Deleted User 496]

And I genuinely don't think he alone would have made the difference last night. We were barely in the game yesterday until the penalty, and the equaliser helped to mask another inept performance and game plan.

Agreed and what does it say about BMD continuing as manager?

[dangermouse]

To be honest I don't blame Varney for not playing. he is not a regular starter at Leeds, and when Smith returned he was likely to loose his starting place. He has a chance to move to a team higher up the table , who I assume by that fact they want to sign him are prepared to give him a run in the starting lineup. If he got injured during the game, the move most likely would have fallen through, and it is likely his future employers advised him not to play. Why would he play for a club happy to offload him, and risk his future. Thats just how football works, and I wouldn't take it personally.
As for his time here, ONS is right, he didn't endear himself to the fans at times, but equally he took his fair share of flak and sarcasm from them also. I think that the problem was that we brought in a pretty average player, Varney, to replace an outstanding player at this level, Snodgrass, and we all knew this to be the case before he kicked a ball. Unfortunately Varney himself may have received alot of the flak for this, when the fault really lay with the people who sold Snodgrass and brought in Varney.

[johnh]

If he is leaving and it looks like he is, why did BMcD even ask him to play?

I'm a fan of the manager, but asking a player who's leaving to play is a poor decision if you ask me.

You could say the same about BMcD's decision to play Diouf after leaving him out (not even a sub) for most of the season.

[Pecky10]

I thought I'd read that Varney asked not to play rather than refusing to; it's a minor point but there's a subtle difference in terms of his attitude.

As has been mentioned, if we'd made him play and he'd have got injured, we'd have been paying his wages to sit in the physio room rather moving a player on who's not really been part of the team this season.

It seems completely sensible to me from both player and club point of view.

[Deleted User 130]

I thought I'd read that Varney asked not to play rather than refusing to; it's a minor point but there's a subtle difference in terms of his attitude.

As has been mentioned, if we'd made him play and he'd have got injured, we'd have been paying his wages to sit in the physio room rather moving a player on who's not really been part of the team this season.

It seems completely sensible to me from both player and club point of view.

Yes.

Not pleasant or gratifying to hear it, but sensible yes, totally agree.

[Aces]

If he is leaving and it looks like he is, why did BMcD even ask him to play?

I'm a fan of the manager, but asking a player who's leaving to play is a poor decision if you ask me.

You could say the same about BMcD's decision to play Diouf after leaving him out (not even a sub) for most of the season.

Something doesn't add up with Diouf, why play him now after being out of favour for 6 months and he is clearly fat and unfit.