McCarthy’s defence is rooted in Wolves’ immediate schedule and survival objective. His team had beaten Tottenham before travelling to Manchester and defeated Burnley afterwards, while Wolves ultimately remained in the top flight.
“We went to Spurs the Saturday before, we won 1-0 with about 35 per cent possession. We've got Manchester United on the Tuesday. I went there, I dropped 10 players,” McCarthy said.
That sequence is central to his argument: rotation was not surrender, but squad management. A manager’s first responsibility, he insists, is to maximise his team’s chances across a demanding campaign rather than protect the competitive balance of the title race.
“If I'm a manager, it's my right to manage that team how I see fit and get results,” he added.
Morgan’s criticism represents the opposing view. Clubs competing at the top expect every opponent to field its strongest available side, particularly when the result can influence a title race. Supporters of rival teams may see heavy rotation as unfair, even when the manager has legitimate league priorities.
McCarthy has also acknowledged the uncomfortable truth: if Wolves’ selection had benefited a relegation rival, he might have complained too. That admission gives the dispute its staying power. The logic changes depending on which side of the table a club occupies.
The argument is unlikely to disappear. Every congested fixture list creates another test of whether managers owe more to their own dressing room or to the wider competition. The next controversial team sheet will show whether football has really moved on from McCarthy’s old row.