Shock City

I'm getting sick of reading about how the FA Cup is getting devalued by managers playing understrength teams. It really doesn't add up. Take this nonsense from Alan Hansen in his column today:

The warning signs were there as early as two years ago. When covering Reading's fourth-round Cup match against Manchester United I recall that they played a weakened team even though their league status was relatively safe.

This applies to so many clubs: if you are struggling in the league then clearly your priorities lie elsewhere, but equally if you think that you can take your team into the Champions League then you are not going to put out a strong side for the Cup.

It makes no sense, according to the second paragraph the only teams that would play a strong team in the Cup would be those teams languishing in mid-table obscurity. But that is precisely where Hansen places the Reading team he says fielded a weakened team. This type of nonsense argument just shows that no matter what the facts are the perception of the devalued cup is what's important. The top 4 play weakened teams and don't care about the cup? That's why last season, before Portsmouth won it, everyone was moaning that the cup was being devalued precisely because no one outside the top 4 had a chance of winning it.
The other ridiculous point that I've seen made this weekend is exemplified in this, on The Guardian website:

Tradition has become the FA Cup's life support machine, but interest in the tournament almost expired over the weekend. Though the pulse was strong in Swansea's 2-0 win at Portsmouth

Which is to say that the weekend's FA Cup action was rubbish because there was only one shock. This is completely nonsensical, surely a shock by definition can not occur many times. If all the lower league teams had beaten their opponents it would just be normal, rather than a shock? This whole thing should be turned round, congratulate Swansea for pulling off a great result, rather than moaning about the cup not generating enough shocks.