Southern Hemisphere’s weakened teams argument is double standards

Roar Guru

By pothale, 17 Jun 2009 Pot Hale is a Roar Guru

Tagged:: All Blacks, England rugby, France Rugby, International Rugby, Rugby Union

Related coverage

People on this forum and others complain about nations sending weakened rugby teams on tours to play in Test matches. The Northern Hemisphere en bloc gets most of the brickbats for this.

When pushed, people then say they don’t actually mean all of the Northern Hemisphere – what they really mean are England and France.

Whether that’s because they’re regarded as the powerhouse teams of Europe and the ones that matter, or because they actually are perennially guilty, is never quite clarified.

But what exactly is a weakened team?

It seems to have a number of definitions, depending on where the commentator is sitting, and whether they are being defensive or disparaging about the team.

Phrases like “second-string team (or third or fourth”); “experimental team”; “inexperienced team”; “development team”, or a “weakened side” get bandied about as part of the debate.

Is it okay to send out an “experimental team” as long as your team wins, or is it a no-no, whatever the result?

Is there a Northern Hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere distinction? Do Northern Hemisphere sides send “third-string teams” because they always lose, but Southern Hemisphere teams only send experimental team who often win but sometimes lose?

Some people are of the view that saying that ‘injuries prevented travel’ is not acceptable and is a ruse – that it simply serves as an excuse that a particular player hasn’t travelled.

Others believe that domestic competitions should be altered, so that players are available to travel. They state that the Top 14 final should be shifted to accommodate tours to the Southern Hemisphere by France.

The irony is that France finally sent a full squad down South this June and were met with an injury-plagued All Blacks team in their first Test. Despite being down a couple of players themselves, the French beat the All Blacks handsomely.

For added irony, there were comments and complaints in New Zealand media before the Test, complaining that the full French XV wouldn’t be available for the test due to either injuries or delays from the Top 14 final.

Are double standards being applied by Southern Hemisphere commentators and fans in their assessment of how the Northern Hemisphere should operate in relation to tours?

Graham Henry is careful never to send out a second string team on tour.

By his definition he is merely rotating his squad, even if practically fifteen different players turn up on the pitch, like he did with the game against Scotland on the last tour.

The Aussies flirt with team ‘experimentation’ or even ‘team development’ when they go on tour, which is kind of handy, in case their team ever loses.

The Springboks are a bit more blatant – they just leave players at home to rest them or have ‘injuries’. If they lose, well it was only a second-string team, goes the South African response.

Southern Hemisphere commentators and fans believe that the Northern Hemisphere teams are the ones guilty of the practice of fielding weakened teams. I don’t think that claim really stands up to scrutiny.

It seems it’s more a case of choosing the right language to cover over any inconsistencies.

The Southern Hemisphere commentators might reasonably assert that their teams regularly win, whether on tour or playing against touring teams. So the quality of the players can’t really be questioned, whether they are first-teamers or not.

To which I might say fine. Except for what they say when they lose.

“Well, we were just experimenting, you can’t take too much from the result”; “the team’s in development”; “it was just a second-string side in prep for the next World Cup,” are the familiar responses.

Sounds more like double standards to me.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (71) | Page 1 of Comments

Knives Out said | June 17th 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment

These NH plodders lack ticker. Let’s not beat about the bush. That’s the real reason.

A wonderful irony I noticed recently was to read of an Australian fan bleating about injury laden European touring teams being sent South and suggesting that the European leagues should be changed en bloc in order to save the Summer tours and ergo European integrity. That John O’Neill had recently undermined the Currie Cup and NPC competitions so that Australian rugby could be expanded is clearly irrelevant. The fast food sporting culture (We want what we want, and we want it now!) that permeates Australian rugby seems to blind most rugby fans in that country to the fact that the European league is much longer and therefore excessively physically demanding. Most Australian rugby fans also forget that the money is in Europe.

Reply
Jerry said | June 17th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment

A couple of points –

Firstly, I don’t think a 5 point win qualifies as beating the AB’s ‘handsomely’.

Secondly, I agree with most of your article. There is a double standard and I suspect if the understrength English and French teams that were sent down in previous years were competitive, there’d be little discussion at all.

Reply
pothale said | June 17th 2009 @ 7:31am | Report comment

Jerry – I used the word to reflect more about the overall play during the game rather than the points margin. The French outplayed the ABs for a good part of the match and/or nullified them sufficiently through universally-acknowledged excellent defence. However, it’s a minor point in relation to the wider issue.

Will be interested to see if others on here share a similar view to yours that there is a double standard or if those views come freighted with caveats that explain or excuse a particular set of circumstances.

Reply
Jerry said | June 17th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment

I suspect most will simply point out the caveat that SH teams are generally competitive even if not full strength. Frankly, I’m sick of paying to watch (either through match tickets or my Sky subscription) second string teams from either hemisphere. In the last few years I’ve been to 3 tests at the Cake Tin and only 1 could genuinely be said to be a full strength affair for both teams (last years match against Ireland). I’ve also seen the AB’s thrash a French B team in 07 and a Tri-Nations match in 06 where Henry had rotated about 5 or 6 players. It’s rather annoying to be stumping up $100 plus for a ticket if it’s not the ‘full noise’ so to speak.

Reply
pothale said | June 17th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment

Couldn’t agree more, Jerry.

Similar to my experience in going to Lansdowne Road on two weeks in succession to watch Ireland play South Africa first and then Australia. They won both matches fairly strongly, only to be greeted with ‘well we rested some of our first-teamers, it was more a second-string team’ and it was ‘an experimental side so don’t read too much into the real comparative strengths of the sides’.

It’s one you can’t win – either you accept that they didn’t field a full-strength team and be cheated as a ticket-paying fan or have the outcome permanently undermined by the apparent lack of quality opposition which serves as an excuse for the result.

Grrr!

I notice that Australia is now fielding an ‘experimental team’ this weekend against Italy. Is this acceptable to some in the light of last weekend’s result? Probably. From an Aussie or Italian fans’ point of view?

Reply
Acer said | June 17th 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment

Seems like the classic moan and he said she said to me Pothale sorry,
You do make valid points that the NH season is longer but many could argue that if your teams were playing against the SH teams they would never last the distance.
I’m the first to admit that I don’t watch the NH games well very rarely if ever. Simple reason is it has absolutely no relevance to me and I have a life. Just reading some of the comments in here I could name four or five people who it seems do nothing else but watch and research rugby. I hope like hell that these people are secretly working for their various rugby unions and are here under an alias, if not i’m a little concerned about the amount of time one is spending here arguing themselves stupid.

Sorry I digressed
You do make valid points as I said above when talking about the double standards, Australia and New Zealand generally send larger squads on the end of year tours so I guess hence the reason why they are called experimental. Most of the time the stars are there from Australia they just don’t play all the games we try to give all our guys a run somewhere and I think the New Zealanders follow a similar train of thought.
You say the French won handsomely over an injury plagued New Zealand team if a five point margin is what you deem handsome what does that say about my Mighty Wallabies we must’ve opened a can of whoop ass on the men from the Med.

Its obvious that your patriotic towards your boys and competition but I think your loathing for all things Southern Hemisphere rugby is showing, then again I doubt you do loathe our rugby but going from this story you obviously do not hold it in high regard.
Yes I will agree sometimes there are double standards but the NH is guilty of also pushing their own agenda.
Lets just roll with it and don’t take life so seriously mate those frown lines must be increasing by the minute

The Africans won’t be too happy with you suggesting that they so blatantly leave players at home. Watch out mate you could be in for a barrage of hater posts

Reply
sheek said | June 17th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment

Jerry,

A 5 point win can be described as “winning handsomely’ if the winners beat the losers in most aspects of the game itself. I didn’t see the test so I can’t comment directly.

However, I am always fascinated by the contrast provided in back to back tests the boks played against the ABs & Wallys back in 1992.

On the first weekend, the Boks were down 10-27 against the ABs, before two tries in the last 15 minutes made for a final 24-27 scoreline.

The following weekend, the Wallys were making hard work of it with a narrow 3-8 (away team) lead, before piling on 18 points in the last 15 minutes for a comfortable 3-26 win.

Yet, the history books show the Boks lost narrowly to the ABs 24-27, while being thumped 3-26 by the Wallys. My point is – the scoreline doesn’t always tell the full story.

Reply
Knives Out said | June 17th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment

This is quite a broad topic. Here are some vague and perhaps unrelated points:

*That the Italian team is missing 6 or 7 regular players has been conveniently ignored by Australian fans. Were England to travel likewise I doubt they would have been given the benefit of the doubt.
*Did SA fans moan when Robbie Deans threw out his wild card side in SA last year? No, Probably because they thrashed them. Likewise, did SA fans moan when the Welsh XV was missing 5 starters during the Autumn series? No, probably because they won. What is the difference with facing weaker teams either at home or away?
*Very few NH fans/experts will moan if SH teams send down inexperienced squads. Why? I think because most European fans go to experience the test vibe, which is generally far more robust than in the SH, and savour the experience rather than the result.
*Does the issue of weak teams centre on competitiveness or the fact that the fans aren’t getting a chance to see the true ‘stars’?
*Why do the SH fans moan about weak teams when they know the score with the European season?

Reply
Acer said | June 17th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment

Pothale your right I should’ve clarified, the NH has just as much right to complain about us fielding 2nd string teams which like you say we then deem experimental.
But sadly it seems the NH are consistently sending seriously weakened team as the norm. Italy put up a very good fight against the boys on the weekend I expected the scoreline to be bigger well much bigger lets be honest here. The Italians have also stated that they are more worried about taking on the All Blacks than playing us and are using these games as a testing ground for their trip across the Tasman. I can understand your frustration that we are now changing the team so dramatically but come on mate do you think we would be so crass to make these kind of changes against the French after we seen what they did to a New Zealand side decimated by injury.

I’m sitting on the fence because I agree with you but at the same time I disagree, does this make sense to you because i’m seriously starting to confuse myself lol

Reply
Knives Out said | June 17th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment

‘But sadly it seems the NH are consistently sending seriously weakened team as the norm’

Acer, there is a reason for that. Realistically, there is no real reason for SH teams to be sending weakened teams to tour. I don’t necessarily disagree with experimental sides and rotation but ultimately all SH fans know the deal. Lionel Nallet toured last summer having played over 11 months of rugby. That is never going to change due to TV money, something that has been pretty significant recently. The SH knows the score and so do the people who broker the deals.

Reply