Southern Hemisphere’s weakened teams argument is double standards

 
Pot Hale Roar Guru

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

Tagged:
 , , , ,

71 Have your say

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.

Get a daily rugby union email

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it.

We value privacy. More.