Second String Teams

This is something thats been bugging me, USA today put out a second string team against Australia but did they really have to?

There are a number of reasons to do it such as resting players and giving others a chance to ge game time but for smaller rugby nations I think they should put their best foot forward and expose players to a best class of opposition surely it is in their best interest to test themselves against the best. I know that future qualifications can be determined but developing players and improving them surely has a greater and more long term affect and the USA dont have the hardest tests in qualifying for 2015

Your over looking the way the world cup works, the top 3 teams in a World Cup pool automatically qualify for the next tournament, the goal of the USA is to finish third in the group.
In 4 days time Italy play the USA, whomever wins that game won't have to qualify for the next tournament, so it's only natural the USA is holding back players.

Alyn I didnt overlook it I mentioned it I just feel that they say its lost before they start and are harming the dvelopment of their better players

Is it another indication that the RWC needs to be scheduled better to make it more entertaining rather than these one sided games?

The length of time in between games for the minnows is also a factor.

So in theory only top 3 teams plus Home team qualify automaticaly,how do the rest of the 3Ns/6Ns teams qualify?

theres a messed up system where teams get 2 or 3 chances to qualify. I think Canada and USA played each other this time around and Canada won then USA played Uraguay then Uraguay played Georgia or Romania and lost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup_-_Americas_qualification

Hopefully that should clear it up

The worst part is they give easy bonus points to sides,who may have struggled against them first up.
It may mean the difference to winning,qualifying or going out and THAT
devalues a RWC.

marty2086 wrote:Alyn I didnt overlook it I mentioned it I just feel that they say its lost before they start and are harming the dvelopment of their better players

Is it another indication that the RWC needs to be scheduled better to make it more entertaining rather than these one sided games?

So how is ensuring they qualify for the next world cup harming the development of their better players? For the sake of one match they have a vested interest of 4 years of development of all players. They put out their best players in the first match/es. Now its about doing whats best for USA rugby. Can't understand how one match playing the top team to get experience provides more value than maximising the chances of what 4 years development can do for a side.

emack2 wrote:The worst part is they give easy bonus points to sides,who may have struggled against them first up.
It may mean the difference to winning,qualifying or going out and THAT
devalues a RWC.

Alan anyone can put up any team for whatever reason they like. In any match. If it serves their own purposes, goals, means to an end then thats their choice. You can't prescribe team selection to a team and as opposition you need to be able to deal with whatever the opposition throws at you, which incidentally, is Teds thinking for tonights match- to expect the unexpected. 'Devalue' is your own opinion. Its the format that we all have to live with.

Are you still sticking with 10?

I'm going back to 18 minimum and 25 if things go ok. If France get close to this team then they will have done very very well. If its over 25 we'll get the inevitable "the French threw the match" bizzo but from all reports here they want this match desperately, so do the AB's. So I'll dismiss any comments about throwing the match now, regardless of who wins...