Stuart Pearce rests 9 regulars against Germany U21

[jpg75]

Germany are playing for a spot in the SF's while England are through. Comments on The Score soccer blog before the game indicate that fans think he's within his rights to play his second-stringers in a "meaningless game". No mention of the V's Cup fiasco by James Sharman, but the parallels are certainly there...

[RJB]

I think that the result in Montreal had more to do with the embarassment, and less to do with who played. To get destroyed so badly in your own park is inexcusable, no matter who plays. One expects a team to have better coverage on its bench.

The difference is that England has played well and earned a spot in the next round. They had earned their spot whereas Montreal were eliminated and playing for pride, but apparently they didn't have much.

[jpg75]

quote:Originally posted by RJB

I think that the result in Montreal had more to do with the embarassment, and less to do with who played. To get destroyed so badly in your own park is inexcusable, no matter who plays. One expects a team to have better coverage on its bench.

The difference is that England has played well and earned a spot in the next round. They had earned their spot whereas Montreal were eliminated and playing for pride, but apparently they didn't have much.

True, if a team qualifies forward into the competition i guess they've "earned it", whereas a team that loses every game should maybe try to redeem themselves. Anyways, if the game had been closer than it was i doubt we'd be talking about it.

One other point, it's been brought up that the integrity of the competition needs to be upheld and that teams should have to field their strongest squads and clauses in the FA guide were cited. Well, i was thinking back this season in England when i believe it was Weymouth that had problems making payments to their players and ended up fielding a youth team against one of their Conference opponents and lost 9-0. I never heard of them facing any consequences for their actions.

[Daniel]

quote:Originally posted by jpg75

Germany are playing for a spot in the SF's while England are through. Comments on The Score soccer blog before the game indicate that fans think he's within his rights to play his second-stringers in a "meaningless game". No mention of the V's Cup fiasco by James Sharman, but the parallels are certainly there...

Did they lose 6-1?

[jpg75]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Did they lose 6-1?

1-1 Draw. It's official, England has more depth than the Montreal Impact.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

Did they lose 6-1?

Most of the critics I've seen after the TFC-Impact game were pointing the fact that MTL rested their best players. So, the result doesn't really matter, the question still stand. Is it ethical to rest your best players in meaningless game when your opponent needs a result?

I still say yes to that question, so no way I will critic Dos Santos for doing it. I will however criticize the players (who were portrayed by MTL fans as being good reserves) who didn't perform in that game.

[Daniel]

The critics are that they rested their best players BECAUSE the players on the field looked so out of their depth.

Had they lost 3-1, no one would have complained much.

[Sam]

Cannot compare these two situations.

1. England won the right to rest regulars, Spain had their chances against both England and Germany, but didn't take them. Montreal lost both games to Vancouver and to Toronto so they backed their way out of the competition.

2. England played a team that could have won the match, and there were starters players on the bench that Pearce wasn't afraid to bring in. As apposed to MDS who left Jordan, Grande, Brown and Surprenant on the bench.

3. England didn't lose 6-1, they tied 1-1 and were the better team in the match.

[michaeltfc91]

Montreal lost 6-1 not because of the players they chose to play on the pitch, but because Toronto FC played a fantastic and attacking match. Plain and Simple. Montreal were beat bad by much better opposition with much higher motivation in the game and did not give the match to Toronto FC. They shuoldn't be apologizing either. They tried with the players they selected and failed. Toronto had a dream night and would have won against Manchester United if they played like that (not 6-1, but they would have still won)

[Grizzly]

^^^Crack is bad for the brain!

[Trident]

quote:Originally posted by michaeltfc91

Montreal lost 6-1 not because of the players they chose to play on the pitch, but because Toronto FC played a fantastic and attacking match. Plain and Simple. Montreal were beat bad by much better opposition with much higher motivation in the game and did not give the match to Toronto FC. They shuoldn't be apologizing either. They tried with the players they selected and failed. Toronto had a dream night and would have won against Manchester United if they played like that (not 6-1, but they would have still won)

wow...just, wow.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by michaeltfc91

Montreal lost 6-1 not because of the players they chose to play on the pitch, but because Toronto FC played a fantastic and attacking match. Plain and Simple. Montreal were beat bad by much better opposition with much higher motivation in the game and did not give the match to Toronto FC. They shuoldn't be apologizing either. They tried with the players they selected and failed. Toronto had a dream night.

I edited out the craziness, and left the truth. []