The United States will have to play at least two and possibly four more matches to qualify for the World Cup, meaning America’s 2006 representative calendar will take up three full months.
World Cup qualification continues with a home-and-away series against Uruguay, set for September 30 in Montevideo and October 6 in Palo Alto, California. Failing that avenue, the US would face “Repechage” matches with the winner of a European-African playoff, possibly next January.
On top of the past summer’s 5 weeks, national team players are looking at another 2 to 4 weeks of assembly before the 2007 season proper gets underway. Add in 4 weeks of the North American 4 competition, seen as mandatory by national team management, and the representative calendar comprises 11 to 13 weeks – not counting the international 7s schedule.
In the Commonwealth countries, more and more rugby is thought to sharpen up leading players while generating additional revenues for top clubs and the unions. But that strategy does not appear to be suited to the American environment, where more games carry heavy opportunity costs.
There’s no question that Americans would do what it takes to improve, but can they afford to? Even if work schedules permit three months’ vacation time, USA Rugby can’t afford more than token compensation, so money impacts both player availability and team strength.
Nor does such a schedule afford much rest, particularly for professionals competing in the long European season. British clubs are loathe to release their employees for international fixtures, doing so only because of the International Rugby Board’s Regulation 9, and would prefer to preclude rugby from the offseason.
Saturday in St. John, Newfoundland, the Canadians ran out a team that had largely been withheld from the NA4, against Americans who had soldiered through the startup competition. In the 50-point mismatch, the difference between the leg-weary Eagles and the rested Maple Leafs was said to be palpable.
The growing representative season further clashes with domestic competitions. America’s clubs, which help underwrite many leading players, often lose their best and brightest during the championship season.
Related: Three European pros in NA4 rosters
Find a sponsor to the tune of $2m per year. Identify the top 50 players eligible to play for the US and pay them 40k per year.
Then USA Rugby could allow them to play for European clubs or other professional clubs.
Hence, the contractual obligation would be to USA Rugby and players would be loaned out to professional clubs. In turn, the professional sides may be more willing to take on American players, if they know most of their compensation comes from USA Rugby rather then club coffers.
Just an idea. Now a sponsor would be nice.
Posted by: Picard | 15 August 2006 at 10:38
C'mon now fellas. We can't actually think that less rugby for the Eagles will improve their performance?
For the professionals I can understand it may be a problem. Isn't a problem all over the globe? I've seen players go straight from an All Black jumper the previous Saturday to their local club side the next. So to suggest our Eagle "professionals" be above the NA4 is BS. I'm sure that if the Eagle coaches (former & current) thought a player was burnt from an extended season they would not "mandatorally" have them take part in more matches. However, I don't think coaches trying to improve a team can guaranty a place to a player on reputation. A practice some of the rugby public perceived within the Eagles structure in the past.
Therein is the issue, the All Black pool players (PROFESSIONALS) are centrally contracted and the national team honchos decide if they are "released" to play. Here our guys (MOSTLY AMATEURS)struggle with multiple commitments (family, job, etc..) and continue the Eagles 25 year stalemate.
Picard's suggestion was great but the reality is currently much different. Until we can change the AMATEUR status of our players we will continue to box above our weight. While the featherweights can be entertaining, when you put them in the ring with heavyweights (MAORI) or even middleweights (CANADA) they get clobbered.
Posted by: armchairbomber | 15 August 2006 at 13:05
I agree with armchairbomber. More rest is not the answer. These last two weeks several All-Blacks(Greg Sommerville & Doug Howlett, to name a few) played for their NPC teams while the Tri-Nations was on hiatus. The All-Blacks players can complain that they need rest.
As it currently stands the Super League season is 7 games and the post season is at most 3 games. Don't tell me you think that these guys are going to be ready to challenge fully professional or nearly fully professional (Canada) teams playing 10 games a year. I understand that the response will be, "But there are also warm-up games." Those games with a few exeptions are not top level games (not even all of the Super League games are top level).
I think that the argument could be made about the poor timing of the NA4 competition, but certainly not that these guys need more time off. They need more time playing rugby and playing together.
Posted by: DB | 15 August 2006 at 17:08
And again I ask the questions - How so our Canadian neighbors do this?
What sponsorship do they have, what professional contracts do they have with their players, and how many Canadians are playing professionally overseas that also play for their country?
Geraint, are you out there? Fill us in!
We always want to reinvent the wheel in USA Rugby for some reason. I know it's our pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit, and determination to do it an American way, but let's look at our closest successful opponents and see what we can learn.
Whay doesn't Molson Coors sponsor Canada AND the USA?
Posted by: AF de Villiers | 15 August 2006 at 17:22
It is somewhat hard to understand how we can run Canada so closely or best them over the previous few years and then suddenly give up a half century of points.
Canada are a good side but lets not kid ourselves, they will struggle against the better sides.
Agreed that fewer games is not the answer. If anything the NA4 (Columbus leg of the tournament) should have been used to put together a probable test side or at least the most likely forward pack. We have enough troubles up front as it is - forwards need to work together to develop cohesion.
The NA4 may be designed as a developmental tourney but with so little prep time the likely Eagle side should have been on the field together.
Unquestionably there is something seriously amiss. I for one wouldn't be bothered at all if it was decided to go forward with a younger raw side in the Uruguay test series and if it happens the same with the repechage (sp - what the hell does that mean anyhow??!!).
The World Cup at this point is really a distraction that is preventing administrators from focusing on issues here at home and the domestic game. If previous World Cup's are any example the matches won't be generally available to the casual public (thus no good PR for the game). And at this point I don't see the Eagle ship being righted and the possibility of giving up a century of points to England or South Africa is not an attractive thought either.
So go through the motions of qualifying and if it happens hooray for us but if not lets move on. Lets get the game right here in the US and then start to worry about taking on the world.
The IRB may not like it but at the end of the day these birds are still fledglings.
It is the womens team that deserves the support of the administration at this point - they have a shot to go deep and we should be behind that team.
Posted by: doug lyons | 15 August 2006 at 18:31
Time away from work is an issue for domestic players; rest is a concern for September-to-May professionals. The trick is to manage the two issues so that neither disrupts the team as a whole. In 2006 Canada did a very good job with this, in my view.
Notwithstanding, any rugby journalist would say it's a privilege to have such engaging, thoughtful responses. Thank you
k
Posted by: Kurt Oeler | 15 August 2006 at 21:58
A vast number of the Canadian squad are contracted to European clubs. I believe that three of them play for Bedford, two For Northampton saints, one in Italy and a smattering have been approached with contracts from other clubs in Europe and the UK.
Having spoken to my friends who played for Barbados, he felt that Canada were the superior of the two teams despite the scoreline difference. He said thay were more dynamic at the breakdown, not over commiting numbers and just more physical. The backs ran better lines and were generally playing with a lot more depth. he said they were sophisticated, where as the USA tried to play a ten man game.
One thing that might help is that the RFU is not contemplating making US nationals overseas citizens in terms of registration. I saw this on a national league message board the other day(sorry, i can't remember the URL. There is an agreement between the USA union and the RFU called the epos(???) agreement which allows for this.
I believe central contracts are the future. The Union has access to the best players, sending them to europe under the terms of this new agreement whilst the super league and na4 acts as a development tool for young potential eagles like Matt Potchad who has benefited hugely from playing overseas. the sophistication in semi-pro clubs in the Uk is there. I can't tell you how much tape of my games I have analysing performance etc, whilst the medical structures are immense.
If this agreement is there take advantage.
Posted by: geraint hill | 16 August 2006 at 01:50
The possibility of 4 more internationals is a huge blow to the players who represent our country. Our professionals are nearly all starting new club careers and just as the English/Welsh season begins we are going to ask them to take off for three weeks, which will probably put them all behind the 8 ball for club selection. Every Eagle I have met wants to play for their country but not at the cost of job, family and quality of life in the future, we as fans need to understand that and be considerate of it when some of our best players refuse to commit to the upcoming RWC qualifier. A typical Eagle gives up his life to wear that jersey and while you are 21 and missing a semester of college with parental support it's doable once you step into a career it get's real difficult. One player I know, who has a rugby boss, still had to make decisions over when he could attend Eagle functions, these upcoming matches could see us without his talents. Regarding Geraint's comment about 'how much tape of my games' helped him, brilliant, for 4 years Coach Billups asked the RSL to tape their games, firstly so he could watch the players for selection opportunities and secondly so maybe the coaches at these clubs would start using the tape to skill develop the players. I believe the response was he got tape of approx. 20% of all RSL games, which probably means that only a half-dozen clubs use video!
Moving on, going to Uruguay will be very hard for this squad, the Teros have a very strong pack, love to play 10 man rugby and will stack the deck big time against us. In 2002, they gave us liaisons that when we played Uruguay were on the sideline as support staff for them, once we realiised we were being spied on we used to send them to buy stuff while we trained the difficult stuff like lineout plays, they changed our meal menus and tried to limit the amount of water we received, the list goes on and on, the final touch was they narrowed the field! Big forwards who couldn't run so they narrowed the field, they said for safety but you could actually see the old lines a further 10 yards wider. The last comment about playing Teros was the use of little kids to shout racial abuse at the players while they sat on the bench. That will be a very tough trip, saving grace when you don't get enough food their is a MacDonalds in towh which is pretty good. That trip in 2002 was a huge eye opener and founded the plans for 'Team First Self Last' which allowed us to have the great 2003 season.
Posted by: London Welsh | 16 August 2006 at 06:48
The question of why the Canadians can do stuff that the US cannot is not complex. It starts with Canada having their IRB plan approved much earlier than the US (their A side has already toured New Zealand), but really comes down to two major advantages.
The first is that the Canadians have government funding for homne based players. Any Canadian based player that wants to play for Canada has been told to move to Victoria and they will be paid $20k a year. They train every day. This is money the US does not have access to.
The second advantage is that the Canadians have encouraged all their players to go overseas if they can - something the US used to only encourage if it meant more rugby and not just holding a tackle bag. Many Canadians have Grandparents from the UK, and therefore can quickly get an EU passport and not be counted as a foreign player. There are not many US players in that situation, so for a US player to go to the UK and play, they are competing against Kiwis and Aussie super 12 or even test players.
Therefore Canada has probably 30+ professional players (overseas and in victoria) while the US currently has a handful. It looks like another 5 or 6 will be heading over as the new administration at USA Rugby has found placements for some of the up and comers. We are still behind, but it is a step forward.
Posted by: James | 16 August 2006 at 08:20
We have 22 Carded players, who get government funding to help subsidize thier training, it helps. We have about 14 of our current squad playing in Europe professionally, with another 4/5 looking. But we have the same struggle with passports/visas as the US.
The US now has a professional board in place with real bussinessmen at the helm.
The main problem I heard from the IRB was the US strategic plan under Billups/Lyle was to take athletes who did not make the cut in other pro sprots and emerse them in rugby for a couple of years and then viola a quality international. The IRB didn't buy it and I don't blame them.
Posted by: canuck | 19 August 2006 at 08:17