Canada 56 United States 7 (halftime: Canada 27-0)

Wing James Pritchard scored three second-half tries as Canada posted a 56-7 victory over the United States, dropping the Eagles into a home-and-away World Cup qualification series with South American runnerup Uruguay in September.

The loss is the heaviest in the 30-year history of the North American rivalry.

“Canada was much better than we were today and when things go wrong they tend to compound. They put us under an immense amount of pressure and we didn’t handle it well,” interim US coach Peter Thorburn said in a press release.

In addition to qualifying for the 2007 World Cup, the Maple Leafs regained the Can-Am Trophy, which the US claimed last year in Edmonton. The trophy has regularly traveled back and forth since 1995, each team now having won on six occasions, although Canada has not visited the States since 2002 and just twice since 1998.

Saturday in St. John, Newfoundland, the hosts moved smartly to a 27-0 halftime lead behind three first-half tries and two penalty goals, the latter struck by Pritchard, who rang up a Canadian single-game scoring record with 36. After the break, the US conceded two more touchdowns and another penalty before Todd Clever crossed the line at 62 minutes for his side’s only score.

Two more Canadian tries came before game’s end, bringing the total to seven.

Now 1-4 for the 2006 season, the Eagles’ record looks grim after discounting the lopsided win over Barbados. Against Ireland ‘A’, the New Zealand Maori, and Canada (twice), the US has scored 44 points while conceding 191, and yielded record losses to both the Maple Leafs and the Maori.

Since June, the US has dropped two places in the International Rugby Board computer standings, to 15th, and is now ranked just 1.2 points ahead of 18th-placed Uruguay. Under the IRB’s system, home-field advantage alone is worth 3 points, so the two teams are close to level in Dublin’s eyes.

The Eagles will meet the Teros September 30 in Montevideo and October 7 in Stanford, California, USA Rugby announced.

Canada 56 United States 7 (halftime: Canada 27-0)

United States
Try: Clever
Conversion: Hercus

Francois Viljoen; Brian Barnard, Philip Eloff, Albert Tuipolotu (Vaha Esikia), Paul Emerick; Mike Hercus, Kimball Kjar (Chad Erskine); Mike Macdonald, Matt Wyatt (Pat Bell), Chris Osentowski (John Vitale), Alec Parker (Scott Lawrence), Mike Mangan (Adam Russell), Todd Clever, Justin Stencel (Louis Stanfill), Kort Schubert (captain)

Canada
Tries: James Pritchard (3), Mike Pyke, Rod Snow, Sean-Michael Stephen, Derek Daypuck
Conversions: James Pritchard (6)
Penalties: James Pritchard (3)

Mike Pyke (Ed Fairhurst); James Pritchard, Ryan Smith, David Spicer, Justin Mensah-Coker; Ander Monro (Derek Daypuck), Morgan Williams (captain); Kevin Tkachuk (Dan Pletch), Pat Riordan (Mark Lawson), Rod Snow (Garth Cooke), Mike James, Luke Tait, Jamie Cudmore (Colin Yukes), Stan McKeen (Mike Webb), Sean-Michael Stephen

Referee: Christophe Berdos (France)
Attendance: 5,000 (estimated)

Comments

[ARMCHAIRBOMBER]

Well, here we have it. Its not Billups', Arnot's, or Thorburn's fault. We simply do not have the raw talent or the money to develop talent to compete. I feel bad for the players that have undoubtedly given up a lot to be there and able to play, yet have been pounded again!

I will state that I have not seen the match but it sounds like the forwards got put to the sword. We cannot expect club players gathering for 20 -30 days (am I wrong?) total to be of international caliber.

I return to the France match 2 or 3 years ago in which everyone in the US rugby scene and press seemed so pleased with our galant defeat. If you see the game we were shoved around like the boys' vs mens' match in that Monty Python scene. Same is true for last years Wales match.

Realizing that international rugby matches can get away quickly (i.e. Aust./SA 3 weeks ago)we have to face the current reality that there is no quick fix. That said, there has to be some measurable yardstick and a timeline for all involved.

The new board is a glimmer of hope. We all hope that the board members, all US Eagles admin. & staff will not continue in their positions because there is no one else, or no one else raises their hand. Rather we hope some continue as we will be able to see measurable improvement (in some area - sponsorship,on field results, profile of the game). We hope some do not continue if we do not see any.

Otherwise, we should continue to schedule the powers like Barbados as much as possible so our players and fans don't go totally septic on the program.

[RUGGER64]

56-7?

Based upon this result, and those in recent years (vs. Wales, France, etc.), I'm not sure the Eagles have substantially improved since the 80 point loss to Ireland in NH in 2000.

Perhaps incremental progress has been made, but have they made any great strides which would lead an objective observer to believe the USA has a chance to crack the world Top 10 in the near future... Or even come within 20 points of beating a fully-loaded side from the traditional top 8 teams or Argentina, Italy, Samoa, etc? Not a chance, the way things look at present.

And, just because Thorburn picked many of the same players as the Billups regime does Nothing, in my opinion, to validate the selections made during Billups tenure. In a must-win match, Thornburn, given precious little time to develop other talent, was virtually forced to rely on many holdovers from the Billups era.

This is not to demean the abilities of Billups/Thorburn as coaches, or the heart and tenacity of the Eagle players. I'm certain they have pride in pulling on the Eagle jersey and giving their all for the USA, USA Rugby, their teammates and themselves.

However, I remain unconvinced that 1) the best Rugby players in Division I, II Club and Collegiate Rugby are adequately scouted/recruited by selectors and 2) the athletic talent of the Eagle pool is sufficient to compete internationally.

A better system of identifying rugby players with superior athletic skills must be implemented nation-wide ASAP. Many of these athletes play for a few years (or months), dominate at their levels because of their raw athletic ability, but somehow are Never fast-tracked into an elite program (like the All-Americans, their Union's All-Star squads, or the Eagle Pool). If they were recruited for the athletic talents they possess, perhaps more of the better collegiate athletes (who don't necessarily play for a "Sweet 16" program) would remain involved in the game.

Many great athletes give up the sport, having never been approached by a Billups/Thorburn, the All-American selectors, etc. It happens all the time, while multiple players continue to be taken from the Cals, BYUs, Penn States, Utahs, Army's, etc. Not to say that some of these players won't someday excel at the international level (and a few do), but isn't it possible that many, already haven been exposed to generally excellent coaching and competition, may have reached their potential/maxed out?

On the other hand, other excellent athletes who've yet to be exposed to the same level of coaching and competition may have a much greater upside. At the moment, we'll never find out.

One can only hope that the new admistration and the rumored move back to 4 territories, coupled with the growth in youth rugby, will begin to address the issues above. Perhaps then, in the near future, we can defeat Canada by 20-30+ points and have a better shot at beating one of the established powers.

[geraint hill]

Rugger 64 is highlighting some interesting points. However, test rugby is a completely different phenomonon. The intelligence and experience required to perform at that level are beyond 99% of rugby players. Even those who can run a 4.4 40, tackle like a defensive end and handle like an nba player. I've said it before, you can turn a rugby player into an athlete, but not always an athlete into a rugby player.

Athleticism is key to progress, but BYU, Cal and army offer rugby that enhances the tactical and structural nous necessary to be selected at that level. This is obviously in comparison to the other leagues and collegiate sides in the USA.

However, these programmes aren't doing what's necessary to develop the players into test calibre athletes. That is the responsibility of the union. They should make a special environment for the players, apply the best coaching techniques, sports science and aim for achievement at the global level.Again professionalism is the key. I think the NA4 set an example of an achievable template.

An intersting question to end on. If the USA based teams performed relatively well(excluding the 91-0 drubbing during the first weekend) in the NA4, why couldn't that translate in to test performance??

[AF de Villiers]

As always, Geraint nails it.

Why can't we take a look at the Canadian rugby program, set-up and identification and development processes, club and provincial system, etc. - and COPY IT!

For a country that is hockey crazy, and football too, rugby comes in way down the ladder.

Can a reader fill us in on the Canadian rugby system? That is what we should be benchmarking.

[geraint hill]

Having played in both the US and Canadian super leagues I can identify the differences. I think that on the whole the athletic ability is equal. The Canadians edge it on size, whilst the US is probably touger around the breakdown.

What makes the comparison unique is that super league teams in Canada are representative. They are a regional franchise and part of the national bodies development programme. Indeed Rugby Canada has sent out a clear message regarding this as a route into the national team:"we are re-positioning the league as an important part of the player pathway for our elite players to get to the NA4 and National Senior Men's Team. This is the "New" Super League, a partner of Rugby Canada, and not a league that is operating outside the High Performance Programme."

The second interesting point comes down to the coaching. My experience in the USA was interesting. We had 5 coaches for our team. Not one of them had a specialist area. They all chipped in with no clarity and basically left us confused. We had no game plan, no structure and had to rely on our gifts. My first session in Canada we worked on decision making, running into space, playing what you see and had clear skills coaches operating in specialist areas. All of the staff being qualified.

I think Hockey helps a lot as they don't need to be told where to be and what to do like gridiron players in the states

[Concerned Rugger]

Rugger64 has a good point about the quality of athletes in the US system, but is not entirely on point. We do have good, quality players in USA rugby but the problem comes with player development both physically and mentally. What USA rugby needs to do is identify 20-25 players in every major region entered into the national team player development pool and hire player development chairs that have lifting and general training programs that fit around the standard club schedule (tues., thurs, sat. commitments). These players would also commit to training with the development coaches in their region two-three times per month for video reinforcement and "team practices." These chairs would pull these 20-25 players from continually monitoring the collegiate and club competitions in their region as well as holding a camp once or twice a year to encourage players whom desire to play at the next level to aspire for this. This would expand our national team player pool to about 200-300 players all of whom are in direct competition with each other for national team honors. This would expose more gifted players to higher level rugby as well as eliminate the "politics" that goes hand in hand with selection to our national team program that deters so many players from fully committing to going for representative honours. We are a long way away from having a professional rugby system here in the states but we still need to encourage our players to spend the time they do have outside of work and school to train in as professional of a manner as possible. By giving them a set program and regional responsibilities beyond the one weekend ITTs which often don't include many of our best players, we can start to properly develop players across the board that will enable us to compete with Tier 2 nations. In our current system, it is best to send our brightest players overseas but that is even difficult for an American rugby player to get the opportunity to develop overseas because most clubs know that the habits we develop here are often bad ones and a step or two behind the international game.

[JobsForTheBoys]

Hmmm... "And, just because Thorburn picked many of the same players as the Billups regime does Nothing, in my opinion, to validate the selections made during Billups tenure. In a must-win match, Thornburn, given precious little time to develop other talent, was virtually forced to rely on many holdovers from the Billups era."

I have to call this comment out. Like him or not, Tom Billups had the best record against Canada of any coach in US history. Seeing the catastrophic failure of the new IRB-placed regime, while the player pool has not dramatically changed, seems to not only have validated Coach Billups' player selections, but also his coaching ability as well.

That being said, what's doen is done as far as the power struggles and leadership changes in USA Rugby. Hopefully this new group can come together and find a solution before the Eagles face Uruguay.

[doug lyons]

To really boil this down to the basics the US Eagles problem lies between the numbers 1 through 8.

This is not a condemnation of the guys wearing the jersey - I truly believe that by and large the best guys pull on the jersey.

Why that is I don't know but the fact is our pack is and always has been fodder for other sides.

While the modern game is not as set piece oriented as in the past the bottom line is you have to set the table for the backs. We have not got the ability to do that.

Whomever can resolve that issue will be the one that gets the Eagles to the next level.

[M.O.]

If anyone is interested, the following is the link to watch highlights of the USA v. Canada WCQ.

http://www.bcrugbynews.com/show_news.cfm?ID=45

If you have trouble with the link, go to www.bcrugbynews.com and you can navigate your way through.

[Old School]

Just curious as to how many people believe that the US might have won the match had Tom Billups not resigned?

I personally do not think that it would have made a difference in terms of winning and losing. Perhaps the score line might have been somewhat closer but all in all I think Canadian rugby has surpassed US rugby and regardless of the coach, they would have still won the match.

[Blackadder]

I think the USA would have done better under Tom Billup's coaching - but not for the reasons, you ask the question.

And the reason has some comparison with the topic above. Tom Billups resigned over issues that involved integrity - but the base problem was lack of funds to run the programs that he planned would have at least matched the Canadian Effort. But there was a budget cap and then it was cut in half.

If Billups had been provided with the funds to run his programs, we would have seen a much better mix of players - in a steadier atmosphere.

The real question is: If Arnot had done his job, and secured the required funding - and not forced Billups to resign. Would the Eagles have done better.

I say yes.

[Blackadder]

I think the USA would have done better under Tom Billup's coaching - but not for the reasons, you ask the question.

And the reason has some comparison with the topic above. Tom Billups resigned over issues that involved integrity - but the base problem was lack of funds to run the programs that he planned would have at least matched the Canadian Effort. But there was a budget cap and then it was cut in half.

If Billups had been provided with the funds to run his programs, we would have seen a much better mix of players - in a steadier atmosphere.

The real question is: If Arnot had done his job, and secured the required funding - and not forced Billups to resign. Would the Eagles have done better.

I say yes.

[Blackadder]

I think the USA would have done better under Tom Billup's coaching - but not for the reasons, you ask the question.

And the reason has some comparison with the topic above. Tom Billups resigned over issues that involved integrity - but the base problem was lack of funds to run the programs that he planned would have at least matched the Canadian Effort. But there was a budget cap and then it was cut in half.

If Billups had been provided with the funds to run his programs, we would have seen a much better mix of players - in a steadier atmosphere.

The real question is: If Arnot had done his job, and secured the required funding - and not forced Billups to resign. Would the Eagles have done better.

I say yes.