What's the point of the NA4?

opinion The poster marking Saturday’s North American 4 venue advertised “all-star rugby,” and the match leaflet underlined the point:

“The Falcons and Hawks have been training together for the last week and head into today’s match with basically the same coaching and game plan. So what will make the difference today?”

A very good question, ultimately left unanswered.

Immediately following a six-day assembly that saw America’s World Cup hopefuls all training together, 2007’s opening NA4 fixture was staged as a trial, rather than a contest between rivals. Perhaps that’s sensible in light of the approaching world championship, but any horizon extending beyond the next 20 weeks raises the question whether the International Rugby Board’s vision is being shortchanged.

Now in its second year, the NA4 appears more a decently funded Inter-Territorial Tournament than a nascent “cross border” competition to approximate the Super 14 or Heineken Cup as a developmental and commercial engine. The problem is that Americans have played, and watched, this kind of representative rugby for nearly 30 years, and know it is not “international caliber,” whatever the marketing may say.

Never mind that the Falcons and Hawks will shortly meet Canadian opponents. The two US squads have no innate identity, much less the teamwork that comes from playing as if all depends on victory, rather making the next World Cup squad. (On the latter point, witness the reserve benches virtually emptying right after halftime.)

Three hundred or so turned out to watch, thanks to OMBAC’s organizational prowess, and it’s safe to say not one was really rooting for the blue or the white team. Instead, they came to cheer a bevy of local heroes including Dan Payne, while afterward taking in OMBAC’s second grade against archrival Belmont Shore.

Once upon a time, America’s ITT was said to bring together the country’s top 100 players. Nearly 30 years on, thanks to the IRB, we know national coach Peter Thorburn’s idea of the 60 best footballers. What has really changed?

Comments

[Go the Eagles]

K,

Couldn't disagree more. Did you know that all the Kiwi S14 teams use the same systems? Why? Cause if they become AB's everyone is on the same page.

"Once upon a time, America’s ITT was said to bring together the country’s top 100 players. Nearly 30 years on, thanks to the IRB, we know national coach Peter Thorburn’s idea of the 60 best footballers. What has really changed?"
What needs to change? Isn't the goal of the Comp to improve the national team?

Also they train more, and are using similar systems that they will be using when they play for the eagles. Since last years NA4 several new players have been uncovered, and hopefully a year out we'll have some improved performances.

USA should beat Tonga at RWC, and have a small shot at Samoa..., win lose or draw I think USA rugby is better off for the NA4 comp its the only thing we have close to a prof comp.

[HOWE]

I think you have an fair argument but then out of space...the RWC Tonga and Samoa..I think you jumped way ahead of your argument and that's what we Americans do...argue your point for it's intrinsic value before determining who's gomma beat who; you might end with a gold star or a nasty bite.

[KIm Jong]

Heard the Falcons will now be "stacked" with Eagles or probable WC team for the next round. What happens to morale when/if the canucks east or west team beats the US national team disguised as Falcons?

[Go the Eagles]

Canuck,

Canada should beat them, Rugby Canada has far more professionals and the state & structure of the game up there is far beyond us.

A great example the US hasn't gone on a fall tour since 04.

You take cheap shots on this forum to rile people up. What sucks is sometimes you are right.

HOWE,

Those two games are going to be how the past two years are judged. Weather or not this whole drama with Billups/Arnot/IRB/Alan Solmons/Etc was actually worth anything or if we are moving forward or in circles.

[klm Jong]

I don't think the East or West "should" beat the Falcons. The US has managed to get back some pros to play in the NA4, none of the overseas professionals will be involved for Canada and the best of our domestic players that make the WC squad will probaly not be in the final leg of the NA4, because they will just be gettting back from a tour to NZ.

[Geraint]

Kim, you seem to forget that a number of the Canadians, 20 I believe, are full time paid athletes under the federal governments athlete assistance pro gramme. Indeed, the official Rugby Canada website makes noise about the increased gain in weight, speed and skills so your argument about the Canadian franchises is spurious and defensive without assessing these differences.

[klm Jong]

Paid athletes? more like subsidized athletes. they get around a thousand a month to off set thier training costs. Also, some of those Carded athletes are only 18 or 19 and will not be playing (maybe subs)or will be away with the sevens team, as they are being developed for the next WC. Our Unis cannot give out Scholarships like the US ones so we use the Carding system to help out athletes. Find another excuse as to why your teams might lose.

[Kurt Oeler]

Normally I prefer to let the conversation develop as it may, but already it appears I underemphasized the post's central point. My thrust has relatively little to do with the national team. Instead, it is: "Now in its second year, the NA4 appears more a decently funded Inter-Territorial Tournament than a nascent “cross border” competition to approximate the Super 14 or Heineken Cup as a developmental and commercial engine."

The implication is that while the NA4 is obviously useful for RWC07, just as past ITTs have been helpful, there is little evidence of building for the future. That is clearly what Dublin intends.

Does anyone suppose that the IRB will forever fund the competition? Who remembers the fate of the IRB-funded Pacific Rim?

k

[doug lyons]

The loss of the Pacific Rim Championship was a shame. That was a good competition - far better than the farcical Churchill Cup, which seems more about giving British A sides a rund than developing North American rugby a way to develop. Which, in my view, explains why the tournament is being held in the UK this year.

That said, the problem I see with the NA4 is that the teams have no identity. If your going to try and establish this thing as a legitimate competition that can connect with fans and sponsors the teams should be city based.

And two teams in each country isn't really gonna do it; I would think that 4 teams in each country would make much more sense.

There is really nothing to sell at this point and in that regard I do agree that the competition does not address a need for a commercially viable professional set up.

With regards to the World Cup I think it is a decent tool but I will go back to a point I have made many times - who exactly is going to see the World Cup??!! Not John Q Public. It'll be rugby fanatics like all of us that will either squint at their computer screens, convince their wives that satellite is the way to go in order to get Setanta, or go to a local pub and pay too much money to have a poor view at the screen (though soak in great atmosphere).

Of course, the folks over in Europe can't even figure out how to keep their own professional competition running so how could anyone expect them (the iRB) to effectively market the WC.

This may not address your point directly Kurt but I don't see how one can separate the goal of trying to develop professional rugby here with efforts to market the international aspect of the game - it's all tied together. Rugby, maybe even more than soccer, is about international competition.

soccer while clu

[Go the Eagles]

Geraint,

Like I said they have better things going on up there. We need some government money!

[doug lyons]

I'm not sure government subsidies for our rugby players is the answer, but I think you were kidding. I look at our U-17 and U-19 programs and see a pretty bright future. The collegiate All American program will also have a busy schedule.

Come to think of it, put the NA4 money in THESE programs and then you will get real results long term.

Getting our best youth a regular schedule of games in the lower age group levels will bear far more fruit than the NA4 concept.

As for Canada's recent success against the Eagles - well, they can enjoy it but I'm not too worried. If the 15's team shows the level of improvement that the 7's team did this year and continues on that path then the spanking we received up in Newfoundland will be a distant memory soon enough! Without a government handout :>

[Go the Eagles]

Canuck,

You should want American Rugby to get big, cause this will def benifit Canada, as well as most of world rugby.

A great example of this is the NHL. As well as Canadian Football.

So you don't always have to hate!

[Derek Sagehorn]

doug
You've brought up a good point. How will Americans watch the WC this time? In 2003 we had Fox Sports World and pay per view. Now we have Mediazone, which isn't the least bit accesible to non- rugby playing audiences or more importantly the youth. The MNT has bemoaned the lack of basic skills in domestic competition and in the NA 4, but how are young players going to get any better by not watching pro rugby?

Access to the 6 Nations(not on mediazone), Top 14 (ditto), and especially the World Cup needs to be expanded. The USAR deals with CSTV and ESPNC are helpful but serious and regular coverage is required.

I don't want to watch the WC final on a computer and I don't think few other kids will want to either.

[klm Johng]

I do want US rugby to get better. Canada needs good competition that isn't too far away to play against regularly. I just don't think it is fair or good for US to play as an NA4 team, they should have played Canada as another warm up for thier WC, and let the NA4 develop into the league it is meant to one day be.

[Geraint]

Humble apologies to Kim. My track did veer away from the point Kurt made initially. I didn't factor in the collegiate system which is omni present in the US. I think the NA4 is a marketable tool which can be used to develop existing players and current fan base.

The IRB are obviously taking a top down view of the North American game which is to find the best 60 or so players and place them in an elite environment. I think part of the agenda is to allow the players to go back to their clubs and say we had ice baths, we used resistance belts, we looked at the mechanics of our feet position in the scrum and then filter that through to their team mates. Almost like a pyramid scheme.

From what I saw the guys I played with in Toronto last year who participated were buoyant about their experiences and enthused about the work done. We certainly saw the kit and the freebies and were it not for having to go back to England I would have made it my ambition to play for Canada east this year.

It isn't intended as a promotional tool for the game, but as an opportunity for the current elite within(I think it's important to emphasis within) North America to play at a higher level than super league and club rugby.

Once every player in Canada and the USA starts to want to play in the recognized pathway to success then it will take off and become a success. The reason I say this is in both countries players used to say that it was "bullshit how know one ever saw me play or how so and so could have played for the USA if only..." The pathway for opportunity is there but so is the negativity and whining.

[Jonathon]

I disagree that the Canadians will win the NA4 competition like last year.

I think unfortunately that one of the USA teams will win this year. I say unfortunately because we will win based on putting most of our test players on the field in preparation for the World Cup, whereas Canada, will put their 2011 World Cup players on the field as the IRB had intended. This means we will stay behind the development curve in a failed attempt to justify the short term existence of Thorburn and his handlers.

We used the first NA4 in an attempt for Thornburn to see all the senior talent, before putting virtually the same team on the field that Billups used in the all important WC qualifier. The only difference being that Billup's team beat the Canadians in 2005 and Thorburn's team was crushed in 2006. Now, we use the second NA4 to prepare to beat a disorganized Tonga team in World Cup 2007.

Winning the NA4 with older player than the Canadians and beating Tonga in the World Cup are not indicators of success. These would-be accomplishments are indicators of a rugby union handing over long term strategy to a short term employee.

We continue to misuse the IRB grant money. Thanks to the IRB, never before has the US had this amount of elite rugby funding and we are squandering it. If the Canadians are even somewhat competitive in the 2007 NA4 with their development players, this will continue to doom us through 2011.

It is almost laughable to hear the USA Rugby Chairman speak about his goals for 2011, when we have policies like this in place. We will need to qualify for the 2011 World Cup in 2010, less than three short years from today. We are missing the opportunity of USA Rugby's lifetime. When the IRB cuts off the funding with a "we tried " letter, we will need to think back to the wasted NA4 of 2006 and 2007.

[Goeagles]

Geraint,

How many American universities offer full scholarships for rugby? Pretty much none. The best you get is out-of-state tuition fees waived and even that is at a relatively small number of universities.

[Geraint]

Goeagles,

You are very defensive aren't you. I was referring to the scholarship system at large. Not necessarily the rugby system. I think scholarships will start to be introduced on a wider scale soon. Especially if the NCAA adopts female rugby.

I don't think however, that this adds value to the discussion.

[Goeagles]

Geraint,

Not defensive at all. This thread is about rugby, not basketball or football so I fail to see how you could have been talking about scholarships in those sports. Having scholarships for men's gymnastics at certain schools doesn't do much for the rugby team, now, does it?

[old beaver]

Doug had a very good point earlier. The NA4 teams have no identity. How can I become a fan of a team if the entire roster changes around game to game (or round to round).

I follow Super 14 religiously, GO CHIEFS!!! Now,their roster moves around less season to season than the NA4 does in a single season.

Plus, there is a lack of merchandise for any of the four teams. Rugby players are addicted to jersey collecting, no such luck.