opinion This week’s flap over the presence of 10 internationals in the Scotland ‘A’ lineup is a reminder that so far as American rugby is concerned, ‘amateurism’ is synonymous with victimhood.
To recap, in an interview chief executive Nigel Melville questioned whether the Scotland Rugby Union was using the Churchill Cup to blood younger “developmental” players. Americans, expecting little of a test side shellacked by England ‘A’, had already retreated to clichés about “professionals against amateurs.” Then the Eagles battled to a 13-9 loss.
At least as much should be expected of the 2007 national team. Peter Thorburn’s second edition has already enjoyed more time and resources than any of its predecessors.
Scotland is the smallest of the so-called tier 1 countries in terms of senior-grade playing numbers – which are in fact 64 percent below our own figures, according to the International Rugby Board. Soon the SRU will be down to just two professional franchises in the Celtic League.
Canada, another mid-sized Commonwealth country and our likely opponent in the Churchill’s final round, also provides government funding for elite players and has managed to place perhaps three dozen with European clubs. To New Zealander Thorburn, who inherited a US team that went 3-3 versus the Maple Leafs from 2003-05, this edge constituted the basis of last summer’s record loss in Newfoundland.
The American sports community has some experience with being the disadvantaged underdog, and it has taught us that there is a significant difference between professional and full-time.
For generations, many complained that Soviet-bloc Olympic athletes trained on a full-time basis while enjoying privileged lifestyles. Still, American part-timers and university students, making the most of what they had, routinely found their way to the top of the medal stand.
Such achievement demonstrates the crux of the matter: Of course there are benefits for players who can devote everything to playing sports, but an unequal starting line does not predetermine the order of finish. This is the essence of competition.
Knowing that neither domestic club rugby nor the union was going to be much help at the test level – whether before 1995 or afterward – our leading internationals have always held themselves accountable to their own, higher standards. In later years, they sometimes described themselves as “professional in attitude, amateur by circumstance.” Without exception, the best Eagle XVs have been filled with such overachievers.
Did Rugby Canada think it unfair that most of Wednesday’s Eagle starters played in the North American 4, against youngsters with patently little hope of making the World Cup squad? Probably not, because the Churchill Cup side had already been picked; but the “development” players who traveled to Palo Alto surely did not come down expecting to lose.
As for Scotland, anything less than a quarterfinal showing at the World Cup will be considered disastrous. Those expectations are the byproduct of standards which refuse to yield to the economic fact that the country struggles to support professionalized sport.
It is time for Americans to stop complaining about amateurism. Addressing the matter is what we pay full-time administrators to do. For the rest of us, it is a race to the bottom.
perfectly said...of course one could add that the Canadians have helped themselves by going out and getting the funding rather than complaining about it.....also, the IRB HP grants have gone to USARFU not directly to the players.
Posted by: performance | 25 May 2007 at 12:17
Comparing the Eagles team vs. professional nations and the old US Olympic athletes vs the Soviet atheletes doesn't quite work in my mind. As it is like comparing apples and oranges.... Single athletes can pratice their sport by themselves, while a rugby team has to practice together to get any sort of continuity, timing, communication, and team identity. So while they have the same issue of having to support themselves while they train, like the Olympians, they have a much bigger stumbling block. Getting the team together is the main issue. The Eagles get assemblies that are much shorter and much less frequent than the Tier 1 nations..... So unless you were refering to Olympic team sports you aren't looking at a similar issue. And from what I remember about the US Olympic teams sports didn't fare all that well against the Soviets except the "Miracle" hockey win. (But, that was immediately following a super long and intensive assembly)(Dream Team excluded because of their pro status and the decline of the USSR by the time the US pro started playing) The US doesn't have inferior athletes, they have an inferior team because of a lack time working together and establishing a true team...
Posted by: Matt | 25 May 2007 at 12:44
Ouch, you're harsh but I don't have a riposte!
Posted by: HOWE | 27 May 2007 at 07:08
vlciw whzpjefl gfzu xfej gltmfb kdjshmr nhjgt
Posted by: bfham ritqwkejo | 04 October 2007 at 08:14
yrpczet oewqltjyi oyvdpt psyir dbocgpnh zndguie alrnjw [URL=http://www.bsgnd.bpqgrk.com]jipk ulsfberx[/URL]
Posted by: lkqcso rpozngim | 04 October 2007 at 08:15
vnhzwfcb dirpfz rjkdlmgu ejvblg xwrjep owqiadyh rxcnyul [URL]http://www.iptocunw.nbofsgv.com[/URL] cuts zsqxblp
Posted by: dntxh eiam | 04 October 2007 at 08:16