Sixty-two cap lock Luke Gross has been named to the Falcons North American 4 squad, presaging near-certain selection to his third World Cup.
The recall of the 37-year-old Gross, who has not played test rugby since 2003, underlines the contrasting approach of America and Canada to the IRB developmental tournament. In the Vancouver leg, Gross could be facing opponents almost half his age, and probably won’t meet any Maple Leaf internationals.
Some 10 of May’s Falcons squad aren’t part of the mix, USA Rugby
said in releasing the two rosters. More than a few have been switched over the Hawks, while prominent Eagles such as prop Chris Osentowski and Francois Viljoen are unavailable. A year ago, the union and its consultants said the tournament’s per diems would be sufficient ‘to secure the services’ of elite players.
Also on the NA4 rosters are Gross’ old second-row partner Alec Parker, who missed the Churchill Cup; utility back Link Wilfley, another Eagle veteran who has not played representative rugby since 2003; and Paul Emerick, who probably hasn’t had a 6-week break since 2005.
Originally a Division 1 basketball player at Indiana State and later Marshall University, the 6’9” Gross sometimes jokes he took up rugby while in graduate school because he led his teams in fouls. In fact he was good enough to play for a semiprofessional team sponsored by Reebok.
As a Cincinnati Wolfhound, Gross was virtually unknown when called into the Eagle squad just prior to the January 1996 international against Ireland. Disproving skepticism among the better-established clubs (now comprising the Super League) which thought their players were being overlooked, he quickly became a regular selection and that fall was signed by the English Premiership’s NEC Harlequins, alongside fellow Eagle Tom Billups.
Gross would go to play for Italy’s Rovigo and Roma, Wales’ Llanelli, and England’s Rotherham and Newcastle before spending the last season with Doncaster. At the test level, he made a record number of appearance for his country over an eight-year test career that include the 1999 and 2003 world championships.
On Friday in Vancouver, the 3-0 Falcons take on 0-3 Canada East while the 1-2 Hawks meet 2-1 Canada West.
Hey guys, I'm really loving the Tri Nations Series. I was looking around the web for a place to watch rugby online, and I found this great site with a blog.
The blog is - http://mediazonerugby.typepad.com/
Streamed Rugby is - http://www.mediazone.com/channel/rugby/jsp/2006/trinations.jsp\
Check it out guys.
Posted by: Frankie | 27 June 2007 at 13:10
Frankie is either a spammer or the latest guy to come to the party ever.
Posted by: Wow | 27 June 2007 at 16:21
Wilfey, Gross, Parker..
Anyone else seeing the pieces come together for a team similar to the 2003 RWC?
Posted by: Rick the Rugger | 27 June 2007 at 16:42
My bet is that Frankie is Pat Guthrie trying to get some free publicity for his work at Media Zone......
Any takers??
Posted by: Gary | 27 June 2007 at 21:25
mediazone may be a decent service, but you can not do better than sentanta with tivo to get all the rugby you could ever want where you want it, in your house on your tv.
Posted by: LC | 27 June 2007 at 21:40
The selection of Parker and Gross makes a lot of sense. Bringing guys such as this into the NA4 competition also makes a lot of sense. When else are players that are going to play in the WC going to get competition at this late stage? Nigel Melville has already stated that the NA4 will be used differently post World Cup. Makes all the sense in the world to me.
The selection of Wilfey is a little disconcerting and suggests that the backline is unsettled. One has to ask if Mike Hercus will be fit to play in the WC. His absence would be telling as in my opinion he has made the backline quite good at times.
Posted by: doug lyons | 28 June 2007 at 06:06
I agree, Gross and Parker are needed for the WC team, their selection is a must. They don't however need to be playing in the NA4. There are no combinations at work here and there can't be any doubt that these two are better selection bets than the Churchill Cup locks. Nigel's wise comments aside on next years NA4, we should be using the NA4 to build future teams not giving Gross one more match after a busy season.
Where is Kort Schubert? He was very good at the national championships, this looks like petty politics. Aylor was very poor, this team needs Schubert.
The final WC team will look very much like a Billups' team. With all this talk about inclusiveness and the NA4 to further select players, Thorburn will only have found a couple new players. Time to give Billups some credit as a fair and inclusive selector.
Go USA!
Posted by: Phil | 28 June 2007 at 07:59
Without jumping into the Billups/Thorburn debate (which is as productive as arguing politics or religion), I agree that Schubert really should be in the squad.
Does anyone know if there is even any communication going on between the Thorburn, selectors, etc. & Schubert?
Posted by: Ron | 28 June 2007 at 09:32
My sources close to the MNT say Thorburn dropped Kort based on performance and "attitude".
Let's face it, its public knowledge that Kort is in Billups's camp and Thorburn doesnt want a "bad apple" to spoil team chemistry (or his slim chance of achieving some success).
Posted by: Joe | 28 June 2007 at 10:59
Any player should be selected on his merit as a player and politics should play no part in the selection process. Shame on Thorburn if this is true.
Posted by: Bill | 28 June 2007 at 11:09
Bill,
You are right but this is the 'real world'. nothing in this world is done w/out politics in mind.
Posted by: Joe | 28 June 2007 at 11:10
I agree with the Schubert scenario... I though that was apparent with a few of the 2003-04 eagles that had been dumped on by Thorburn. Isn't that how Mike French got into the starting lineup in the first place?
Aylor has shown only a couple of flashes over the past 18 months, and if we are falling back on our studs of years past, then a back row of Schubert-Clever-Stanfill at 6-7-8 is our best option, provided that Schubert is healthy. I have not seen him perform in some time.
Posted by: JAEF | 28 June 2007 at 11:47
French was selected tothe MNT by Billips....he is one of the few hold overs from the old coaching staff. He got into the line-up from poor play by McDonald.
Posted by: Tom M | 28 June 2007 at 13:37
"one of the few hold overs from the old coaching staff"
you are kidding, right?
Billups capped 3/4+ of Thorburn's team. The story was commented on by someone else earlier. Thorburn has talked a good game when it comes to inclusive selections, but has found few players that weren't already part of the previous set up.
Hell, with this back to the future selection practice a bunch of these guys were first capped by Clark and Hall.
Posted by: bbm | 28 June 2007 at 14:45
Kort was dropped due to performance (go back and watch his last game and count the # of times he was involved vs Stencil or Clever). He was also a cancer in camp. Regardless of Kort's ability or "merit" if he has a divergent agenda, it hurts the team overall. Also, yes, Billups was a good selector.
Posted by: Insider | 28 June 2007 at 15:48
Cancer? Are you laying the team's struggles at the feet of the former captain?
Insider, would have thought the the selectors would want the best players available at the NA4. Would be an opportunity to evaluate his play, as well as his "divergent agenda".
I hope that Thorburn is not that short sided
Posted by: Gary | 28 June 2007 at 17:05
The captain of the 2003 RWC, a cancer?!?
Whatever. Thorburn is not well liked overall. Because he voiced an opinion, or wore his emotions on his sleeve should not determine who plays for the Eagles in the tournament of tournaments.
Get it together!
Posted by: JAEF | 28 June 2007 at 18:22
I'm not sure what you mean by "McDonald's poor play." He was voted Man of the Match in our loss to Scotland. Not only was he the MVP from a losing side but he also garnered that press from loose head prop, a glory position no doubt. If I remember correctly French got binned for fighting in one of the Churchill cup tests.
Posted by: Derek | 28 June 2007 at 18:51
Mark,
do you care to comment why Kort was dropped?
Posted by: Joe | 29 June 2007 at 04:52
1. I don’t believe for 1 second that’s really Mark Aylor posting. 2. Joe – even if it is/was Mark Aylor, do you think it’s correct of you to ask another player, in a competing position, what the thoughts of the coach or selectors are?
I still think that monster prop from Hayward deserved a chance. The guy is 6’4” tall, 280 lbs, he’s 24 years old and is eligible to play for the USA. Thorburn – give him a shot.
As a comparison – on the day MacDonald was first selected for the Eagles – did he have any of these on his resume? Plus – “Minutes” French, keeps getting sent off for dangerous and foul play. And he’s 1’ taller than ‘Chicken’.
Posted by: Antipodes | 29 June 2007 at 07:49
I want to throw my two cents in to this crazy chat.
I agree with some of the assertions made in this thread. Yes, Billups was an underrated selector. The fact that the new coaching staff hasn't found a ton of new players for the Eagle pool is proof of that.
There have been some players discovered though, who I don't believe would have received an opportunity if the new staff wasn't at the NASC in Orlando looking for new talent. The Meidinger kid from Germany comes to mind. He isn't a world beater yet, but given some time, I think he has some potential.
As for the Schubert selection issue, I don't think it's that cut and dry. I can't claim to know what went down to create the idea that he was a cancer. The tape doesn't lie, though, and he was fairly ineffective in the games I saw him play in last years Churchill cup and the Canada qualifier. Some say it was due to injuries. That may be true as I have to admit I had seen very little of his play up to that point. I was in San Diego watching the national club championships and what I saw in Kort Schubert was a good lineout jumper and effective player in space. I didn't see him in a lot of rucks and dirty work doesn't seem to be something he relishes. That's just 2 games mind you and I am just going on what I saw against Austin and Cincinatti so all Kort apologists please don't jump down my throat. In addition, he seems to be carrying a slight limp still, so he may not be 100% quite yet. I certainly wouldn't take his performance in San Diego and use it to claim that if he isn't in the Eagle pool at the moment, there is a conspiracy against him. In fact, granted this is a 3rd person source, but I was told that Coach Thorburn was overheard in San Diego saying that he owed it to Kort to make sure he went to the consolation match on Sunday to see as much of him as he could post surgery. I didn't hear him saying it myself but it doesn't sound to me like Coach Thorburn has an axe to grind in not selecting Kort. Coach Thorburn would be crazy not to select the best players he could. He's only here through the World Cup, so what reason would he have to start playing politics? His legacy here will be based on how he performs at the World Cup. He knows that and wants to make something happen I am sure. He doesn't have time to build his own little power base.
The bottom line in all this is USA Rugby had some bad timing regarding the fallout from the Billups resignation and the Arnot/Lyle fiasco. A lot of changes were made fairly close to this World Cup and the new CEO decided to go with an older experienced coach who would be willing to come in with a short contract through the world cup. This gives Nigel Melville and his crew a chance to focus on finding a hopefully longterm answer for the Eagle coaching position after the World Cup is over. I don't think I would have done it any differently and have no problem with Mr. Melville hiring Coach Thorburn. Nor do I have a problem with the Eagle coaches using the NA4 this year to prep for the World Cup. The current staff were dealt a bad hand with so little time to get ready before the world cup and they're doing the best they can, in my opinion. I will take a look again in 4 years before the 2011 world cup and give a new grade to Mr. Melville and whomever he has hired to coach the eagles.
Let's stop the handwringing and sit back and watch how this plays out. Rugby in the US is a niche sport but attracts passionate people. The posts on this site alone prove that. I do think we forget that in the big picture we're still just a crappy little rugby backwater country and we have a long way to go. NONE of our current Eagles except maybe Emerick and Eloff strike me as being world class players. Also, none of our clubs here nor are any of the competitions really very strong when compared to those in the top rugby countries. It's just reality. Let's stop bickering and use our passion to grow the game in this country, attract more quality players and administrators, and make USA Rugby a topline rugby nation.
Peace Out,
Leo
Posted by: Leo | 29 June 2007 at 08:13
Leo's post may be the most common sense that I have seen here in awhile.
Posted by: M.O. | 29 June 2007 at 11:30
Leo, that was a good post. Good reflection.
Antipodes, I can't decipher what it is you are trying to say, but he was not 6'4" 280 then and he is not now. I think MacDonald was an 18 or 19 year old freshman at 6'1" 285 lbs when he was first capped by the Eagles in the Pac Rim tourney, who learned his craft from Jack Clark, Tom Billups & Ray Lerner, before establishing himself in Europe after finishing at Cal.
All comparisons aside, I think we could always use more in the tight five. I have never heard of or seen the guy you are referring to, but anytime you say 6'4" 280 beast, I will be intrigued. Even if he got exhausted after 30 minutes, his play could add some spice, and it is not like the Eagles are set at prop. I do think MacDonald's, speed, strength and experience put him at the top of the list, and Osentowski has made very good progress at the tighthead, but he could add to the athletic makeup of our pack.
Posted by: Ronaldo | 29 June 2007 at 12:10
Antipodes,
No. I didnt expect Mark (if it was indeed him) to reply. The post was in jest.
Leo,
Arnot/Lyle fallout occured b/c Lyle was trying to take his job. The "cant we all just get along" piece was nice but let's face it, we live in a dog eat dog, world. This very web site exists solely for the purpose of supporting one side and discounting the other.
Posted by: Joe | 29 June 2007 at 12:44
That is why rugby will remain a fringe sport in the US and never become what it could be. For every one person trying to bring things together positively, there are two to tear him/her down and spread poison. This site included.
Posted by: Eagles Fan | 29 June 2007 at 13:05
Joe,
I became interested in the USA Rugby "fallout" as you call it, by reading this site.
I understand that Dan Lyle and others blew the whistle on Arnot and his lying, money losing ways to save USA Rugby from what was in hindsight a near complete financial collaps, these are the words of the IRB auditors, not the fans of this site.
It's bull to now suggest that Lyle wanted Arnot's job. What Dan Lyle and all the great Eagles deserve is some respect from the cyber rugby community. At least I admit I didn't play the game. These are patriotic American rugby players who brought pride to Americans who play the game. In Bath, he was called Captain America, now he gets to hear some BS account of what happened when it appears he was one of only a few people with the guts to blow the whistle on Arnot and save USA Rugby.
We need people like Dan Lyle in our game. Arnot will never again work as a CEO of anything, only USA Rugby could be dumb enough to hire a guy like this in his first and only executive position.
There is two sides of debate, but only one set of facts.
Posted by: Rugby Dad | 29 June 2007 at 13:21
That will keep you on the team Mark. It's our guess that Kort Schubert, didn't kiss much ass.
Posted by: Paul | 29 June 2007 at 15:51
Rugby Dad,
I agree that Dan is an accomplished American player and that his expertise and understanding of professional sports are assets that could benefit USA Rugby.
However, his means of extracting Arnot (or saving Rugby as you call it) did not come across as "for the good of the people." to others in USA Rugby. Why is it that only he, Billups, and Hodges seemed to have clarity on the issue whereas no one else in HQ came forth with such info.
All those in the Clark regime were in the know and everyone else was clueless? C'mon...
Yes, Arnot was a bad hire and who by the way made that decision?
Posted by: Joe | 29 June 2007 at 16:54
To the comment that Mr. Lyle wanted Mr. Arnot's job - rubbish. If anyone would talk with Mr. Lyle when the whole dust up occurred, they would have found out that Mr. Lyle thought that the he did not have the experience nor the background to be the head of USARFU. The only thing he wanted is for rugby in the US to grow and get better. I believe that Mr. Lyle thought that he would eventually have to leave the organization, work for other companies and corporations, and then perhaps in five to ten years apply to be a key component in USARFU. As for Mr. Arnot, when his name was put out to the board of directors by the Chair of USARFU, on paper he looked good. Nevertheless, it did not work out with either Mr. Arnot or Mr. Lyle. THe point now is to move on.
Posted by: Patrick Costello | 29 June 2007 at 17:26
Google Doug Arnot. He landed on his feet.
Also, as a US Marine, it offends me to rave about the patriotism of US rugby players. Representing your country in anything is a great honor, but stop calling it patriotism.
Semper Fi,
Conn
Posted by: Conn | 30 June 2007 at 10:16
"Also, as a US Marine, it offends me to rave about the patriotism of US rugby players. Representing your country in anything is a great honor, but stop calling it patriotism."
I think what you've just said is at least as offensive. Patriots do patriotic duty in services other than the Armed Forces.
Posted by: Flynn | 01 July 2007 at 00:17
0-2 first games, Hawks and Falcons completely manhandled by younger and smaller opposition.
Posted by: canuck | 01 July 2007 at 08:10
Flynn,
Yes, there are things that are patriotic besides serving in the armed forces, but in todays age in time, the term "Patriotic" is thrown around a little loosely.
There are players and staff that may know the words to the national anthem, but have no idea what those words represent.
You can't claim to be a patriot, that Flynn is something you have to earn.
Posted by: Fan of the Maries | 01 July 2007 at 09:04
Patrick,
What did you expect Dan to say? "I'm want to unseed Arnot so I can become the CEO." He's intelligent and savvy enough to play coy.
They (the Clark regime) saw the writing on the wall and made their move to protect THEIR interest, not USA Rugby's.
Survival instincts, plain and simple.
Posted by: Joe | 01 July 2007 at 11:53
Joe is just trying to rile you up Pat. Your comments were levelheaded and correct.
This regime talk is an attempt to suggest there is an opposition party to the current administration, which I don't believe.
Jack has run his race, its a good bet he doesn't give a rip about anything other than Cal at this point.
Tom Billups, Dan Lyle and Dave Hodges are a loss to USA Rugby, although Dave sits on the new board and Dan is running the USA Sevens. Throughout their career each of these men acted in the best interest of USA Rugby.
As best I can tell they have all moved on in their rugby pursuits. It is only the bloggers on this site, which keep the unhappiness of Tom's resignation and the forced resignations of Dan and Dave alive.
The old board tried hard to do the right thing and we have much work to be proud. In the end, we voted ourselves out and in favor of a new governance structure.
Doug Arnot also did his best, it just didn't work.
Why some people are so negative and others so defensive I will never understand.
Posted by: old board | 01 July 2007 at 13:29
Old Board,
"Doug Arnot also did his best, it just didn't work...Why some people are so negative and others so defensive I will never understand."
Damn good question...maybe you should pose that question to the creator of this web site:
http://www.gainline.us/gainline/2006/04/your_say.html
http://www.gainline.us/gainline/2006/04/eagle_coach_bil.html
Posted by: Joe | 01 July 2007 at 17:55
Looking back at the Arnot period I believe that it was an expectation that rugby would be re-entering the Olympic fold and with that Arnot would have been well positioned to use his Olympic experience for US rugby. When 7's did not get into the Olympics then Arnot's Olympic experience was irrelevent. There WAS a huge expectation that rugby would re-enter the Olympics in London. It didn't happen and quite frankly, the US program was the biggest loser.
Posted by: doug lyons | 01 July 2007 at 18:42
p.s. I was not trying to rile up Pat but to say that there was not a coup attempt is naive at best.
And to pretend or worst yet believe that the party who was forced out had nothing but good intentions in mind is even more foolish.
it was a power struggle, period. one party won and one lost. both had their own interests in mind. look no further than American politics. do you really think either party has the good of the american people in mind? as cynical as this might sound, i belive they do not. they have THEIR own interests in mind. survival instincts 101.
for those who say rubbish, keep on dreamin...
Doug: perhaps he was brought in w/ the hopes that his olympics connections might aide in getting rugby accepted but that's not what led to his downfall.
Arnot's quetionable leadership was brought to the forefront by whom? who was forced to resign? on which side were they all coincedentally aligned? did this web site support or dispute Arnot's leadership? who was the author of this website aligned with? 1+1-2.
believe it or not i'm not trying to rile anyone up, but dont try to feed me any "for the good of the people" BS...
Posted by: Joe | 01 July 2007 at 19:10
Doh...1+1 = 2
Posted by: Joe | 01 July 2007 at 19:25
"This regime talk is an attempt to suggest there is an opposition party to the current administration, which I don't believe."
Old board its probably a good thing you are no longer in charge because if you've been reading this blog and are still oblivious to the fact that this blog IS the voice of the opposition party to the current adminstration.
If not, here's a wake up call buddy.
Posted by: DDR | 03 July 2007 at 04:24
Since this thread seems to be finished...sorta...I have a question from leftfield (is there a rugby analogy)
AmericanRugbyNews.com is now reporting the east coast RL matches...I understand they are professional (paid) players and from what I can tell, they have an affiliation with a RL club outside of US. How come RU can't do this? I don't know if the RL is successfuL ($-wise) but it has been around longer than the USFL ever was...not really a gauge I understand. How did League get the professional foothold on these shores and not Union? Can we not learn from our "enemies" so to speak?
Posted by: Union Made | 03 July 2007 at 13:42
Hawks/Falcons 0-4 this round so far.
Posted by: canuck | 04 July 2007 at 10:41
Thanks for again adding your 2 cents on the US performance in the NA4. Heck that's 2.113 cents CAD.
Posted by: M. Bradley | 05 July 2007 at 14:16
My pleasure losers. :)
We are going for the total sweep on Saturday, stay tuned.
Posted by: canuck | 05 July 2007 at 15:21
Yeah... But you still live in Canada.
Sucks to be you ;)
Posted by: Ron | 05 July 2007 at 17:10
Canuck,
Take pleasure in these small victories because that's about all Canadian rugby will ever achieve. The day will come when America rules the rugby world at which time your only chance to bask in the glory is the long forgotten NA4 wins.
Posted by: DDR | 05 July 2007 at 18:58
riiiiight, the day will come, hmmmm,I doubt any of us will be alive to see it.
Posted by: canuck | 06 July 2007 at 07:10
For a second you had me believing Canada was a rugby and sporting world power. Then I remembered that they aren't on either account.
Funny, when the Falcons and Hawks won the first leg of the NA4 all Canuck had to say was that the Eagles should be beating Canada's juniors. Now, in the second leg all he's doing is bragging over the Canadian wins. At least bring some more substance to your posts... you just come off like a 13 year old troll looking to incite the crowd.
Enjoy it while you can, but then again something tells me Canuck won't stop over anymore to chat when the US starts beating Canada again.
Posted by: Canuck is funny | 06 July 2007 at 09:54
Been a long time since we've had an update, I'm certain that Doug Arnot has our hero trapped in his basement this time.
Canuck, no comment on your counrtymen's failure to bring home the bacon vs. our All Americans?
Posted by: old beaver | 06 July 2007 at 12:26
Beaver, great wins for the All- Americans. Would have been interesting to see the result of them playing a full/true U21 side, unfortunately (for you) our best U21's are busy beating your bEagles in the NA4. SaaWeet.
Posted by: canuck | 06 July 2007 at 19:19
Its always great to play against the Canadians, they have such fantastic Eurotrash hair and tuxedos made of denim. Yes, you still live in Canada and your only reason for so many European professionals is your inability to break from England like our brave countrymen did. What does the 2nd of July celebrate anyway?
Posted by: IloveCanada | 06 July 2007 at 20:46
canuck...i look forward to having you our northern territroy officially become the 51st state...also, the AA's beat a compilation of U21's and U23's...a lot of the NA4 guys for canada were in england and new zealand...how's that for sweet?
"For the people and by the people"...even those who live in our 51st state.
Posted by: cougarrugby | 06 July 2007 at 21:01
Let's keep it real here fellas, I would way rather live in Canada then anywhere in the States. Your a country full of nutters, how else could there be a President Bush? Your players will at least be covered medically when they play on Saturday, they'll need it.
Posted by: canuck | 06 July 2007 at 22:01
I see Canuck is back trying to provoke us Yanks into a petty spat. Don't take the bait boys. On another note, I think Union Made touched on a good topic, i.e. why Rugby League in America, though small in numbers of participants and interest relative to Union, seems to be handling the business end of things much more effectively. Why is this? What can Union do? Is rugby league America's ticket?
For the record, I think League is one dimensional and dull. C'mon union in the USA, let's get it together!
Posted by: serzhantovo | 07 July 2007 at 07:04
A couple things. The rugby league thing is disturbing to me. Given that the average American doesn't know that there is a RL and RU, if ARL were to get a toe hold on say, Fox (IE Rupert Murdoch) that could spell serious trouble for RU in this country and it would be a shame. League is a poor substitute for Union, in my opinion. But that does not mean that it has no value or the ability to get the game moving here in the States. It's a legitimate concern.
The easy target is USA Rugby but I think that is really short sighted to be honest. I believe the IRB is the outfit that should be held accountable at the end of the day. Just look at the WC coverage that will be offered here in the US(allegedly the biggest potential growth market for the sport).
We will be getting coverage via Setatanta (limited to those with satellite and want to pay extra) or on the pc. I read that Versus may pick up the semi's and final but my guess is that would be delayed and very possibly chopped up to fit commercial tv. Blah.
The WC has been around now for 20 yrs. It should be THE way to market the game. Given that next to zero dollars are made on the WC here in the States it would make far more sense to pretty much GIVE AWAY the finals and semi's in order to start building an audience. Then go forward and sell the S14 or Guiness Premiership to hold the audience and grow it on an outlet such as Versus. Hell, drop the NA4 competition and use the money to buy TV time.
So, the WC will come and go once again and it will not be seen in any meaningful way here in the US and everyone will wonder why we Americans just don't "get it". Well, soccer has had the WC on TV for years now ..... (OK youth soccer has been around too but rugby is growing at the youth level so a market is building).
Enough about that ... it's already been said enough!
Canuck - it's amazing how Cnadian teams, particularly when they lose, NEVER seem to have their best players available. End of the day its US vs CAnada - if your the shirt it's up to you to do the job.
We've taken our lickings, congratulated the Canucks and strive to get our house in order. Could be that the next generation of American rugby players, who are coming through with high school as well as quality college experiences are simply the sign of good things to come.
So, good work All Americans and better luck next time to Canada.
By the way, does anyone know when and where the All America / Oxford game is to be played (if it is still on).
Posted by: doug lyons | 07 July 2007 at 14:28
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2930194&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos2
Posted by: Go Bears! | 09 July 2007 at 20:16
the hawks managed one win in this round of NA4, Falcons none. Only 12 of Canada's WC squad played in this round of the competition. So the rosters were filled by 2011 hopefulls. So no excuses from me for winning without our best players available. :)
Posted by: canuck | 10 July 2007 at 08:51
Hey Canuck, Canada is actually #1 at something after all. Check it out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288846,00.html
Maybe thats why you're postings are so dumb... hahaha
Posted by: Ron | 10 July 2007 at 22:33
Re: US rugby league.
I'm almost certain they are not professional players. They weren't a few years ago (when I was more interested in league as a sport) and I doubt they are now. They play in front of friends and family like everybody else, and so unless they are being bankrolled by NRL clubs, they wouldn't have the funds. And NRL clubs do not have the profitability to drop a million bucks on a USA club.
The reason they get these link ups with professional clubs (which is nothing more than adopting similar colors and getting some free equipment) is because the international world of rugby league is tiny, and so any club that starts up anywhere gets a fair bit of attention. Only about three places in the world play rugby league to any decent level - the North of England, New South Wales & Queensland, and Auckland.
Yet those who follow the game are pretty passionate and interested in its development in the way a lot of union fans in the top nations aren't. The end result is the USA gets regular write-ups in Rugby League World, for example.
Most of the guys in the AMNRL are union players during the winter anyway - that's why the AMNRL is a summer sport. So there isn't really much to be afraid of.
Posted by: Flynnie | 11 July 2007 at 00:15
Oh, and I like a good game of league. There is almost never a bad State of Origin game, and oftentimes there is at least one cracker per year. I'd put at least 2 Origin games in my top six all-time rugby matches. Considering I've watched hundreds of rugby union matches versus about 15 Origin matches, that's quite a success rate.
Posted by: Flynnie | 11 July 2007 at 00:20
Hi Ron,
You're = you are. I believe you meant to use "your", as a possesive statement
-shakes head, puts head in hand.
-Ben
Posted by: benjamin j. whysall | 11 July 2007 at 03:53
Regarding the RL posts...
I really don't see RL taking off in the US and I don't believe it is America's ticket. Their numbers are very low and as it was mentioned above, many of their players already play Union during the rest of the year. RL doesn't have the club support, college players, and certainly not the growing youth movement that RU has in the USA.
The RL guys are not professionals either. Some of the squads give boot money, but that's no different than many Super League and D-I Clubs do already.
RU may never blow up in the USA, which for the life of me I don't understand. The game has everything Americans love in their sports. Speed, strength, skill, drama, hard hitting action, and the list goes on. It would be nice to tap into the NFL's huge fan base and sell them on watching the Father of their sport.
Anyway, even if rugby doesn't take off here in the USA, at least there is a strong & growing base to keep us moving forward.
Posted by: Eagles Fan | 11 July 2007 at 07:32
Training squad for the US leading to the WC. Obviously has to be paired down but here it is:
The forwards named to the squad are props Mike MacDonald (Leeds Carnagie), Matekitonga Moeakiola (Park City Haggis), Mike French (OMBAC), Chris Moreno (Denver Barbarians), Chris Osentowski (Belmont Shore), John Vitale (Chicago Lions) and Brian LeMay (Boston Irish Wolfhounds); hookers Blake Burdette (NYAC), Mark Crick (PAC) and Owen Lentz (Maryland Exiles); locks Mike Mangan (Denver Barbarians), Hayden Mexted (St. Louis), Alec Parker (Aspen), Luke Gross (Doncaster Knights) and John Van Der Giessen (Santa Barbara); loose forwards Inaki Basauri (Massy RFC), Mark Aylor (Denver Barbarians), Tasi Mounga (San Francisco Golden Gate), Todd Clever (OMBAC), Dan Payne (OMBAC), Louis Stanfill (UC Berkeley) and Henry Bloomfield (Belmont Shore).
The backline includes scrumhalfs Chad Erskine (Waterloo), Mike Petri (Belmont Shore) and Tyson Meek (Nottingham); flyhalfs Mike Hercus (Belmont Shore) and Valenese Malifa (Belmont Shore); centers Phillip Eloff (Chicago Lions), Vaha Esikia (San Mateo/Las Vegas), Albert Tuipulotu (San Mateo), Paul Emerick (Newport-Gwent Dragons), Thretton Palamo (San Francisco Golden Gate); wings Chris Wyles (Northhampton), Salesi Sika (Beziers) and Takudzwa ‘Zee’ Ngwenya (Dallas Athletic Club); and fullbacks Francois Viljoen (Belmont Shore) and Andrew ‘Tui’ Osborne (OMBAC).
Posted by: doug lyons | 11 July 2007 at 17:15
where's kurt? Should we just start our own blog?
I'm in...
Posted by: cougarrugby | 12 July 2007 at 20:47