Eagle squad analysis: what to make of our 'pathways?'

Alex Goff of eRugbyNews has published an interesting analysis of the 37 World Cup probables who mustered last week in Aspen.

He asked whether American internationals have played in high school or college, and more importantly whether they made the USA Under 19s or the Collegiate All-Americans. To measure quantitatively, he compared the Aspen pool with a 50-man Eagle pool named 18 months ago, in February 2006.

His findings (subscription required) include:

• Only 3 of the Aspen 37 (Todd Clever, Inaki Basauri, and Mike Petri) have represented the USA at the U19 world championships.
• The percentage of past All-Americans in the squad dropped to 22 percent in 2007 from 54 percent in 2006, a decrease of 59 percent.
• The percentage who played high school rugby in the US declined to 22 percent from 40 percent, a reduction of 45 percent.
• The percentage of athletes who played college rugby in the US fell to 35 percent from 64 percent, a 45-percent decline.
• The percentage of US-born players dipped to 70 percent from 82 percent, a 12-percent decline.

It would be easy to conclude that coach Peter Thorburn has replaced native-born athletes with foreign-born players. Thorburn is a New Zealander and his assistants also are Antipodeans.

That seems simplistic. It may also be the case that the Eagle coach does not like the players which America’s representative programs are ‘graduating.’ Developmental representantive programs ought to be judged primarily on the number of athletes they send to the next level.

So, it appears that either our ‘pathways’ are not functioning very well, or the coach’s choices are at odds with the country’s development system.

Comments

[Joe]

I would guess that Thorburn has selected players based on their experience which would weigh in favor of foreign based players.

Perhaps not deliberately but who's a foreigner likely to go to favor, a player whose been playing most of his life or a player who has a few of years under his belt.

What's more, I cant imagine Thorburn is too concerned about developing American rugby. He just wants to win (try to at least) a few games before he moves along.

All told, will the team perform any better? I doubt it. Will American rugby suffer due to it? Perhaps so.

[doug lyons]

Let's be honest - American club rugby is not a breeding ground of excellence. The game has made forward strides but how many players from our top clubs would seriously compete for positions in the best professional competitions in Europe or in the southern hemisphere.

Similarly, the number of colleges that produce consistently top shelf rugby that produces superior players can be counted on one hand. With a finger or two left over.

That is not to say that the rugby played here is bad - lord knows it has improved significantly since I hung up my boots.

I recall well when a guy on my team who was on the Eagles squad (back when the Boston RFC mattered)and I were chatting, he commented that if ever NFL caliber athletes got into rugby then guys like him would simply be spectators. And this is a guy who had no issues of self confidence.

Even our most iconic players like Dan Lyle were not really quite NFL material.

I don't fault Thorburn for trying to find the best players available regardless of where they gained their experience.

The challenge is to harness the positive growth of the game into something better for the future so that American players are simply too good that foreign born athletes don't take American born players places.

[Kevin Sullivan]

As a former College coach, it's obvious that no clear path to move up levels exists in America. The ITTs are gone. SuperLeague is decent but limited to a handful. A simple promotion/relegation system is required, coupled with a set National schedule. Example: Club/College Rugby in the spring, playoffs leading to national championships in May/June. In fall, representative sides and Super League, so the best have multiple opportunities. You know, like they do in every other country.

[Phil]

Its clear that the U19 national team pathway is broke. 3 of 37 and what may be in the end 2 of 30 is a very poor return from a development program.

This is not Peter Thorburn's problem, its USA Rugby's.

We should not expect that our U19 national team players be world beaters, that would be unrealistic. We should however expect that the players be selected and developed with making the senior national team the goal. Remember our U19 national team players are not trying to make the All Blacks, just our team.

3 of 37 is a wake up call that the U19 national program needs a new direction, but it is not a report card on high school rugby which is starting to pay returns.

[ARMCHAIRBOMBER]

Doug Lyons hit it on the head. Our best athletes are not in our game. They are getting paid millions to entertain millions -gee, what nerve. Why not bust your butt, sacrifice work and family... all for Eagles glory? And this is Thorburns fault? Please!

As our best athletes are not playing / picking up rugby at an early age our best rugby players will consistently lose out to equally athletic (maybe slightly lesser so) ex pats with a longer rugby pedigree. Should Thorburn pick a developmental player for this World Cup over an aging player where the WC will be his last international matches? I say no as the developmental player has a much more likely chance at drifting away from rugby (for numerous reasons)over the next 4 years than staying with it for all the glory and financial opportunities that a WC with the Eagles will bring them.

Everyone that puts on an Eagle jumper should be proud for that accomplishment. They are better at what they do than any of us "armchairs" out here. That said, to a one I do not think that US Rugby has given them more than they have given it. This is strictly in terms of career / financial reward. The memories and brotherhood are another matter.

For any of us to pin US Rugby's woeful state on a few ex pats trying to improve our situation is laughable.

[Joe]

Doug is correct, the bar is low here in America in terms of the athletes playing rugby relative to other nations.

It doesnt matter who is/was coaching the Eagles, Thorburn, Billups, Graham Henry, etc. We are a bottom dwelling nation and will continue to be so until the level of athletes playing the game raises a few levels.

Clark's coaching record w/ the Eagles was sub .500 and Billups was at or near that. They've obviously had success at Cal but that's b/c the level of athlete relative to the rest of college rugby is a few levels up.

Whether or not Thorburn is a 'great' coach really doesnt matter all that much, the USA is only going to perform up to its abilities. If you show up at a racehorse with a donkey, what do you expect the results to be?

[Eagle]

As a former Eagle I take some offense to your racehorse analogy but at the same time I do recognize that although I was a good player here in the US I was an average player at best in the int'l arena. It's true we just dont have the horses w/ the same pedigree/training/resources as the major nations.

[LouC]

Let's face it, this is the best squad Thornburn could throw together in the time he had. No thought in future development of players was put into the squad. Luke Gross is 37 or 38, Payne is in his 30s and so is Bloomfield. The NA4 was used to gell the WC squad when it should have been full of U19 players and college all-americans. Thornburn and Nigel need to do whatever they can to put a good spin on this WC. Hopefully after it is over USA Rugby establishes a plan for development.

[doug lyons]

I hate to sound like a broken record but the NA4 was never designed as a developmental program for our younger players. NA4 was designed to bridge the yawning gap betwen club and international rugby and presumably act as a catalyst for professional rugby in the future. I think I saw the idea of the US, Canada and Argentina eachhaving 3 or 4 sides in such a venture.

One sort of off topic thought ... with rugby now at the Pan Am games and the hope that it will become an Olympic sport as well is it too much to dream that some superb athletes would want to give it a go for Olympic glory. Remember when a few footballers such as Hershel Walker gave bobsledding a try? Geez, to think that this sort of athlete might want to give 7's a try .... it's worth dreaming about anyhow

[Ed Schram, Sr.]

These are interesting stats and interesting comments all. Suspect the coach may be inclined to give the nod to a foreign-born player (Wouldn't be the first time.)and the development ladder/progession to the Eagles may not be clear(Not so sure that hasn't always been partly true.). So be it. Even if the two possibilities that Kurt has pointed out are both true, at least to me, neither are the causal issue(s) impacting current or near-term results.

The bigger issue at hand seems to be twofold: (1) The expectations that can be reasonably held for the Eagles' performance in RWC competitions. (2) The actions that need to be taken to increase the liklihood of achieving and improving upon those performance expectations.

On the first issue: Given the recent results and the across-the-board upheaval in the factors that most impact the National Team, our expectations should be minimal. It will be great to be surprised.

That said, and taking a longer view of the situation, I would think that a reasonable, achievable expectation for Eagle teams would be: (1) Compete effectively against and defeat our peer nation group during interim seasons. (2)Qualify each time for RWC. (3) At RWC, be competitive against top tier opponents and win games against our peer group.

On the second issue (what to do to have a realistic chance for success): One can contend that if we are to improve the long-term fortunes of our national teams, we need to improve upon those long-term factors that are the foundation of the game and that most contribute to that success --that being the development of more and better American rugby players. One can also contend that in order to improve those component factors, we need some coordinated action that has a view past anyone's present "term of employment." Long-term problems usually require long-term fixes.

For starters,I believe we need professionally documented stategic and tactical action plans,organized implementation structures, and experienced implementation teams to accomplish the following: (1)Grow youth rugby in and around club programs and, secondarily, around high school athletic programs. (2)Assist clubs in the development and ownership of their playing fields and clubhouse facilities. (3)Assist collegiate teams in the development of their programs to better emulate those such as Penn State, Dartmouth, BYU, Utah, Saint Mary's, California and Stanford.(4)Identify and place those football players who fail to make NFL teams in domestic and foreign rugby clubs.(5)Identify and place our elite graduated collegiate players in professional foreign rugby clubs. (6). Wait patiently for the time that a domestic-based professional league takes hold in North America. If we had 1 through 5 above in place,chances would be much improved for that league to become a reality sooner that it otherwise will.

I believe that there are a lot of American rugby people out there who can make these things happen. There are dedicated, hard-working people doing some of then now. The pace needs to quicken and it need to be happening in more places. That requires qualified, organized leadership from those being paid to do it.

[Ed Schram, Sr.]

These are interesting stats and interesting comments all. Suspect the coach may be inclined to give the nod to a foreign-born player (Wouldn't be the first time.)and the development ladder/progession to the Eagles may not be clear(Not so sure that hasn't always been partly true.). So be it. Even if the two possibilities that Kurt has pointed out are both true, at least to me, neither are the causal issue(s) impacting current or near-term results.

The bigger issue at hand seems to be twofold: (1) The expectations that can be reasonably held for the Eagles' performance in RWC competitions. (2) The actions that need to be taken to increase the liklihood of achieving and improving upon those performance expectations.

On the first issue: Given the recent results and the across-the-board upheaval in the factors that most impact the National Team, our expectations should be minimal. It will be great to be surprised.

That said, and taking a longer view of the situation, I would think that a reasonable, achievable expectation for Eagle teams would be: (1) Compete effectively against and defeat our peer nation group during interim seasons. (2)Qualify each time for RWC. (3) At RWC, be competitive against top tier opponents and win games against our peer group.

On the second issue (what to do to have a realistic chance for success): One can contend that if we are to improve the long-term fortunes of our national teams, we need to improve upon those long-term factors that are the foundation of the game and that most contribute to that success --that being the development of more and better American rugby players. One can also contend that in order to improve those component factors, we need some coordinated action that has a view past anyone's present "term of employment." Long-term problems usually require long-term fixes.

For starters,I believe we need professionally documented stategic and tactical action plans,organized implementation structures, and experienced implementation teams to accomplish the following: (1)Grow youth rugby in and around club programs and, secondarily, around high school athletic programs. (2)Assist clubs in the development and ownership of their playing fields and clubhouse facilities. (3)Assist collegiate teams in the development of their programs to better emulate those such as Penn State, Dartmouth, BYU, Utah, Saint Mary's, California and Stanford.(4)Identify and place those football players who fail to make NFL teams in domestic and foreign rugby clubs.(5)Identify and place our elite graduated collegiate players in professional foreign rugby clubs. (6). Wait patiently for the time that a domestic-based professional league takes hold in North America. If we had 1 through 5 above in place,chances would be much improved for that league to become a reality sooner that it otherwise will.

I believe that there are a lot of American rugby people out there who can make these things happen. There are dedicated, hard-working people doing some of then now. The pace needs to quicken and it need to be happening in more places. That requires qualified, organized leadership from those being paid to do it.

[Rugby Dad]

I sense the rugby articles on this site are getting better and the comments are getting more sorry.

Here's my take. Two rugby sites post stories with mostly factual information on the break-down of the Eagles. Both stories point to the lack of national team U19's and fewer AA players.

Kurt points out that the lack of U19 players hints at either the coach doesn't think these U19 products are good enough and/or, the U19 national team is doing a poor job of selecting, developing this pathway.

The commentators then jump in with a tub full of political crap. The records of other coaches, reminding us that our best American athletes don't play rugby, college players this or that, Fall season or Spring. What a load of off topic crap.

The best of which is a discussion on the merits of taking development players to the RWC over seasoned vets. Hey, wake up, we have had an U19 program for many years. The players we first took to the U19 World Championship are not developmental players they are in their mid-to-late twenties in the peak of their athletic lifespan and they are not coming through the pipeline. Problem !

All the IRB grant money in the world won't help us if we can't build these pathways.

Stop with your blind defense of Peter Thorburn and understand that if you rate him and his fair selection policy then we need to take a hard look at why the U19 national team is paying such poor returns. 3 of 37 is not good enough.

This is not a story about taking teenagers to the RWC or anyones coaching record. If we want to get better, we need to study an issue without the politics, we just might arrive at some conclusions other than who does and doesn't support the coach.

[Rugby Dad]

Thank you Mr Schram for a thoughtful post. We are all getting sick of Armchair and Doug's typical comments. Now LouC, all trying to defend Thorburn when no one is after him.

Peter Thorburn didn't cause our problems, we did. Now this doesn't mean I rate the guy, but who cares, he's gone in a flash and he isn't taking us back to NZ to retire with him.

We are stuck here in the great America, with a rugby problem to solve. Blasting Thorburn or Billups will do nothing to help us climb to were we want to be.

[Fog]

Speacking of pathways, Is it true Clark won't realease any of the cal kids for the AA tour let alone the national team.

[calsupporter]

Its somewhat true and thank you for considering my alma mater a pathway.

We only have one current player, Louie Stanfill (plus big Mac) on the national team and he was allowed to miss over 5 weeks of school, so you are wrong in this regard.

However you are correct that Cal didn't allow the returning players to miss their final exams (who schedules this stuff) and participate with the local all-stars, which was a good decision we all feel. It did make the All American coach mad, but hey, final exams are more important.

[Wondering]

Hey Fog,

Where does this nonesense come from?

What does Jack Clark have to do with this?

I really doubt that he would prevent any of his players from participating.

I think that there is one current Cal player in the 37 that went to Aspen.

If you have some facts, please share them, otherwise take your BS elsewhere.

We are trying to improve things, not sink to the level of rumor mongering!!

[Joe]

Rugby Dad: I hear what you are saying but...

my interpretation of Kurt's posting is that he was pointing out the face that Thorburn has opted for more foreign based players than our own domestic ones. hence the comments regarding player selections.

my earlier point about the coach was intended to point out the fact that it doesnt matter whose coaching the team or selected to play for that matter b/c either way we wont (and never have) been successful on the int'l stage.

so its all moot either way...got that?

[LouC]

Let's look at facts from the IRB's website. The below teams either have beat the USA handily, or will at this years WC.

CANADA
Pre-teen Male Players: 2313
Teen Male Player: 466
Senior Male Player: 8308
Total Male Player: 11087

TONGA
Pre-teen Male Players: 1336
Teen Male Player: 3384
Senior Male Player: 5316
Total Male Player:10036

SAMOA
Pre-teen Male Players:8826
Teen Male Player: 2315
Senior Male Player: 6681
Total Male Player: 17822

USA
Pre-teen Male Players:783
Teen Male Player:16603
Senior Male Player:28457
Total Male Player: 45843

We sure have the numbers, but the organization of the union has been a joke from its origin. It was and still may be a joke from its 30+ board members, Clark's crooked deal with Fox for 10 years of TV rights and a number of other things so long that we would be here for days. Maybe now it is on the right track, but until I see a detailed and clear 4 year plan like the Irish put into effect after they nearly didn't get to the QF at the 2003 WC (beat Argentina by 1 point to get in) and then were blown out by France.

Read about the launch of the plan here - http://www.irishrugby.ie/6855_3703.php

And download and read the plan here - http://www.irishrugby.ie/downloads/strategic_plan.pdf

By the way, rugby is not the most popular sport in Ireland.

[Rugby Dad]

Yet another thread that could of shed light, high-jacked. What's with the default comments ? Come on, lets talk about the Irish four year plan or anything about a plan going forward.

[LouC]

Rugby Dad - Is English your first language? That post doesn't make sense.

[Eagles Fan]

LouC,

Thanks for posting the Ireland Rugby strategic plan. I would love to see USA Rugby put together something similar and pass it on to everyone. While I do have confidence in the new leadership, it would be nice to see what they have planned mapped out in detail for all of their members to see.

[James]

USA Rugby has a strategic plan, and it was actually developed, I believe, with the help of the same consultant that helped Ireland. It is what Melville will be implementing. However it will take time for change to happen.

[LouC]

I am pretty sure that the IRB brought that consultancy firm in not to improve the quality of rugby in USA, as it was done in Ireland, but just to get USA Rugby in a position to be able to govern itself. I do not think it included recommendations on tactical changes that result in better quality of play.

Personally, I do not think that the majority of members in the rugby community are willing to make changes required to improve the quality of play. I can not even get my local TU to make simple changes to improve quality of play in our division, and they do not even enforce eligibility rules until something happens to force them into the fold. Usually a pissed off coach that ends up becoming a pariah for calling out another coach. The refs are poor and there is a perpetual shortage of them available.

My guess is that each TU is a microcosm of what is happening in the country. USA Rugby lets the TUs take care of their own matters with little interference and when something happens they jump in, just like how the TUs let each division take care of themselves and then jump in when something goes wrong. All USA Rugby cares about is that the CIPP money comes into the national office, and hopes that the TUs can sort out the competition part of the equation.

It is a recipe for failure. No standardized coaching to suit the American athlete, no vetting of coaches to make sure they are capable or at least honest, no minimum standard for ref quality, no minimum standard for facilities, they provide nothing really except a national competition for all the divisions and to assemble national teams.

My opinion is that you can not throw a blanket over the entire country. I would focus the time a resources on the parts of the country where the TU has their act together and let the others play catch up. Just like the southwest of England, or the Southwest of Ireland, or the Southwest of France are the hotspot for rugby in those countries, we have to focus on our hotspots grow from there.

[doug lyons]

The best thing that could happen to US rugby would be to go back to 4 territorial unions; at least from a competition side of the picture. Sub Unions would of course still exist but the quality of the competition at the top level would not be dilluted.
The old ITT's made sense. It was a mistake to move away from that model.

[Jonathon]

Whats wrong with the U19 pathway can be traced to the fact that players pay their way to selection camps.

We use this model because the U19's coaches have jobs outside of USA Rugby and this is understandably the most convenient way for them to select. This is no knock on these coaches, they are doing their best under the current system. But clearly 3 of 37 suggest this isn't working.

What's needed is an aggressive recruiting plan aimed at stud 16-17 year olds, that are on the fringe of rugby. This requires full time coaches, not more payroll, maybe just a re-allocation of existing staff. These coaches would travel the country scouting the high school youth teams for players that project to the next level.

We also need to change the objective of the U19 team from winning to placing players on the senior Eagles. Who cares where we finish in the tier two age-grade competition, what's important is that the U19's program graduates players to the senior Eagles in mass between their 21-26 birthdays.

This is not happening now, because the players need to be able to afford to participate, which is why we get 3 of 37 on the Eagles. In our current model many of the really stud kids don't get a look because they are not rugby ready yet. In a better model these would be the exact kids we are looking to develop with the U19 team.

Its not only the Eagles with a lack of national team U19's, its also the super league champions, the club champions, the collegiate champions, the nasc champions and the collegiate nasc champions.

The players aren't coming through because it a pay to play approach, with the wrong objective and with the wrong report card.

[Tom]

I know it would be costly, but no one has mentioned having a residential development camp for rugby like USA Soccer does in Brandenton Florida or USA Hockey does in Ann Arbor Michigan. These have been very very successful for both national teams.

[Cheyanquí]

Tom, great point on academies. The big question here, is who bankrolls it?

The USSF (US Soccer Fed) had one of its early goes at an academy in St. Louis back in the mid-1980s. Busch Soccer Park hosted not only the academies, but also the occasional USA Test Match, and training camp.

The grounds were purchased and owned by Anheuser-Busch. Back then, grass roots soccer groups in St. Louis pushed a locally based, global business (A-B) to support a soccer complex.

Somewhere in the negotiations, the "Build it, They [USSF] will come" was brought up, and sure enough, USSF brought a high profile program to town, to match the high profile expenses that A-B laid out to create the complex.

The key point here is that in order to get people on the ground-level to support it, the volunteers putting in the sweat equity need a Return on Investment (ROI). The Busch complex was used to not only house the academy, but also "lower profile" soccer events, like the local U-9 games every Saturday morning. Also, the local soccer community got the benefit of being able to host a few Test-level events, raising the profile of the sport in their community (and probably some fundraising associated with the event).

The lesson here is that if the high-performers want something to happen, they cannot say "build it for me and me only". Soccer in the US was built by a lot of local, grass roots people. They are the ones with the local connections (as voters, employees, lobbiers, taxpayers). Any facility in the USA built for high-performance MUST have a Return on Investment for those local folks who helped build the support in the first place.

In turn, A-B (the corporate sponsor) not only got some national level goodwill / PR through the academy, but by creating a facility for grass-roots soccer, it generated significant goodwill in the local community (St. Louis) from where it draws its employees (soccer moms and dads)

[Flynn]

In my opinion, as someone who played high school rugby in America for a team which I thought *should* have been sending players to the U19s, I think the selection process for the U19s is pretty broken. Now Salty Thompson obviously has a tough job trying to cover all the high school rugby in a country the size of the USA. But the current process seems to not help him.

In 2003, I played for an excellent Golden Gate U-19 team which waltzed its way through the Bay Area high school league, beating traditional powers like Lamorinda and Piedmont. They beat a very good Davis team, and lost by one point to Elsie Allen in a game which Golden Gate surely would have won had several of our graduating players not been held at their high school all night for a end-of-high school tradition that meant they were running on virtually no sleep. We then went to Canada, beat a Fraser Valley select side and drew with a Vancouver select side two days later despite falling victim to some abysmal home-team refereeing (a try disallowed, two knock-ons given as tries for Vancouver).

So I can say with some certainty that this was a good team and that we probably had guys who could have been U19 players. Yet there seemed to be no clear chain of command - the Highland-Jesuit high school championship was played BEFORE our "playoff" games. What the hell was going on? Where was our chance against Jesuit?

To this day I still haven't the foggiest idea how the USA Rugby High School playoff system works.

Furthermore, I don't think Thompson visited Northern California that whole year. It wasn't as if we were a secret - Jack Clark became a regular at our games, as well as coaches from St. Mary's, and some of our players matriculated to those universities.

One of our players even became a Super League at 18, and still no one noticed. Some of our capped Eagles had to call Thompson to notify him that by the way there's an 18 year old playing for a Super League finalist and that Thompson may want to actually go look at him. Even then he wasn't picked.

I don't know if it's political or financial - I remember going to one of Clark's rugby camps in high school and being handed a pamphlet explaining where I had to fly to on my parents' dime to try out or the USA U19 (I didn't go - I wasn't that good). But I had Rugby Magazine back then and it always seemed like the same five or six programs would send most of the team.

[femsLara]

She was rude, Ember replied haughtily. During the britney spears and paris hilon she linger from her hot books, amends persuaded throughout most liquid cities.