One-third of Maple Leaf World Cup side based at home

More than one-third of Canada’s World Cup side is based at home, which runs counter to the view that the Can-Am rivalry is ‘professionals against amateurs.’

Seven pro players didn’t make the Maple Leaf squad, eRugbyNews concluded in an analysis of the 32 players (subscription required), further suggesting that one’s training regime is at least as important as ‘full time’ status. European competition helps but is not solely determinant of North American athletes' skill and achievement.

Like the USA, Canada does not have a professionalized domestic competition. The Canadian union does draw upon government subsidies for elite athletes (so-called carded players), and benefits from Commonwealth ties which circumvent European Union restrictions on work permits for would-be American professionals.

But Rugby Canada has enjoyed government subsidies for more than a decade, and has always had more players in Europe. In other words, the ‘pros vs joes’ rationale wouldn’t seem to explain why the once-close rivalry, which stood at 4-6 since the 1999 World Cup with 3 of the 6 losses by less than a try, has suddenly degenerated into consecutive 50-point shellackings, the highest margins of defeat in the 30-year series.

The US and Canada are joint partners in the North American 4 competition, which is meant to be a cut above the two countries’ domestic competitions. But while Canada has been forward-looking in evaluating and fast-tracking players not yet in its national squad, USA Rugby has treated the cross-border tournament as a kind of extended trials assembly, even swapping players among the two sides, such that it is hardly comparable to the supposedly inferior Super League.

America has far more rugby-playing universities than Canada, with state-of-the-art facilities popping up in numerous locations. Accordingly, more than 60 percent (16 of 26) of the 2005 Churchill Cup side had earned Collegiate All-American honors, though the total and percentage has dropped to less than 25 percent (8 of 36) for the World Cup training squad to muster this Saturday.

Comments

[chrisv]

Couple points:

It's worth mentioning that college programs have developed their players with very little support from USA Rugby, while USA Rugby has in turn increased the cost of participation. Yes, CIPP is relatively cheap, but for clubs who cover the fee to keep costs down for participants, multiply a ten dollar increase by 30-40 guys and it starts to get pricey.

Two, Canada's League has twelve teams, US Super League has 18. Given the results of recent competition, it seems highly unlikely that we have enough talent to fill 18 elite level teams. Contracting RSL would concentrate more talent and create better competition within RSL.

[doug lyons]

If the squad is 30 that means 20 of the players are pro's. How many of the likely starting 15 are pro's and of the 1/3 based in Canada did any previously play professional rugby but are now finishing up their careers in Canada?

[Rugby Dad]

It is interesting that so few Under-19 made the US WC squad. Are we just picking foreign born players for the most part ?

The linked story said that Canada has a far higher percentage of their U-19's playing for the national team and we are getting murdered by them, food for thought.

[TJ]

I think the team is about 60% US born. There are more foreign born players representing the US than in previous RWC's, but we have always had foreign born players on the Eagles, just not this many.

[doug lyons]

I doubt that there are many / if any under 19's ready to make the jump to international rugby especially given that our most glaring need is in the forwards.

It's great, though, that the U 19's have been so successful and it bodes well for the future.

[TJ]

Doug, I must be missing something in your comments.

No one is counting how many 19 year olds are on the US team, just how many from the U19 program eventually make it. For example, Clever is the bright star,U19, All American and senior Eagles. The point being made is there is so few of these examples on the WC team, only 3 of 36.

We have had a U19 team for many years, why are those players not progressing to the senior team. We have about the same overall world rank in U19's as we do on the senior Eagles, mid-teens. The US U19's play in the B division of 12 teams where we came in 4th, or a world ranking of 16th. The senior Eagles are 15th.

No surprise here, most of the world's U19 teams are also ranked similar to their senior team.

Our play at the U19 WC has been pretty consistant, we are no worse than ever before, and maybe alittle better.

Why not more players on the US WC team of 2007 ? Why does Canada's team have a 40% U19 ratio?

The US U19 players must see this as deflating.

[doug lyons]

OK - now I understand the point ... I thought it was why are the under 19's from the present team not on the WC team ... the present u 19 team will hopefully still be involved to a large degree in the years to come. Thanks for clarifying!

[U19 Camp Witness]

Good point about the U19s. I can tell you I witnessed a U18/19 camp this past weekend in Indiana and there were 140 kids from across the country learning the same protocols as the National Team. It was great to see and its growing in structure as more staff is added to the age group teams (U17,18,19,20). With the creation of the U20s you now have an extra year for these kids to play together in a high performance environment(or as close as we can get) I do believe that come the next RWC we will see a significant number have come through the age grade ranks. One area to improve is to start paying the coaches more. If we truly have a focus on younger players, the U20 coach should be full time and directive of the U17s, etc... That same coach should get his direction from the National Coach in terms of style of play. I'm hoping we can look forward to progress after the RWC is over this year.

[cc]

I also believe that the scrum half from Belmont has come up thru the ranks of U19 for 2 years ,Collegiate All-Americans for 4 years and is now a memebr of the Eagle Training Camp. It happens , just seems to take some time especially at the skilled postions .

[Jason Maloni]

Inaki ("enyaki") Basauri is former US Under 19 as well. He was born in Mexico but raised in Maryland where he took up rugby for the first time. He went straight from high school to France and now he's playing professionally in country's Division III league, and playing periodically with his U.S. club, Maryland Exiles (2003 and 2004 National 7s). Unfortunately there are only a few like him and we need, every year, to send 40-50 promising high schoolers overseas to take their game to the next level.

[notgoodenough]

Yep, that's all of them, 3 of 36.

This isn't good enough to justify the u19's as a legit pathway.

It takes time you say, of course it does, that's why we have an u19/20 program, but a 3 out 36 return on investment is not good enough.

Why is our return so much worse than our competitors ?

[TT]

Just to put a name to the Belmont scrum half Mike Petri . It seems all 3 have worked very hard to get to the position they have put themselves in . For young players I am sure Its very tough coming up thru the USA system when you see a lot of players selected to the Eagles appearing to be foriegn even though they are USA Citizens .

[ARMCHAIRBOMBER]

The reason for the poor percentage of u19's becoming Eagles is simple and the reason for most of US Rugby's problems - money!

First off, some u19 products are participants in other sports that actually pay money (or at least scholarships) and they are lost there. The big Islander boy from Highland now playing in the NFL with the Baltimore Ravens comes to mind. Gee, he wouldn't be too much of a load to bring down from a penalty play, would he?

Second, some just don't progress to a level high enough to take spots away from the foreign trained Eagle players that do not come onto the radar till they arrive here (Hercus).

Third, some are put off by the amateurism of US Rugby. What is the actual percentage of CAL players that represented the US? In other words, for having been the top program by miles for many years now how many of those guys go onto Eagles rugby? I know that there have been many notable ones but as a percentage? I would say that after getting a four year degree from CAL there is a little more money to be made at a job than following some Eagles jumper which will not lead to rugby glory like the CAL jumper does year in and year out. To go from a CAL environment where it is all well oiled and organized rugby machine with 15 - 18 hours of class time (plus study) thrown in to a decent men's club with 2 X a week training, pitches in public parks with no locker rooms, selling raffle tix to keep club afloat, etc., you can understand the decision not to pursue. Although CAL is not U19's it highlights the lack of age grade progression.

Again, until we can offer athletes some decent living wages (not NBA or NFL money), we will be forced to play the best amateurs we can find alongside a handful of professionals.

[longtime cal support]

Not sure about percentages, but the Cal web site shows 36 national team players. Most of these guys had long test careers, which means hundreds of appearances.

Its hard to compare Cal's totals to the USA U19's because they have only minor crossover.

I read an interview on another site that said Cal started 25 different players in the 2007 national championship matches, 5 of which were previously USA U19's.

Cal has two players on the RWC squad, one current and one former, Stanfill and MacDonald, neither played on the USA Under-19 team.

Cal had eight players selected to the 2007 All American team, only one of which, Eric Fry, played for the USA Under-19's.

Not much crossover, seems like to different selection pools.