On the importance of 'must wins'

Both teams in Saturday's South Africa-England championship have come out of America's pool, marking the first time the finalists have previously met during the World Cup tournament.

The English, steamrolled 36-0 by the Springboks, could become the first side to play poorly in the opening rounds, and rally to win the Webb Ellis Cup. The title holders needed to win their final match just to make the knockout rounds, and have since upset Australia and France.

For America, the distinction of having faced both finalists is less important than its win-loss record. An unexpectedly close defeat to England did not translate into victories over Tonga or Samoa.

The Eagles and other 'Tier 2' teams which don't make the quarterfinals are primarily measured on wins and a mathematical ranking based on comparative results. The US went 0-4, concluding a winless 2007 campaign, and fell to a historic low of 19th in the IRB standings, from 13th at the start of the year.

In assessing performance, many other metrics ('key performance indicators', to adopt the slang) may come into consideration. Yet the difference between a 'bad finalist' such as England and a 'good loser' like New Zealand, or 2-2 and 0-4, ultimately is the scoreboard. Put another way, the English have won the 'must wins' and we did not.

Comments

[youngamerican]

What rubbish.

Instead of salvaging even a little positive out of a winless performance you spin a negative article yet again.

This is disgustingly slanted journalism. You are unfit for Rugby in America.

The REAL story. USA held up well in what proved to be the REAL group of death. With BOTH finalists and two teams that were within 4 or 5 plays of defeating BOTH of those finalists the USA played as well as they could possibly be expected to.

No matter how you spin it Tonga's best players get regular game time in the Super 14 and the Guinness Premiership.

Samoa have the reigning Player of the Season for the Premiership and regular starters in the Super 14

England and South Africa need no qualifying.

Mike Hercus was a RESERVE in the Magners League. Todd Clever played on the NZ D1 TWO leagues down from the Super 14. Mike McDonald was a starter in the England National D1 - again a league down from the Premier League.

Yet they still competed on the SAME level as 3 of those teams. The only thing separating them was polished finishing on breaks and inside the 22. That and nerves for the first 15 minutes of every game.

Everyone that knows rugby knows you are garbage Kurt. Selling out your own country over a grudge? You wonder why the IRB doesn't rust Americans? You and your slanted smug comrades (almost your entire generation of players and administrators). They are ego driven, loyal only to their personal agenda, short sighted, and UNPROFFESSIONAL. The rugby public is smarter than you think. You have been exposed and one by one you’ll be on the outside looking in.

Chris Hopps

[Chuck Norris]

Chuck Norris says - OUCH!

Chris Hopps is the weekly winner of the Total Gym Todd Clever Bitch Slapper.

As you all know, the TGTCBS trains American rugby players to be able to run across the pitch and bitch slap opposing fly-halves.

Chuck expects to see more of Chris' bitch slaps after following the 12 week program.

Chuck is looking forward to the Mighty Springboks, in what will be their last appearance in a RWC final, exposing the Pommies pathetic rugby "game" and assisting several of them into retirement.

Chuck loves the Springboks - and Chuck will be sad to never see them in their glory again. 104 years of Sprinbok history is about to be erased.

Chuck again thanks the Eagles for a good showing, and respectfully requests an update from Kurt on Ngwenya's contract with Sale Sharks.

[ecm]

Jeez senator mccarthy/mr. hopps take a pill, it's just a rugby blog, not a HUAC-worthy event.

as far as the USA effort goes, i'm not sure what matches you were watching but I didn't see that "the only thing separating them was finishing on breaks & inside the 22". I saw a lot of unclean ball from the #9, a #15 who had poor hands, terrible setpiece/lineout possession, lack of fluidity & pace...and most importantly, no wins. to my eyes there was a very sizable performance gap between USA & their pool group.

to recap: lackluster against uruguay @ stanford, pounded by Canada, pounded by munster & O fer the world cup. burying your head in the sand & blaming the messenger is a recipe for continued failure. take your dose of medicine & get on with getting better.

[RR]

Great post Chris Hopps.

The Eagles played tough till the end in all 4 WC games. They Never rolled over when they were points down, and made their supporters proud.

Kurt is only rabble rousing because this blog site has been in hibernation with hardly any posts since the end of pool play 2 weeks ago.

So much for the ranking system that Kurt has used to slam the Eagles. New Zealand lost to France in the 1/4 final and still gets to hold the #1 spot,

These figures are taken from the IRB website today.

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 89.63
2(3) SOUTH AFRICA 89.32
3(6) ENGLAND 87.18
4(2) FRANCE 84.83
5(5) AUSTRALIA 84.21
6(4) ARGENTINA 83.16
7(7) IRELAND 78.66
8(8) SCOTLAND 76.83
9(9) FIJI 75.82
10(10)WALES 74.08

[Old Boy]

Well, the Eagles DID win the must wins of the past year - namely, against Uruguay. Performance wise, I'd say they leave the RWC more beefed up and ready to go against Canada who will likely be the must win victim of the Eagles in 2010.
The Midi olympique reported last Monday that Ngwenya is working through an agent to contact French Top 14 clubs. Maybe by early or mid-November there'll be confirmed news on that score. His other passport will make things all the more easy for him.

[Ron]

Smug smug smug. I love it.

Keep writing Kurt... the banter on this site is quality entertainment.

"USA Rugby... still better than Barbados & Uruguay"

[Ed Schram, Sr.]

Hey Cris Hopps,

Thanks for identifying yourself.

Involvement at the tail end of NA4 and some regional/local coaching and selection roles don't necessarily qualify you for, nor elevate you to determining who is and is not "unfit for rugby in America." What's more, name calling is bad form.

Kurt's site is intended to spark comments and differing viewpoints, not stimulate and generate venom. Kurt is a professional journalist and has been for a good long time. Are you a professional rugby guy?

I watched the same RWC games you did. The USA competed well and courageously in a very strong pool. Everyone involved should be proud of the effort. As has been the case in our previous experience in RWC matches, we continue to be unable to close the deal, be it in-game opportunities or end-game results.

There are likely quite a number of Americans who do know rugby and certainly many more who do not. You would appear to be among the first group, but, unless you are a professional pollster, you have no idea what anyone outside of your relativley small sphere of influence thinks about Kurt. He certainly is not "garbage" nor is what he writes. You most assuredly don't speak for all those who know rugby. None of us do.

Kurt's comments on the National Team performance don't quite equate to "selling out his country." Spies play that role. The NT record is what it is and there is no way to paint that picture any differently. That record is what Kurt was writing about. Moreover, last time anyone checked, the IRB saw fit to trust a lot of their cash to USA rugby. You evidently helped spend some of those funds.

Those who you contend to be Kurt's comrades ("almost your entire generation of players and administrators") are not all slanted,smug,short-sighted and unprofessional,as you pompously contend. Nor are we all ego-driven and loyal only to personal agendas. Working long and hard for USA rugby doesn't leave a whole lot of room for any of that alledged nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such uninformed,unqualified accusations of people you don't know or have never met.

Three of those "untrusted" Americans you indirectly castigate played primary roles in bring those recent IRB funds to America.

Who are you to threaten or even predict exposure and expulsion of others involved in rugby? Seems you have done a good job of outing yourself at least to this fairly small blog audience. Keep it up in the broader world of US rugby and you may expell yourself.

Ed Schram, Sr.

[LT]

Thanks are due to Mr Schram for his time & contribution to USA Rugby.
However, Mr Schrams attempt to demean Chris Hopps efforts and growing contribution to the game is not.

Mr Schram, If someone is bold enough to use their real name try to at least spell the name accurately in response before attacking the man, his contribution to the game and lastly his rationale.

This thread has been a clear example of the benefits of anonymity in posting.

[tj]

I went to both semis last weekend and am going to the final next weekend...passing time in Berlin now.

Nobody, which includes the comentating teams from SA and England, who I have spoken with, would even hint after multiple drinks the the SA or England were in the pool of death.

[geraint@consultant.com]

Kurt's comments offer a particular angle that is not hyped up by over zealous patriotism. For this he should be commended. Maintaining your distance from something you are clearly passionate about is difficult. Journalistic integrity is being maintained. Go to the fans forum if you don't want forth right opinions presented.