On Japan's 2015 World Cup

New Zealand's Rugby News recently published an interesting interview with Japan's new head coach, Australian Eddie Jones. A couple of notable passages:

• I've deliberately left out players [from the first training squad] who have been at previous World Cups and may struggle to be at their best by the time the next World Cup comes around. They still may be the best players in their position in Japan right now, but it's a matter of trying to develop the side, develop the skills, and dtevelop the style of play that's going to take us where we want to go.
• [In 2015] I'm going to need players who have played 30-40 tests who are going to be in that age group of 25-28. You need players who are hardened at the test level and who have won at the test level. [This] Pacific Nations Cup is going to be quite difficult for us, there's no doubt about it because we're going to have quite a young team. But that experience they gain from the tournament is going to be very important.
• Any national team, you want the team to be reflective of your country and your society. You also need the fans behind you.
• I think having won [club championships] and getting to know what makes these players play well well is important. It's like anywhere you go in rugby, really. If you've won your counry's championship prize, or in something like the Super 15, it helps because it shows you know how to win things with your nation's players. I think that's really imporant in terms of giving people confidence going forward.

Jones' views are particularly relevant to the United States in light of the expected re-launch of the Pacific Rim Championship, which would see the 14th-ranked Cherry Blossoms and the 17th-ranked Eagles again meeting on a regular basis.

Comments

[Realist]

Unless you have a chance to make the 1/4s or are in danger of not qualifying for the tournament, this whole building towards the RWC is a travesty. Why sacrifice 3 years of results just so you can lose to the big guns by a little less? I'd rather beat Canada and Japan on an annual basis and lose to Ireland by 30 in the RWC than lose to Japan and Canada every year and have our results from the RWC last year.

[good for Jones & epic fail for the US]

Compare Jones' longer term vision and plan for building a national team with the shit we see out of Boulder.

Thornburn one year contract. Johnson short term stay. O'Sullivan two year contract. Tolkin two year contract.

Short term coaches make short term plans, which ultimately fail the longer term interest of the nation. Tolkin will select older more proven vet players in the misguided hope it gets him a longer term contract. Jones will be afforded the luxury of building towards a future greatness. The comparison is sickening.

To flip around the above comment. Why do we keep playing these same vet players knowing their results are what they are. We won't win anymore than we did under EOS or Johnson or Thorbs by playing these same dudes.

This all comes down to Melville being a poor CEO and if possible even a poorer Director of Rugby. He has no fu*king plan past some nonsense talk around top down/bottom up.

The Eagles have less budget. No domestic rep rugby and the next in a series of short term coaches. There is nothing but more failure in the future of US rugby. Canada has dicked us with younger teams and now so will Japan. Nige is asleep at the wheel and US rugby is racing backwards.

[7's vs 15's]

that last post is one of the most logical and pragmatic seen on this blog in some time. wish the player/coach situation was better but I don't see how.

[FrontRow]

I came across an interesting article saying that US Soccer thinks that in order to catch up with the rest of the world they have to move away from the classic American model of high school sports towards the "Academy" system. This seemingly goes against majority opinion on this blog. See the article in the link.

"The U.S. Soccer Federation has decided high school soccer is an impediment to America catching up with the rest of the world. As a result, FC Delco will not let its players play for their high school teams.

The federation has told its top layer of clubs to begin playing fall soccer against other academies. No more high school ball for these players, with few exceptions. There are 78 of these academies nationally that must follow the federation's directive.

So, how does one measure the propriety of this mandate?

There are only 50 or so players from the region who play for FC Delco's two upper-age academy teams, and they and their families are the ones who would make the decision to forgo high school soccer for academy soccer.

But these same players - some of whom can pay up to $5,000 to $6,000 to belong to the academy - are being told they can no longer represent their high schools, play in front of schoolmates and friends, and work with familiar coaches. Given their talent, a qualitative drop-off for their schools and for soccer at that level is inevitable."
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/soccer/20120427_U_S__Soccer_Federation__Academy_team_members_not_allowed_to_play_for_high_schools.html

[Grant Cole]

@FrontRow

The "academy system" has been proven in Texas in men's & women's soccer & basketball and women's volleyball & softball. Instead of "academy" it's dubbed "elite", maso manos really. This system in these sports is undoubtably active in other states, as well. It is not uncommon for student athletes to play for their elite squads, but not for their alma mater. The elite squads tend to play at a level higher than the schools can and get better competition in front of more college coaches.

One of the elite sport epicenters of Texas also boasts a rugby academy - The Woodlands. They posted some great results this spring and put out full rosters for several age-grades each weekend. Certainly the academy system works abroad. It's already working here, too!

[Ragby]

The academy system you are referring to relies on the incentive of college scholarships. Or else no one would pay so much money to be part of an "academy" or elite team. College rugby cannot provide that incentive and so there is no market for someone to set up a rugby academy. In other countries, the academies are set up by the pro teams. Not going to happen here. So while it might be better if we could convince a bunch of people to set up and run rugby academies and then convince parents to shell out the money needed for their HS player children to attend, that just is not going to happen. So tapping into the varsity systems of high schools and colleges remains our best bet for bettering our national ability.

And honestly, who gives a flip about international rugby. Not most of the high school players. We should just focus on building the best HS, college, and domestic senior leagues possible and enjoy those competitions. And if that happens to lead to a more competitive national team then great. It will be something fun to watch every 4 years. But having the needs of the national team drive decisions at every level is incredibly stupid and not something this country has to do.

[Real Deal]

We (i.e. USA) sucks at rugby. Deal with it!

[sevens]

The SBRO's and College Conferences are well positioned to set-up elite development camps and manage "All-State" or "All-Conference" teams to compete against other nearby rep sides. This is essentailly what academies do. There are a growing number of organizations (Serevi, Elite Rugby, etc) who can help to bring in staff to run elite rugby camps. Of course, local management and funding is the key issue. Clubs, players, and parents will need to foot the bill through club dues and camp fees until sponsorship develops. USA Rugby should be invited to participate but the leadership should come from the regions.

[Peter]

Sevens,

I don't think you really understand what an Academy is. Academies (there are academies for numerous sports around the world) do not run all-star or rep sides. Academies are concerned with player development. In French soccer academies players do not play full sided matches until they are between the ages of 13 to 15 and they limit the number of full-sided matches the players do play in. The premise being that it is much better to play small-sided games so that players get much more touches of the ball and opportunities for skill development and to make decisions than in full-sided matches.

The second thing that you have mentioned often on GL is that college conferences and colleges should be in the business of elite player development and all-star teams. Once again, you do really understand the business of college sports (which most college rugby programs are not part of the in the US) or the role of club sports in universities (which the majority of college rugby programs are part of) -http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/sports/02club.html?pagewanted=all. Neither are in the business of elite player development, all-star teams management or developing players for US National and Olympic teams.

[Smoke and Mirrors]

The Academy system might be a good idea for the United States in soccer because the sport has already been legitimized and there are probably thousands of parents willing to send their kids to one of these academies in the hopes of gaining a college scholarship or even bigger dreams of playing in a world cup. So you could have enough academies to actually have academies play each other and other elite club teams. But compare the following between soccer and rugby in this country: number of players, number of college scholarship opportunites, number of college admission assistance opportunities, number of professional leagues and you'll see why the academy system would not work for rugby at this point in its development as a sportin this country. We need to get youth playing, high schools to play, and colleges to offer varsity opportunities and/or scholarships in order to break into the mainstream of American sports. Once this happens and our playing numbers are like those of soccer, then we can start thinking about academies as viable options for player development. Right now we need to worry about sport development, and the way forward there is the varsity model that gets touted so often on these comment boards.

[varsity]

S&M,
Excellent post.

Although I understand the way forward to varsity and "varsity like" status will be found at the HS and college team level. I am nevertheless struck by how little leadership has come from Nigel Melville and his staff along the USAR Board of Directors on this point.

Their legacy will be missing this all important piece of work.

[LOL]

For $300k in salary you want "leadership" also?

[Smoke and Mirrors]

Honestly, the best thing Nigel and the BOD have done with respect to the varsity movement is to get out of the way. SBROs and college conferences will do just fine without involvement from USAR "leadership" that doesn't get it. Case in point-while the national college playoffs were going on this weekend, our CEO was tweeting about the Heineken Cup. Just shows how out of touch he is with the lifeblood of American rugby. The less USAR is involved with SBROs and the college game, the sooner those segments can break away from USAR and develop on their own.

[College]

S & M
How right you are, sir!

[Sergeant Hulka]

Yeah, but did you see that Ulster v Edinburgh Heineken Cup match? It was pretty thrilling.

[Smoke and Mirrors]

I missed it because I was following twitter updates from the college teams who were playing.

[Pathetic]

@S&M

As much as I do not think Nigel and the board at USA Rugby are doing a good job, the fact he uses her personal twitter account to comment on rugby outside of the USA is hardly something to criticize him about. I follow Nigel on twitter and I find no fault in the fact he has tweets back and forth with some of the biggest names in world rugby about what is happening in pro club and test rugby around the world. If anything, he is promoting American rugby around the world. If I was a young college player with the skill and passion to get a pro contract in Europe in the future, I would be glad Nigel is an advocate for rugby in the USA and keeps communications flowing with the folks pulling the stings overseas. However, if I was just an angry old boy thinking that some foreign guy is ruining rugby in the USA, I can see why you're angry about Nigel's personal twitter account.

[Smoke and Mirrors]

Really? I don't see how any of his tweets about the Heineken Cup during the college playoffs this weekend were advocating rugby in the USA, but what do I know, I'm just some pathetic angry old boy.

[Pathetic]

@S&M

It is a personal twitter account! The official USA Rugby twitter account was posting scores and links all day. Nigel can do what he wants with his twitter account. And if that means his followers on twitter, which include ex rugby internationals, current national team and club coaches, current international and pro players, rugby journalists worldwide, etc, follow him because they are personal friends or because he is the CEO of USA Rugby, he is being an advocate for his employer and the game here in the USA.

You're probably some old boy ref or old gal.

[Sergeant Hulka]

I don't know why I'm doing this, but Nigel's personal twitter account this weekend entailed: 3 tweets about the Ulster v Edinburgh match
3 tweets about the USA v Italy match
1 Olympic team fundraiser tweet
3 tweets about HSBC Sevens tournament
1 tweet about an IRB development course.
Then some random stuff about bears in trees, other rugby goings on, and reply tweets to other people.
Now, let's all relax get a life for tweet's sake.

[S&Mw]

I heard Nigel used his USA Rugby email account to send out emails about rugby in Canada and Japan when the college girls rugby playoffs were going on. Can't we get him fired for that?

[Go State Go]

On the plus side, at least he didn't embarrass himself this year by referring to "University College, Santa Barbara"

[Loch Ness]

Like Capone, its tax fraud that we'll get him on...

[I played drek rugby - and loved it]

There was a report in a sports good manufacturing trade journal that posted the fastest growing team sports in the US. Presently lacrosse is the leader if you look over the last 10 years but the journal pointed out that rugby can lay claim to the same argument if one looks a timeframe that is shorter window - from I believe 2007 forward one could credibly argue that rugby is the fastest frowing team sport.

Without being a defender of NM (he certainly has made more than his share of mistakes) I think it is fair to say that one of his core responsibilities is to drive growth of the game and on that score one cannot fault him. The game is growing - some will of course argue that it is despite him - but the bottom line is that the game has more participants at the youth level then ever before; and that is a good thing for the game ...

[I believe the children are the future...]

"but the bottom line is that the game has more participants at the youth level then ever before; and that is a good thing for the game"

I would go further and say that it is just about the only thing that matters at this point. But I have to question how much of that has anything to do with NM and how much of it is simply the efforts of thousands of unknown volunteers around the country. Unless you can point to something really tangible that NM has contributed in this regard, I'm not inclined to give him much credit here.

[Look Around]

Rookie Rugby was Nigel's idea wholesale. You could argue he simply simplified flag rugby, but point of fact it was his brainchild and he did a good job of marketing it and building a brand for it. That alone is more than we saw out of Boulder prior to his arrival.

Under Nigel the youth department has also grown to be (from what I understand) to be one of the most well staffed parts of USAR (3 full time staff) and there is more grant money than ever going specifically to SBRO's. Not enough in my opinion mind you, but still dramatically more than existed prior to Nigel.

No one and no leader is perfect, but to say that USAR and Nigel have done nothing to aid the growth of youth rugby in this country is disingenuous or highly misinformed at best.

[Alan Airth]

To add to this, what did USAR past leaders have done? The first real idea of youth development from USA Rugby started in 2002 with Scott Novak who was a one man band within USA Rugby. Prior to this there was no program, and no youth dept. to speak of. We can complain that things aren't going fast enough, but we can also look back at the youth growth over the last 10 years with some satisfaction.

[I believe the children are the future...]

"...we can also look back at the youth growth over the last 10 years with some satisfaction."

Oh, I'm certainly thrilled with the growth in youth rugby over the past decade. There sure wasn't much of anything before; little on the local level and less from Boulder.

I'll grant that Rookie Rugby is a nice thing, but it seems like a fairly minor development overall. Grant money? Has there been enough to make a meaningful impact? What achievements can be attributed to having 3 full-time youth staff members (I'm not saying there aren't any...I just don't know.)

I'm not saying that NM has failed with respect to youth rugby. I wouldn't even go so far as to say that anyone in that role COULD make a massive contribution. And I'm still not prepared to look at the growth of youth rugby in the past decade and point to Nigel Melville as the cause.

[Anon]

"Grant money? Has there been enough to make a meaningful impact?"

I assume you've missed all the SBRO administrators and/or youth development officers that have been hired with this money. I've seen openings for at least 4 or 5 so far.

...And if you don't think having paid administrators makes a difference in the SBROs... well, you're crazy.

[I believe the children are the future...]

No question a paid SBRO administrator is a great thing. 4-5 is nice, but a drop in the bucket compared to what would make a significant nationwide impact.

[fire the bum]

Melville has done nothing to help schools rugby but hurt it. US rugby had the same or higher level of youth growth before Melville and this administration arrived.

[Sergeant Hulka]

Fire: I have to disagree with you on that. Youth and U-19 rugby has grown exponentially since 2007 as evidenced in the Sports Retailers report citing rugby as the #1 growth sport. There has not been a slow and steady growth in youth rugby, it's been very instant and recent.

[Anon]

"4-5 is nice, but a drop in the bucket compared to what would make a significant nationwide impact."

If you read what I wrote, I said "I've seen openings for," i.e. it's not just 4 or 5. Also, I wouldn't be in a hurry to give money to an SBRO that isn't ready for it. We were hoping to get some grant money where I'm living, but our SBRO isn't considered up to standard yet (apparently things aren't as together as our board claimed).

[Anon]

If everyone thinks things aren't significantly better at the HS level and/or that USA Rugby did nothing to help make things better, then I'd posit they haven't been around the HS game long. As a coach since 2001, I've seen a lot of change in the past decade.

[Look Around]

@I believe

Keeping in mind the more organized your SBRO is the more money it is given, even the most loosely organized groups still receive ~$5k in grant funds. I believe you can possibly receive ~30k if you qualify for every grant available. It has increased every year.

Again I still think it should be more, but from a purely objective assessment it is not an insignificant sum of money when you consider the coffers of most of these groups.

While SBRO's were not created as a concept by USAR, USAR did embrace them (with some arm twisting) and they are now increasingly being better funded. The staffers are very helpful for the SBRO's and Rookie Rugby has been an enormous success. You can argue more should have been done, but you are not being fair or honest if you think NOTHING or even nothing significant has occurred under Nigel.