Gainline.us

On Beckham and rugby

My desk is piled high with books to be read, so why pick up the Beckham Experiment?

Initially because author Grant Wahl, a senior writer with Sports Illustrated, branched out from soccer to rugby to follow the US national team around the time of the 1999 World Cup. He is an excellent journalist who regularly gets cover stories.

Grant also writes NCAA basketball for SI, which underscores his ability to shift between major domestic and overseas sports. That is meaningful to Beckham Experiment, subtitled 'How the world's most famous athlete tried to conquer America'.

The plotline could be relevant to US rugby: Much of USARFU's current strategy was shaped by IRB consultants whose understanding of the American society may not be much more sophisticated than that of Beckham, who at the start of the year left the Los Angeles Galaxy for Milan. Of course, the approach was blessed by the folks who led the transition to the union's then-new government structure.

If you have not re-read the 2006 plan, it is worth doing so. (PDF version downloadable here, web version here) One's opinion of the forthcoming blueprint should be grounded in an evaluation of how the last version grades out.

On geography and sleeping giants

Below, an interesting map showing the location Mexican clubs. What a hurdle is geography! Imagine, clubs that are 3000 miles apart from one another ... where have we heard that before?

The guess here is the IRB's present Mexican census more or less approximates the density of American clubs in the  1930s, 40s, and 50s -- with the possible exception of New England -- once you adjust for the fact that America is approximately 5 times bigger by landmass.

And what has happened since then? Over the past 40 years, we've been busy forming new clubs at new levels. Equally important, we've developed proven techniques for growth in a continental nation, best practices for introducing a foreign game to the world's most crowded, sophisticated sports markets. This constitutes real achievement and heritage.

People who describe America as rugby's 'sleeing giant' either know comparatively little about our game or aren't thinking very hard.

Related: 1961 season portrayed as pivotal to East

On swimming and teamwork

'That's what I'm talking about!', bellowed an ecstatic Michael Phelps after the US outdueled France for the 4x100 relay crown.

The record-setting swimmer may have been taunting his rivals, who had boldly predicted victory, but more probably the mild-mannered Phelps was reinforcing the team talk in its plan for an upset win.

As in rugby, there are things swimmers can do to make everyone around them better in training, to spur teammates to greater heights. Conversely, there are swimmers who you would prefer to leave off relays because their best times come in individual events.

A measure of Phelps' greatness can be seen in his relay performances. At the 2004 Olympics, he spurred the Americans to upend Australia in the 4x200, as the comparatively unknown Klete Keller turned in the split of a lifetime to outduel legendary Ian Thorpe. Tuesday morning, with Phelps' opening leg setting an American record in the 100, Jason Lezak shook off a reputation for underperforming in big meets to run down world record holder Alain Bernard.

Swimming is often seen as individual sport, and Phelps is fairly subdued and humble in victory. But relays, which require complex teamwork, patently animate Phelps. After both 2004's 4x200 and this week's 4x100, he was maniacal.

Team building and group performance, whereby the whole exceeds the parts, is not an automatic byproduct of improved rugby training. Positive culture does not take root because there is more funding. Indeed, the worry is that money by itself distorts individual and team values.

Perhaps it is no accident that Phelps, who earns an astonishing amount, is the leader of a team which is said to have had its 'best ever' pre-meet training camp just prior to this Olympics.

On inspiring reporters

There's a saying in the Silicon Valley: the main thing is to remember the main thing is the main thing.

In the Albuquerque Journal's coverage of this weekend's collegiate playoffs and a local paper's report on a Pacific Coast high school contender, there's stark contrast between pitching rugby as a mainstream sport and going for feature angles or 'strategic messaging. In New Mexico, whatever the latter approach was, it backfired.

Here's the lede from both papers:

I virtually lived in the coldest, darkest, smelliest arenas in the province of Ontario for the better part of 15 years while growing up living, breathing and playing hockey.

But little of that time adoring a sport known for toothless, foul-mouthed varmints prepared me for my first three hours observing live rugby.

Never had I heard so many F-bombs dropped in such a short period of time. And we're talking about women's rugby, by the way.

And:

THE FIRST THING that stands out about the Marin Highlanders youth rugby club team is, well, they're pretty good.

Marin's under-19 team sports a 12-4 record heading into Saturday's game against College Park Preparatory at St. Mary's College and already has clinched a spot in next weekend's NorCal playoffs.

The team boasts two players (senior Matt Cadelago and sophomore Jake Anderson) who will participate in a tryout camp this summer in Indiana for the under-19 USA Rugby national team.

How might these stories might have been pitched? One would have been framed in a way the reporter could understand (i.e., local team makes playoffs), and one may have tried to outline union strategy (to embed women's rugby in the NCAA), causing the reporter to lose the plot and revert to stereotype.

We've seen quixotic focus on the women's game before. About a dozen years ago, Boulder was so keen on the idea that it created a whole new logo replete with a pony-tailed player. About the same time, Princeton and then Penn State were emerging as powerhouses.

The point is not women vs men. It's that the collegiate championships sell themselves because the participants are name brands that any reporter anywhere will understand: Penn State, Navy, Indiana, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, Texas A&M, Colorado, Cal, Stanford, etc. America's best sports schools play rugby.

In Washington, longtime rugby man and media professional Jason 'Pee Wee' Maloni is successfully outlining the neophyte Maverick league the same way. By this technique, schools from the Ivy League and other well-known athletic conferences also have gained a foothold for their tournaments.

USA Rugby's media staff is diligent and courteous, and I don't know for sure how they portrayed the round of 16. Journalists are always going to write 'bad' stories -- we have a pesky way of doing that -- and it's not immediately Boulder's fault that some of the competitors have potty mouths.

Still it seems the main thing bears repeating. Administrative sanction as a stepping stone to leveraging resources may excite bureaucrats, but it's hardly the stuff that will inspire the rest of us to fall in love with rugby.

Related: Maverick league underway in DC

On the early days of New England's collegiate selects

New England's decision to walk away from college representative play carries some personal interest, for 20 years ago I was on hand when the program got underway.

The previous year had seen a major effort to bring 'rogue' teams into union membership, and NERFU followed up by inaugurating a Division 2 tournament. After that event, several of my teammates were invited to try out for a university select side that would visit Australia the next summer.

(Side note: Joining the union had required the athletic director's approval, and in shuttling between the two bodies I was assured by NERFU that we would be seeded in the opposite bracket as our archrival. So naturally we played them in the first round.)

NERFU liked what it saw in two of them, and rightly so. They were each accomplished, post-varsity athletes (football and soccer) who could have become territorial-caliber players -- certainly 1st division club starters.

But that is hardly a remarkable statement. Many New England small colleges could have claimed as much, and that is before you consider the Ivies. The region was, and presumably still is, loaded with superb collegiate athletes thirsting for rugby direction.

Later this spring, my alma mater will celebrate its rugby club's 50th anniversary. It's discouraging to think that New England has gone backward over the past two decades, and that the region may not be alone.

On master's swimming and rugby

When in the Windy City, I look forward to training with the University of Illinois-Chicago 'masters' swim team.

The vibrant program is led by energetic Paul Moniak, whose day job is coaching the school's varsity. I'd guess there are 75 or more on the masters roster, some of whom are national class in their respective age groups (e.g., 30-34, 35-39, etc).

What I most appreciate about UIC is that master's team fees are set up to be tax-deductible contributions to the school team. That means money I would spend anyway goes to the varsity budget, while I gain access to a Division 1 coach. (Paul was the Horizon League's coach of the year in 2006-07.)

And now to the topic at hand: Are the ways to restructure our club sides so they benefit college and high school teams?

This spring, new Washington new head coach Gary Callender is to be available for paid sessions with local scholastic and university sides, because the club reasons it's better for the former Scottish international to make ends meet through coaching than odd jobs. The approach is common enough in Europe, and has been employed in the States from time to time.

Can we develop more sophisticated models, whereby youngsters gain organizational and financial benefits, not just technical services? Why? Because just as there is no likelihood of my going to the US Olympic trials meet, most 'senior' players and clubs won't be directly involved with our national team, save of course for dues that go to USA Rugby.

So while we masters athletes are competing, can we do it a way that more directly benefits the local youngsters who still might become Eagles?

The devil in the details, not the partner

In response to yesterday's brief about the National Guard agreement, a modest debate ensued regarding the suitability of relations with America's armed forces.

For me, the conversation is short and instinctive. I welcome any opportunity to attest the USA's uniformed services represent superb ideals of leadership and public service. I hope and expect USA Rugby is mighty proud to associate with the National Guard and its colleagues, particularly in wartime.

As I suggested, there are some operational questions about how the agreement works, such as what branding comes with (or is precluded by) the kit, who is the equipment vendor, what is the application criteria, etc. USA Rugby promised to send details 'when the launch process is complete.'

If the agreement is a deal for cash that will be partially channeled toward unencumbered equipment for college teams, then it appears business development lead David Voth and colleagues have struck one of the better pacts we've seen in the past four years. But without question, the devil is in the what and how, not the who.

Related: National Guard follow-up

Hercus in New York Times interview

A buoyant market and a travel day – little time to post. Here are some items I found interesting:

Eagle captain Mike Hercus is portrayed in a New York Times interview (subscription required). Confirming the stereotype, the story presents American rugby as something for upper-class tough guys, and overlooks growth and innovation, such as at the schools level.

Most Americans, myself included, have a vague impression of rugby as squads of 15 beefy brutes, many of them with master's degrees, clanging their heads together until blood streams down their ridged brows, performing unspeakable acts of violence down in the pile. Which turns out to be the case....

'It's as close to war as you can get," Hercus [says]. "You bash, barge and hurt, but at the end you always compliment your opponent. You respect a man who battles you. You know what he's been through.'

Thanks to Mike M. and others for spotting the story.

Only 14 of Canada’s squad play in Europe, according to Rugby Canada’s 'In Touch' newsletter (by way of another Gainline.us reader). The US totals 7, undermining the assertion by Peter Thorburn and others that Canada are so much more ‘professional’ than the Eagles.

Halfback Kimball Kjar, who started all three Churchill Cup games before being dropped out of the World Cup squad, has signed on as an assistant coach with his alma mater, Brigham Young.

On professionalism and our World Cup rivals

One of yesterday’s readers asked: ‘How many of [the USA’s World Cup] guys are professional? Can we assume all the other teams in our pool consist entirely of pros?’

Helpful as Gainline.us readers are, the first question already has been answered: seven are paid to play in Europe. In the regard to the second, Samoa and Tonga are not, and like America, their stars compete overseas.

There are two primary reasons why I would use an alternate yardstick for measuring our opponents. One, the IRB has devised a useful system of classifying countries in ‘tiers,’ and since Dublin effectively has been splitting the national team’s bills with CIPP dues payers, it makes sense to understand how we’re being evaluated.

Briefly, tier 1 comprises the traditional powers. Tier 2 includes Canada, Fiji, Japan, Romania, Samoa, Tonga, and the US. The characteristics of these countries vary – some are large, some are small, some have pro leagues and/or ‘cross border’ tournaments, some ‘export’ top players – save for the fact that none of them consistently defeat T1 countries. The rest of the world falls into lower tiers.

So, there are two countries in our pool which are considered to be in our class. Samoa is 11th in the IRB rankings (these guys think of everything), and Tonga recently moved up to 14th, passing the Eagles, now down to 15th from 13th at the start of May.

Two, ‘professionalism’ describes a competitive environment but does not predetermine outcomes. Commercial rugby entails more than advanced rugby infrastructure, defined as the quality of top leagues and the pathways leading to them. It also requires the ability and willingness of a country’s people and businesses to spend entertainment and/or marketing dollars in support of sports entertainment.

Neither Samoa nor Argentina have professional leagues, but one is T2 and the other T1. Japan is highly professionalized, but nowhere near Scotland, which also may soon export all of its best players, as two of its three pro teams are defunct or heading that way.

Now consider that Australia had just three pro Super 14 franchises (essentially 125 or so full-time players) when it won the 1999 World Cup.

Aussie-born Belmont Shore coach Jonnie Cox is among a growing number who suggest the US would raise its standards should top clubs became competitive with the world’s best amateur teams, such as Cox’s home club, Sydney University. Leading ‘Uni’ players go to the New South Wales Waratahs, and some on to the Wallabies, but note the basis of success is not a full-time, professionalized club competition.

(By the by, it is interesting to note that the ‘post professional’ Mike Hercus plays for Belmont while holding down a job arranged by USA Rugby chair Kevin Roberts.)

The USA has never beaten England or South Africa, falling 43-20 in its last match against either of two, versus the Springboks in Houston in 2001. America’s historical record against Tonga is 1-1; against Samoa it is 0-2 with both losses by 7 points.

Separately, flyhalf Hercus will captain the Eagles in France, US coach Peter Thorburn said yesterday in an email.

USA 2007 World Cup schedule
England          September 8      Lens   
Tonga            September 12    Montpelier
Samoa            September 26    St. Etienne
South Africa    September 30    Montpelier

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.