Gainline.us

On Alabama-LSU, Auburn-Oregon, and the World Cup final

Over the weekend I watched Saturday's 1-versus-2 LSU-Alabama game and a replay of the World Cup final, both finely balanced defensive matches.

But can rugby match football the way Auburn and Oregon played in last January's national championship? Won 22-19 by the Tigers, the Fiesta Bowl's tactics and tempo were riveting, largely because the athletes' size, strength, and speed created new ways to approach the game.

The question is not so much whether contemporary rugby can produce more offensive-minded title contests, although these have been rare enough. Instead, where are the 15-man code's innovative strategies and change-the-game players?

And, in the context of America and its international opponents, if there are rugby skills we cannot hope to match for lack of practice, conversely we must also have traits where our opponents will fall short. So, why is the US not leading the charge?

For all the time spent discussing development models, recruiting programs, and the like, America's playing base is actually quite large. How do we make more of what we've got?

Yes, yes, there is no money in the game; but the core requirement is leadership. Look to those pursuing new enterprises and delivering measurable results: championship XVs and representative players.

What about the American style?

One of the World Cup's talking points has been the dilution of Polynesian playing style. Whatever happened to American style?

Time was, the USA was known for unerring tackling and innovative techniques, such as spiraling lineout throws. For change-the-game athletes from Pete Dawkins to Gary Hein to Dan Lyle.

At the time of the first World Cup, in 1987, one of America's leading technical discussions concerned whether the four territorial coaches should adopt strategies supervised from the national level, in the interests of developing players schooled in a national style, or devise their own approaches. The US pattern was very much on the minds of coaches from Dennis Storer to Ron Mayes.

That conversation has long since fallen by the wayside, in favor of approaches imported from the Commonwealth, and American athletes are often, if not inevitably, second-rate at skills and tactics defined and practiced by Europeans and Antipodeans.

In an interview with London's Guardian, Frank Bunce, the former Samoa and New Zealand center, made the point that Polynesian athletes competing in 'Tier 1' countries find the environment tends to neutralize the very skills that got the players there in the first place, and to export European approaches into the islanders' national teams.

'We have to be careful not to lose what makes Pacific Island play so special. We do not want to see them playing like every other team .... I guess modern coaching methods are producing a stereotyped approach.

'The European [aspect to their play] will only increase as long as players are lured north by irresistible money. It is about finding a blend.'

There are also problems bringing national squad players home from disparate locations. Only so much technical work and team bonding can be achieved in a week or so.

Conversely, Usain Bolt's phenomenal success at the 2008 Summer Olympics has been ascribed in part to training at home in Kingston, Jamaica. Previously, Carribbean track athletes had always come to United States, but Bolt turned down several college scholarships.

Undoubtedly England's Premiership and the like are superior to American domestic competitions. It's less obvious that Europe's 'daily training environments', particularly at lesser clubs, are superior to our finer university facilities.

But if Europe is so very much better for developing nations, why have the northern hemisphere countries (via the International Rugby Board) exacted a promise that Argentina's overseas players will henceforth compete at home? The Pumas will be the better for the self-interested move.

On statistical and notational analysis

'Football is in the grip of a revolution. Following the model adopted by baseball and basketball in the US, the use of statistics to analyse play and players is transforming the world's biggest sport.'

Not a decade ago, the US national team coach called for Super League clubs to film their matches, to benefit not only Eagle scouting but also the competitors' game analysis. He was ignored and even ridiculed.

Those days are gone, and it is comforting to read that European soccer was fighting the same battles. From the modernisers side of the field, the Financial Times' Simon Kupfer provides an insightful view of how statistical and notational analysis is changing rugby's first cousin (registration required).

At the center of the tale, unsurprisingly, is Billy Beane, the Oakland A's general manager who has done more than most to popularize a statistics-driven view of baseball that is transforming some of that game's most deeply held views. Yet soccer's journey of self-discovery is interesting in its own right because, like rugby, action is intended to be continuous.

... By the mid-2000s, the numbers men in football were becoming uneasily aware that many of the stats they had been trusting for years were usefless. In any industry, people use the date they have. The data companies had initially calculated passes, tackles, and kilmetres per player, and so the clubs had used these numbers to judge players. However, it was becoming clear these raw numbers mean little.

It turns out, for example, that distance run at top speed is more indicative of quality than simple distance. So too is work rate on defense a metric newly coming into prominence.

In rugby, Sevens World Series tournaments generate an enormous amount of conventional, unsatisfying data. The International Rugby Board's Game Analysis unit also has sought to investigate statistics from leading 15s tournaments.

Soccer's trajectory demonstrates Dublin's paradigm, however worthy, is not likely to be accepted in toto. Yet as Kupfer points out, advanced teams are solicitous of the metrics they are developing.

Thus it may be some time before new standards gain popular acceptance. That is hopeful for America, because here too coaches and statisticians are at work. Let us see what we can figure out for ourselves. In evaluating the game anew, there is no reason our perspective should be any less insightful.

On public interest in soccer and rugby's business prospects

Soccer can't hold a swell, and the implications for commercial rugby are discouraging.

TV ratings for July's World Cup final jumped 41 percent from 2006. But popular interest was already falling back to pre-tournament levels, according to the widely used Google Trends service. Moreover, while news stories about the tournament also surged in 2010, search volume was actually higher in 2006 than this year.

'The sheer immediacy of it all was a bit shocking. There was interest, and then there was none,' observed one professional soccer reporter in a trade publication for journalists.

Mass media not only signals public interest, but also drives advertising, a key mechanism for any would-be professional sport. Therefore this is no evidence that the world championship is fueling soccer's commercial prospects in the US. And there is little reason to believe rugby is any different.

America, which likes sports entertainment more than most, may spare some time for unfamiliar pursuits but is not ready to ditch the centuries-old favorites we grew up playing.

The findings also can be seen as more evidence that the way to capture the sporting public's imagination is through teams (brands) it already understands. Undoubtedly a good portion of the World Cup's viewership derived immigrants and expatriates.

For rugby, this is not to disqualify the technical potential of a city-based senior league, for instance, but to acknowledge that such a competition's commercial prospects are slimmer than college-based events. As an analog, consider the relationship of pro to college lacrosse. Which is televised live on ESPN?

Does Olympic 7s change the picture? Maybe, but how much of the Summer Games' big three -- gymnastics, swimming, and track -- do you watch in non-Olympic years?

At present, it seems the abbreviated game's booster shot is more likely to change the dynamics for participants, rather than usher rugby's arrival into the commercial mainstream.

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?