Nese Malifa's return from injury comes in time to head the USA's backline at next month's Churchill Cup.
Opening with the England Saxons on June 4, the three-game slate also includes Tonga and a 'finals round' opponent from the other half of the tournament. That may be Russia, which is America's primary World Cup target.
The competition will be the national team's final competitive assembly before World Cup rosters are due. Barring injury considerations, domestic players who were at this month's San Diego training camp and left out of the Churchill squad aren't likely to be at the world championship in New Zealand.
With near-certain starters Chris Wyles and Takudwa Ngwenya omitted, Malifa's role figures to increase beyond the normal stature accorded flyhalves. Paul Emerick, Roland Suniula, Kevin Swiryn, and Tim Usasz, each of whom played amply during last fall's tests against Portugal and Georgia, also are at hand.
Usasz and Swiryn also may be first choice, but midfield has been less certain. Neither of the Tuilevuka brothers are in the squad.
Flanker Todd Clever heads a forward unit missing Hayden Smith, who was not released by England's Premiership, 20-cap prop Matekitonga Moeakiola, and the promising Samu Manoa. Will Johnson's return could see the prop earn his first cap since 2009.
No captain has been designated, though Clever is a likely choice.
Five players -- forwards Eric Fry and Dan LaPrevotte and backs Troy Hall, Mile Pulu, and Zach Test -- are uncapped. The squad includes 15 forwards, and no university players. Eddie O'Sullivan's staff comprises 13.
United States to Churchill Cup
Forwards: Inaki Basauri (L'Aquila), Chris Biller (San Francisco Golden Gate), Todd Clever (Suntory), Pat Danahy (Life Univ.), Eric Fry (Las Vegas Blackjacks), JJ Gagiano (Univ. of Cape Town), Nic Johnson (undeclared), Will Johnson (London Irish), Dan LaPrevotte (San Francisco Golden Gate), Scott Lavalla (undeclared), Mike MacDonald (Leeds Carnegie), Shawn Pittman (London Welsh), Louis Stanfill (Mogliano), Phil Thiel (Life Univ.), John van der Giessen (Utah Warriors)
Backs: Paul Emerick (Life Univ.), Tai Enosa (Belmont Shore), Troy Hall (New York AC), Colin Hawley (Olympic Club), Valenese Malifa (Glendale Raptors), Mike Palefau (Utah Warriors), Mike Petri (New York AC), Milemoto Pulu (San Francisco Golden Gate), Junior Sifa (Nottingham), Andrew Suniula (Chicago Griffins), Roland Suiula (Boston), Kevin Swiryn (Agen), Zach Test (undeclared), Tim Usasz (Nottingham)
Massive staff for a tier 3 rugby nation. Where are they getting the funds? Nearly 2 to 1 player to staff member ratio!
Posted by: put it on the tab | 25 May 2011 at 14:40
Good thing the US is Tier 2!
Posted by: 96 Tiers | 25 May 2011 at 16:14
USAR has evolved into most fans and members not giving a damn about the Eagles. It is a shame really, but it is blamed on the USAR administration not being forthcoming with Eagles expenses and spending too much money on a coaching staff.
I still root for the Eagles, however it doesn't really matter one way or another if they win a game at the world cup.
US rugby should be spending all our funds on building HS and college rugby. This is the best path to long term success. This is how we will one day win several games at the world cup.
Posted by: 101 | 25 May 2011 at 23:16
You're right 101. Let's just pull the Eagles from the World Cup. We'll show the IRB how things are done. In fact, why don't we change rugby to appeal to the American public. I suggest instituting time stoppages when ever the tackler is held to the ground so the players can catch their breath and we can sell more commercials. Then, if we put big helmets and shoulder pads on them, they can fly into each other, collision style and sell more tickets. Oh, wait...
Posted by: Icanhazrugbyball? | 25 May 2011 at 23:39
Superfluous insults and bad email = comment deleted
Posted by: Kurt Oeler | 26 May 2011 at 09:12
101 - I agree that college and high school rugby is the right path to success and that the majority of our money should be spent there, but we still need to have a somewhat competitive National side to give some of those kids a goal to shoot for.
Posted by: Clay | 26 May 2011 at 11:09
Is there a handful of rugby league administrators and journalists in the USA pushing league over union, or is this a real movement?
http://www.wearerugby.com/news/articles/peters-try-league
Posted by: League Numbers | 26 May 2011 at 11:20
Editorial comment - I am not a fan of league and therefore view things with that point of view ...
I don't personally see the value of league in this country with union making strides at the youth / college level.
it's interesting to see Peters demonstrating an interest in League given his apparent unavailability for the USA 7's team. Why he would he be available for league and not 7's is curious - especially when one considers that 7's is a pathway to the Olympics.
Overall I doubt there is a serious movement towards league but it is a cautionary tale. While the Eagle 15 players are increasingly professional the 7's players are not and that is worrisome if someone is able to come in and fund league to some extent. Then the conversation might change.
A serious effort needs to be made to professionalize the 7's Eagles to attract better athletes, compete on the world stage and make league a less attractive option.
Posted by: I played drek rugby - and loved it | 26 May 2011 at 13:30
My instincts tell me that with such little money in any code of rugby a guy like Peters can be exploited by league loyalists to commit to play for a, "Hawaiian team that will play promotional matches within the AMNRL expansion framework." He probably agreed to play for a match fee and BOOM the league PR machine makes it look like something more than it is. They are good at this PR hype, but when the company that owns the AMNRL is also the company that owns the only website dedicated to rugby league in the USA it is not that hard a task.
Posted by: League Numbers | 26 May 2011 at 13:58
League is garbage rugby.
Posted by: Clay | 26 May 2011 at 14:28
I think league can be good at the highest level. The defensive organization means that the attacking (in hand and kicks) is typically very skilled and creative, which is great to watch. However, with no contest at the breakdown, scrum or lineout and with little to no tactical kicking, it can get boring. I do not think it is the right code for the USA, but do have concerns that it's simplicity and commitment to highlight big hits make it very marketable to the mass USA market.
Posted by: League Numbers | 26 May 2011 at 14:34
The only thing that can possibly give League hope in the U.S. is the USAR administration.
They (USAR) don't know how to use the U.S. sports system (HS/College) to rugby's advantage, preferring to make rugby a foreign sport.
Therefore, League has a fighting chance.
Posted by: toto | 26 May 2011 at 14:35
garbage... rugby... period.
And doesnt matter what level. there is no college league games, ther is no high school league games... its a waste of time.
Posted by: Clay | 26 May 2011 at 14:39
Here's a good example of League's attitude. Quote taken from an article stating Graham Lowe (some sort of League coach) is supportive of USA League:
"I'm 49, I've had a brain hemorrhage and a triple bypass and I could still go out and play a reasonable game of rugby union. But I wouldn't last 30 seconds in rugby league." - Graham Lowe (1995)
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 26 May 2011 at 15:59
League loyalists have always been able to make huge noises about absolutely nothing. This is all the Peters thing is. Just Rubbish.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 26 May 2011 at 17:34
Should also add in they a sly bunch not beyond lying to achieve their objectives.
Posted by: Working Class Rugger | 26 May 2011 at 18:21
I'd actually have to say that the Lowe comment when union was ameteur was not all that far off. But since union went pro that argument is pointless - professionalism has raised the bar and union professional athletes are as fit, fast, strong and tough as their league counterparts. And unlike league union does not take short cuts to dumb down the game to the lowest common denomenator.
Posted by: I played drek rugby - and loved it | 26 May 2011 at 18:47
Read the article closely. LP hasn't been available for USA 7s and 15s camps because of his ill father. This dabble into league is a matter of convenience for him as he doesn't have to leave Oahu to play. If this required travel off-island, he'd likely not go. He is a dignified player with a big heart looking to keep the dream alive while tending to his family. Give him props!!
Posted by: SD Hitman | 26 May 2011 at 21:31
Peters is going to pocket some coin to play a few league games and he sold out rugby union that is trying to actually help him. However, rugby league may serve him best as an ex-gridiron guy. Big hits, lots of showboating and acting fly. He may be perfect for the NRL. The Ozzie bogans will love to hype an ex-NFL man in the league.
Posted by: SD Hitman to the rescue | 26 May 2011 at 21:39
Dude... We all know you're the same guy posting under different names.
Posted by: anon | 27 May 2011 at 04:52
I'm watching the Eagles get embarassed by Scotland right now. The quit is all over their faces. Huge steps backwards for this program.
Posted by: Quitters | 28 May 2011 at 11:18
and meanwhile Fox (not Fox Soccer Channel)is showing Man U vs Barcelona live. No rugby on live TV even though there is plenty of rugby being shown on TV elsewhere in the world. Amazing to see how much more progress soccer has made vs rugby in the US in the last 30 years. Lacrosse too has significantly outperformed rugby in growing their game.
Posted by: Sevens | 28 May 2011 at 13:34
That's because the people running those sports know what they are doing and they are professionals. The board should have fired the staff at USA Rugby years ago. They have it all wrong, they are trying to grow the program from the top down. We will go 0-3 in this World Cup and end up 14th in the world. If we were to give the MNT $4m every year until the next World Cup they may go 1-2 and and up 12th.
We need to invest (Heavily)in youth. That's what USA Soccer did in the 90's and it has paid off.
Posted by: Smoke & Mirrors | 28 May 2011 at 19:04
Smoke and Mirrors....
Every single thing you said is 100% wrong.
Melville has come out in many an interview saying that building programs like Rookie Rugby is the way forward, and will be USAR's focus. Low and behold.. there are over 300k kids playing rugby now days. The Eagles are a necessity as these kids need to see a pathway. They need a goal.
Also.. the US will play 4 games in this RWC... not 3.
Everyone who is involved with youth rugby knows it is growing exponentially. I bet you don't see much of that in your isolated men's D3 club in the middle of nowhere. Get a clue
Posted by: ass | 28 May 2011 at 19:57
The key is for established clubs to improve themselves and grow the youth game.
Let's quit expecting USA Rugby to do everything.
Clubs need to work together at the local level and quit bashing USA Rugby.
We need leadership at the local grassroots level and sharing of best practices across the country.
Posted by: Sevens | 28 May 2011 at 20:53
Sorry ass...0-4 USA Rugby talks a great game. What's the pathway? Your funny by the way.
Posted by: Smoke & Mirrors | 28 May 2011 at 21:24
"No rugby on live TV even though there is plenty of rugby being shown on TV elsewhere in the world."
Sucks you're too busy writing this crap to subscribe to DirecTV.
Posted by: Realist | 28 May 2011 at 21:58
How did the 7s program look so promising so recently and now has come to this? Are the other countries simply getting better while we are standing still? We can't actually be getting worse with the same players, can we?
Posted by: 0-5 | 29 May 2011 at 05:50
Sevens side is rubbish and the U20's are getting their butts kicked in Georgia too. Eagles MNT will be getting worked over in England at the Churchill Cup too. When are we going to stop pouring money into these losing programs?
Posted by: Beagles | 29 May 2011 at 06:30
Realist - Why so hostile? I am well aware of Rugby's availability on paid subscription channels. Soccer was on the Fox broadcast channel and is frequently on a ESPN as is lacrosse. Rugby has been available for many years through niche pay per view channels like Setanta. Fox Soccer Plus is a nice newcomer, but nothing like the coverage soccer and lacrosse get on a much broader basis.
Posted by: Sevens | 29 May 2011 at 06:39
There is plenty of quality rugby on TV if you have Direct TV. I personally have no desire to watch CPD or RSL matches on TV. Would like to see more Top 14 however.
Posted by: Rugby on TV | 29 May 2011 at 08:12
Bbbeagles give it a break.
Coach Caravelli may have hit burnout, who can juggle that schedule for more than a year.. and he has been on that tour for what 4-5 years with a full time job? But does that mean stop the program?
As for the u20s looks like the team has no confidence and the forwards are struggling but again, shut the program down?
Come on, we can all question the line items on the expense and lack of revenue but we need the pathway for the athletes and shutting down is not the answer.
Posted by: craig | 29 May 2011 at 08:21
Apologists like Craig need to stand down and admit that the USA national teams are rubbish. We continue to get beaten by countries with a fifth of the number of registered players and far less in funds. USA Rugby is a joke and so are their national teams.
Posted by: Beagles | 29 May 2011 at 08:33
the whole "we need the eagles as a pathway/goal" is really silly. Only a very small percentage of players ever even have thoughts about playing for the national team. college rugby is a bigger goal
Posted by: college | 29 May 2011 at 10:02
Youth, HS, and college programs are growing. There needs to be a pathway from college to top clubs in the 6 and Tri nations. US senior clubs need to develop talent and help them go abroad to develop. From there they can get to the National team. CPD and RSL are not competitive enough to develop elite international athletes.
Posted by: Sevens | 29 May 2011 at 10:59
@ Rugby on TV
you can watch French top 14 all season online for free at espn3. Commentaries are in English In fact just watched the semis and the top 14 is next week.
you can also watch all the sevens series on NBC universal.
Posted by: alan airth | 29 May 2011 at 12:08
This past weekend Russian Rugby beat the Eagles at high profile IRB events twice. At the 7s and the U20 Junior Rugby World Trophy. On the world rankings we are ranked 16 and Russian 19, but these rankings may change as both teams play in the Churchill Cup in a weeks time. Russia and the USA may meet in one of the finals depending on each team's pool play results.
So, based on the below numbers who should be winning IRB 7s, U20 and 15s matches between these two countries?
RUSSIA
Number Of Clubs:154
Number Of Registered Players:14519
Number of Referees:89
Pre-teen Male Players:2878
Pre-teen Female Player:0
Teen Male Player:6853
Teen Female Player:835
Senior Male Player:3633
Senior Female Player:320
Total Male Player:13364
Total Female Player:1155
USA
Number Of Clubs:2433
Number Of Registered Players:88151
Number of Referees:1858
Pre-teen Male Players:2580
Pre-teen Female Player:253
Teen Male Player:28886
Teen Female Player:8929
Senior Male Player:35794
Senior Female Player:11709
Total Male Player:67260
Total Female Player:20891
Obviously we are doing something wrong.
Posted by: Beagles | 29 May 2011 at 18:27
whoa Beagles.
So its not the money or the pathway, its the fact that the people in charge are not executing on your vision?
I am not going to be an Apoligist for anyone, but I do belive that we should have a National Team, not sure what you belive.
Posted by: craig | 29 May 2011 at 21:34
We should have a national team but it should be funded by a sponsors sort by a marketing professional that takes half the wage of our coach. All Cipp Dues and funds from HS and college goes back into those games to develop youth programs.
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | 29 May 2011 at 22:53
How important are strong national teams to the growth and development of the game? Two of our major sports have no international component of all to speak of (yes baseball is played internationally but your average American fan could care less).
There is an international component to basketball and hockey, of course, but even though these have a relatively high profile it is still a sideshow to the professional leagues - basketball moreso than hockey.
Rugby will continue to grow no matter how well we do at the WC. The Olympics may help the 7's game but that will always remain a summer tournament version for most players.
From a marketing point of view 7's has a lot more going for it and is where the US is likely to have better short term success at the international level. So put the primary focus on 7's; grow and improve the domestic 15's game from within and in time the US will be able to compete on both fronts. But it isn't going to happen tomorrowor next week. No matter who is in charge.
Posted by: I played drek rugby - and loved it | 30 May 2011 at 04:10
1. Caravelli's time is up...he has done a great deal, building a real foundation, but we need new eyes, and ideas.
2. We need a national team.
3. We need to realize that sport can still be played at a competitive level after college (even if you have a job)
Some of you are not doing anything to help rugby, all you do is tear it down because it doesn't fit the model you have projected. Go out and build the team in your community and get youth inolved. Quit sitting around grumbling that you don't have access to televised rugby. I watch as much rugby as I can handle and my wife tells me turn it off most days, so I know its there (I don't subscribe to any cable TV).
Posted by: [email protected] | 30 May 2011 at 06:57
USA Rugby is punching way below their weight class. Look at the number of players and clubs we have in this country and we can't beat Russia in 7s or U20s? Something is very wrong with the way the talent in the USA is being developed and selected. I don't know what it is, but basically the USA is getting beat by a union with 1/10 the pool of senior male players as we have. Pathetic.
Posted by: Eagles Are Village Idiots of World Rugby | 30 May 2011 at 07:45
I just finished watching the USA vs Russia match from yesterday, and it is absolutely shocking how we can look the goods for 60-90 second spells, but then go to sleep for 2-3 minutes. Just a real lifeless display from the USA, to much individualism.
Posted by: crashtheline7 | 30 May 2011 at 07:51
With the new USA Rugby rules, Sevens only clubs can be created and players can transfer from 15s clubs and back to their 15s clubs. This is a huge opportunity for well funded sponsors and investors to create their own teams outside of the existing 15s structure. Sponsors can have full control of these teams which are much cheaper to operate than 15s clubs.
Posted by: Sevens | 30 May 2011 at 08:07
And those sponsors are? The Red Bull Raiders, Mercedes Mauraders and Tostitos Titans sound great, but I think you been pulling to many bongs.
Posted by: put it on the tab | 30 May 2011 at 08:16
If by "pulling bongs", you mean thinking creatively, then yes. The current club structures have failed to produce top quality sevens talent as evidenced by he US national team performance. Current US rugby club brand names do not mean anything to the American public. Corporate sponsored Sevens teams might be the answer. A summer sevens team would need to operate for just two months and could get to a National Championship on a small budget.
Posted by: Sevens | 30 May 2011 at 10:50
How can Melville command his salary with performance such as this?
Posted by: last place | 30 May 2011 at 12:17
Melville takes what the Board gives him. I would do the same if I were in his shoes. The big problem here lies with Kevin Roberts. Ask your Congress rep why he or she voted him back onto the Board last September?
Posted by: 0-5 | 30 May 2011 at 18:07
Because its a world cup year and USAR didn't need the drama considering that those boys (Roberts, Melville, etc) are as good as gone after October anyway.
I don't particularly agree with that position but I understand it.
Youth and college rugby has successfully siloed their decision making and the funding will soon follow. There will be very little left for national team funding without some sponsorship. So, Kev and the boys either come up with something next year or the national teams wilt on the vine and they suffer the international embarrassment.
Its fairly easy to see this coming so my guess is they take their VIP trip to NZ for the world cup and then step away declaring victory in the quest to inspire America to fall in love with rugby.
Posted by: Liberace | 30 May 2011 at 20:38
I believe that in the russian school system only olympic sports may be played. With the addition of rugby into the olympics ,all schools will now take this sport up. Also the government will now pour money into the game.
All your points about having or not having a national team are valid-what we need is a pathway to get our players to the required standard-a 2week tour by our AA collegians is not development!
Posted by: paule barford | 30 May 2011 at 21:26
So now we are making excuses why we can't beat Russia with nearly 10 times the number of senior men players? And you wonder how Roberts and Melville walked all over the USA Rugby membership. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Beagles | 31 May 2011 at 00:18
we have similar numbers of men playing as Australia,and more than Ireland!
Posted by: paule barford | 31 May 2011 at 07:54
That is not comparing apples to apples. Those countries are developed rugby nations with sponsorship and broadcasting dollars funding their national team and professional leagues.
Russia is a apples to apples comparison (i.e. two developing rugby nations with only an amateur national competition) and they are equal to us with a 10th of the player pool.
The ultimate insult will be if the Russians beat us in a possible Churchill Cup showdown and at the RWC. That should send Roberts and Melville out the door with little to hang their hat on. Aside the fact that O'Sullivan and Melville lined their back accounts with HS and college kids CIPP dollars.
Posted by: Beagles | 31 May 2011 at 08:09
Guessing there are more qualifed coaches per player in other countries. Also more properly capitalized clubs per player.
Posted by: Sevens | 31 May 2011 at 08:14
Russia has a pro/semi-pro national rugby competition. Its about par or just under par with Italy's Super 10.
Posted by: Sergeant Hulka | 31 May 2011 at 08:53
Mr Beagles or whoever you are-read-I,m not disagreeing with you.We are not optimising our talent pool.Yes we pay our admin too much. So how about some ideas-who do we replace them with?
FYI $50 a day to coach USA "A" I got very wealthy,and didn't even pick the team.
Posted by: barford | 31 May 2011 at 09:33
You're right. The current version of the national competition was started in 2005 a year before Melville came on board USA Rugby, and further proof that they are incompetent in developing rugby in the USA.
The equivalent to the Russian Professional Rugby League in the USA is the RSL, which has little to no sponsorship dollars attributed to the league (individual teams have some sponsors) and zero broadcast dollars. The RSL final was played at Life University in front of maybe 500 to 1000 people.
Posted by: Beagles | 31 May 2011 at 10:17