- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,988
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
A lack of games
The Eagles have assembled this week for their final preparations for the World Cup. If this camp is included in the total, from January 1st to September 11th (the day of their first World Cup match against Ireland) the Eagles will have spent a total of 65 days together. 19 of those were at the Churchill Cup where the Eagles had to play two quick games in succession and had most of their European stars out recovering from their club seasons. 5 of those days were a domestic player camp that included only a few pros and no matches. The biggest chunk of that time is the current camp, which lasts for 41 days and includes 4 games with trips to Canada and Japan, as well as traveling to New Zealand for the World Cup.Those 41 days also include possible rest days and travel days. In total, the team will have played 7 games in that time frame, a game every 9 days. That is not enough time to put a squad together to take on a fellow Tier II nation like Russia, let alone pull off an upset over a team like Italy. Is it any wonder that U.S.A.-Russia seems like a good match up? The way things are set up, one beating the other is probably their only realistic shot at winning a game at the World Cup. If the IRB isn't going to help teams like the U.S., Canada, Portugal, and Russia with meaningful playing time, then why are these teams even at the World Cup?! I think that undoubtedly they should be. Their inclusion is a no-brainier, but it must be asked what good are they doing there? All of these teams are a underutilized asset that could grow the game of rugby around the World. The IRB needs to step with a plan and funding to raise the level of Tier II nations.
Compare the 65 days that the U.S. has to train before the World Cup with almost every other nation in the tournament. Japan, Canada, Romania, and Russia (all Tier II) nations have spent more time together than the Eagles. Tier I nations have the Tri-Nations and the Six-Nations tournaments as preparation and have been in camp for months. Plus, all Tier I nations have all of their players playing in the top leagues around the world. Even Japan has their team entirely professionalized. So, how is the United States, and other Tier II nations supposed to compete at the World Cup if they aren't playing regularly, don't have enough assembly time, and aren't professional? As Bart Simpson said, "We're suppoda catch up to the rest to our class by going slower than they are? Cuckoo!"
The demise of the Churchill Cup is going to assist matters either. If there is one thing the Churchill Cup and other friendlies have taught American fans, is that being beaten soundly by a Tier I nation does nothing. It only shows that are players aren't as good (Not for a lack of talent. You could argue that our players perform better given the resources and time available to them) and that they don't have the same level of experience. Still, the Churchill Cup meant games against other Tier II nations like Uruguay, Russia, Georgia, and Tonga. Getting beaten by the England Saxons was worth it if it meant other meaningful games. These games are by far a better barometre of ability and do a better job of building the team. The Eagles showed what a tour against Tier II nations can do last Autumn when they played Portugal and Georgia in Europe. Both were exciting matches that really let the Eagles show where they were at in terms of level of play. From top to bottom the staff and players felt that this tour was far better in terms of confidence and play than a beat down against France would have been. The IRB's chosen replacement for the Churchill Cup is to have an annual series between the U.S. and Canada, as well as a test against a visiting Tier I nation. I hope that this isn't the best they could do. First of all, the U.S. and Canada could find the time to play each other if their players were available more often. Second, there is no guarantee that at Tier I nation would even send their best players. The game would not do much but satisfy an ex-expatriate community hungry for a live game. A visiting Tier II nation would be a much better option.
The one nice thing about rugby in America is that more and more of our players are going overseas to play. We have players in France, England, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. These players may not always be available for selection because of club committments, but at least it is a positive step. If more and more Americans were to play overseas I doubt the time together would be as big of an issue. Players can get on the same page quickly, but they can't get on the same talent level quickly. The real concern is for the guys who are either fringe players on random teams in Europe that get let go once established players return to health or the LV=Cup is over, or the guys who can't get over there to play because of nationality restrictions. It is these players that need to be provided an opportunity to play. The U.S.A. and other Tier II nations are not getting better because the don't have pros overseas, but because there is not competition to build up overall squad depth and fitness. This is where the IRB needs to step in with a plan.
So, what to do?
Some teams have been creative in their approach to find games. So examples are Namibia and Argentina fielding teams in the Vodacom Cup. For Namibia, it makes sense because of their close proximity to South Africa. For Argentina, their run in the 2007 World Cup has given them money to do things like sending out a basically professional domestic all-star team. Still, they have said they might not play in the tournament again because of cost, despite being the defending champions. Romania and Spain have teams that compete in the European Challenge Cup. Being a part of Europe makes this easy to do and it gives their fringe players that opportunity to get in 6 competitive games. For the U.S., Canada, Portugal, Russia, and Pacific Nations, no such opportunity exists. So what to do?
The solution for the U.S., Canada, Portugal, and Russia is easy in my opinion. Follow the example of Romania and Spain and have them field teams in the European Challenge Cup. Rather than expanding the tournament, sacrifice four teams to make way for these teams. The geography of Portugal and Russia makes it logical for them to compete, but the same can also be true for a U.S. and Canadian team. The East Coast of the United States and Canada is only a six hour flight away. While that may seem like a lot, that is nothing when considering that to go from the East to West Coast of the U.S. or Australia takes five hours. Super Rugby teams regularly travel across continent and for longer distances. If created, these teams would allow fringe players in these countries to get valuable training time together, as well as gaining game experience. If the complaint above was that Tier II nations don't get much time together, it would make sense for the IRB to use platforms, such as the European Challenge Cup, to get them time.
Of course finances are a constant problem. There is no way that the any of these Tier II nations have the funds to pay for a competition like this, even if the squads were entirely amateur. I also doubt that European teams would want to pay for a trip across the Atlantic. The IRB needs to step in with revenues from the World Cup and fund the travel for these teams. I am confident that if the big expenditure of travel were taken care of, the U.S. and other nations could find the funds to run the team. If they were able to get enough sponsorships they may even be able to professionalize the teams. However, the key is still the IRB. They have the resources to fund the game, but they need to show that they have the actual desire. It seems to me, that as business men, they would realize the potential that a small return in the U.S., Canada, or Russia (combined population of 485 million) could have on the IRB's pocketbook.
This is just one way the IRB can get more teams games. Another path could be setting up more tournaments like the Canadian Rugby Championships, even with more expansive seasons. Another option is expanding and strengthening the Americas Rugby Championship. As long as people are creative, they will find a way to make this happen. But changes for Tier II nations can only happen if the Tier I nations and the IRB allow it to happen.
It is time for the IRB to step up a deliver. It is time for them to get serious about getting Tier II nations valuable games. It is time for them to worry about overall squad depth in Tier II nations. They need to do it for the future growth of the game. I don't think there was anything more exciting this year than to watch Samoa knock off Australia. It was exciting because it was an extreme rarity, but it doesn't have to be.
Let me know what you think here, or on www.thisisamericanrugby.com, or on twitter @ThisIsAmerRugby
