The USA's prospects (split thread)

[HowieLO6]

Right, so I've missed some of the conversation. However the jist seems to be can the US put it up to the 6 nations sides in 10 years time?

Not really. I've said that they could challenge the celtic nations (and, by association, I guess the 6nations). I'd suggest that being a challenge to a team is slightly different from doing them over.

That said, your point about flyhalves is pretty significant. While you may have some positions from other sports at highschool that lend themselves to a fair conversion at a young age (get a fair number of decent LB/RB hybrid players, so tacklers who can run decent lines) theres no history of flyhalves. At all. Time for an American passport to be found somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

As an aside, there's all this talk about the domestic game not being strong enough, without a decent professional outfit, yet Argentina does not have a single professional team, with no hint of this on the horizon. Yes, they have a heritage of the game, but its one that is largely played and supported by the upper classes. Whilst not starting form scratch, they've effectively sidestepped the need for any real domestic facilities.

 

[Peat]

Firstly, I was only suggesting they'd be capable of challenging the celtic nations, rather than doing them over. I see a significant difference between those two statements.

In terms of elite, I'd contest that the elite are the absolute pinnacle of any given field. The choicest, the very best, the superior, however you wish to put it. Namely, the ABs, SA, possibly Oz too.

As far as I am concerned, a team that does not stand a respectable chance of victory isn't a challenge. They're just there to make up the numbers. Either the USA will be able to beat Ireland, or they won't be a challenge.

How would you define a challenge?

Ireland and Wales just beat South Africa. I am all for drawing a hard line over what is elite and what is not, but if Ireland aren't elite at present, then they are the merest step or two down and have more right to the ***le than Australia. Wales are a comfortable rung down at the moment, but it wasn't that long ago that they were well up there.

In terms of hockey, its a decent example but the significant support and interest comes largely from the northern states, with the majority from Minnesota, Michigan and new Hampshire. Of the top 30 cities for NHL player origins, Sweden has two, the US has two, Finland has one, Russia has one. Canada? 24. Its not an American sport and the nationality of the top tier players clearly shows this. They have plenty of successful American franchises - lets be honest, they're great at this - but its not a game that has significant participation in the populous states. Where is rugby taking off? California, Texas and the affluent east coast.

I suppose that this does support the idea that number do not equate to world dominance, but I'm not suggesting they'll be an elite setup.

No, it's not a universal sport - only a half million kids playing it in 2014. But that's about half as many kids as Finland has total. More importantly, those kids are getting coaching and everything as good as anywhere in the world, more or less. Are the wee US rugby players gonna be getting that? Are they balls. How long has it taken the US to build to where they are?

As an aside, there's all this talk about the domestic game not being strong enough, without a decent professional outfit, yet Argentina does not have a single professional team, with no hint of this on the horizon.

Uhm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Super_Rugby_team

 

[Feicarsinn]

Not really. I've said that they could challenge the celtic nations (and, by association, I guess the 6nations). I'd suggest that being a challenge to a team is slightly different from doing them over.

That said, your point about flyhalves is pretty significant. While you may have some positions from other sports at highschool that lend themselves to a fair conversion at a young age (get a fair number of decent LB/RB hybrid players, so tacklers who can run decent lines) theres no history of flyhalves. At all. Time for an American passport to be found somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

As an aside, there's all this talk about the domestic game not being strong enough, without a decent professional outfit, yet Argentina does not have a single professional team, with no hint of this on the horizon. Yes, they have a heritage of the game, but its one that is largely played and supported by the upper classes. Whilst not starting form scratch, they've effectively sidestepped the need for any real domestic facilities.

Wales and Ireland make up 2 of the 3 Celtic nations, and have been the strongest NH sides over the past 8 years or so. If you can challenge the Celtic nations, you can challenge the rest of Europe.

As to Argentina, they are getting a Super rugby side as Peat mentioned. They also benefit from the fact that rugby in Argentina is highly concentrated around the Buenos Aires area, which makes talent identification a lot easier. I don't think the situation is comparable to the states.

 

[goodNumber10]

I never gave a time frame, so don't try to force the "10 years from now" idea down my throat.

probably best if you don't' join a conversation about how the Americans will rule the world in 10 years time then...

Perhaps. But there is no denying that they are focusing at an age group (College students) and work from there. Just because they don't have a professional domestic league doesn't mean they won't become competitive, look at Australia.

Australia have had professional rugby since 1996 and play in an elite Rugby Tournament at both domestic/provincial and international level.

No one is saying they wont' become competitive, we're just saying that it's ludicrous to think that in 10 years time the USA will have developed enough to be knocking over Elite Teams.

All I'm saying is that if they manage to throw some money to a tier 1 side like SA, then it could make their development program get a jumpstart that could change the couple of decades into a couple of years.

Exactly, in a couple of decades, not in 10 years which is what Howie is saying.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I think its clear they have both the finances and infrastructure.

They clearly don't have it if it's piggy backing off other sports programs as you suggest.

If you're talking money and training facilities, they're way ahead of the curve. High school gyms that put our professional outfits to shame.

No!

We're talking coaching and professional infrastructures getting resources to where they'll make a difference, they simply do not have that - developing rugby is not about going in the gym and lifting weights and running fast.

It's about skill development, talent identification, coaching the coaches and a world of other things.

To claim USA have this in place in a scope that will change the standings in world rugby in less than 10 years is naive.

Correct me if I'm wrong but saying "they currently don't have the player base, nor playing or coaching infrastructures to compete at elite international level", is that not referring to their current player base? Thats way off right now, I think thats abundantly clear to all. The rate at which its being taken up suggests that this won't be the case going forward. You made a very valid point RE the u20 cup, but are the u20 nations not extremely cyclical? A high turnover of players from year to year, so who's to say whats bubbling under in the u18 setup.

No.

And the foundations are at youth level, no? How are these youth levels in, say, Scotland compared to that of America? They're different, in terms of expertise, but the system is clearly more conducive to growth in the States. Again, like I say, challenge the celtic nations, not do them over.

I give up....

 

[HowieLO6]

As far as I am concerned, a team that does not stand a respectable chance of victory isn't a challenge. They're just there to make up the numbers. Either the USA will be able to beat Ireland, or they won't be a challenge.

How would you define a challenge?

Ireland and Wales just beat South Africa. I am all for drawing a hard line over what is elite and what is not, but if Ireland aren't elite at present, then they are the merest step or two down and have more right to the ***le than Australia. Wales are a comfortable rung down at the moment, but it wasn't that long ago that they were well up there.



No, it's not a universal sport - only a half million kids playing it in 2014. But that's about half as many kids as Finland has total. More importantly, those kids are getting coaching and everything as good as anywhere in the world, more or less. Are the wee US rugby players gonna be getting that? Are they balls. How long has it taken the US to build to where they are?



Uhm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Super_Rugby_team

Well, for me a challenge is a game that isn't going to be a walkover, that one has to play hard in to come away with a result. Perhaps both sides of the coin should have been clearer. Either way, I do not equate a challenge to a do over of any team. In my experience, I can come away from a game having been challenged - such a challenge to define challenge without saying challenge - yet having put 20-30 points on the oppo.

In terms of elite, if you consider Ireland to be top-3 then so be it. Top 2-3 ought to constitute the truly elite. But lest we forget that Scotland are some way off of that!

With hockey, there is a bottle neck situation that has to be considered. While you can have 50 of the worlds finest players, only 5 of those can be on the rink at any given moment. In terms of half a million, strictly speaking its 350k up to u18. Not small change, granted, but this is a niche sport in terms of participation. In terms of the coaching, you're absolutely right. The facilities available at the prep schools - hockey's bastions - are exceptional. But how many of the 350k are playing the multitude of other sports compared to Finland? Its an interesting case, with reasonable parallels, but even Canada has noted that they have serious problems with how they develop their youth when compared to the Scandinavian countries.


And I suppose I should have been more specific! I was merely pointing out that a domestic professional competition is not necessarily essential, however possible in the states. Is one domestic professional outfit really a professional competition?

 

[goodNumber10]

Well, for me a challenge is a game that isn't going to be a walkover, that one has to play hard in to come away with a result. Perhaps both sides of the coin should have been clearer. Either way, I do not equate a challenge to a do over of any team. In my experience, I can come away from a game having been challenged - such a challenge to define challenge without saying challenge - yet having put 20-30 points on the oppo.

Our 2nd team smashed the USA continually in the Churchill cup, the u20's do not even compete in the top tier of age group rugby and haven't for 3 years, they have qualified twice and this ear didn't even qualify for the Trophy (2nd tier tournament).

This is the group of players you're prediciting will rocket the USA into the stratosphere of Tier one rugby in less than 10 years, yet they cannot even qualify for a Tier 2 torunament against teams like Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Portugal.

Come on.

In terms of elite, if you consider Ireland to be top-3 then so be it. Top 2-3 ought to constitute the truly elite. But lest we forget that Scotland are some way off of that!

Ireland are currently ranked 2nd in the world

And I suppose I should have been more specific! I was merely pointing out that a domestic professional competition is not necessarily essential, however possible in the states. Is one domestic professional outfit really a professional competition?

Argentinian players have been playing elite rugby for decades, their players en masse have been playign professional rugby in europe.

Their b team plays provincial rugby in South Africa (or at least did), they are a completely different animal to USA.

 

[HowieLO6]

No one is saying they wont' become competitive, we're just saying that it's ludicrous to think that in 10 years time the USA will have developed enough to be knocking over Elite Teams.


Exactly, in a couple of decades, not in 10 years which is what Howie is saying.

- - - Updated - - -



They clearly don't have it if it's piggy backing off other sports programs as you suggest.



No!

We're talking coaching and professional infrastructures getting resources to where hey'll make a difference, they simply do not have that - developing rugby is not about going in the gym and lifting weights and running fast.

It's about skill development, talent identification, coaching the coaches and world of other things.

To claim USA have this in place in a scope that will change the standings in world rugby in less than 10 years is naive.



No.



I give up....

Come now. I take the time to respond to your points, yet you get a free pass with a no and a white flag?

Where has it been said that they'd knock over Elite teams? Take a look back, all thats had been said is that they'd put up a challenge to the celtic nations. Please feel free to point me in the direction as to where either of us say that Elite teams would be knocked over.

Its not so much piggybacking as simply have the land, the money and the inclination. More taking advantage of recent developments in football and the health implications. Although why does it matter if the gym and training facilities are built for the entire athletics setup at a school, rather than just rugby? That physical infrastructure remains there, just serving multiple purposes. Hartbury provide for a multitude of sports.

In terms of coaching, you're not wrong. But you underestimate how much money high school sports have, and how much rugby is gaining traction in the areas where this is greatest.

No idea what the No is for. I'm assuming thats the equivalent of one-upmanship, showing me who's the big dog in here. Noted. But I still think you're wrong there. The turnover in u20 teams is relatively high, due to the nature of the competition.


But just in case you've forgotten already, there's no suggestion that they will do over an elite teams.

 

[ZeroTwo]

This is the group of players you're prediciting will rocket the USA into the stratosphere of Tier one rugby in less than 10 years, yet they cannot even qualify for a Tier 2 torunament against teams like Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Portugal.

Tier 2?! How very kind of you.

 

[HowieLO6]

This is the group of players you're prediciting will rocket the USA into the stratosphere of Tier one rugby in less than 10 years

Now at least I know you're being willfully obtuse.

In fairness, I see the originator was the one who suggested the manhandling of the celtic nations from the off. I thought I'd made it clear that I certainly wasn't arguing that, but maybe not clearly enough.

 

[goodNumber10]

Tier 2?! How very kind of you.

Well, it's the 2nd level tournament for youth, so i think that qualifies as Tier 2 no? Tournament wise, not national squad wise.

- - - Updated - - -

Come now. I take the time to respond to your points, yet you get a free pass with a no and a white flag?

Where has it been said that they'd knock over Elite teams? Take a look back, all thats had been said is that they'd put up a challenge to the celtic nations. Please feel free to point me in the direction as to where either of us say that Elite teams would be knocked over.

You're talking about being competitive, to be competitive you need to occasionally beat teams better than yourself at the very least - USA just finished 5th in the PNC with one win against a japan B side.

What you're talking about is being valliant losers.

Its not so much piggybacking as simply have the land, the money and the inclination. More taking advantage of recent developments in football and the health implications. Although why does it matter if the gym and training facilities are built for the entire athletics setup at a school, rather than just rugby? That physical infrastructure remains there, just serving multiple purposes. Hartbury provide for a multitude of sports.

It doesn't but as i've said preperation for rugby is more than just sharing gym space.

HartPURY is a rugby specific school, it is a regional academy AFAIK, it is a different world to US collegiate rugby.

In terms of coaching, you're not wrong. But you underestimate how much money high school sports have, and how much rugby is gaining traction in the areas where this is greatest.

I don't underestimate it in the slightest. But money alone will not change the sport in 10 years as you have repeatedly claimed.

No idea what the No is for. I'm assuming thats the equivalent of one-upmanship, showing me who's the big dog in here. Noted. But I still think you're wrong there. The turnover in u20 teams is relatively high, due to the nature of the competition.

I have no idea what that first bit was about, i'm merey illustrating that whole paragraph is just wrong.

The U20's turn over is a two year cycle (roughly) it covers, U19/U20's, they are not competitiveat youth level, no where near, to claim that can be transferred to the standard you're claiming is just plain wrong.

I just don't know how to explain this to you in any other way, strong Rugby at youth level equates to strong seniors - USA do not have strong youth rugby. They have potential and numbers - very very different.

But just in case you've forgotten already, there's no suggestion that they will do over an elite teams.

That's exactly what you're alluding to.

 

[HowieLO6]

You're talking about being competitive, to be competitive you need to occasionally beat teams better than yourself at the very least - USA just finished 5th in the PNC with one win against a japan B side.

What you're talking about is being valliant losers.


HartPURY is a rugby specific school, it is a regional academy AFAIK, it is a different world to US collegiate rugby.

I don't underestimate it in the slightest. But money alone will not chaneg the sport in 10 years as you have repeatedly claimed.

I'm not wrong, the U20's turn over is a two year cycle (roughly) it covers, U19/U20's, they are not competitiveat youth level, no where near, to claim that can be transferred to the standard you're claiming is just plain wrong.

I just don't know how to explain this to you in any other way, strong Rugby at youth level equates to strong seniors - USA do not have strong youth rugby. They have potential and numbers - very very different.



That's exactly what you're alluding to.

I'd argue that most rugby teams play with a sense of pride that makes them valiant losers, whatever the score. Thats not what I'm arguing. The USA currently arent a challenge. A win is a foregone conclusion. A challenge would represent having to play your top players at a high tempo to secure a win.

Resorting to correcting my spelling mistakes? Come now. Has it come to that? A b instead of a p, well done. You can have that one. They do now provide quality football facilities, but that's by the by.

I've not said that money alone will. I've given you numbers showing just how much participation has grown in the key demographics. What I've said is that they have the capacity to support this explosion in participation.

In terms of the U20, was their lack of participation not entirely down to losing in a playoff against Canada? Not a case of being worse than Portugal - the hosts - or Hong Kong, but a case of losing a playoff? Are you not being a little selective in your information there? Yes, they're not a great outfit, but you're painting them to be a whole lot worse than they are.

And I'm not arguing that, at all. How does doing over equate to challenging?

 

[goodNumber10]

I'd argue that most rugby teams play with a sense of pride that makes them valiant losers, whatever the score. Thats not what I'm arguing. The USA currently arent a challenge. A win is a foregone conclusion. A challenge would represent having to play your top players at a high tempo to secure a win.

and you think that will happen in the next 10 years because they have got a lot of kids playing the game?

Resorting to correcting my spelling mistakes? Come now. Has it come to that? A b instead of a p, well done. You can have that one. They do now provide quality football facilities, but that's by the by.

No just poining out the School is Hartpury not Hartbury

They are a Rugby specific school who feed into professional Rugby Clubs such as Gloucester.

I've not said that money alone will. I've given you numbers showing just how much participation has grown in the key demographics. What I've said is that they have the capacity to support this explosion in participation.

Capacity and potential are nothing without the means to convert that into results - they don't have the means.

You're entire argument/point is that they could. No one has challenged that,what everyone is challenging is your assumption that having 28,00 high school kids playing rugby will somehow equal a team capable of challenging the worlds best in less than 10 years. And they will do all this without the elite level structures tat the same countries you think they will challenge have in place.

In terms of the U20, was their lack of participation not entirely down to losing in a playoff against Canada? Not a case of being worse than Portugal - the hosts - or Hong Kong, but a case of losing a playoff?

I doesn't matter how they didn't qualify, the point is they didn't. For for the 2nd level competition, but you think somehow these same kids are going to challenge the elite divisions in 10 years time.

And I'm not arguing that, at all. How does doing over equate to challenging?

Even using your definition of Challenging they are way off even achieving that on a regular basis.

They may get one off results that look good, but it's highly unlikely they will be able to produce a sustainable competitive national team in 10 years

 

[HowieLO6]

and you think that will happen in the next 10 years because they have got a lot of kids playing the game?



No just poining out the School is Hartpury not Hartbury

They are a Rugby specific school who feed into professional Rugby Clubs such as Gloucester.



Capacity and potential are nothing without the means to convert that into results - they don't have the means.

You're entire argument/point is that they could. No one has challenged that,what everyone is challenging is your assumption that having 28,00 high school kids playing rugby will somehow equal a team capable of challenging the worlds best in less than 10 years. And they will do all this without the elite level structures tat the same countries you think they will challenge have in place.



I doesn't matter how they didn't qualify, the point is they didn't. For for the 2nd level competition, but you think somehow these same kids are going to challenge the elite divisions in 10 years time.



Even using your definition of Challenging they are way off even achieving that on a regular basis.

They may get one off results that look good, but it's highly unlikely they will be able to produce a sustainable competitive national team in 10 years

I think they've got a fair crack at it, yes. It was 28,000 in 2011. In terms of updated statistics, 2008-2013 saw rugby participation grow by 85%, while football dropped by 21%. Yes, I'm hypothesising, just as you are. And I think its not unreasonable to think that the structures will improve. Remember, I'm not looking for elite here!

I know who Hartpury are. Thanks for pointing it out. I was pointing out that they are not just a rugby-centric setup, but have a number of pro footballers who have come through their ranks. Having decent facilities can support all sports.

And it does matter! You've made it clear that they didn't qualify against HK and Portugal, when it was against the team that came second against which they had to qualify. That does make a difference.

And finally we can agree that I'm not in fact suggesting that they would do over any Elite teams?

 

[goodNumber10]

I think they've got a fair crack at it, yes. It was 28,000 in 2011. In terms of updated statistics, 2008-2013 saw rugby participation grow by 85%, while football dropped by 21%. Yes, I'm hypothesising, just as you are. And I think its not unreasonable to think that the structures will improve. Remember, I'm not looking for elite here!

Growth in Numbers dos not equate QUALITY, what don't you understand? High school kids are aged 13-18? That means you reckon that children not playing in an environment that already produces professional rugby players will do so to a level to challenge the world order in 10 years, and that US Rugby will be able to set up a program that can develop these children to that level.

Do you actually coach? Have you been involved in coaching? Because you genuinely seem to have no clue as to how hard developing players actually is.

I know who Hartpury are. Thanks for pointing it out. I was pointing out that they are not just a rugby-centric setup, but have a number of pro footballers who have come through their ranks. Having decent facilities can support all sports.

Hartpury college is directly linked with a professional club in Gloucester, and semi pro club in Hartpury, and has a long standing history of producing top elite level rugby players. Comparing Hartpurys Rugby specific programming to a US college on the basis of they also do other sports is beyond ridiculous.

And it does matter! You've made it clear that they didn't qualify against HK and Portugal, when it was against the team that came second against which they had to qualify. That does make a difference.

All that matter is that they couldn't qualify for the second level of the competition, yet somehow you think they will be able to be up skilled to the degree where they will challenge the players in the top global competition in less than 10 years?

Players who have gone directly to elite professional rugby and international Rugby against other Elite players?

It just ain't going to happen.

USA's target for the next 10 years is to consistently beat teams at their own level, if you can't understand that I honestly don't' know what else to say.

 

[HowieLO6]

Growth in Numbers dos not equate QUALITY, what don't you understand? High school kids are aged 13-18? That means you reckon that children not playing in an environment that already produces professional rugby players will do so to a level to challenge the world order in 10 years, and that US Rugby will be able to set up a program that can develop these children to that level.

Do you actually coach? Have you been involved in coaching? Because you genuinely seem to have no clue as to how hard developing players actually is.



Hartpury college is directly linked with a professional club in Gloucester, and semi pro club in Hartpury, and has a long standing history of producing top elite level rugby players. Comparing Hartpurys Rugby specific programming to a US college on the basis of they also do other sports is beyond ridiculous.



All that matter is that they couldn't qualify for the second level of the competition, yet somehow you think they will be able to be up skilled to the degree where they will challenge the players in the top global competition in less than 10 years?

Players who have gone directly to elite professional rugby and international Rugby against other Elite players?

It just ain't going to happen.

USA's target for the next 10 years is to consistently beat teams at their own level, if you can't understand that I honestly don't' know what else to say.

No, it doesn't guarantee quality, but it can certainly help. The current crop of international players had very little in terms of support. Very few schools participating, limited sponsorship if indeed any at all, and none on TV, and yet they still scrap. Far from world beaters, but they've done a fair bit with no real contribution from sporting circles.

Yet now JP Morgan Chase have ponied up money to cover the cost of youth development staff throughout the states, with 2 million 6-12 year olds playing Rookie Rugby since 2008. The money and the numbers won't guarantee quality, but the scale at which they're supporting the development of the game is without comparison.

I gather that, and yes I have started to coach, albeit with an obscenely talented bunch. Having 800 kids as part of the setup certainly helps. Numbers seem to bring some talent to the ranks.

The Hartpury point was a response to you suggesting that rugby is piggybacking on the physical infrastructure, so its nothing to do with college sports. If the training facilities are there, does it matter which sport had them built. Hartpury have benefited from their training facilities such that their football output is of a high standard.

On the U20 point, it does matter. They had to play against the team that came second in order to get there. When they've taken part, they've got a 1st and 3rd to their name. You've been suggesting that they're beneath HK and Portugal, yet this is not the case.

And I'll take your silence as tacit acceptance that I'm not suggesting that they will do over any elite teams in a decade.

 

[goodNumber10]

No, it doesn't guarantee quality, but it can certainly help. The current crop of international players had very little in terms of support. Very few schools participating, limited sponsorship if indeed any at all, and none on TV, and yet they still scrap. Far from world beaters, but they've done a fair bit with no real contribution from sporting circles.

Yet there re teams with far less who have done better.

Yet now JP Morgan Chase have ponied up money to cover the cost of youth development staff throughout the states, with 2 million 6-12 year olds playing Rookie Rugby since 2008. The money and the numbers won't guarantee quality, but the scale at which they're supporting the development of the game is without comparison.

you keep saying the same thing, over and over again, numbers does not mean quality. Additionally whilst US Rugby is developing so is the rest of the world, they wil for the forseeable future be keeping up with the jonses and there is nothign wrong with that. Their priority is to turn Rugby into a self-sustinable professional sport.

I gather that, and yes I have started to coach, albeit with an obscenely talented bunch. Having 800 kids as part of the setup certainly helps. Numbers seem to bring some talent to the ranks.

But numbers are useless without the ability to turn those kids into quality players, and those talented players you mention are worthless o the national cause unless you have the identification and development pathways in place.

The Hartpury point was a response to you suggesting that rugby is piggybacking on the physical infrastructure, so its nothing to do with college sports. If the training facilities are there, does it matter which sport had them built. Hartpury have benefited from their training facilities such that their football output is of a high standard.

I never said it matters who built the facilities, i said facilities don't mean squat without the right programs and pathways in place. Hartpury have them i place for Football, the US college systems doens't, you said they would still be great because they have great sports programs for other sports.

On the U20 point, it does matter. They had to play against the team that came second in order to get there. When they've taken part, they've got a 1st and 3rd to their name. You've been suggesting that they're beneath HK and Portugal, yet this is not the case.

No, I said they failed to qualify for that competition, a competition that HK and Portugal also compete in, and yet you think they will beat players in the top competition.

If they cannot consistently produce players who can qualify for that competition how will they qualify for the JWC? JWC is a key stage in the road map for elite rugby player development.

And I'll take your silence as tacit acceptance that I'm not suggesting that they will do over any elite teams in a decade. Finally.

Take it how you want honestly couldn't' care, you;re just repeating the same theoretical claims over an over, there really isn't much else to discuss.

 

[HowieLO6]

Yet there re teams with far less who have done better.

you keep saying the same thing, over and over again, numbers does not mean quality. Additionally whilst US Rugby is developing so is the rest of the world, they wil for the forseeable future be keeping up with the jonses and there is nothign wrong with that. Their priority is to turn Rugby into a self-sustinable professional sport.

But numbers are useless without the ability to turn those kids into quality players, and those talented players you mention are worthless o the national cause unless you have the identification and development pathways in place.

I never said it matters who built the facilities, i said facilities don't mean squat without the right programs and pathways in place. Hartpury have them i place for Football, the US college systems doens't, you said they would still be great because they have great sports programs for other sports.

No, I said they failed to qualify for that competition, a competition that HK and Portugal also compete in, and yet you think they will beat players in the top competition.

If they cannot consistently produce players who can qualify for that competition how will they qualify for the JWC? JWC is a key stage in the road map for elite rugby player development.



Take it how you want honestly couldn't' care, you;re just repeating the same theoretical claims over an over, there really isn't much else to discuss.

In terms of the current crop of US players, I'm not sure which teams have done better with less? This is a tough one for either of us to prove really. While recent participation is certainly up, it was not the case for those currently in the national squad, by and large. For my money, they've not done bad to date, all things considered.

I'm agreeing with you there; numbers do no necessarily mean quality. But these are numbers that outstrip a lot of whats been seen before in terms of sports take-up. Money can help facilitate this. Money - like that from JPMC - funds youth development staff. They've been doing this for 5 years now, so clearly they have identified that theres' a gap there.

In terms of the facilities, we've both crossed wires here. I've never said that other sports programmes filter down to rugby, but more the fact that some 14 year olds have facilities that put some of professional outfits to shame, and while this isnt the be-all and end-all, it will certainly help in the long-run. But you are right about the lack of viable coaching.

"yet they cannot even qualify for a Tier 2 tournament against teams like Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Portugal" - They couldn't qualify for the Tier 2 competition because they lost to Canada, the 2nd best team, which was the route by which they had to quality. They came 3rd the year prior, and 1st two prior to that, so there's at least signs of youth ability there.

And I will take it as so. Not having you insisting that I consider them capable of doing over elite opposition in 10 years time is a nice break for me.

 

[psychic duck]

Our 2nd team smashed the USA continually in the Churchill cup, the u20's do not even compete in the top tier of age group rugby and haven't for 3 years, they have qualified twice and this ear didn't even qualify for the Trophy (2nd tier tournament).

This is the group of players you're prediciting will rocket the USA into the stratosphere of Tier one rugby in less than 10 years, yet they cannot even qualify for a Tier 2 torunament against teams like Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Portugal.

I'm not commenting on the issue of USA in 10 years, although Feicarsinn is along the right lines imo.

However these statements don't back up what you are trying to say. U20 point is quite far from the mark. Firstly as already pointed out, they were in a straight shoot out with Canada (who finished 2nd) to qualify, so there's no way not qualifying meant inferiority to the likes of Portugal (qualified automatically as hosts) or Hong Kong (qualified as best Asian beating Korea).

But more importantly, USA do not field their strongest players at U20 as most of them are playing college instead. If you look at their team, the majority of the players, such as players like Manoa, Clever never played U20.

There was even talk at them scrapping their U20 team altogether and focusing funds elsewhere as they've rarely field proper team resembling their place at that level. If they were to, then it's likely they would probably be one of, if not the strongest side in that tournament.

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm not commenting on the issue of USA in 10 years, although Feicarsinn is along the right lines imo.

However these statements don't back up what you are trying to say. U20 point is quite far from the mark. Firstly as already pointed out, they were in a straight shoot out with Canada (who finished 2nd) to qualify, so there's no way not qualifying meant inferiority to the likes of Portugal (qualified automatically as hosts) or Hong Kong (qualified as best Asian beating Korea).

I never said they were inferior to those teams, I was demonstrating the level of teams that were in that second tier competition so i'm not sure how i'm wide of the mark.

The point i'm making is that a successful U20's program is essential for a top flight International side - and without a top class U20's program they will not be exposed to elite rugby.

But more importantly, USA do not field their strongest players at U20 as most of them are playing college instead. If you look at their team, the majority of the players, such as players like Manoa, Clever never played U20.

Clever played US U19's.

Manoa never played college rugby either afaia, but it doesn't exactly undermine my point because the US team isn't exactly world dominant or turning over the Tier 1 nations.

Both players you have specified have been taken out of the US rugby program and developed away from it professionally - clever via NZ and Samu via AP.

Also i'd say your point further illustrates mine. The need for better U20/youth management or that they don't have the correct infrastructures in place if so few of their national team come through the age grades.

 

[psychic duck]

I never said they were inferior to those teams, I was demonstrating the level of teams that were in that second tier competition so i'm not sure how i'm wide of the mark.

The point i'm making is that a successful U20's program is essential for a top flight International side - and without a top class U20's program they will not be exposed to elite rugby.



Clever played US U19's.

Manoa never played college rugby either afaia, but it doesn't exactly undermine my point because the US team isn't exactly world dominant or turning over the Tier 1 nations.

Both players you have specified have been taken out of the US rugby program and developed away from it professionally - clever via NZ and Samu via AP.

Also i'd say your point further illustrates mine. The need for better U20/youth management or that they don't have the correct infrastructures in place if so few of their national team come through the age grades.

No you are very wide of the mark, as in the specific case of the USA, U20 is a terrible measure of judging them by, and only those who do not know an awful lot about USA rugby would do so.

Made a slip up on Clever, but the point still stands that the U20 team is far from their best with it coinciding with the time most are playing college. Relatively few of the senior national team will be drawn from age grades. Players like Manoa, Scully etc don't feature at U20. I'm not even arguing there will be significant change in the rankings in the near future, but pointing out U20 results without understanding the context of it is a particularly weak argument. Not going to the U20 trophy is of zero bearing or gives any indication on the future or progress of US rugby.