The USA's prospects (split thread)

[goodNumber10]

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.

No you are missing the point, as you so often do - I'm not judging the US by their youth program results. I AM saying they do not have a good U20 program, which you are agreeing with me on.

I'm trying to illustrate that youth rugby is not run well in America despite numbers involved - that talent identification is not up to European and SH standards, that their development programs do not produce elite rugby players because they are not exposed to a high standard of rugby at youth/age grade levels and that they will not get to the level Howie claims they will without good youth programs in place that expose them to elite rugby.

 

[Peat]

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!

So... challenge is like Scotland playing us, right? We don't play well enough, we lose? Sorry Scots, needed a good example. And Scotland is the sort of team you're looking at them challenging? I think saying Celtic countries is a poor pick given how good some of them are, so lets say Scotland and Italy instead. You reckon the USA's growth means they're not far off having a real go at Scotland, is that fair? Not necessarily beating them 50pc of the time, but being a good match to watch and forcing the Scots to play like they mean it? Just trying to define the situation.

Which is... possible. But consider all the investment and tradition Japan have put in. Would you say they're in that position? I probably wouldn't and I think the US is a bit off of being Japan. But fair enough if you do. I do think you're underestimating the difficulties though.

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.

You can only have five on the ice at any given moment, but over the course of the game you'll be extensively using 19 players. Rugby can only have 15 on the pitch at any one moment, but you'll be extensively using 23. The bottlenecks aren't that dissimilar I'd suggest.

It has reached half a million up to u18 based on the stats I saw - .55m to be precise. But yes, a niche, but a very professional one up against mostly small countries. Besides, rugby isn't? Going by one of Heineken's links "More than 115,000 people are registered members of USA Rugby, including over 67,000 high school students." Now, this hockey stat included 6 up, the high school students figure doesn't, but we're still looking at about a 800-900pc growth needed to have the same depth. I know its growing fast and has big potential, but that would be pretty phenomenal growth to achieve and you'd expect that to show at adult level a good 10 years after its achieved. Plus, as noted everywhere, you need quality backing behind those guys.

Now, yeah, this is all shaky stuff, but I'd say its a decent rough comparison of what a decently strong niche American sport looks like on the global stage. And I'd argue that Rugby is a bigger church than hockey at the moment.

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?

Actually you were very specific - "yet Argentina does not have a single professional team, with no hint of this on the horizon"

Its not a professional competition no, but it is the start of steps in that direction. At the very least, I can imagine a second franchise within 10 years. Scotland will try to rise a third Pro Rugby franchise.

A professional domestic league hasn't been a necessity in a lot of countries though, no. Whether that's true in the US with less history I don't know, but I don't know either way. But, in any case, be they amateur or pro, the US will need very strong rugby institutions to talent spot and develop. The US being the US, I think the Colleges gives them a great head start - they're strong institutions, they just need to tie rugby on. But they still need young kids to give scholarships to, and that might take more development time.

Time will tell though. But, as said, I do think you're not weighing the advantages and difficulties fully here.

 

[HowieLO6]

So... challenge is like Scotland playing us, right? We don't play well enough, we lose? Sorry Scots, needed a good example. And Scotland is the sort of team you're looking at them challenging? I think saying Celtic countries is a poor pick given how good some of them are, so lets say Scotland and Italy instead. You reckon the USA's growth means they're not far off having a real go at Scotland, is that fair? Not necessarily beating them 50pc of the time, but being a good match to watch and forcing the Scots to play like they mean it? Just trying to define the situation.

Which is... possible. But consider all the investment and tradition Japan have put in. Would you say they're in that position? I probably wouldn't and I think the US is a bit off of being Japan. But fair enough if you do. I do think you're underestimating the difficulties though.



You can only have five on the ice at any given moment, but over the course of the game you'll be extensively using 19 players. Rugby can only have 15 on the pitch at any one moment, but you'll be extensively using 23. The bottlenecks aren't that dissimilar I'd suggest.

It has reached half a million up to u18 based on the stats I saw - .55m to be precise. But yes, a niche, but a very professional one up against mostly small countries. Besides, rugby isn't? Going by one of Heineken's links "More than 115,000 people are registered members of USA Rugby, including over 67,000 high school students." Now, this hockey stat included 6 up, the high school students figure doesn't, but we're still looking at about a 800-900pc growth needed to have the same depth. I know its growing fast and has big potential, but that would be pretty phenomenal growth to achieve and you'd expect that to show at adult level a good 10 years after its achieved. Plus, as noted everywhere, you need quality backing behind those guys.

Now, yeah, this is all shaky stuff, but I'd say its a decent rough comparison of what a decently strong niche American sport looks like on the global stage. And I'd argue that Rugby is a bigger church than hockey at the moment.




Actually you were very specific - "yet Argentina does not have a single professional team, with no hint of this on the horizon"

Its not a professional competition no, but it is the start of steps in that direction. At the very least, I can imagine a second franchise within 10 years. Scotland will try to rise a third Pro Rugby franchise.

A professional domestic league hasn't been a necessity in a lot of countries though, no. Whether that's true in the US with less history I don't know, but I don't know either way. But, in any case, be they amateur or pro, the US will need very strong rugby institutions to talent spot and develop. The US being the US, I think the Colleges gives them a great head start - they're strong institutions, they just need to tie rugby on. But they still need young kids to give scholarships to, and that might take more development time.

Time will tell though. But, as said, I do think you're not weighing the advantages and difficulties fully here.

I think thats a reasonable assumption, considering. The celtic nations were the first that were bandied about, then the 6 nations. Then it was suggested that I was of the opinion that the celtic nations would be done over. Just to be clear, I'm not.

"To test ones abilities" I guess is a reasonable starting point. Whether thats testing Ireland's abilities by only conceding 30 or running Scotland close. Should probably have defined this a little earlier, especially as I'm no closer to doing so.

Without wanting to veer onto Japan too much, I see your point. Big ex-pat community and access to plenty of Antipodes. Decent support and a pro league. But - and here's what stands the US apart - they don't really have that sports culture thats ingrained into them. I know, its been hammered home, but they have so much more at their disposal in terms of financial and physical infrastructure resources. The rugby demographic, even more so, considering the states and schools that are pushing the game.

On the hockey front, we're both using the same numbers from USA hockey. Hate to be a pedant (sort of) but of 533k registered hockey players, 174k are adults. In terms of the bottlenecks, more a case of alluding to why smaller nations such as Finland can challenge, as they don't need quite so much strength in depth, but you're right. Big squads on both sides. Shaky ground indeed, but it does support what you're saying in terms of having to compete.

And I knew I should have said league. Fair point though. They've enough to support a S16 (?) team, which is more that the US right now. Shows whats possible though, eh!

In terms of the colleges, it has already started. While all the major colleges - academics and sports - have teams, universities like Notre Dame and Miami are well on the way with significant investment and scholarships (to be clear, no idea what these constitute; some are for a few hundred dollars a term, ND suggest that its a little more than this), albeit with the help of a fair few south african imports.

 

[psychic duck]

No you are missing the point, as you so often do - I'm not judging the US by their youth program results. I AM saying they do not have a good U20 program, which you are agreeing with me on.

I'm trying to illustrate that youth rugby is not run well in America despite numbers involved - that talent identification is not up to European and SH standards, that their development programs do not produce elite rugby players because they are not exposed to a high standard of rugby at youth/age grade levels and that they will not get to the level Howie claims they will without good youth programs in place that expose them to elite rugby.

You are talking on something you are ignorant of whilst presenting yourself as an expert, like you so often do. That U20 side has little relevance to talent identification when most of those who are considered best talents are not available. That's an obvious point, one you were ignorant of.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think thats a reasonable assumption, considering. The celtic nations were the first that were bandied about, then the 6 nations. Then it was suggested that I was of the opinion that the celtic nations would be done over. Just to be clear, I'm not.

"To test ones abilities" I guess is a reasonable starting point. Whether thats testing Ireland's abilities by only conceding 30 or running Scotland close. Should probably have defined this a little earlier, especially as I'm no closer to doing so.

Without wanting to veer onto Japan too much, I see your point. Big ex-pat community and access to plenty of Antipodes. Decent support and a pro league. But - and here's what stands the US apart - they don't really have that sports culture thats ingrained into them. I know, its been hammered home, but they have so much more at their disposal in terms of financial and physical infrastructure resources. The rugby demographic, even more so, considering the states and schools that are pushing the game.

On the hockey front, we're both using the same numbers from USA hockey. Hate to be a pedant (sort of) but of 533k registered hockey players, 174k are adults. In terms of the bottlenecks, more a case of alluding to why smaller nations such as Finland can challenge, as they don't need quite so much strength in depth, but you're right. Big squads on both sides. Shaky ground indeed, but it does support what you're saying in terms of having to compete.

And I knew I should have said league. Fair point though. They've enough to support a S16 (?) team, which is more that the US right now. Shows whats possible though, eh!

In terms of the colleges, it has already started. While all the major colleges - academics and sports - have teams, universities like Notre Dame and Miami are well on the way with significant investment and scholarships (to be clear, no idea what these constitute; some are for a few hundred dollars a term, ND suggest that its a little more than this), albeit with the help of a fair few south african imports.

Notre Dame is a sevens program, not 15's afaia.

 

[Peat]

This is now the thread for how quickly can the USA reach 'competitiveness' - continue the discussion here.

 

[Shaggy]

You're contradicting yourself in the space of one post.

You're basing your whole theory on the fact they produce great athletes in other sports, the problem being that's other sports. These people aren't skilled in Rugby - look at Carlin Isles, he's got better but it's taken him 5 years or so to become a pretty average player on the 7 circuit and how many world 7 series have the US played in before getting their first result of genuine note?

So yeah, it is naive, you can have as many people as you want, but the difference is coaching and quality of domestic competition. They don't have that, and until they do they will not develop internationally.

The simple fact is they currently don't have the player base, nor playing or coaching infrastructures to compete at elite international level. Bar the occasional big result they will not be in a position to compete for a good 20 years or so if you can't understand that what's the point?

- - - Updated - - -




And you think this will happen in 10 years?



Hypothetical. The best players and coaches aren't there, and even if they were it would take more than a decade to turn them into global competitors.

MLS is a prime example, started in the early 90's and we're only now seeing the USA compete to get out of the pool stages of the world cup and that's in a sport where the freak result is far more common by nature of the scoring system.

Well, I didn't foresee them winning legs of the world sevens circuit as fast as the did, so, given the conditions I stated, I can't see why they can't "handle the Celtic nations" as the original post stated, and yes, I can see things happening quickly.

and yes, of course my statement is hypothetical, it's entirely based on the presumption that someone in the US will throw a lot of money at rugby, and start one or more professional leagues, but, given the number of players and coaches that currently travel the world plying their trade, it's logical to assume that if the States throw the most money into their leagues, they'll get the best players and coaches isn't it? It's also not inconceivable that they could knock over Italy or Scotland with a little improvement, or even the likes of Wales if they continue to improve.

Given that this topic was plucked from a thread basically saying that the RWC draw needs to be drawn closer to the actual event, due to changes in RWC rankings even three years out, it illustrates that the teams can strengthen and wane over a much shorter period than Ten years ... players from other countries can also become American players within three years, should they choose to go that route.

 

[Peat]

I'd be extremely surprised if the US got within a country mile of Scotland or Italy at the moment, assuming full strength. Their most recent game against Scotland they lost by 18 - over two converted tries. Their biggest scalp over the last two years was beating Japan. I'd say there's a pretty big improvement needed. And, while I might be talking out of my arris, I don't see it in their system at present. You look at the team named for the World Cup, there's only 3 players aged 24 or under. Most of this team is hitting their prime right now.

I don't see a big improvement happening quickly. Even assuming an absolute best case scenario with Bill Gates waking up tomorrow and announcing he's funding a 10 team US pro league with salary budgets of 10m for each club, and they are offering American kids a good future and top of the range coaching, it takes time for results to show. I know that they can get people on residential qualification - assuming WR doesn't change that (and they are looking at it) - but I don't see them getting a whole tier 1 international team out of that, not even at the lower end. If you look at England - they put together the RFU Academy system in, what, 2001? We've seen things improve, but we still haven't seen the full flower of it, as it's only really about now that guys who spent their entire development in it are hitting the peak of their careers. At the end of the day, shaping a man's life 14 to 28 is going to take 14 years; there's no way about it.

And, honestly, I don't see anyone wanting to throw that type of money at US rugby, not tomorrow, not without seeing how it pays its way. I know there's increasing money out there and they're getting good people, but the sort of money to turn the world on its head and suddenly get the best? Nope. And it would take a lot of money. 10m dollars doesn't outbid the French teams, and they've yet to persuade all of the world's best to travel there.

 

[William18]

I highly doubt Sevens is going to lead to direct success in 15's for the USA. Did any of their current 15's squad get their start in 7's? It seems that most of their 15's players had gone through the youth system rather than the 7's system. Even in New Zealand sometimes we say that certain All Blacks broke out by playing 7's. I think if you look at basically all of the players you will find that they were talented individuals before they played sevens. Players like Julian and Ardie Savea were stars in school and played in age grade teams before playing 7's.

I think Sevens being in the Olympics is going to increase awareness in both sevens and in 15's but it can't replace proper youth development programs. I think the USA is at least a generation away from getting to the Scotland/Italy level.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I highly doubt Sevens is going to lead to direct success in 15's for the USA. Did any of their current 15's squad get their start in 7's? It seems that most of their 15's players had gone through the youth system rather than the 7's system. Even in New Zealand sometimes we say that certain All Blacks broke out by playing 7's. I think if you look at basically all of the players you will find that they were talented individuals before they played sevens. Players like Julian and Ardie Savea were stars in school and played in age grade teams before playing 7's.

I think Sevens being in the Olympics is going to increase awareness in both sevens and in 15's but it can't replace proper youth development programs. I think the USA is at least a generation away from getting to the Scotland/Italy level.

I don't think we can put a timeline or draw a comparison with another nation and the USA's development.

USA's size alone is something no other major rugby nation has. If Rugby becomes popular enough that it could go viral just like many other things have done in the USA. As for talent, some is a born skill, while others can be taught.

To say the USA is a generation away from getting to Scotland/Italy, might be a more realistic timeframe, but we just don't have the inside scoop on what really is happening with the development of rugby in the USA. I get most of my info from my friend that's at the University of Utah. He's on a swimming scholarship and plays mostly club rugby due to his swimming schedule. He shares info on social media which are relevant to what we already have discussed on this forum.

For all we know, Donald Trump could become the next president of the USA and donate his presidential salary to the USA Rugby Board so that they can become competitive on the international scene to show us that the USA are the best at everything...

 

[Shaggy]

Well, just a few of points:

1/ We were talking about a ten year time frame right, so the relative current strengths of Italy and Scotland (or the US for that matter), are largely irrelevant.

2/ How can anyone predict how strong a particular team is going to be ten years down the track: I seriously doubt that there are very many of us that would have predicted ten year ago, that Ireland would be the number 2 ranked team in the world right now.

3/ I did not say that the USA will be knock over the Celtic teams in ten years time (nor can anyone prove that it won't happen): I implied it was possible given a number of factors that could occur, plus their gains that they have already made, that they could beat some of those sides in a pool of death situation, at a RWC, ie, the gap is narrowing, and any result is possible in a one of match.

4/ The lure of a possible Olympic gold medal, will draw more sportsman and women to rugby: these could be people who haven't ever played the game, but have excelled at other sports.

5/ No one has factored in the benefits of the international standard players staying at home and lifting the standard of play should a viable league start.

6/ Given how well the US do professional sports, and having lived in North America, it won't surprise me if a rise in standard is rapid, if it occurs.

 

[goodNumber10]

Well, just a few of points:

1/ We were talking about a ten year time frame right, so the relative current strengths of Italy and Scotland (or the US for that matter), are largely irrelevant.

2/ How can anyone predict how strong a particular team is going to be ten years down the track: I seriously doubt that there are very many of us that would have predicted ten year ago, that Ireland would be the number 2 ranked team in the world right now.

To be fair Ireland were ranked 3rd in 2003, and third in 2006, lowest they've ever gone is 9th. I's not a massive leap to think a team that was 3rd 10 years ago would be pushing top 4 a decade on.

4/ The lure of a possible Olympic gold medal, will draw more sportsman and women to rugby: these could be people who haven't ever played the game, but have excelled at other sports.

To sevens, not 15's you don't develop world class locks, props and hookers playing Sevens.

 

[TRF_heineken]

To be fair Ireland were ranked 3rd in 2003, and third in 2006, lowest they've ever gone is 9th. I's not a massive leap to think a team that was 3rd 10 years ago would be pushing top 4 a decade on.



To sevens, not 15's you don't develop world class locks, props and hookers playing Sevens.

Schalk Brits might disagree with you.

But it's not necessary to be overtechnical. 7's is a platform to develop from. I think several locks might become even better if they played a bit of 7's. They'll at least get a bit of training for the lineouts.

I think prop is really the only position that won't benefit from 7's. And then it's even a mess in the 15's game. Some top nations even struggle with this position from both a coaching and playing viewpoint...

 

[goodNumber10]

Schalk Brits might disagree with you.

But it's not necessary to be overtechnical. 7's is a platform to develop from. I think several locks might become even better if they played a bit of 7's. They'll at least get a bit of training for the lineouts.

I think prop is really the only position that won't benefit from 7's. And then it's even a mess in the 15's game. Some top nations even struggle with this position from both a coaching and playing viewpoint...

fair point on Brits, though i'd flag that he is an exception rather than the rule.

 

[thechosenfamily]

I had a conversation about this very subject at the weekend at my own club.

Yes, it will take time but, the USA have a fantastic 7's coach in Mike Friday, ex-Bromley RFC player I might add and I know he is working with the US powers to bring the game forward there both in 7's and 15's.

The lack of an amateur alternative to the NFL means lots of good athletes leaving colleges each year with no professional contracts and yes there are lot's of technical aspects that they won't know but can learn.

If the 7's are even remotely successful at the Olympics then I would expect a surge of interest in the US for rugby.

 

[HowieLO6]

Firstly, I'll make it clear that I take on board the point about the training structures not being in place. This is abundantly evident when you look at the resumes of some of the lower college coaches, and I probably didn't give this the consideration it warranted. Its not great. Despite JP Morgan pumping some cash into development coaches, its not great.

Bearing that in mind, in 2003 Sweden were in ruins with their ice hockey. Close to relegation, they were playing against the likes of Austria and Belarus. Not great competition. They reacted and put together a decent plan of action and 5 years later were pushing Canada for the gold. Now I know hockey is a big deal in Sweden - albeit behind soccer and swimming - but bear in mind the comparatively-limited pool of resources. But again, I'll concede that for USA rugby to respond in such a way something would have to be implemented and soon.

Final point, and one I'd contend I know a little more than most about, having played the sport with a handful of athletes who have ended up in the states, and thats about the athletic skills that some of the footballers have over there. Bearing in mind that one of the US sevens players - a good one, too; not great, but good - heralded from an awful college, having only ever played wide reciever. While football won't cover those most fundamental of skills, the pool of convertable talent that they have is quite frankly obscene. You also tend to find that the quality athletes will have played both ways at school, so they have rudimentary notions of defence and attack. Its hard to explain without having seen it first hand, so I really can understand the incredulity from most.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

To be fair Ireland were ranked 3rd in 2003, and third in 2006, lowest they've ever gone is 9th. I's not a massive leap to think a team that was 3rd 10 years ago would be pushing top 4 a decade on.

To sevens, not 15's you don't develop world class locks, props and hookers playing Sevens.

Schalk Brits might disagree with you.

But it's not necessary to be overtechnical. 7's is a platform to develop from. I think several locks might become even better if they played a bit of 7's. They'll at least get a bit of training for the lineouts.

I think prop is really the only position that won't benefit from 7's. And then it's even a mess in the 15's game. Some top nations even struggle with this position from both a coaching and playing viewpoint...

fair point on Brits, though i'd flag that he is an exception rather than the rule.

A lot depends on how young those players playin 7s get into rugby.

Schalk Brits, Craig Burden and Eben Etzebeth all played on the wing up till quite late in their junior 'careers' and are quality tight forwards.

Do you even need insane depth in the tight five? I mean, Aus have done alright for the better part of the modern era with only the odd world class tight forward. The USA already have a guy like Samu Manoa. I don't think its too much of a stretch to make an assumption that they could find more quality tight forwards if they were *really* looking.

 

[TRF_heineken]

A lot depends on how young those players playin 7s get into rugby.

Schalk Brits, Craig Burden and Eben Etzebeth all played on the wing up till quite late in their junior 'careers' and are quality tight forwards.

Do you even need insane depth in the tight five? I mean, Aus have done alright for the better part of the modern era with only the odd world class tight forward. The USA already have a guy like Samu Manoa. I don't think its too much of a stretch to make an assumption that they could find more quality tight forwards if they were *really* looking.

True.

And my guess is that if Rugby gets the exposure in the USA, a lot of the polynesian people might become involved as a form to live out their heritage.

 

[nickdnz]

True.

And my guess is that if Rugby gets the exposure in the USA, a lot of the polynesian people might become involved as a form to live out their heritage.

Possibly, but there is certainly more high profile American Samoans playing NFL than rugby. Guys like Haloti Ngata. If you are American Samoan you are 56 times more likely to play in the NFL than you are as anyone else.

 

[HowieLO6]

True.

And my guess is that if Rugby gets the exposure in the USA, a lot of the polynesian people might become involved as a form to live out their heritage.

Already leading the way in states like Utah. The drawback is that the polynesian communities have quite a Mormon inclination, which draws players away for obligatory missionary work. Not sure about American Samoa, anyone with any insight there?

- - - Updated - - -

Possibly, but there is certainly more high profile American Samoans playing NFL than rugby. Guys like Haloti Ngata. If you are American Samoan you are 56 times more likely to play in the NFL than you are as anyone else.

And there's a damn good reason. While bigger bodies - 320lbs+ - tend to tire somewhat, these boys are relentless (relatively-speaking)