A place where escape goats go to play
https://www.notplanetrugby.com/
So much this FFSLenCohen wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:52 pm One of the best ever performances by a minnow in a world cup and most of the thread is filled with red card debate. Who actually gives a fuck!
I’ve been on the fence for awhile on the 20 v 24 debate —and frankly I think the strongest argument in favor of 24 has more to do with how pools of 4 would function compared to pools of 5.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:56 amI know there are a lot of people (not necessarily on here) who advocate for exapanding the World Cup, but the minnow vs. tier 1 matches last weekend have only hardened my resolve that it's a dumb idea. I doubt this one, South Africa vs. Romania or New Zealand vs. Namibia are going to do much to change that opinion.
How is that a tucked arm? The issue is if the arm is in the sling position. Which means against his own body. His arm was completely out to the side, the forearm is in an odder looking position because he's bringing it up from his side, so it's still pointing down as it comes around.Slick wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:03 pmI agree, think it was the reddest so far. Tucked arm, straight to the head.Grandpa wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:54 pmAnd yet it's more red than Tom Curry's... at least there was a change in height with that tackle... as he was coming out the sky...sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:50 pm
Nah, because it's the world cup. We saw at the last one that a bunch of hits that would have been cast iron reds in domestic competitions earlier in the year were coming up as yellows. The powers that be don't want to 'ruin' the tournament with what's perceived to be too many or unfair cards even if going easy goes against precedent.
My biggest fear is that players on the end of it jumping up and not making a big deal of it are influencing the decision - see also the Kriel hit. We are already getting into the situation of players rolling about to get it looked at and things like this just make it worse. It’s shit.
On another note, well done Uruguay! Those backs looked dangerous and 9 & 12 looked like serious players. They did very well in the the last WC if I remember correctly so another country WR should be throwing cash at.
Hold on, why is it not a legal tackle (apart from hitting the head, I'm talking why would we remove all mitigation)? Arms are out, right arm wraps, left arm would but for the force of the body hitting it first, but there's nothing wrong with that, we need the attempt, not the success, and there was an attempt.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:49 pmOk watched it again. The arm is out, but he's still nowhere close to making a legal tackle, so I stand by saying it should be a red because with it not being a legal tackle mitigations don't apply.Raggs wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:45 pmThe arm wasn't tucked. Look at the upper arm, it's out wide, the forearm is still coming up, but that's never a tucked arm.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:29 pm I suspect they'll let it slide, but he was going in with a tucked arm which means it wasn't a legal hit and mitigations don't apply.
There was a drop in height, not major but it's there, the tackler is also bent kneed and well bent at the waist.
You can check my history on how I view high tackles and often call for reds, but in this case I can see how it stays a yellow.
Fonz, you stopped posting on PR? I wondered where you had gone!Fonz wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:38 am Anywho, as I said on the other thread, I think people really underestimate (or just don’t know) where Uruguay is in the pecking order. After the Tier 1 nations — which now officially includes Japan — and the quasi-Tier 1 PIs, I’d probably only rank Georgia above them. This is not some scrubby amateur side.
What separates them, and the Chileans to a lesser extent (although the Chilean fly-half Rodriguez might be the most dangerous on either team, I bet he scores at least one highlight reel try in this tournament) from the other Tier 2s is the presence of some actual ball handling and attacking skill/nous in the backline. A lot of the minnows can find hard-but-athletic bastards to put in big tackles etc., but seeing a second tier team with more than a couple of players who have the skills to execute and punch in a try against a top level defense, that’s rare. Which is why Uruguay and Chile are at this tournament, and we aren’t. In this respect, Uruguay in particular have totally lapped us, to say nothing of the poor Canadians, who might very realistically have played their last RWC at least until the field dramatically expands. But that’s a story for another time.
I reckon some of their players just played their way into the "big" leagues if they fancy it. No better place to announce yourself on the world stage than running the favourites close!SaintK wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:35 am Wasn't going to bother to watch this one. Glad I did, well played Uruguay!
NZ fans are very quiet this morning.Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 6:39 am You have to say fair play to Uruguay, a hell of a performance. As said above, their backs moves stank of a side that should be taken seriously, not some plucky band of amateurs. I wish England could do that.
We're worried about Namibia... let alone Uruguay!Sandstorm wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:39 amNZ fans are very quiet this morning.Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 6:39 am You have to say fair play to Uruguay, a hell of a performance. As said above, their backs moves stank of a side that should be taken seriously, not some plucky band of amateurs. I wish England could do that.
Thanks Fonz, very interestingFonz wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:38 am Anywho, as I said on the other thread, I think people really underestimate (or just don’t know) where Uruguay is in the pecking order. After the Tier 1 nations — which now officially includes Japan — and the quasi-Tier 1 PIs, I’d probably only rank Georgia above them. This is not some scrubby amateur side.
What separates them, and the Chileans to a lesser extent (although the Chilean fly-half Rodriguez might be the most dangerous on either team, I bet he scores at least one highlight reel try in this tournament) from the other Tier 2s is the presence of some actual ball handling and attacking skill/nous in the backline. A lot of the minnows can find hard-but-athletic bastards to put in big tackles etc., but seeing a second tier team with more than a couple of players who have the skills to execute and punch in a try against a top level defense, that’s rare. Which is why Uruguay and Chile are at this tournament, and we aren’t. In this respect, Uruguay in particular have totally lapped us, to say nothing of the poor Canadians, who might very realistically have played their last RWC at least until the field dramatically expands. But that’s a story for another time.
The angle of the left arm and the way it hits looks more like a barge than a failed attempt to wrap. Even if you allow for it as a failed wrap attempt, it was failed by a pretty big margin and smashed a player in the head. Rugby does have a bit of a history of reffing on outcome rather than what a player was trying to do.Raggs wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:33 amHold on, why is it not a legal tackle (apart from hitting the head, I'm talking why would we remove all mitigation)? Arms are out, right arm wraps, left arm would but for the force of the body hitting it first, but there's nothing wrong with that, we need the attempt, not the success, and there was an attempt.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:49 pmOk watched it again. The arm is out, but he's still nowhere close to making a legal tackle, so I stand by saying it should be a red because with it not being a legal tackle mitigations don't apply.Raggs wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:45 pm
The arm wasn't tucked. Look at the upper arm, it's out wide, the forearm is still coming up, but that's never a tucked arm.
There was a drop in height, not major but it's there, the tackler is also bent kneed and well bent at the waist.
You can check my history on how I view high tackles and often call for reds, but in this case I can see how it stays a yellow.
He hits the head with force, sure, that's why it's a yellow, but it's an attempt at a legal tackle, on a dropping player. Also, and significantly, the tackling player is bent at the knees and waist. Curry was upright. Upright tackles are what WR are trying to eliminate, which is why the Kriel call was so surprising to me.
In fairness to Uruguay, a team I only really know by world cup appearances and occasionally seeing results on a BBC scores update, they made me eat my words about them. I know they're strong for the South Americas, but I guess I didn't really have much context for what that means.Fonz wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:15 amI’ve been on the fence for awhile on the 20 v 24 debate —and frankly I think the strongest argument in favor of 24 has more to do with how pools of 4 would function compared to pools of 5.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:56 amI know there are a lot of people (not necessarily on here) who advocate for exapanding the World Cup, but the minnow vs. tier 1 matches last weekend have only hardened my resolve that it's a dumb idea. I doubt this one, South Africa vs. Romania or New Zealand vs. Namibia are going to do much to change that opinion.SaintK wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 2:25 pm
This will be one of several very one sided matches this round!
Nevertheless, in defense of the minnows: poor Namibia has once again found themselves in a pool with multiple favorites in it, so will surely get hammered, but IMO aren’t actually totally abject. That honor goes to Romania, who for my money are far and away the weakest team here, due in large part to Andy Robinson’s resignation at the end of last year. All jokes aside, losing a coach with legit Tier 1 pedigree in Andy Robinson (yes, yes…) is absolutely ruinous for a side like that.
But, it’s important to point out here that they shouldn’t even be playing in this tournament, but for Spain being dinged yet again for fielding ineligible players (rather unfairly this time around, in my opinion). So, we effectively have the fourth best team in Europe’s second tier playing in the RWC, with predictable results. Not good. Spain would have been considerably more competitive.
Has anyone got a clip of this because I may well be misremembering, but I've currently got no idea what Raggs is on about.sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:25 amThe angle of the left arm and the way it hits looks more like a barge than a failed attempt to wrap. Even if you allow for it as a failed wrap attempt, it was failed by a pretty big margin and smashed a player in the head. Rugby does have a bit of a history of reffing on outcome rather than what a player was trying to do.Raggs wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:33 amHold on, why is it not a legal tackle (apart from hitting the head, I'm talking why would we remove all mitigation)? Arms are out, right arm wraps, left arm would but for the force of the body hitting it first, but there's nothing wrong with that, we need the attempt, not the success, and there was an attempt.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:49 pm
Ok watched it again. The arm is out, but he's still nowhere close to making a legal tackle, so I stand by saying it should be a red because with it not being a legal tackle mitigations don't apply.
He hits the head with force, sure, that's why it's a yellow, but it's an attempt at a legal tackle, on a dropping player. Also, and significantly, the tackling player is bent at the knees and waist. Curry was upright. Upright tackles are what WR are trying to eliminate, which is why the Kriel call was so surprising to me.
The Uruguayan 9s height in the tackle doesn't really change until after the French lock makes contact.
Nope, it can still be raised to a red if the citing officer chooses to.Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am Am I correct in saying that because there was a card at the time the incident cannot be cited?
There is no way that is just a yellow btw
Not sure if they've modifed protocol given the extra time TMO's have to make a decision now, but for a while it's been the case that an on field yellow can still be cited if the offence was deemed to actually be at red card level by the citing officer.Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am Am I correct in saying that because there was a card at the time the incident cannot be cited?
There is no way that is just a yellow btw
Yeah, I just read that on the WR site, a player can be cited after a yellow if it is deemed that a red card was appropriatesockwithaticket wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:01 amNot sure if they've modifed protocol given the extra time TMO's have to make a decision now, but for a while it's been the case that an on field yellow can still be cited if the offence was deemed to actually be at red card level by the citing officer.Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am Am I correct in saying that because there was a card at the time the incident cannot be cited?
There is no way that is just a yellow btw
He doesn't have to wrap, he has to attempt to wrap. His right arm wraps. His left arm is miles out and not tucked. It gets bumped in by the contact. It's not a stiff arm clothesline either. It's a legal tackle attempt.inactionman wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:58 am It's simply not a wrap, but in his defence you see that quite a bit when there's a second tackler whose body is where the wrapping arm would normally go. There's a reaction to hold the wrapping arm back to avoid essentially handing yourself off against the second tackler
Still, I'm utterly lost as to what the standards for red and yellow are - it's too subjective even with the attempts to add objective mitigations.
I agree completely that we need to eliminate shoulder charges and tackles where the hight is simply dangerous, and this tackle was really neither of these things.Raggs wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:07 amHe doesn't have to wrap, he has to attempt to wrap. His right arm wraps. His left arm is miles out and not tucked. It gets bumped in by the contact. It's not a stiff arm clothesline either. It's a legal tackle attempt.inactionman wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:58 am It's simply not a wrap, but in his defence you see that quite a bit when there's a second tackler whose body is where the wrapping arm would normally go. There's a reaction to hold the wrapping arm back to avoid essentially handing yourself off against the second tackler
Still, I'm utterly lost as to what the standards for red and yellow are - it's too subjective even with the attempts to add objective mitigations.
To compare with others. Farrell was a shoulder charge, tucked elbow in a "sling" position. No mitigation can be applied. Curry was upright, one of the potential mitigations is that the tackler is making an attempt to change their own height to avoid head contact, if you're stood upright, even with a bit of a bend at your knees, you're not getting that one due to the fact you're not bending at the waist.
WR are apparently trying to get rid of shoulder charges and upright tackles. How Kriel doesn't get a card I don't know (hitting the ball first, as he does, is mitigation to yellow, not just a play on). They are their own worst enemies sure, but in this situation yellow sits right for me. If it'd been red, no problem, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
I've probably watched less of him than you, but the only time I can recall him looking vaguely useful was when he played on the wing and even then he wasn't as good as some of France's other options. What is the point of him?Torquemada 1420 wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:49 pm Just watched this and glad I was at a concert last night.
1) Well done Uruguay.
2) France. Abysmal. Embarrassing.
- Owned at the breakdown the entire 80 mins. Okay, to some extent it doesn't matter because these aren't the starters but Boudehent and Jelonch were invisible. Macalou actually made 2 turnovers (O'Keefe wrong to disallow the try) and was the only starting fwd to have a decent game........ against Uruguay.
Jelonch is so much less a player than Cros. All he brings is some weight. Cros is quicker, makes more tackles, misses far fewer tackles and has better hands.
- Hastoy was terrible. Most obviously in defence where he, along with others, didn't seem to want to do any work when you'd think they were fighting for places.
-Moefana. Can he just f**k off to the Federales? Managed to look sh*t against Uruguay FFS. Feeble tackles, turned over the ball at least twice and pretty sure he didn't make a single metre ball in hand.
- Lucu put no direction in anywhere. Couilloud, when he came on, decided to slow the whole game down when France were seeking a BP try. How either these 2 (or Snail Serin) figured ahead of Le Garrec, only Galthie's mind could fathom.
Conclusion: France picks up any more injuries, then they can forget it because Macalou (and maybe Jaminet) aside, the rest were poor to dismal.
There is no point IMHO. He has never put in even a single average performance for France. Has been crap every single time he has played and TBH, I rarely see him doing anything to note of quality when playing for his club. He is a poor man's Dourthe but at least Dourthe would give 100% and try to tackle. PR made him MOTMsockwithaticket wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:04 pmI've probably watched less of him than you, but the only time I can recall him looking vaguely useful was when he played on the wing and even then he wasn't as good as some of France's other options. What is the point of him?Torquemada 1420 wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:49 pm Just watched this and glad I was at a concert last night.
1) Well done Uruguay.
2) France. Abysmal. Embarrassing.
- Owned at the breakdown the entire 80 mins. Okay, to some extent it doesn't matter because these aren't the starters but Boudehent and Jelonch were invisible. Macalou actually made 2 turnovers (O'Keefe wrong to disallow the try) and was the only starting fwd to have a decent game........ against Uruguay.
Jelonch is so much less a player than Cros. All he brings is some weight. Cros is quicker, makes more tackles, misses far fewer tackles and has better hands.
- Hastoy was terrible. Most obviously in defence where he, along with others, didn't seem to want to do any work when you'd think they were fighting for places.
-Moefana. Can he just f**k off to the Federales? Managed to look sh*t against Uruguay FFS. Feeble tackles, turned over the ball at least twice and pretty sure he didn't make a single metre ball in hand.
- Lucu put no direction in anywhere. Couilloud, when he came on, decided to slow the whole game down when France were seeking a BP try. How either these 2 (or Snail Serin) figured ahead of Le Garrec, only Galthie's mind could fathom.
Conclusion: France picks up any more injuries, then they can forget it because Macalou (and maybe Jaminet) aside, the rest were poor to dismal.
Mostly stopped posting on PR on account of a busy (but very good) year, due to work and a baby, but I will say that on the rare occasions I poke my head in, I don’t see much reason to return. Place is bit of a mess and I like the cast here much more. Speaking of which, good to see you!Grandpa wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:35 amFonz, you stopped posting on PR? I wondered where you had gone!Fonz wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:38 am Anywho, as I said on the other thread, I think people really underestimate (or just don’t know) where Uruguay is in the pecking order. After the Tier 1 nations — which now officially includes Japan — and the quasi-Tier 1 PIs, I’d probably only rank Georgia above them. This is not some scrubby amateur side.
What separates them, and the Chileans to a lesser extent (although the Chilean fly-half Rodriguez might be the most dangerous on either team, I bet he scores at least one highlight reel try in this tournament) from the other Tier 2s is the presence of some actual ball handling and attacking skill/nous in the backline. A lot of the minnows can find hard-but-athletic bastards to put in big tackles etc., but seeing a second tier team with more than a couple of players who have the skills to execute and punch in a try against a top level defense, that’s rare. Which is why Uruguay and Chile are at this tournament, and we aren’t. In this respect, Uruguay in particular have totally lapped us, to say nothing of the poor Canadians, who might very realistically have played their last RWC at least until the field dramatically expands. But that’s a story for another time.
So why do you think Canada and the US have the athletes but not the skills? Is it because they didn't play rugby growing up? Or is it coaching?
Well that all makes perfect sense. So if you were the coach/selector... would you choose homegrown players and only non-Americans if they stood out a mile in their position? And what about US Under 20s.. is there a team? I wondered what the US development program is like?Fonz wrote: Sun Sep 17, 2023 3:53 pmMostly stopped posting on PR on account of a busy (but very good) year, due to work and a baby, but I will say that on the rare occasions I poke my head in, I don’t see much reason to return. Place is bit of a mess and I like the cast here much more. Speaking of which, good to see you!Grandpa wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:35 amFonz, you stopped posting on PR? I wondered where you had gone!Fonz wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:38 am Anywho, as I said on the other thread, I think people really underestimate (or just don’t know) where Uruguay is in the pecking order. After the Tier 1 nations — which now officially includes Japan — and the quasi-Tier 1 PIs, I’d probably only rank Georgia above them. This is not some scrubby amateur side.
What separates them, and the Chileans to a lesser extent (although the Chilean fly-half Rodriguez might be the most dangerous on either team, I bet he scores at least one highlight reel try in this tournament) from the other Tier 2s is the presence of some actual ball handling and attacking skill/nous in the backline. A lot of the minnows can find hard-but-athletic bastards to put in big tackles etc., but seeing a second tier team with more than a couple of players who have the skills to execute and punch in a try against a top level defense, that’s rare. Which is why Uruguay and Chile are at this tournament, and we aren’t. In this respect, Uruguay in particular have totally lapped us, to say nothing of the poor Canadians, who might very realistically have played their last RWC at least until the field dramatically expands. But that’s a story for another time.
So why do you think Canada and the US have the athletes but not the skills? Is it because they didn't play rugby growing up? Or is it coaching?
As to your question, lots to say but will try to address. Firstly, it’s worth mentioning that we have one of the poachiest sides out there, a veritable United Nations of Aussies, Saffers, Brits, Micks, PIs, etc, such that our XV/XXIII is virtually never majority born-and-raised Americans. So, our players DID grow up playing the sport, just not here.
But, (and I think this is a problem that really plagued the European sides 10-15 years ago, though less so now) for whatever reason the powers that be have this obsession with size and physicality that means we select for trolls whose skills diminish markedly when the standard/speed of the game ramps up. And by higher standard I’m talking about Uruguay and Chile, never mind England or Australia, etc. Whereas the South Americans are looking for slick ballhandlers, we’re looking for meatballs. I don’t have insight into our training methods, but I imagine it too reflects this general mentality.
In fact, I wish I could tell you what our game plan was, but nowadays I don’t even really have a clue what it is. Because in spite of the meatballs in our lineup, we don’t tend to play what I would characterize as the American style, which was intense and physical (though not particularly precise). I recall one of the Aussie players saying we were the physically toughest and most athletic side they played in the 1999 RWC. But that was in the days when it was actually an American team, pre-poachfest.
And I think the multinational makeup of the team has implications for our results too. You will never convince me that a bunch of mercenaries will be able to match the passion of the Uruguayans and Chileans, who make you believe they would literally die for their team. I remember reading an interview with Chile’s coach after they beat us to qualify, and he noted with no shortage of bemusement that when they flew from Chile to America for the second leg of the qualifier, they took the same flight as the US team, and as they passed through immigration, half of our team was standing in the same line as his players. I think that says it all. And I think we all know passion and camaraderie matters in sports, particularly when the competitors are evenly matched, as stagnant USA is now with rising Chile. After all, they took it at the death, and won by 1 point on aggregate.
I’ll also state too that with the rise of lifting and nutrition/fitness culture worldwide, which probably took off here earlier than elsewhere, pretty much all the teams in the top 30 or so nowadays have good and fit athletes, so our advantage in that department has also eroded.
Don’t know too much about the Canadians, but as I understand it, they put waaaaay too much focus on 7s when it became an Olympic sport, such that top players/prospects are not only pretty much all pushed into focusing on that, but when it comes time to put together a first XV, by and large all they’ve got to choose from are, effectively, 7s players.
Well it’s complicated Gramps, but yes, I would err on the side of less experienced and perhaps even marginally inferior American-raised players if we’re not poaching real talent (with the sole exception of fly half, which we just need to rely on poaches and have done going back decades now to Aussie Mike “the Circus” Hercus, probably most famous for throwing that pass to Ngwenya before he zipped past Bryan Habana for that famous try in 2007. But to wit our best player now is an Irish fly half).Grandpa wrote: Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:29 pm
Well that all makes perfect sense. So if you were the coach/selector... would you choose homegrown players and only non-Americans if they stood out a mile in their position? And what about US Under 20s.. is there a team? I wondered what the US development program is like?
Edit. I just looked and you do have a team that came last in their pool in the 2023 Trophy Competition. Does this side have more of the type of players you'd like to see or is it more of the same?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... union_team
I'm guess that MLR doesn't pay well? So really, unless there was a professional goal where a US based side was a reasonably good career (with coaching opportunities post playing) then it will never attract higher calibre players? Does the US need to be part of some pan Pacific Super Rugby competition?Fonz wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:16 amWell it’s complicated Gramps, but yes, I would err on the side of less experienced and perhaps even marginally inferior American-raised players if we’re not poaching real talent (with the sole exception of fly half, which we just need to rely on poaches and have done going back decades now to Aussie Mike “the Circus” Hercus, probably most famous for throwing that pass to Ngwenya before he zipped past Bryan Habana for that famous try in 2007. But to wit our best player now is an Irish fly half).Grandpa wrote: Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:29 pm
Well that all makes perfect sense. So if you were the coach/selector... would you choose homegrown players and only non-Americans if they stood out a mile in their position? And what about US Under 20s.. is there a team? I wondered what the US development program is like?
Edit. I just looked and you do have a team that came last in their pool in the 2023 Trophy Competition. Does this side have more of the type of players you'd like to see or is it more of the same?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... union_team
But even more important, IMO we just need to re-examine what we are, and what we’re trying to do. Just come up with SOMETHING. The poaching just evinces a short term thinking, easy way out mentality. We need a coherent, long term, top down approach, and honestly this is an advantage smaller countries have over us. There’s nowhere to hide talent in Uruguay, so (I imagine) talent is not only identified but honed with a certain goal/style in mind. As far as I can tell we don’t have that, many youth “select” sides are essentially elective rather than “selected” as such, comprised of youngsters who love the game but aren’t necessarily the best at it even among our ranks. At least that was the case in my day, 10-15 years ago. Most of the best players I played with never even bothered try out for such a thing and didn’t consider moving forward with the game in any serious way at all.
Which leads me to why we probably shouldn’t be a target for growth: the way it works here, you hit 18, you quit playing organized sports unless it’s paying for your education (and then you stop at 22) or you have a good chance to become a millionaire doing it professionally. Rugby, of course, offers hardly any chance of the former and effectively zero chance of the latter. That’s a pretty critical handicap to any long term team-building scheme, as very few are going to stay with it from age they show some talent allll the way to the age that the union would expect its efforts to bear fruit. Just getting a good degree is going to earn you more than rugby, and we don’t have the sports-playing (as opposed to watching) culture to overcome that. People here (and even relatively lazy me is guilty of this; I never played after high school) are ultimately just way too focused on “muh career” to devote the needed time and effort. It’s seen as frivolous. That’s the culture.
Edit to say that I was just going to note I don’t keep much track of the age grade sides, but seeing there that we lost to Zimbabwe in the most recent U20 Trophy, perhaps things haven’t changed much from my day after all in the sense that (as a not-so-wise man once said) we’re not sending our best.
So it seems the salary cap in MLR is $500k; a NFL practice squad player — so this is somebody in street clothes on the sidelines on a Sunday — is on roughly half that. The top paid players in MLR (foreign former stars like Giteau essentially collecting a pension) seem to be making a fraction of what I do, and believe me when I say I’m hardly Uncle Pennybags…and it appears younger American players are on as little as $20k-$30k, perhaps even less. I’m not exaggerating to say you literally could not survive in Boston (where I live) on that. It’s semi-pro at best.Grandpa wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:31 am I'm guess that MLR doesn't pay well? So really, unless there was a professional goal where a US based side was a reasonably good career (with coaching opportunities post playing) then it will never attract higher calibre players? Does the US need to be part of some pan Pacific Super Rugby competition?
And you have the Rugby World Cup coming to the US in 2031... is this the time that might see a motivation for change? I guess the whole infrastructure and mindset needs to change really...
MLR players sound like they are on similar to NZ Super Rugby players who are not All Blacks? Though $500k is probably what NZ All Black players are on... A quick Google...Fonz wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:40 pmSo it seems the salary cap in MLR is $500k; a NFL practice squad player — so this is somebody in street clothes on the sidelines on a Sunday — is on roughly half that. The top paid players in MLR (foreign former stars like Giteau essentially collecting a pension) seem to be making a fraction of what I do, and believe me when I say I’m hardly Uncle Pennybags…and it appears younger American players are on as little as $20k-$30k, perhaps even less. I’m not exaggerating to say you literally could not survive in Boston (where I live) on that. It’s semi-pro at best.Grandpa wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:31 am I'm guess that MLR doesn't pay well? So really, unless there was a professional goal where a US based side was a reasonably good career (with coaching opportunities post playing) then it will never attract higher calibre players? Does the US need to be part of some pan Pacific Super Rugby competition?
And you have the Rugby World Cup coming to the US in 2031... is this the time that might see a motivation for change? I guess the whole infrastructure and mindset needs to change really...
So yes, it’s going to be very very hard to keep the talent in the game on that. We probably get enough of the right guys INTO the game to be competitive, but I don’t think we can keep them playing into their 20s.
But I don’t want to rip into MLR too much as I think they’re doing a lot of good things. It just is what it is. Don’t think being involved in an international comp would help much on that front, even before you get to the logistics. Americans want domestic comps.
If you go to the PR thread when they announced we were getting 2023, you’ll see that there was a somewhat muted response from the actual Americans. There’s just A LOT of hurdles to overcome for it to be a success, and I’m not sure if it will satisfy the “muh growff” people because the media landscape (and society at large) is increasingly atomized. So I think the likeliest good outcome is mostly full stadiums (thanks to traveling foreign fans) but relatively little mainstream coverage and therefore not much of a platform to expand the sport’s footprint here. And God forbid they put it on during football season…
Summer would be the best time as there’s a lull in the sporting calendar, but knowing Brits freak out when it gets above 90F, I’m not sure how that would work.
But thankfully the English were nice enough to bow out in the pool stages in 2015, so at least we won’t be the first to do that.
