I'm surprised I didn't come across this sooner. Right now the USA is ranked 20th in the world as per the IRB rankings. The 2011 World Cup is going to use the top IRB rankings as of December 1, 2008. The top 20 are going. Our Canadian cousins are in fine as they are ranked at 15 but they face tough opposition in a upcoming European tour, Ireland, Scotland, Portugal and Wales. One loss to Portugal or a bad drubbing in another game could be disastrous for them. I wish them well. I wish we had the money/guts to organize a tour like that. Now we play Uruguay on November 8th. If we lose to Uruguaythis could be disastrous. Spain and Korea are right behind us. I don't speak either language and can't tell if they have any games that could propel them up between now and December 1st. The absolute worst case scenario would be some sort of Spainish or Korean victory over an good team and a US loss. So much for the qualifiers. I found this out on Wikipedia. But found a BBC article that backs it up "For the first time in the history of the World Cup, seeding of teams for the 2011 World Cup will be based on their respective IRB World Rankings. The draw, to be conducted in December 2008, will use the World Rankings as of 1 December 2008, after the Northern Hemisphere autumn internationals.[14] Previously it was thought that the top four at the 2007 Rugby World Cup (South Africa, England, Argentina, and France) were to have been allocated top pool spots, but "the rankings are now very well established and provide us with a credible and succinct way of seeding teams for the rugby World Cup pool draw," according to Rugby World Cup Ltd (RWCL) chairman Syd Millar" I'm not against this, as we have 4 teams from the Americas' going for a change if the rankings stay the same. Hopefully the full component of US pros' will be brought home for this game.
They will use the rankings for the seedings of the RWC pools, not for the qualifying. Here are the qualifiers for Americas area : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup_-_Americas_qualification If the USA manage to qualify on the pitch, they will go to the RWC, whatever they are ranked 15th or 25th.
Toulousain is right. We're still going to the next World Cup - when you effectively only have to beat Uruguay to qualify it's not hard, and even under Thorburn we destroyed 'em.
Thanks guys. Toulousain - Your knowledge of the WC structure and the lead up to the last WC by posting scores was excellent. P-Celtic - Thanks as well. You are just the type of fan USA rugby needs to move forward.
Probably not until the next Churchill Cup. So next June-July. We play Uruguay on Saturday then get on a plane for Tokyo for two tests against Japan the next two weekends. Canada is in Europe right now. The Canadian-based amateurs on the team played Portugal last week and won. The European pros will show up for matchs vs Ireland, Scotland and Wales over the next three weekends. The next window for an international would be in the summer I believe. One thing I will give USA Rugby and Rugby Canada a ton of credit for is they seem to want to work together. The NA4 tournament and the Churchill Cup are both good foundations for success. I think a (partial) merging of the Super Leagues into one North American league would be worth looking at as well.
We're looking at a much bigger Test schedule next year which is really going to benefit both teams. There's a potential rebirth of the Super Powers Cup and possibly an extra Test match against Canada (for an overall three match series) as well as a home test versus Wales during the Lions tour. This is good for USA Rugby as Tests really help us up our game, and qualify our players for work permits abroad.
I absolutely agree with that. The more home tests the better. A Super Powers cup would be good, the Russians and Japanese are getting better. P-Celtic - You had a great story about the game vs Wales at Hartford and the financial hit USA Rugby took in 2006. Do you know if the games vs Munster and ASM Clermont this summer were as hard on the pocketbook>?
It does improve our rankings by 2 places, putting us on a path towards getting an easier group in 2011 should results continue to be positive.
It's a tough spot, innit? On one side, the RWC is always be played in a dominant nation, meaning there's obvious following. Fans out there willing to shell out the cash. On the other, you have countries that are trying to grow as rugby nations. Just as in 1994, with the soccer World Cup the sport was nothing more than a niche sport. Sure, the NASL did help set the ground work, there was still a generation who didn't know about the Cosmos. I was one of those new fans that started watching the round ball because I was bombarded with it. On the whole, I think Americans love the idea of rugby. The problem is that the NFL is so ingrained in the American culture it's not going anywhere for a very long time. USA Rugby would be smart to lure away some of the NFL's marketing minds. Unfortunately, my donations to USSRF don't go that far.
The codes should merge before America jumps in. It would open and enrich the market for potential investors. Soccer is working because we have the unity of the club game and internationals. Right now, those are split between union and league.
I worked for Sky TV in the UK in the early 90's. The codes were very close to merging then club-wise in Britain. Union was just going full time professional and forward thinking owners were talking about either a unified game of union or a combined league where they played union in fall-winter and then league in Spring-Summer. Problem was too many people with the power to change were making too much money under the status quo. I think League would have done it but the upper echelon of union looked at it and said no. The Bath v Wigan code challange in 1995-ish was the culmination and then union sort of offered to league to disband and join up with union, it was a close down and come to us deal rather than a merger.
To be fair, I don't think it would have worked. The two codes hate each other, and the mergers at Harlequins and Leeds have had questionable success (both teams draw flies to the less popular code, league and union respectively). It made some sense at first because union had the international game while league had the club game, but now union has a club scene in the UK that is as strong if not stronger than league's while league's world cup was a joke. The Guinness Premiership now outdraws Super League, and that's not counting attendances in the Magners League and Top 14. It's only going to happen now if league ceases to exist somehow, and there'll be far too many rugby league fans who won't walk across the street to watch union for it to have any meaningful impact.
I would be one of the ones that wouldn't cross over. I loved the Rugby League World Cup, but rugby union bores me. If one was to make it in the USA, I would think it would be league, since it's closer to the NFL than union is ("downs", possession being preferred to territory, etc.).
Both have been tried and both have (sadly) so far failed. Although as a life long Union fan one of the best ever events I've ever witnessed to happen to USA rugby was at the end of the first half of a USA v Australia rugby league game in Philadelphia (circa 2003?) as Aus was returning from another demolition of England the USA was leading and got a rousing cheer off. The commentator said it best, "this is a stunning score and if anyone sees' it back in Oz they'll probably stop opening beers" Sadly the Roos' battled back in the 2nd half.
Ah yes, everything is idyllic in union until the hemispheres split on account of their views on the ELVs. The north now lags severely and wants their significance back. If there's a merger, it's between RLIF and SANZAR. The bitter poms and their unwitting subjects will have none of it.
Do you just echo John O'Neill's talking points or do you actually have an opinion of your own? The Northern Hemisphere controls the majority of the wealth in rugby. Our countries pay the revenues for rugby, which is why Tri-Nations games have late kickoffs in order to fit most advantageously with European time zones. South Africa is voting against the ELVs, and they're the 3rd richest rugby playing country after England and France. So you've got a broke rugby union and a pair of islands with 4 million people. Yeah, great find there. Of course it'd never happen, as the NZRFU's entire income stream is based on the All Blacks, and that doesn't roll with rugby league's club-first mantra.
1. I don't follow the Wallabies or the goings on of the ARU because they're rich pricks with inflated self importance. 2. South Africa could easily be enticed into a strengthened provincial setup with a southern equivalent to the Heineken Cup (Currie+NRL+ANZC). League wants the international scene as much as union wants the domestic. Furthermore, the Boks and... 3...the measly All Blacks would still have a place to tour in the north because of Super League's establishment there. Instead of playing one English team at Twickenham, they play another at Wembley. Murrayfield, Millenium, Stade de France and Croke Park are all neutral venues so they could still take tours but the respective national sides would have to improve a bit. That's where the south has an allure and thus some leverage, especially with their total dominance at the moment.
Both: 6 tackles - most penalties in RU occur at the ruck; 6th tackle increases frequency of grub kick for try 5-man scrums - keeps competition for ball; lowers pack weight so many body types are not excluded; injuries less frequent no lifting in lineouts - again keeps competition for ball; fewer big guys needed; more chances at ball without reliance simply on timing keep the 40/20 - rewards skill for offensive kicking keep the ELV prohibiting kicks to tough on passbacks behind 22 - demands running from defensive positions; change to 20-metre line because of uniform field markings scoring - 5 for try, 2 for conversion, 3 for drop, 2 for penalty; greater awareness from ref to ensure that team in possession keeps advantage so committing penalty cannot reduce chance for 3-point drop goal 14 players - simple compromise field - marked every 20 metres (see above about kicking rules); retains markings for lineouts; 100m x 70m; in-goal areas still vary in depth There are other nuances I'm overlooking, but that's the jist of it.
I have to disagree with you. Look at how much profit each rugby world cup makes on the other hand league could only make a small profit in Oz at the last league world cup. They had the league world cup in England in 2000 and it lost a ton of money and put the RLIF into the red. In the US there are hundreds of rugby clubs and a lot more interest than in league.
Wow, sounds like you have really put a lot of thought into it. I would love to see it but it will never happen. Well, better go. Happy New Year.
A "lot more interest" is relative. I mean, in relative terms 0.00005% might be much greater than 0.00001%, but both numbers are so small as to not matter. Also, how many people who play rugby union do so because that's what the local club plays, and have either never heard of rugby league, or don't have strong feelings either way?