Canadian Rugby Forums » Men's National Teams

Rock as Team Canada.

(11 posts)

  1. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  2. rucknmaul
    Member

    I'm not saying that we should send the Rock to the RWC, but how do you think they would do, if they were sent to represent Canada at the RWC? Say for instance, we added six players such as Cudmore, Kleeberger, J Marshall, Fairhurst, DTH and Matt Evans to supplement the player base.

    I think they would do an admirable job myself. Rugby is a team sport like no other where 15 players have to work together, know each other and like and play for one another. Cohesion is a factor that I think is underestimated these days. They obviously beat the Canada Selects and most people say it's because they've trained together for sometime, but that's my point, they are strong because they have trained together for some time and seem to play their hearts out. I believe the team would keep a game against the All Blacks just as close as a "traditional" Canada line-up. Thoughts?

    Posted 1 year ago #

  3. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  4. chabaleatschildren
    Member

    I actually see your point. I have seen Canada play live once. It was against the Rock in preparation for the 2007 WC. Granted, it took place in Newfoundland but the Rock was missing 5 core players including Rod Snow. The game was tied at the half. Canada came away with the win but it was by no means a neat and tidy domination.
    The Rock players have tons of heart and they tackle hard.
    Do I think the Rock with 6 or so add ons from the best mainlanders would be better than the current Canadian side? Probably not. At least not in terms of athletic ability. However I don't think that their results on the International stage would be all that discernably different.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  5. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  6. rucknmaul
    Member

    Thanks for seeing my point. It's nice not to be crapped all over for posing a hypothetical that probably wouldn't be popular with the masses.

    I agree with your comment that the team would not be as athletic as a traditional Canada team, but how fast, strong, powerful and agile you are doesn't necessarily equate with being a great or even good rugby player. How many times have you played with or seen an athlete that wasn't very big, fast or strong but could just play? Intangibles such as heart, desire, commitment and smarts can greatly supplement a perceived lack of athletic ability.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  7. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  8. Popo
    Member

    Ruckandmaul great point.

    I think way too much emphasis is put on underwear Olympians at the expense of the ability to play the game.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  9. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  10. rucknmaul
    Member

    Two NFL greats that come to mind, Steve Largent and Bryan Cox were not great athletes by any stretch of the imagination. However, both were absolute monsters on the stat sheets every Sunday. Neither could run very fast, jump very high, or bench press very much, but both were amongst the all time greats at their respective positions.

    We need to stop trying to identify great athletes and attempt to make rugby players out of them. Rather, we need to identify the best rugby players and help them to hone their skills and better their fitness.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  11. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  12. Popo
    Member

    Your NFL example is excellent. Most analysts, scouts, coaches, etc. in the NFL agree that the NFL combine is not a great predictor of success for potential NFL players. I have heard that the combines value is the medicals on the players.

    The NFL combine is a series of fitness tests that potential draftees are run through prior to the NFL draft.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  13. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  14. rucknmaul
    Member

    One thing NFL teams require of a potential player is the Wonderlic Test, which is a standardized cognitive test. Vince Young who is a physically gifted athlete, actually a physical specimen, scored very low I believe a 6 out of 50 and look at his career.

    People talk of football smarts, hockey smarts, and I believe there is rugby smarts. Some players just understand the game better ie where the pressure is coming from and how to counter that pressure, where holes will develop, general decision making etc. almost instinctively. But I digress.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  15. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  16. Smallprint
    Member

    RnM, you raise a good point, but I would like to take it one step farther, the Rock are not only good because they train together regularly, and play hard (with tremendous heart). They play together regularly. Therefore combinations are sorted out. The guys know each other and are comfortable with each other's skill sets.

    Outside of the top 8 or so in the IRB's international rankings would struggle in my opinion against the top professional teams such as Leicester, Saracens, Northampton, Toulouse, Racing Metro, Clermont and I think I could name a few more from other leagues as well. My point is, these clubs train together more 10 months or more out of twelve. They play anywhere from 20 to 45 games in a year. This kind of interaction breeds familiarity with the fellow lining up outside of you.

    Canada, like most lower ranked nations cannot even boast that a majority of its players are playing in the highest leagues, therefore we need to modify our expectations from our amateurs. I know some will argue that the carded system pays them, and I concede that point but only so far. When carded guys are only receiving $6,000 per year are they really professionals? I played senior hockey for years after playing junior A hockey. In Junior A I was lucky to play in my hometown, so no billeting, but in senior I was paid, gas money and "stick" money, and I can tell you that I was a long way from professional. Several guys I played with through the years played in the show, and one or two have Stanley Cup rings. They are professionals and light years ahead of our amateurs in terms of resources, training and commitment.

    I see your point and I agree with it. Now how can we get RC to understand that if our guys were together more often for longer periods of time playing quality games, their on field performance would improve?

    Posted 1 year ago #

  17. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  18. Smallprint
    Member

    As for the NFL analogy, RnM responds well to Popo's digression. Isn't the Combine an excellent opportunity to poke and prod some choice slabs of beef to ensure that there are no structural defects? Further, teams bombard potential recruits with thorough psychological testing, plus indepth interviews, where even your mother's past is fair game. On top of that, you are put through your paces in a highly pressurized setting, in direct competition with your peers in Draft. Not necessarily a "perfect" predictor of suitability for the rigors of the NFL, but at least a very good attempt at being thorough.

    Anyone know what RC's standards for inclusion into the NSMT are?

    Posted 1 year ago #

  19. Ad Bot

    Posted 1 year ago

  20. chabaleatschildren
    Member

    I think what you are both getting at are the intangibles. Things like pride, (the Rock has buckets of that particularly when playing under their unoficial independandist tricolour),homogenuity, more true in the past than now,(when I saw them square off against the WC 2007 Canada squad the Rock players all came from 4 little clubs around St. John's) playing conditions, (Rock players have to play through more rain, sleet, wind and fog than any others on the planet).
    In recent years they have been bolstered by "Canadian" tallent from the maritimes and Quebec. This has been a good short term injection but I don't know how that will play out in the long term. I am not saying it's bad, I just don't know.
    Probably the most important factor in their favour is playing time together and sense of unity. Given our geography our Canadian team is sort of an all-star team where we have limited information about the players because they don't play with or against eachother much or at all in some cases. There is not much binding them together. Look at the British Lions. Higher playing level but a crappy record. Statistically Ireland or England on their own stand a much better chance against a Tri Nations side than the Lions do.
    The weakness in my argument is the Barbarians. The Barbarians is a randomly assembled team for one off exhibitions against T-14teams in France. Mostly they recruit from ex-pats playing for other clubs in the T-14. They have a decent winning record so that seems to fly in the face of my little theory.

    Posted 1 year ago #

  21. rucknmaul
    Member

    My point is not just limited to playing and training together regularly in order to develop cohesion and comradery. Rather my point is also to look at players that might not be the "underwear olympian". Some players don't look the part ie (tall, lean with bulging muscles) but can just play.

    Have you ever been on a team, where some specimen from some other sport (lacrosse, football, hockey) comes on the team and people think "wow look out this guy is going to make an impact" and he ends up sucking?

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.