canuckles wrote:
Fini was supposed to mean it, but I will answer your post (even though this theme has been done numerous times over the years) and then that is it for me with Canadian rugby.
Of course PP players comprised a number of players on the 99, 03 and 07 RWC teams. Back then you had to play with the Pride to make the national team, unless you were an eligible like Major, Reid, Pritchard or Munro. Only a fool would believe Rugby Canada's claptrap. By 2011 a whole school of good players made the NSMT without being blessed by being a member of the Pacific Pride. I think the 2011 guys as a group were as good or better than the last years' players on the Pacific Pride teams. As I have mentioned on this thread previously, leading into the 2003 RWC, Clark recalled Lougheed and Ross, two players who had been retired for years. Their recall was an admission that the PP program could not produce the players necessary for the national team.
I used calendar years. I used 2013 as a cutting off point because by the fall of that year a fundamental change in direction was put in place by Rugby Canada regarding 'elite' men's rugby: a directional change which Canadian rugby is still trying to readjust. If you do not believe in the point, it is your decision. Essentially, I used the eight years from 2013 back to the end of the PP program and the final eight years of the original Pacific Pride squads. I thought I was being very fair with the years.
FFS, Westshore's backline is essentially an U20 squad. There are a number U23 guys playing first string in B. C. who are playing on merit. I read what Rugby Canada is doing/saying as a criticism of BC rugby clubs (and those east of the Rockies) and their inability to produce quality players. Returning to a Pacific Pride program is a warm and fuzzy answer to the problems of men's rugby in Canada.
Thanks for the response (though there's no need to be pissy - I'm no fool, they are honest questions).
That's fair enough re the 8 years. And of course I agree re the post 2013 fundamental change which has fcuked over Canadian rugby - for years to come IMO, but that's old ground.
A whole load of "other" players making the 2011 RWC squad is hardly an indictment of the programme - it's not intended to be the
only path to the top. And I don't see recalling a couple of players in 03 as any kind of admission that the PP couldn't produce players. Couldn't produce all the players, sure. But anyone who though one acadaemy or team could would have to be off the rocker!
I'm not sure what point you are making re Westshore playing a load of U20s in their backline or the U23 already playing Prems. So?! How can it be a bad thing for there to be
more players getting to play higher level rugby? Or to be in full time programmes? More opportunity for promising players from around the country, not just those with those clubs, to get proper training and experience and exposure?
Academies work brilliantly in rugby the world over, I can't see how this is a bad idea in principle. I mean, the fact it's a CR scheme with BCRU approval makes me skeptical!

But in principle the idea is not intrinsically bad. The progression of young players to the top of the game in this country is fcuking terrible - a rugby academy is a step in the right direction.
I agree with, 100%, that this is partly an RC "criticism of BC rugby clubs (and those east of the Rockies) and their inability to produce quality players". And that it's a "warm and fuzzy answer to the problems of men's rugby in Canada". You are spot on. But on the former, it's fcuking justified criticism if you ask me, and on the latter, as I said, it's just
a step.
Lastly, re "If you do not believe in the point, it is your decision". It's nothing to do with belief. I'm by no means saying the old programme was good (I have exactly zero opinion on it). The point is that the stats don't seem to back up the point you were making and it doesn't look like it's the "gotcha" moment you seemed to think. I mean, I totally understand the criticism and skepticism! I do. But to be left with "with blank stares and open mouths" I'd need to see something more than a good period of rugby, followed by a good period of rugby and a top ever ranking, followed by it going to shit when the affects of the thing you claim was ineffectual wear off. If anything, it suggests* the exact opposite of what you are saying to be honest (*in isolation and with no context, so I am NOT drawing that conclusion, but it certainly doesn't indicate the point you made either)