We asked our social media followers what they had to say about the USA efforts at the RIo Olympics. As usual, our readers had many interesting and insightful things to contribute - here is a sample of their comments:

Colin Miller: Nothing against MH, who had a great (if not his best) tournament. I think 2 points could more easily have been made up by taking better care of the pill.

 

Cal Russo: Listen...We've seen the Elephant. We know what it takes and how to get there. It's up to us in the USA to give these Athletes the Coaching, Training, Facilities and Finances to be consistently Top 3 at every 7's International Rugby Event. We can do this. Just need to dig deeper and work harder.

... And I have Faith in our new USA Rugby CEO, Director Alex Magelby and Coach Friday.

 

Colin Miller: I would have voted for MF for President...until the Olympics. Substitution strategy was poor. Ebner was very fit - his bleep test must be approaching half my age - and he defended well, but his decision-making was entirely average and cost us at least as many points as he scored by my estimation (ignoring games against Brazil, who gave up soft tries like they were air). It horrifies me to say this, but Friday was out-coached almost as comprehensively as the rugby man-god Tietjens was.

... Having said that: no changes in players or coaching staff. Nietszche's rule applies.

 

Alan Petty: The Argentina mistakes at the end were painful to watch. But questioning player's publicly seems out of bounds. The substitution pattern against Fiji seemed odd.

 

Gary Brown: This team has been plagued by extending the first half frantically only to be the team conceding the try. It has happened more than once in the last few years and it kills momentum.

 

Nathan Grant To me it looked like we had a few guys that played their hearts out (Baker, Barrett) and a few unnamed that seemed o think it was a touch game at the park. One player in particular missed tackles, made a load of poor choices and was just playing horrendously. I wonder why there was no decision to remove him until it was far too late? Anyhow, like someone else said, we have seen the mountaintop, we can get there, it's just a matter of having a good structure in place from USA Rugby and the whole country giving the national teams better rugby players. We can't rely on athletes, we need rugby players who have played since they were five. Same goes for the women, we need to expand youth opportunities and play a lot more touch rugby for the kids. The Aussie women were all touch rugby players and it showed in their skills.

 

Tom Gray: Lack of chemistry, a very good example why a couch or team should not change players! New players - new game plan! Should have stuck with the core group of players who earned them the opportunity to play in the Olympics!

 

Shawn Dahlem: I'm gutted so I can only imagine how the men feel. The mistakes were 7s 101 but that's 7s. Yet, what an ending it would have been against Fiji if the final lineout went off the top, the Americans played keep away and Carlin Isles some space for a try under the posts.

 

Gary Brown: i have know idea why they brought that ball down with all the problems they were having in the breakdown

 

Meredith Frasier: I am very proud of our women's team. However I think it is also apparent that if we want the USA women or men to truly be competitive against teams like New Zealand, Fiji, etc. we really need a system in place to allow for higher levels of play that is consistent and for these athletes to be able to be rugby players as their day to day job. The men's pro league is a great start but something needs to happen for the women in both 7's and 15's. I saw an article that posed the idea that the women's rugby team might be the next us women's soccer team and there's totally that potential but we need to get them a league system that allows for that growth, training, and focus on the sport.

 

Mike Geibel: The men compete in 15ish international sevens tournaments per year. I'm not sure what else can be done for them. The women need an expanded sevens series. Fifteens is another story entirely I don't even want to get started.

 

Dennis Oliver: IMO Pinkleman is being highly under estimated and was a work horse. Durutalo wasn't given enough time to make an impact. A lot of other what ifs, but the fact that we're expecting more out of our teams is solid. Hopefully this doesn't throw a wrench into USOC support. On the women's front, given the coach change 4 months prior, it's a tall task. We played well, and fiercely, but at the end it was the other team that did the same a little bit better. Now to build the youth game.

 

Curtis D Busse: As a whole, selfish! On the ladies side a hockey and soccer player were the class, Men's not the best coaching and subs, very selfish Hughes wasn't big enough for the moment from the 1st whistle, captain should show some greatness, Carlin should of played more that's for sure.

 

Sean Watson Kilfoyle: It looked as if they had trouble playing and/or implementing their pattern. Sevens is a wide open game but pattern is still important. In the first game, they looked overwhelmed and very disjointed. Still proud of our team! Especially the women

 

Russ Wilkening: Both teams played tough matches against the best in the world and showed we belong in that group. Both were agonizingly close but just didn't get/make the luck needed to move on further. The USA has come so very far and I am thrilled to see that our collective expectations have risen so far in the last couple of years. "Well done" to both teams, it's clear that we are close to the World's best and soon we could be the dynastic teams so many of us have long dreamed our nation would produce.

 

Bill Dillard: For both the men and women, the whole thing can be summed up with "for want of a nail", from the needless penalty that allowed the Aussie women to tie us in the pool, to the blown restart in the pool at the end of the men's Argentina game, to the unlikely conversion by Fiji from a sharp angle which was ultimately alone the difference between us and New Zealand, right down to the inexplicable decision to take the ball to ground after the final lineout rather than making a clean throw to the scrum half, at which point the much stronger Fijians promptly took it away as they had all day long. But I'm sure they gave their all and feel alot more acutely than us how easily this tournament could have turned out differently. They deserve our gratitude.

 

Matthew Pederson: People keep talking about how were were in the game against the world's best, the problem is M lose to Argentina which probably shouldn't have happened same as W lose to Fiji, those are the games that show maybe the games M v Fiji and W v AU were the aberations and we're aren't where we think we are, we need to constantly beat the teams we are ranked above on a regular basis before cheering get the occasional top 4 ranked win

 

Tosan Temitse: We need more honest critical assessment by fans. We owe our teams that. We need to have expectations, elite athletes feed off of that pressure.

 

Mike Flanagan: our men and women played their hearts out, would've liked to have seen more Isles given his buildup, everyone can sit on the sideline and critique the decisions are sit second and at times given the play you can't sub...felt this at CRC more than once

 

David Bruck: All the games were very winnable, the boys were in it all the way in every one of the matches and it's a fine line at that level. Argie played out of their skulls and Fiji is Fiji. Tough draw.

 

Dominic Budzisz: Refs impacted each game the knock on try Argentina and ridiculous lack of not releasing in Fiji game 22 going in...I noticed we tried new strategy of running a front row off line up once we had possession in a won lineout which hurt possession....Danny Barret who was fantastic in 1st half of each game was equally gassed in each 2nd half late on defense...Ebner was awesome...Friday set guys up for success...kick not going 10 and only one more conversion would have been enough...we've all lost close games...can't imagine USA getting a better 12 even though they didn't win this team and program will be hard to beat...2 yrs ago we were 12 to 16 in World 7s now we competed for Gold

 

Patrick Brewer: Here are my thoughts, now that we have gotten to watch the "Ebner Experiment". In terms of club rugby, he reminded me of that yoked dude who was recruited in the gym, and used to play football. While he made some great athletic plays, his game knowledge wasn't up to the level it takes to compete on the international stage. As expected, he was 90% of who they talked about or showcased in their coverage. He was NBC's marketing piece, and "human interest" story. Not saying he isnt probably a reallu nice guy, nor his story isn't interesting to hear, he probably wasn't ready for that stage. While it was a valid attempt to draw new fans to the sport, costing the Eagles a spot in the medal round wasn't worth it. Just my two cents.

Nathan Grant: Ebner played rugby his whole life, he's not one of those gym rat dudes or the fast guy you pick up for club. He's the kind of guy we need at our high levels, guys who have played since they were little and are also athletes. I though he was a bright spot in terms of effort. We had a few key guys that looked sick or just out of it and their work rate was non existent. Give me a guy with a high work rate any day.

 

Jack Clark: Alex, this has been such a seminal aspect of U.S. rugby the questions need to be asked of not just our two teams and their staffs, but of all the forces and individuals at work since 2009 when the IOC re-admitted rugby as a medal sport. Both our teams could have won medals. It is not far-fetched to state both the men and women could have both played for the Gold Medal. The fact this statement can be made is an indication of the narrow margins we are now negotiating. Margins greatly influenced by strategic planning, funding, thought and administrative leadership.

Since our teams were so close to achieving Olympic stardom, my question is what could the executive leadership of USAR and the organization as a whole have done for the team over the last 7 years to have given them the narrow advantage they needed? Also, what could we have all done as clubs and members of the community to push the teams over the top?

There have clearly been some significant success for which should be proud. And no doubt mistakes, inactions and voids of administrative leadership to regret. However, the audit light seldom reaches the organizations work and it always shines brightly on the athletes in the arena.

It's easy to identify the competition performance errors. Even the Gold Medalist will have made a bushel of mistakes. But does the community have the chops to examine the whole cycle, off the field as well as on the field?

I think this is the important question...what could have been done over the last 7 years to better support our athletes and coaches? We are just looking for a few points.

David Bruck: Jack, if you are talking about 7's in particular it's really not pretty. While the Eagles got about all they asked for in money and faclities and coaches, the 7's season is a hodge lodge affair that doesn't get to much until the Nationals. There is no sponsorship by USA leading up to Finals, no money from anyone for anything other than what is raised by tournament organizers. Most tournaments are not played on grounds that allow a gate and look like a proper athetic event. USA Rugby is just not around organizationally or with money. This year, the organizer, Howard Kent is not even going to be in Denver he is so disgusted with the powers that be. There was no schedule 3 weeks prior to the event on the website. No one knows where the Finals are until a few months before the event. Club rugby, which is the life blood for our teams is neglected. We need a funded competition for 7's and a for XV's that crosses the country and USA Rugby cannot or will not and has not done much to make it happen. My opinion.

 

Mike Geibel: I think the Olympic format is a bit of a hindrance to finding a true champion. There's a reason the HSBC series goes several months. When margins are so close between teams, you get fluke results in individual tournaments. Over the course of 10 tournaments, the US would make the quarters better than half, and the medal round in a few. But in a one off, they have some bad luck, bad bounces, or a few small errors and that's it.

 

John Silich: Is it just me that thinks the refs actually thought it was about them? The current breakdown is a lottery and more than a little confusing to the spectator let alone the players. An F for the referees in my book. Too many marginal calls that impacted outcomes.

 

James F Wolfinger: Refs too pedantic in many cases especially with the women and didn't always use technology well
Basic pass catch evasion skills 10% short at least
Intuitive decision making 20% short of gold standard
Team makeup a little short on evasiveness and inventiveness
Still we were not embarrassed and looked like we belonged
Non rugby people were and are impressed from my interactions
Proud of our guys and girls

Good effort close scores

 

Jon Velie: Can we leverage this event as the catalyst to accomplishing a gold medal four years from now?

What needs to happen is regularly televised coverage of the sport so it becomes a mainstream sport?

How can we beat countries that their top athletes are rugby players if ours are not?

The US is the top sports market in the world. What will pro rugby, collegiate rugby, youth rugby look like in 4 years?

Who will be the drivers or drivers of the sport?

Who will monetize it and optimize it?

What is the market and who is going to lead it?

 

Jack Breen: Over all super proud of players and coachrs who committed a sugnificant part of their lives to preparing for this. New fans were impressed, at least the ones texting me. Top 3 sides in each pool were very competitive, which is good for sport. USA were competitive but have played better, which is both a point of pride and a bit disappointing. Some of the referering was very good, others need significant improvement. Key scores were given up late, repetitively. YC opportunities were squandered too often. Speed of passing needs improvement and left both teams more vulnerable to rush defense than they should of been. Seemed to be out rucked in the losses but have not yet broken down film to see data. Conversion kick kept men from QF and was difference in first match loss. Both teams lost their winnable first matches. Should be explored to see if something in prep contributed to that.

 

 

Dean Parent: That is my thesis here. Preparation was spotty. And we have to reason for that in the USA. USA Rugby hasn't become an actual training body like the rest of the world. Serevi and Tiger rugby both have amazing programs to prepare. Not sure where, or if the Olympiads were exposed to that. I also feel the the USA Rugby has been hamstrung by the imminent exit of of the current administration, and the following which I have much more confidence in. Brighter days are ahead.

 

Tim Orenbuch: Overall, the sport and players looked great, but it was a shame our broadcasts were relegated to the daytime, the Olympic's dead zone. 

Both the men's & women's teams finished at or below where they were ranked before the tournament - the very definition of underperformance. Both teams had essentially the same problem: a lack of creativity in their overall system(s) and game plan. Why was it so difficult for our players to create space and make breaks? (Let's forget about the Men's Brazil and Women's Columbia matches.) Why was it so difficult for the men to get the ball to Baker, the fastest man in the sport? 

I know that both teams trained as hard or harder than any team in the tournament - fitness wasn't the problem. But being crazy fit doesn't help if our players are consistently running into the defense and not creating space and making breaks.

I wonder how much of our practices focus on fundamentals (passing & catching, set-pieces, basic defense etc,) how much time is spent on fitness and how much time is spent on teaching players our system and making quick decisions inside that system? For example: When our players read a defense, they should see the same opportunities to create gaps for teammates, who are moving toward toward those gaps. More coaching emphasis needs to be on a creative framework for both our team's play.

 

 

Michael Sagehorn: I enjoyed watching both women's and the men's teams. I recalls Theodore Roosevelt quote about "those in the arena." Our players played hard and were respected. Examine and analyze the factors, as high performance folks do, but I really enjoyed watching the matches on a network, not a PC streaming. Rugby is for enjoyment and fun.

 

Hywel Ap Rees: We belonged. That's a fact. In both men's and women's. And we could have medaled in both. Currently men's expectations are higher than women's in 7's and vice versa in 15's, so this is mostly about the men. Everyone is disappointed. Everyone. All of us at home or work watching via the Internet or on TV. Posting, tweeting. We're all disappointed. 

We all have opinions: this guy should have been pulled earlier, this one should have started etc etc. We're all armchair quarterbacks (I'm the worst). 

I don't think any of us realize just how much pressure was on them. 7's is the key to growing rugby in the US. They know that. They had the heavy weight of an expected medal around their shoulders before they even started. They've beaten all those teams in the past and, frankly, only Fiji was the scary threat and we had our chances to beat them again.

No other team in the Olympics had such pressure on them. They knew that a podium performance would change the game in the US. 

You know what? They didn't need a podium. They succeeded. They spread the word, they showed their skills and the publicity they generated is outstanding. That goes for men and women. They showed skill, pace, power, teamwork, joy and disappointment. Most of all they showed the brother/sisterhood of rugby. These players opened the eyes of the American public to our game in a way that has never happened before. Medals? Of course, that would be the Hollywood script. That's the easy way. The better script is the work they put in, the expectations of a nation, the realization of what needs to be done. Part 2 is the 7s Rugby World Cup in SF in 2 years and then the 2020 Olympics is Part 3. 

I cannot comprehend the pressure that was on these athletes. Mike Friday knew, which is why he started Ebner and Wyles in game 2 because they've played in big games. However, I bet that if asked, both would say they were more intimidated by that than any other game they've played in, including cup finals and superbowls. 

They won. Each and every man and woman, players and coaching staff. It's up to us now, sitting in our armchairs, to haul our butts up and do what we can to enable them to fulfill all of our dreams.

 

Hannah Tomahawk Stolba: I am looking forward to the day when US rugby has its own style and its not trying to play the style of other teams around the world that have been successful. Look at the athletes we have, our strengths and weaknesses. Play to our strengths and coach our weaknesses up and create something new and innovative. As far as the Olympics specific, 7s is a fickle game and the nature of the game will always leave injustices. But a 16 team, 4 pool format and or two six team pools would do a lot to get the consistently best teams into the quarters. 

Proud of all of the athletes and coaches who have given their time and effort day in and day out for years for this.

David Hughes: .....I think we have our own style.....and that is the problem.....if we used RUGBY players.....and the best rugby players we have instead of just superstar type athletes we could hold our own against the world's best......we lost in the rucks and passing....we could not even get the ball out to our speed players......

 

 

Scott Edward Brown: Glimpses of excellence and proof we have earn the right to participate at the higher level. Unfortunately, we still showed moments of lacking discipline and/or elementary breakdowns that were immediately exploited.

That being said, those men and women did something no one in the world expected we could do - play close to "their" level, or better - which each of those men and women should be proud.  

 

 

Thanks everyone - AG