Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
^^^As opposed to 19/23 players from private schools?
Australian Schoolboys 2014
- Thread starter TheKing
- Start date
- Status
Both Lough's could feel hard done by, as could many other kids from the National Tournament.
The actual Selectors often see things that the keyboard selectors miss, and vice versa.
NSW2 made the final, primarily on the strength of their loose forward and Jack McGregor performances, yet only two players from that team got the nod (1 from Shadow).
^^^As opposed to 19/23 players from private schools?
Australian Schoolboys Touring Squad
6 Players from 6 Public Schools
20 Players from 15 Private Schools
26 players from 21 Schools
Brainstrust
Watty Friend (18)
You have to wonder whether the 3 unannounced at the time were always going to be Queenslanders , but they couldn't announce it on the day because there would have been a lynching given the unimpressive performance of qld 1 once they came up against stronger opposition. I agree with Rugby Addict, when you play NZ you have to have guys that are tough and work hard, and to that end how James Lough has been overlooked makes little sense. I was impressed with some of the qld back rowers early in the tournament, but as the defense got stiffer later in the week, they was noticeably unimpactful. I hope I'm wrong, and you never know for sure how strong NZ will be, but losing AC and HH, leaves the Aussies a bit short on impact. Good luck to them, I hope they prove a few of us wrong.
Crichton played both games at Knox last year for Australia A. He was #5 against NZ Schools (we lost 36-0) and #8 against Fiji (we won 32-17).
http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/10333/Default.aspx
Jasdec
Ted Fahey (11)
Thanks HJ, must have got the timing around the wrong way.
This is always true, and the selectors usually get it right more often than we do. I thought that James Lough is more the type of player that we need to play against the Kiwis in the test match than Fox is.
Those are the players I would have leaned towards more for all the squad selections because if they played a hard game in that last match they would ipso facto be capable of competing well in the other two.
But the selectors look at a bigger range of things than we do and that is why we will always be puzzled, year to year.
This is sometimes the case. A few years back when KB (Kurtley Beale) was playing for NSW Is Schools and QC (Quade Cooper) was playing for Qld I Schools neither side made the final and both IIs teams were in it instead.
But the NSW and Qld players who made the Aus Schools team 1st XV was made up principally of players from the Ones.
You knew this was going to happen even before Finals Day. Those boys from both Twos' sides clicked but they weren't as good individuals as the Ones' players were. There was no way that Twos players would have been chosen over Kurtley and Quade and in some other positions.
There must have been a few disgruntled parents, but I saw the reasons why most players were chosen.
This year Qld I had a dud team and nearly lost to Qld II instead of drawing with them, yet Qld I has seven players in the touring party by my rough count and Qld II, just one—because they had better individual players.
.
Ben Smith
Frank Nicholson (4)
^^^As opposed to 19/23 players from private schools?
The private/public statistic really doesnt matter in NZ as both private and public schools compete in the same rugby competition. The best will prove themselves as they have to play all schools that are worthy (in their grade)
Auckland Grammar School centre Reiko Aiono is a star who has secured a Blues contract, and also centre from Scots College, Malo Tuitama, who has scored 60 tries in 37 caps for SC 1st XV. SC were the co-national champions this year.
Will be interesting to see, im picking NZ schoolboys in a tight one as Porirua Park in Wellington could be windy and miserable as most days are in Wellington.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
pablo
Darby Loudon (17)
Interesting to see that one of the 3 added to the squad is listed as captain.
http://www.schoolsrugby.com.au/2014/news/australian-schools-side-depart-new-zealand-tour/
^^^^
Yeah - with Crichton out he is now a better chance to make the starting team.
PS - We are fond of picking teams to play on schools tours but don't pay a lot of attention to who starts in any game except the test against New Zealand. That will be their best XV of players who are fit to play.
They will try to give most of the players a start in a game so don't get excited who starts against the NZ A team (Barbarians) in the second game.
I'm picking that some lads will get their sole starting game in this match against the NZ Twos and since they have a squad of 26 it could be as much as eleven, though I doubt it.
They got smacked two years ago against the same side because the Kiwis had better depth than we did and when Oz rested or benched six forwards and two backs who ended up starting in the NZ test, it wasn't pretty.
Two years ago nearly all of the starting XV against Samoa (playing in NZ) started in the NZ test also and I expect much the same this year when they play against Fiji in the first game.
.
Yeah - with Crichton out he is now a better chance to make the starting team.
PS - We are fond of picking teams to play on schools tours but don't pay a lot of attention to who starts in any game except the test against New Zealand. That will be their best XV of players who are fit to play.
They will try to give most of the players a start in a game so don't get excited who starts against the NZ A team (Barbarians) in the second game.
I'm picking that some lads will get their sole starting game in this match against the NZ Twos and since they have a squad of 26 it could be as much as eleven, though I doubt it.
They got smacked two years ago against the same side because the Kiwis had better depth than we did and when Oz rested or benched six forwards and two backs who ended up starting in the NZ test, it wasn't pretty.
Two years ago nearly all of the starting XV against Samoa (playing in NZ) started in the NZ test also and I expect much the same this year when they play against Fiji in the first game.
.
S'UP
Bill Watson (15)
Lee how do we know this " the selectors usually get it right more often than we do." do we ever get to see the boys that miss out play in the same context, i'm saying no. It is what it is some boys miss out other don't and good luck to them. Unfortunately some very good player could be lost to Rugby on the back of these decisions.
S'UP
Bill Watson (15)
That reminds me of a superrugby game i watch a couple of years ago, there was a NZ selector watching the game with a handycam, after the game he was asked what he thought of the game his response was " I came to look at one player, we wanted to see what he does off the ball and if that is up to what we expect of an all black, we know what he can do on the ball so I just followed him all game, I have no idea of the score"
I guess that is why they are the best, we look at the flashy players who make the runs, steal the ball but we refuse to look at the players that work really hard, if they wern't working so hard maybe they could be that flashy player. If everyone worked as hard as each other then maybe you would ahve a great team.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
In fact statistically they get it wrong: the conversion rate to pro ball is very low.
That was in reference to our recent good results against New Zealand from a selection panel that hasn't changed a whole lot from year to year.
Results against NZ are the harshest test of selectors getting it right.
Sure some good fellows miss out on schools' selection and if that is the thing that stops them playing the game later you'd have to consider if they are worthwhile keeping.
Sometimes they are better and/or more developed than their contemporaries a year or two later, and sometimes they may have been better all along, or just as good.
The guys I admire most are the young men who get into Colts and prove themselves there and get to Under 20s despite missing out in schools rep teams.
.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
That's a harsh assessment.
The rock stars get a lot of molly coddling - and used to get much more than the non-rock stars.
If you have to keep yourself and pay for stuff at uni it can be difficult to pay to play the game. But if you are feted with a scholarship to a uni things can be a lot easier.
Some people actually have to earn money to keep themselves in uni and working late on a Friday night may not be the best prep for a saturday game.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
They are a rare animal these days Lee.
At least the new Tahs system makes this a more likely scenario for a few "Neville's" each year.
Yeah that's one reason I like the Under 20s system now.
The Tahs are not at all interested what the rugby pedigree of players are in their Under 20s training group they just want the best players and they don't care what school they went to.
Cheika told me they "processed" about 75 NSW players up to about the end of calendar 2013 for the Under 20s competition held in Canberra in March 2014. The number was whittled down further once they played in trial games in early 2014 and the group was finalised after playing against the likes of the Argentina Pampas XV and the Oz Barbarians.
Kellaher and his helpers nominated a heap of players initially nearly 12 months ago now and Cheika sent the list to the clubs and said to them if there was anybody worth looking at who wasn't on the list to send them to training.
Sure the school stars are probably molly-coddled at their clubs to get them to play Colts for them but they would have to produce the goods for the hard-nosed Colts coaches once the season started.
Sydney Uni is different case because of the scholarship component that does indeed go to schools stars as Sydney Uni judges them to be such, but I wasn't referring to that case just rugby after school generally.
If a youngster has a big enough dream and is good enough he will make it in Under 20s through Colts and maybe Grade—and with the NRC he even has another year or two to keep the dream alive for pro rugby.
He shouldn't give it up because he didn't make Oz Schools.
.
The Tahs are not at all interested what the rugby pedigree of players are in their Under 20s training group they just want the best players and they don't care what school they went to.
Cheika told me they "processed" about 75 NSW players up to about the end of calendar 2013 for the Under 20s competition held in Canberra in March 2014. The number was whittled down further once they played in trial games in early 2014 and the group was finalised after playing against the likes of the Argentina Pampas XV and the Oz Barbarians.
Kellaher and his helpers nominated a heap of players initially nearly 12 months ago now and Cheika sent the list to the clubs and said to them if there was anybody worth looking at who wasn't on the list to send them to training.
Sure the school stars are probably molly-coddled at their clubs to get them to play Colts for them but they would have to produce the goods for the hard-nosed Colts coaches once the season started.
Sydney Uni is different case because of the scholarship component that does indeed go to schools stars as Sydney Uni judges them to be such, but I wasn't referring to that case just rugby after school generally.
If a youngster has a big enough dream and is good enough he will make it in Under 20s through Colts and maybe Grade—and with the NRC he even has another year or two to keep the dream alive for pro rugby.
He shouldn't give it up because he didn't make Oz Schools.
.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
My reference was not to sydney uni's scholarships - somewhere said 3 - it was more to the idea that Randwick had 36(?) kids on them and then we see the clubs getting rid of 3rd grade colts meaning everyone playing colts will be on a scholarship - our rugby pyramid is rapidly becoming the leaning tower of pisa, but without the visitors.
Anyway Im sure that's for another thread.
Anyway Im sure that's for another thread.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, there won't be.
The Kiwis are putting this on for their home consumption and they obviously just want the NZ component.
At least we are getting two games on this NZ tour: two years ago, and four years ago, we got only the test match.
Two years before that we didn't get any TV coverage.
.
No, there won't be.
The Kiwis are putting this on for their home consumption and they obviously just want the NZ component.
At least we are getting two games on this NZ tour: two years ago, and four years ago, we got only the test match.
Two years before that we didn't get any TV coverage.
.
- Status