Australian Schoolboys & National Championships 2016

[pekingduck]

Very true Lee, I am perplexed that parents still expect the winning team to have more players selected....It is not as simplistic as that, some games were very tight anyway..didn't ACT come within a whisker of beating NSW 1 on day 1? And the bleating that the Kiwis will beat us by 30...old story..didn't they beat us 32-8 last year?

 

[Countryjack]

Very true Lee, I am perplexed that parents still expect the winning team to have more players selected..It is not as simplistic as that, some games were very tight anyway..didn't ACT come within a whisker of beating NSW 1 on day 1? And the bleating that the Kiwis will beat us by 30.old story..didn't they beat us 32-8 last year?

The Kiwis have beaten us every year since they changed their selection policy: they now pick the best ,not just year 12.

 

[BrumbyJacksMate]

The Kiwis have beaten us every year since they changed their selection policy: they now pick the best ,not just year 12.

But our team isn't just year 12 boys.

 

[Tah123]

@HJ - interesting info on this year's U20s. So just under half of them didn't play Aussie Schoolboys - interesting. I notice that one boy goes from 3rd XV in Year 12 to playing Aussie U20s two years later - what a great effort and shows what hard work can lead to.

 

[Short Ball]

@HJ - interesting info on this year's U20s. So just under half of them didn't play Aussie Schoolboys - interesting. I notice that one boy goes from 3rd XV in Year 12 to playing Aussie U20s two years later - what a great effort and shows what hard work can lead to.

To be fair, he made a conscious decision to do so. He could've made 1's had he opted to trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hugh Jarse]

He actually was a talented athlete at school. He just prioritised his studies in his final year of school over the 1st XV/2nd XV rugby program which required an investment of time that he wasn't prepared to make.

 

[Lee Grant]

@HJ - interesting info on this year's U20s. So just under half of them didn't play Aussie Schoolboys - interesting. I notice that one boy goes from 3rd XV in Year 12 to playing Aussie U20s two years later - what a great effort and shows what hard work can lead to.

It does indicate that some have a dream and won't be deflected from it, but it may indicate also that lads have matured - in a physical sense, or a mental sense or a rugby sense - or any mix of those - from what they were in their last year at school.

And to the contrary: some lads mature in those elements as schoolboys and are caught up later.

For the late bloomers there is nothing like a year in Colts at a good club to bring out the best in a lad, as Hugh Jarse has said many a time, and they often need that second year.

And there is nothing like the opinion of a Colts' coach to whisper in the ear of a State U20 alickadoo (read into that Tim Rapp and Jason Gilmore in the two biggest rugby states) to get a lad into an U20 training squad.

These coaches and U20 people have zero interest in how fat the scrapbooks of ace schoolboy players are.

And we should not assume that the priority of good school players is to be professional rugby players and therefore to put themselves forward for U20s at all costs: they may have stopped playing the game when they started Uni, or a promising job - or still play but put studies ahead of their sport.


There is a host of reasons why good schools players don't end up in U20s, or why U20s reps don't have good school rugby pedigrees.

It is no wonder that half who are in Aussie U20s didn't play for Aussie Schools.

No denying that some have got to Aussie U20s through hard work and following a dream though.

Nosiree.
.

 

[Highlander35]

#NSW&QLD bias

 

[Inside Shoulder]

But our team isn't just year 12 boys.

Can you see the pattern?

 

[Not in straight]

Team:
Qld I, 8 (finished 6th)
ACT, 5 (finished 7th)
NSW I, 5 (finished 2nd)
NSW II, 3 (Winner)
Victoria, 2 (finished 4th)
Combined States, 1 (finished 3rd)
Qld II, 1 (finished 5th)


That is the biggest f@$k-up I've seen in schoolboys reps. There is a national champs and the national champs - NSW II , along with the runners-up NSW I , get less players then the team that come second last - ACT . Even worse you get a team that finished 3rd last and they get more !!

There is no other reasonable hypothesis , the teams selected has been undertaken by coaches who are aligned with ACT & QLD. Guess what as we know both coaches from the two Aus teams come from ACT & QLD.

I think too much has been made of where the 8 teams finished in the tournament.


In Pool B, it really came down to good luck that N2 finished on top. A slightly different result (eg, had VIC been awarded 4 tries in their game v WA - and they did cross 4 times - then they would have won the pool). Had Q1 scored 4 against N2 then it would have gone to a 3 way count back. Lots of if, buts and maybes. The point is 1,2 & 3 could have been any of these teams. So pool position not a great indicator as all 3 teams won 2 and lost 1 and certainly not a good indicator of the individual talent in up for selection.

As for pool A, similarly there must have been 4 teams with not too much between them.

The wet conditions played against the flashy backs in the 1 teams, which made the contests closer.

So I am not surprised that there were plenty of sections from all teams regardless of place in tournament (With exception of WA who did not win a game and were not up quite up to this level)



The other discussion point seems to be that many of the selections were pre-determined and the performances at the tournament were ignored.

That simply cant be the case with the names that have been mentioned of boys that were thought to be certainties that have missed. So others have out performed them and played themselves into selection during the tournament.


As for the final, N2 were the better team and thoroughly deserved their win. I dont think VIC or QLD 1 would have done as well, but we will never know. Had the NSW selections been slightly different with 2 or 3 of the best N2 players swapped into N1, N1 might have performed a lot better and likely win, (take Rixons 2 tries out which he had a big hand in both, the game was a lot closer).

I don't envy the job of selectors, they have a lot of factors to balance up. There are plenty of selection shock omissions as HJ said there would be. I feel for those boys. But I do think the squads picked are very good and soon enough we will know how right or wrong the selections are.

 

[redblack]

"That simply cant be the case with the names that have been mentioned of boys that were thought to be certainties that have missed. So others have out performed them and played themselves into selection during the tournament." And also taking into account others who were not given the opportunity with game time to show their worth though injury e.g. NSW2 hooker who is currently playing Sydney 1sts colts or on the other hand 10 minutes at the end of the game is hardly inspiring for any player (others were allowed to play virtually every minute of every game). The state coaches input also has a lot to do with this , how much we will never know..

 

[Not in straight]

"That simply cant be the case with the names that have been mentioned of boys that were thought to be certainties that have missed. So others have out performed them and played themselves into selection during the tournament." And also taking into account others who were not given the opportunity with game time to show their worth though injury e.g. NSW2 hooker who is currently playing Sydney 1sts colts or on the other hand 10 minutes at the end of the game is hardly inspiring for any player (others were allowed to play virtually every minute of every game). The state coaches input also has a lot to do with this , how much we will never know..

As far as I know, every boy in the Squad was guaranteed 60 minutes of game time and 1 start. (that would seem fair to me) Alot of the reserves started for N2 vs Q1, and that was where Q1 got 2 tries.

As for injury and not playing, no coaches or selectors can be blamed there.

As for State Coaches: N2= Legend N1 no so good

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

People looking for a situation to polish up their Tin Foul Hat will always find a place to do so. Being Victim is an easy job.

We only get to see the how the boys do during 4 games over 7 days.

We don't get to assess how coachable they are, or how they conduct themselves off field. In assembling a team or squad, these aspects can be important, possibly as important as raw talent. Many modern coaches advocate a character based program over one based on natural talent.

Ask Paul Roos's Sydney Swans or any recent NZ National Rugby team. "Better people make better rugby players".

Conversely consider the challenges of managing the off field antics and impact of the prodigiously talented Three Muppeteers (or four if you count Digby).

 

[SonnyDillWilliams]

In my view NSW has an embarrassment of talent in 2016.

Not sure who are the official Aussie Schoolboy shadows, but this is the SDW shadow Aussie Schools team

1. Darcy Breen (Scots)
2. Jack Ongosia (Auggies)
3. Todd (Scots)
4. Lawson (Newington)
5. Liam Rasch (Trinity)
6. Kemeny (Cranbrook) or O'Sullivan (Waverley)
7. Hingano (Auggies)
8. Michael Fenn (Riverview)
9. Kyle Brown (Kings)
10. N Shannon (Scots)
11. Jackson Mohi (Waverley)
12. Tyrone T ...(Newington)
13. Terry (View)
14. Lachlan Day (Joeys)
15 Bailey Simmonsen (Newington) ... I know he has gone to Mungo, but couldn't think of a fullback

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Based on stats alone that seems an unlikely lineup: no one from anywhere other than nsw, no one from CHS, 2 from outside CAS/GPS......did you see any of the games?????

 

[Quick Hands]

I think too much has been made of where the 8 teams finished in the tournament.


In Pool B, it really came down to good luck that N2 finished on top. A slightly different result (eg, had VIC been awarded 4 tries in their game v WA - and they did cross 4 times - then they would have won the pool). Had Q1 scored 4 against N2 then it would have gone to a 3 way count back. Lots of if, buts and maybes. The point is 1,2 & 3 could have been any of these teams. So pool position not a great indicator as all 3 teams won 2 and lost 1 and certainly not a good indicator of the individual talent in up for selection.

As for pool A, similarly there must have been 4 teams with not too much between them.

The wet conditions played against the flashy backs in the 1 teams, which made the contests closer.

So I am not surprised that there were plenty of sections from all teams regardless of place in tournament (With exception of WA who did not win a game and were not up quite up to this level)



The other discussion point seems to be that many of the selections were pre-determined and the performances at the tournament were ignored.

That simply cant be the case with the names that have been mentioned of boys that were thought to be certainties that have missed. So others have out performed them and played themselves into selection during the tournament.


As for the final, N2 were the better team and thoroughly deserved their win. I dont think VIC or QLD 1 would have done as well, but we will never know. Had the NSW selections been slightly different with 2 or 3 of the best N2 players swapped into N1, N1 might have performed a lot better and likely win, (take Rixons 2 tries out which he had a big hand in both, the game was a lot closer).

I don't envy the job of selectors, they have a lot of factors to balance up. There are plenty of selection shock omissions as HJ said there would be. I feel for those boys. But I do think the squads picked are very good and soon enough we will know how right or wrong the selections are.

While it's true that the finishing postion shouldn't be the main determiner of which boys are selected, I'd make a couple of points.

Once assumes that boys on a winning team will, in many cases, look better than boys on a losing team - not always and not in every case, but in general terms.

If teams finish 1st and 2nd, I could understand that the 2nd placed team may indeed get more players selected than the team that came first, for the reasons advanced in your post.

Don't you think it's a bit odd though that the team which finished 6th and the team which finished 7th have almost double the number of players than the teams which finished 1st and 2nd?

Having been involved in rugby for longer than I care to remember (including being involved in selecting various teams), it doesn't seem to me that performance at the tournament was the main determiner of selection. In fact, it stretches the bounds of credibility.

Note: I have no son, nephew, son/nephew of friend or anyone who I have even a distant relationship involved in any of the teams.

 

[Quick Hands]

I
15 Bailey Simmonsen (Newington) . I know he has gone to Mungo, but couldn't think of a fullback

You cannot be serious?

 

[Bob_the_Builder]

While it's true that the finishing postion shouldn't be the main determiner of which boys are selected, I'd make a couple of points.

etc etc - no need to quote the whole long post of something posted a couple of hours ago with a two-word response. Ed.

.

Well said.

 

[Bob_the_Builder]

Usually the teams that finish third in their pool don't get too many players selected for Aust Schoolboys, or Barbarians.

We shall see soon.

I thought I'd bring this post back up. It now seems teams that get third in their pool do get lots selected. I wonder if this new policy is kept next year.

 

[Not in straight]

While it's true that the finishing postion shouldn't be the main determiner of which boys are selected, I'd make a couple of points. etc etc

QLD were always going to make up a big percentage of the squad, regardless of performance.

They are a big state and lots of rugby and lots of talent. Selectors had to keep in mind that the QLD GPS players haven't played a game yet this season (most of them played soccer term 2). The conditions at View were atrocious, any result was possible and upsets galore did happen.

Had N2 not got a losing bonus point (against Q1), they would have been in the 5-6 playoff against Q2 on the shitty muddy field, that didn't give any boy a fair chance to showcase their ability.

All I am saying is that selectors had a lot of factors to balance,

Now as for ACT selections, as Sargent Schultz would say, "I Know Nuthing". Are they over represented in the National teams? I dont know, I dont know any of the players,and never seen them play.

Is there even a thread on Green and Gold about the ACT schools Rugby comp?