Doesn't look like the JGC has had much impact on registrations this season in SJRU. Disappointing. I was hoping it would be the opposite.
Continued decline in Sydney Junior Rugby
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Except there are 6 more teams in 16s than last year.
If, instead of abandoning the 16s, they had said selection into JGC for 2015 would be based on club and rep performances they would have forced the hand of some boys who like to pick and choose their codes (which is their right, of course).
Not sure I entirely agree.
In the 2014 U16's there are only 6 teams graded A, 6 teams in B Grade, and 7 teams in the Grade C competition.
Then there are rumours circulating about teams folding as soon as State Championships are over.
In the 2014 U16's there are only 6 teams graded A, 6 teams in B Grade, and 7 teams in the Grade C competition.
Then there are rumours circulating about teams folding as soon as State Championships are over.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
But isn't the point to keep as many kids of all levels and commitments in the game as long as possible: if so the grading is very much secondary, except it leads to small comps.
My recollection is that there are always rumours of folding teams - even in U15s in 2013 there was a rumour that one of the major and successful clubs would fold after state champs
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
While there are 6 more teams in the 16s than last year, 2013 was the low point. There are still 12 less teams than in 2012. It's going the right way I suppose, but there are also 11 less 15s teams in 2014 than there were in 2013 and that 1999 cohort has lost half its teams in 2 years.
Time to revisit the Garling Report (2010)?
Download it here.
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/NSWRugby/Competitions/Juniors.aspx
directly from here:
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Portals/3/Documents/Juniors/2010/Garling Report-2010.pdf
Some further discussion on the Garling Report here (dormant since mid 2012).
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/nsw-junior-rugby-the-garling-report.6776/
Download it here.
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/NSWRugby/Competitions/Juniors.aspx
directly from here:
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Portals/3/Documents/Juniors/2010/Garling Report-2010.pdf
Some further discussion on the Garling Report here (dormant since mid 2012).
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/nsw-junior-rugby-the-garling-report.6776/
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Unfortunately HJ, neither NSWJRU nor SJRU show any sign of being open to change as envisaged in the Garling report. One thing that all bureaucracies possess in spades is a self-defence mechanism. The move to centralisation has taken 2 or 3 decades - you probably know the story, but I'll summarise what I know from my experience.
In the old days Manly JRU ran its own competitions from 6s-9s, it's now combined with Warringah, but it's still small enough to be flexible and receptive to the needs of its constituents.
From 10s-14s there used to be an entity call 'Combined Competition". This involved junior clubs from Manly, Norths, Warringah & Hornsby JRUs. From 15s on, Gordon joined in and it was run by Northern Zone.
Under these systems, things stayed local for as long as possible and only combined when there was a need.
Referees were also local and no shows were rare (each district club had its own referees association).
In the last decade we've seen the referees amalgamated into 3 associations based on the old zones, but appointments are done centrally at SRU level. There's very little room for flexibility when you're trying to appoint referees to 100s of games over 3 days.
SJRU has gone from being an umbrella body, which didn't do much except pick a 16s rep team to micro-managing 10s to 18s rugby across the Sydney basin. No doubt it has some hard working people involved both at volunteer and employee level, but I don't believe that the model is sustainable. The decline in team numbers tend to support my view. Everyone I talk to thinks its complete madness sending 10 year olds across Sydney to run around with their mates in D, E and F competitions, but the system grinds on.
If this was all working and numbers were going up, I'd be the first to say it's a great system because it would be self evident. Unfortunately we can't say that.
What we have in junior rugby is systems failure rather than people failure. It really needs someone with a very large broom to sweep a lot of stuff out, find out what works and what doesn't and basically start again. It's only going to work if the district clubs take some ownership of their patch and the current system seems to cut districts out.
Big is not always better.
In the old days Manly JRU ran its own competitions from 6s-9s, it's now combined with Warringah, but it's still small enough to be flexible and receptive to the needs of its constituents.
From 10s-14s there used to be an entity call 'Combined Competition". This involved junior clubs from Manly, Norths, Warringah & Hornsby JRUs. From 15s on, Gordon joined in and it was run by Northern Zone.
Under these systems, things stayed local for as long as possible and only combined when there was a need.
Referees were also local and no shows were rare (each district club had its own referees association).
In the last decade we've seen the referees amalgamated into 3 associations based on the old zones, but appointments are done centrally at SRU level. There's very little room for flexibility when you're trying to appoint referees to 100s of games over 3 days.
SJRU has gone from being an umbrella body, which didn't do much except pick a 16s rep team to micro-managing 10s to 18s rugby across the Sydney basin. No doubt it has some hard working people involved both at volunteer and employee level, but I don't believe that the model is sustainable. The decline in team numbers tend to support my view. Everyone I talk to thinks its complete madness sending 10 year olds across Sydney to run around with their mates in D, E and F competitions, but the system grinds on.
If this was all working and numbers were going up, I'd be the first to say it's a great system because it would be self evident. Unfortunately we can't say that.
What we have in junior rugby is systems failure rather than people failure. It really needs someone with a very large broom to sweep a lot of stuff out, find out what works and what doesn't and basically start again. It's only going to work if the district clubs take some ownership of their patch and the current system seems to cut districts out.
Big is not always better.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The 15s might be JGC induced?
Its going the right way but you couldn't say its a trend.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I think it probably is, but have no data to support that only some anecdotal evidence.
Your little spread sheet should have alarm bells ringing somewhere, but I doubt anyone in authority has actually put together a document like that. How long did it take you? 10 minutes?
The 1998 cohort (this year's 16s) held up pretty well until this year:
55 (13s), 48 (14s), 44 (15s) and 19 (16s) teams
The 1999 cohort (this year's 15) has had their decline start earlier (JGC?)
53 (13s), 39 (14s), 28 (15s) - that's not many teams for all of Sydney
The 2000 cohort (this year's 14s) start from and even lower base:
49 (13s) to 40 (14s)
Another big problem that I can see straight away is the drop-off after 11s:
The 2001 cohort went from 79 teams to 62
The 2002 cohort went from 81 teams to 66
I can't think of any outside factors that would influence this. Most boys don't change school at the start of Year 6, there's no increase in the number of players in a team and the physicality of the older age groups hasn't kicked in yet. At 20 players a team, that's around 300 boys giving it away in a single year. Over the two years of those 2 cohorts that 600 boys. The game can't sustain that sort of player loss - and we know that numbers will decline further in all sports when the boys get older. If we can't hold participation level 12 year olds, we are in big trouble.
The 2000 cohort actually had an increase from 11s to 12s and it's now following the 1999 cohort into decline 39 against 40 in 14s.
The one undeniable fact to come out of the statistics is that despite and increase in 10s and 11s, the overall numbers are in decline and the decline seems to be starting earlier.
One inescapable fact about junior sport is that the kids rely on parents to get them to the games. We're not winning the hearts and minds of non-rugby parents sending them all over Sydney with 10-12 year olds. These are the people that we have to win, not the committed rugby nuts who'll drive anywhere to get a game.
Your little spread sheet should have alarm bells ringing somewhere, but I doubt anyone in authority has actually put together a document like that. How long did it take you? 10 minutes?
The 1998 cohort (this year's 16s) held up pretty well until this year:
55 (13s), 48 (14s), 44 (15s) and 19 (16s) teams
The 1999 cohort (this year's 15) has had their decline start earlier (JGC?)
53 (13s), 39 (14s), 28 (15s) - that's not many teams for all of Sydney
The 2000 cohort (this year's 14s) start from and even lower base:
49 (13s) to 40 (14s)
Another big problem that I can see straight away is the drop-off after 11s:
The 2001 cohort went from 79 teams to 62
The 2002 cohort went from 81 teams to 66
I can't think of any outside factors that would influence this. Most boys don't change school at the start of Year 6, there's no increase in the number of players in a team and the physicality of the older age groups hasn't kicked in yet. At 20 players a team, that's around 300 boys giving it away in a single year. Over the two years of those 2 cohorts that 600 boys. The game can't sustain that sort of player loss - and we know that numbers will decline further in all sports when the boys get older. If we can't hold participation level 12 year olds, we are in big trouble.
The 2000 cohort actually had an increase from 11s to 12s and it's now following the 1999 cohort into decline 39 against 40 in 14s.
The one undeniable fact to come out of the statistics is that despite and increase in 10s and 11s, the overall numbers are in decline and the decline seems to be starting earlier.
One inescapable fact about junior sport is that the kids rely on parents to get them to the games. We're not winning the hearts and minds of non-rugby parents sending them all over Sydney with 10-12 year olds. These are the people that we have to win, not the committed rugby nuts who'll drive anywhere to get a game.
Is one possible contributing factor for drop off at the U12 stage is the result of the change from 12 a-side to 15 a-side?
I am a bit distanced from the walla/mini/midi numbers game, but U10's used to be 12 A-side, (a 15-18 player squad would get you through a season), U11's was 15 aside for a while, then they changed back to 12 a-side (IIRC) under pressure to comply with ARU pathway. U12's is 15 a-side (20-24 players needed for a squad to get through a season).
Sometimes in the step up to full field footy, teams struggle to raise the extra recruits needed to for the season. At this age group, in the quest for vainglory, it is not unheard of for "rock stars" from club <x> Under 11's to register in Club <y> Under 12's. Losing a couple of "rock stars" can make it difficult to for club <x> to retain players, while they simultaneously try to recruit the extra 3 or 4 kids needed to make the step up from 12 a-side to 15- a-side. We see the start of the district "super teams" that further discourages some kids from registering with their old clubs.
For Club <y>, U12 recruiting the extra squad numbers is so much easier when "talented" players previously with club <x> somehow decide to register with Club <y>. Little development work is needed by the receiving club. Ultimately this move by club <y> sets in motion the demise of the club <x> team in the next year or two (Under 13's or Under 14's). The impact of Private High School rugby is a fairly important factor to the demise at 13's and 14's.
Developing and spreading Rugby, I think not.
Developing and supporting adults egos, and trinket collections, I think so.
I am a bit distanced from the walla/mini/midi numbers game, but U10's used to be 12 A-side, (a 15-18 player squad would get you through a season), U11's was 15 aside for a while, then they changed back to 12 a-side (IIRC) under pressure to comply with ARU pathway. U12's is 15 a-side (20-24 players needed for a squad to get through a season).
Sometimes in the step up to full field footy, teams struggle to raise the extra recruits needed to for the season. At this age group, in the quest for vainglory, it is not unheard of for "rock stars" from club <x> Under 11's to register in Club <y> Under 12's. Losing a couple of "rock stars" can make it difficult to for club <x> to retain players, while they simultaneously try to recruit the extra 3 or 4 kids needed to make the step up from 12 a-side to 15- a-side. We see the start of the district "super teams" that further discourages some kids from registering with their old clubs.
For Club <y>, U12 recruiting the extra squad numbers is so much easier when "talented" players previously with club <x> somehow decide to register with Club <y>. Little development work is needed by the receiving club. Ultimately this move by club <y> sets in motion the demise of the club <x> team in the next year or two (Under 13's or Under 14's). The impact of Private High School rugby is a fairly important factor to the demise at 13's and 14's.
Developing and spreading Rugby, I think not.
Developing and supporting adults egos, and trinket collections, I think so.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
You're right HJ, 11s is still 12 a side, I thought it was 15, but I just checked with the ARU website.
It's one of those things which looks great on paper and sounds great in theory; you go from 7 a side to 10 a side to 12 a side to 15 a side, and you concentrate on different skills etc., but in practice you have to keep finding players to fill your teams. That's not as easy as it sounds and you also have to keep rationalising the number of teams that you run and this often causes resentment (mainly from parents) when boys have to move around.
As a real life example when we started 9s last year we had to move from running 4 teams of 7 a side u/8s to 3 teams of 10 a side 9s. (8s used to be 10 a side but someone decided to change it). No one wanted to break up their team, everyone wanted their school mates in their own team, but mathematically it couldn't work that way. Some people happy, some people accepted it and a few quite disgruntled that they didn't get their own way - they left at the end of last year. Then you get to 10s and its 12 a side and now 3 teams becomes 2 and you have to grade them as it's a graded competition - more opportunity for resentment and pissing people off (which happened).
I look ahead to 12s now and I see that we will need more players if we want to keep the 2 teams going or we will have too many players for one team and not enough for 2. I think that this is where people are falling through the cracks.
I think the ARU need to rethink this strategy of having differing numbers for teams.
I get 7 a side for 6s and 7s - no argument there, but I think that 8s and 9s should go to 10 a side and 10s should be straight to 15 a side. This would allow clubs to keep the same group together rather than having to continually rationalise teams.
The jump from 11s to 12s is the new black hole and the change in team numbers from 12 to 15 would seem to have an impact.
Any ARU operatives reading?
It's one of those things which looks great on paper and sounds great in theory; you go from 7 a side to 10 a side to 12 a side to 15 a side, and you concentrate on different skills etc., but in practice you have to keep finding players to fill your teams. That's not as easy as it sounds and you also have to keep rationalising the number of teams that you run and this often causes resentment (mainly from parents) when boys have to move around.
As a real life example when we started 9s last year we had to move from running 4 teams of 7 a side u/8s to 3 teams of 10 a side 9s. (8s used to be 10 a side but someone decided to change it). No one wanted to break up their team, everyone wanted their school mates in their own team, but mathematically it couldn't work that way. Some people happy, some people accepted it and a few quite disgruntled that they didn't get their own way - they left at the end of last year. Then you get to 10s and its 12 a side and now 3 teams becomes 2 and you have to grade them as it's a graded competition - more opportunity for resentment and pissing people off (which happened).
I look ahead to 12s now and I see that we will need more players if we want to keep the 2 teams going or we will have too many players for one team and not enough for 2. I think that this is where people are falling through the cracks.
I think the ARU need to rethink this strategy of having differing numbers for teams.
I get 7 a side for 6s and 7s - no argument there, but I think that 8s and 9s should go to 10 a side and 10s should be straight to 15 a side. This would allow clubs to keep the same group together rather than having to continually rationalise teams.
The jump from 11s to 12s is the new black hole and the change in team numbers from 12 to 15 would seem to have an impact.
Any ARU operatives reading?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Bloody good posts boys!
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I only hope that someone is out there in authority is listening. I'm not sure they understand the issues.
Garling spelt out some specific initiatives in his report.
Arbib sewed further high level seeds in his governance report.
G&GR gets down to the nuts and bolts. There is some waffle on here, but plenty of golden nuggets lying about on the surface.
I am told that G&GR is well read, even though many of the heavy hitters of rugby's underworld would not admit that.
Are the Gin'n'Tonicers suffering from information overload, or organisational aboulia?
Arbib sewed further high level seeds in his governance report.
G&GR gets down to the nuts and bolts. There is some waffle on here, but plenty of golden nuggets lying about on the surface.
I am told that G&GR is well read, even though many of the heavy hitters of rugby's underworld would not admit that.
Are the Gin'n'Tonicers suffering from information overload, or organisational aboulia?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I'm smart enough to know that I don't have all the answers. We could look at the following:
10s, 11s and 12s play on Saturdays (this is before private school rugby starts, so I can't see any reason why these age groups were ever moved to Sunday)
10s to 12s (and possibly to 14s) play according to geographical districts/regions/zones - I can't see any reason, except possibly in A division, for boys to be travelling across Sydney to get a game of rugby. We're in a fight for the hearts and minds of not only the players, but also the parents. When there's other team options that only involve local games, we're going to lose those parents and their kids.
10s and 11s this year go down to Hs - is anyone out there seriously able to tell the difference between a 10G team and a 10H team, same with Es and Fs - is there going to be any great difference between the 2? The 10 D competition is made up of Narrabeen, Oatley, Beecroft, Hillview, Lane Cove, Norths, Hawkesbury & Roseville. 10E has Dural, Hornsby, Hills, Drummoyne, Chatswood, Hunters Hill, Collaroy & Wakehurst. 10F has Newport, Balmain, Lindfield, Wahroonga, Mosman, Harbord, North Rocks and Blue Mountains. Some fairly obvious issues there.
I don't underestimate the enormity of the task of putting 89 teams of 10 year olds into 8 Sydney wide divisions. So why are we trying? There's no possible way to grade those teams from 1-89 properly. Someone is always going to come last and 2nd last etc. - it's a lot less painful (esp for non-rugby mad parents) if the games are local. I mean 10 F teams from Newport to Blue Mountains and vice versa - this is madness.
15 a side from 10s so that teams don't need to be constantly reconfigured - it sound great in theory to gradually build up the numbers on teams, but the practical reality is that it means that you are constantly under pressure to recruit more players to keep teams going. I don't believe that the addition of 3 extra players at 10s is going to harm the development of individual skills. I draw peoples' attention to the otherwise unexplained drop in teams from 11s to 12s - 300 players a year - this isn't working guys.
15s-17s play as part of the district colts set up, these boys need access to a better structure than village clubs can provide. They're miles behind their counterparts in private school rugby.
They're my thoughts anyway.
10s, 11s and 12s play on Saturdays (this is before private school rugby starts, so I can't see any reason why these age groups were ever moved to Sunday)
10s to 12s (and possibly to 14s) play according to geographical districts/regions/zones - I can't see any reason, except possibly in A division, for boys to be travelling across Sydney to get a game of rugby. We're in a fight for the hearts and minds of not only the players, but also the parents. When there's other team options that only involve local games, we're going to lose those parents and their kids.
10s and 11s this year go down to Hs - is anyone out there seriously able to tell the difference between a 10G team and a 10H team, same with Es and Fs - is there going to be any great difference between the 2? The 10 D competition is made up of Narrabeen, Oatley, Beecroft, Hillview, Lane Cove, Norths, Hawkesbury & Roseville. 10E has Dural, Hornsby, Hills, Drummoyne, Chatswood, Hunters Hill, Collaroy & Wakehurst. 10F has Newport, Balmain, Lindfield, Wahroonga, Mosman, Harbord, North Rocks and Blue Mountains. Some fairly obvious issues there.
I don't underestimate the enormity of the task of putting 89 teams of 10 year olds into 8 Sydney wide divisions. So why are we trying? There's no possible way to grade those teams from 1-89 properly. Someone is always going to come last and 2nd last etc. - it's a lot less painful (esp for non-rugby mad parents) if the games are local. I mean 10 F teams from Newport to Blue Mountains and vice versa - this is madness.
15 a side from 10s so that teams don't need to be constantly reconfigured - it sound great in theory to gradually build up the numbers on teams, but the practical reality is that it means that you are constantly under pressure to recruit more players to keep teams going. I don't believe that the addition of 3 extra players at 10s is going to harm the development of individual skills. I draw peoples' attention to the otherwise unexplained drop in teams from 11s to 12s - 300 players a year - this isn't working guys.
15s-17s play as part of the district colts set up, these boys need access to a better structure than village clubs can provide. They're miles behind their counterparts in private school rugby.
They're my thoughts anyway.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
On the contrary, IMO
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
How? Is it that much more difficult to coach 15 than 12?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No I meant getting them playing 15s sooner gives them longer to see the subtleties of 15s: i think its good for them.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
sorry, misunderstood.
- Status