Selection politics and bias, Gold Squads unfairness etc.

Hugh,can you stop putting up Horwwitz as evidence of a little battler that overcame adversity.
He went to a prestigious School with all the benefits that came with it.
Yes he was overlooked for a Schoolboys jumper in his final year,but that is not a right.
He joined the Tahs senior squad the week he left School.
There are many that would give their right arm,to do it as tough as he has done it.
Not a criticism of the player at all,just how he is portrayed by some.

He did actually play for Australian Schools (v Fiji, I think) in his last year he just wasn't picked for the NZ leg.
He fits the bill of 2 year Oz schools reps cited in the PhD study i would have thought.

HJ, they won't stop playing rugby because there was no rep rugby available when they were 10. If our young players are spending their time being coached instead of running for selection, they might even develop into better players.

In fact, those who have missed these rep teams because of nepotism might stay in the game longer. I know a few who are playing junior league who missed out on rugby rep teams at 10 or 11 and now the rep team in the age group struggles for numbers.

I sincerely doubt that the 1,2, or 3 boys that miss a rep team because of perceived bias or nepotism, is the reason ( another thread the continued demise of club rugby) for the demise of rugby. My son, and I know many others, that have had boys who have been lucky and unlucky with selections over the years. There have been plenty in this years NSW selections that don't make sense, and yes there is a whiff of political manoeuvring, but sometimes it's just that the selectors see it differently, or maybe they aren't as astute as they think they are. The players that succeed in this game, and all other competitive sports are the ones thst accept the set backs and try to improve themselves and prove the selectors wrong. The ones that take their bat and ball and go to loig because they feel hardly done by were never going to make it. I dint think the selectors are biased, maybe easily influenced or down right incompetent, but not biased. The opinion that we should scrap rep teams in early years because it will help keep players in the game, seriously, without that opportunity you may likely loose many good players because they actually want to play at the higher level.

Having appointed the odd coach to coach a district side i can say it is next to impossible not to have Dads coaching unless you have some old guys willing to step up. My experience would be that all the dads are doing it to benefit the boys and offer something back to rugby or so they say. Having asked a number of them not to coach their own son but coach the team above and below, 100% of the responses were why would I do that?
My reply to benefit the boys and give something back to rugby.

Interesting comments
Firstly, and I will admit I am in the country, but age teams do not always play at the same venue therefore if Dad wants to see his son play and wants to be involved there is only one option (and there are not a lot of people breaking their necks to be involved). We also have Mum coaching (the benefit of women's rugby) but sometimes are no more than a babysitting service.
Secondly, I come from an area where Rugby Union is third behind League and AFL. Why do we struggle to get kids to play Union? It is not the rep footy but lack of funds for grassroots sport. I have 4 boys - to register them for AFL it cost $30 and they get balls, bags, hats etc (and the parents see value for money), for league it cost me $40 and they still got a hat and ball but when it came to Union it cost me $50 and they got an out of date poster of last years wallabies!! This does not bring new,non rugby families to the game. Also the development officers for Rugby are thin on the ground compared to other sports.

You are correct about not having many people step up and I understand the point of not being able to watch your son play, that is why I asked those same dads to coach after their son's moved on I'm sure you know the reply "I've done my bit" there is the very rare exception which is great. As for Rugby being third sport unfortuately IMO in the city rugby comes a poor fourth to soccer, league and AFL but that for another thread.

All I can say is when are the selectors going to realise to pick on talent and current performance rather then bias etc.

1 player from NSW II who defeated QLD I who just won today... its perplexing.

Aus Schoolboys isn't the only pathway to further rugby honours, sounds like the selection policy at some of the north shore schools.

So not having seen the team, I sense/guess the team is weighted towards the coaches state they are currently resident in? This is despite results going against that state.

Seriously, I wonder at times as well how selectors / coaches pick some players in some teams. Past reputation, promise of things to come??? But I come back to the age old thing - teams are picked to win. Well I hope that is the case and there is no other agenda..

Maybe they picked at half time in the final?

Well the QLD GPS selectors must have got it very wrong when they picked Connor Moroney as its fifth ranked no.7 when he was selected as reserve for the GPS II team. He certainly has jumped a few for Aust Schoolboys selection.

Congrats to Connor and the rest of the team - now to focus on knocking over those NZers!!!

I think Porter was the unluckiest boy at the tournament
No second rowers picked a bit of a slap in the face for Scott -Young and Hewatt
I also think the NSW 1 and NSW 2 number 7's both deserved a spot above the two selected ... Both hard workers
Halfbacks picked not enough mongrel to play the Kiwis
Qld had way too many selected after their performances but a few positions were obviously pushed by coaches from same schools as the kids ... Cranbrook
If you they were going to select a few players from each state then WA should have got some in

Looks like they had then picked before the tournament as they didn't take performances during the tournament into consideration

Plenty of agendas

Sdw alternate Aussie schoolboys

Picking up bloody good discards and with an admitted sydney bias and not caring about picking young ins that will get a go next year

15 guy porter nsw 1 scots
14 s Edwards qld 1
13 c Watson nsw 1 knox
12 Calvin Pritchard qld 1
11 t wright nsw 2 joeys
10 j mcgregor nsw 2 riverview
9 nucifora qld 1
8 fox qld 1
7 james lough nsw 2 st augustines
6 Johnny walker nsw 1 st Augustines
5 Rudolph nsw 1 scots
4 hewatt
3 sedgeman nsw 1 res scots
2 widders leece nsw 1? Res knox
1 Hosea fotukava nsw res 1 riverview

Reserve backs: kennewell (newington) and Renton (brook) and strang (scots)
Reserve forwards: serhon, woodhill (shore), beau Peterson (view)

I reckon they would go alright!!!

Ps would hate to be a selector . Prefer being a sideline pain-in-the butt .albeit with my trap shut (hate big mouths at games)

The new order coming down from the ARU. With the improvement ofthe other states and to help with your super rugby franchise you get to pick up to three boys you think should be in schoolboys and then we will pick the rest from Q and NSW. Add to this the normal politics of selections and you get several number 8s but no locks centers from ateam that wasn't dangerous in attack and players that were a standout to the crowd every day not making it. The half back issue must be just school ploitics. 1 was superb and the other v mediocre