• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Selection politics and bias, Gold Squads unfairness etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
What I don't get with the tin foil hat theory about quotas for each state is that WA got zip.

Of the Vic boys, the centres played OK in a beaten team and were reasonably good from broken play. The 8 was a bit of a surprise, as I didn't think that the Vic loosies played particularly well. The Q1 8 must be wondering what he needs to do to get a gig.

Of the ACT boys, the Jordan and Jordan show were standout performers in all the ACT games. It will be interesting to see how they go when surrounded by top echelon players. Similar comments to the Vic #8 apply to the ACT #6.

For all the talk about probable Qld bias, ignoring the front row, Qld only had a flanker and a wing selected. Like many others I though 5. Hewat, 8. Fox, 9. Nucifora, and 12. Pritchard must have been very close to selection, and suspect that they will be 1st cabs off the rank in the Shadow.

I am interested as to the positioning of Crichton and Summerhayes from NSW. Due to injury to others, Crichton played most games as a #6, and he looked quite good in that role. He doesn't seem to have grown much over the past few years, and if he doesn't shoot up and out soon, he will find himself too small for his preferred #8 position. He may even migrate to the #7 role. Summerhayes is a bit of a notta - not a second row (where he has played previously), not a No 8 (where he played most of this tournament after injury to Walker forced a reshuffle), and not a 6 (where he has also played) but useful as a utility player. I'd imagine that the selectors have him in as the Potgeiter type utility forward.

Like many others on here, I liked the cut of the jib of N1 #7, and the 4 loosies from N2, although #6 Burkett seemed to be a little quiet by his standards. These blokes didn't do too much fancy stuff, but they were into everything and their individual play complemented the other loosies in their team particularly well.

Duffy (N2 #9) is copping a few questions, and I suspect he may have been given a bit of benefit of doubt on the basis of his school footy combination with O'Shea. Goddard looks a complete package and with his sniper like goal kicking has a bright future in the game.

I still reckon that we shouldn't get too uppity about the squad until the final 3 positions are made public. Porter must be in contention for one of those, and if the other bloke is better than Porter, then we will be well served.

With so many QLD based Selectors, they actually appear to have done a fairly reasonable job, and may have even been a little harsh on several of the Qld players. I can't really see any Qld bias in the selections, which is what many thought would have been the case.

The proof of the pudding will be in the games v Fiji and NZ.
 

10to12

Jimmy Flynn (14)
HJ. To get your quota you have to be at a certain level and I don't think WA have got there yet. Agree no bias to Q. The front row of NSW and Q picked themselves. NSW2 loosies were their strength andNSW 1 Q 1 BACKS were their strength .
Hutch I don't think is a true13 so then you add two Vic centers who play week in and week out in a B Div comp and I think we will have problems in NZ
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
@Inside shoulder, the Q1 team you saw yesterday was significantly different to that from earlier in the week, although they performing against weaker opposition then. By all accounts they got bashed around (not in a dirty way) by NSW 2 on Thursday, and there were a number of their top players not playing yesterday, or playing with injuries. That is the nature of tournament play and most teams get by on the depth and abilities of their bench.

Most teams had to call up at least two of their shadow players not originally in the 23.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
@Inside shoulder, the Q1 team you saw yesterday was significantly different to that from earlier in the week, although they performing against weaker opposition then. By all accounts they got bashed around (not in a dirty way) by NSW 2 on Thursday, and there were a number of their top players not playing yesterday, or playing with injuries. That is the nature of tournament play and most teams get by on the depth and abilities of their bench.

Most teams had to call up at least two of their shadow players not originally in the 23.

So are you saying the 8 I saw was not the "real" 8 - I thought they kept tournament numbers?
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
No, the Q1 #8 yesterday was the same one all week. They had a new #23 N. Te Rupe. They lost their #2 earlier in the week. #11 Fittock did not play yesterday. #12 only played parts of the second half, he had a heavily strapped left thigh and was not running freely. He had little impact in the game. They started with their bench front row yesterday. #9 did not start.

When I say that they were significantly different from earlier in the week, their run on team yesterday was lacking lots of horsepower with many of their first choice players and stand outs not playing.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think that over the last few years some of the less talented states "traditionally" are getting better development pathways and coaches. Its only natural that you will start to see a lot more WA, VIC & ACT sides getting players into the OZ schools sides. All the boys I am aware of that have made higher honours over the last 4 years from ACT, are either playing first grade rugby either JID or SS, U20's OZ, OZ 7's & Super 15 etc. So anyone who thinks some of the boys from these other states are somehow less deserving in some way, or that they don't stay in the game are wrong. Just because certain teams didn't perform as good as others, selectors always look at individual performances (on & off the ball). Work rate etc.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/co...ional-championships.13681/page-17#post-631273
Fine in theory.
However if you're in one of the 2 QLD or NSW sides and the team performs below historical expectations - even slightly - you can kiss your dreams goodbye.
For the second best team in the comp, which won the second half of the game against the best by 24(?) - nil, to get one kid either (a) supports my view or (b) means NSW IIs were the least talented best coached team in the comp.
 

SonnyDillWilliams

Nev Cottrell (35)
[quote="Inside Shoulder, it's only natural that you will start to see a lot more WA,VIC & ACT sides getting players [/quote]

It is like everything in life .... It is becoming way more competitive

Gone are the days when you could just be a fast runner, who had minimal skills, who could barely catch a ball, and could make Aussie schoolboys

The general skill level of all these kids, is significantly better than a generation previous

And if you think it all too competitive, just be thankful that the league kids are being shut out, of trying to be dual coders ... Bad luck connor

The best kid I have seen in this age group ( bar none) is a jack hetherington, grandson of bill Mullins, nephew of Brett Mullins

Playing centre in the same part of the world, that Crichton hails from

Matching it with full grown men .. In the bash-up that is country rugby league

I haven't seen a back, in this cohort, that comes close to jack

He would come in very handy in Wellington, when these kids meet the darkness
 

Charlie Brown

Chris McKivat (8)
Fine in theory.
However if you're in one of the 2 QLD or NSW sides and the team performs below historical expectations - even slightly - you can kiss your dreams goodbye.
For the second best team in the comp, which won the second half of the game against the best by 24(?) - nil, to get one kid either (a) supports my view or (b) means NSW IIs were the least talented best coached team in the comp.

This same argument could apply for less traditionally successful teams. I am aware of teams in years gone by, who have competed very well if not won the championships but to then only get a small number in to the OZ sides.
Yes life can be very unfair in many cases. The boys who didn't make it this year who have a second chance next year, now have experience and have to work hard for a descent look in. For the boys who don't make it this year and are finished school boys do have other opportunities. If they are honestly good enough, talented players they will get noticed at some point in their playing career. This goes for the unfortunate players who get injured either at the championships or just before. These kids must feel devastated, but they have to continue to work hard and play hard. It will happen for them. I can attest to this as I had twins boys who played higher honours one year, to then get injured the next year. Both in the same game. They have not given up on making it at the higher level. Yes it may not be as easy a road, but they have continued to work hard, have continued to make it into U20's representative teams and now the NRC appears to be an option for them.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
There's enough complaint about kids actually playing the code missing out without worrying about the one's who don't: what's the point of that?
I'm not saying its "too competitive", by the way, I'm saying that 2 players of equal ability you're better off coming from ACT or Victoria.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I am aware of teams in years gone by, who have competed very well if not won the championships but to then only get a small number in to the OZ sides.

Happens every year.
As HJ usually points out right about now - its just one blokes (or a couple of blokes) opinion.
And never forget: making oz schools puts you on the statistical outer so far as being a wallaby is concerned.
 

Brian Westlake

Arch Winning (36)
HJ. To get your quota you have to be at a certain level and I don't think WA have got there yet. Agree no bias to Q. The front row of NSW and Q picked themselves. NSW2 loosies were their strength andNSW 1 Q 1 BACKS were their strength .
Hutch I don't think is a true13 so then you add two Vic centers who play week in and week out in a B Div comp and I think we will have problems in NZ
I agree with the WA statement 10, but the situation shone more than ever the next step up in 20's. WA get their allotted 2, Its easy for Vic with Sean McMahon and Tanne as well as Alan. ACT want their little piece of pie too.
This means that quality players miss out due to the unofficial "quota" system to sate these particular states
 

Brian Westlake

Arch Winning (36)
What I don't get with the tin foil hat theory about quotas for each state is that WA got zip.

Of the Vic boys, the centres played OK in a beaten team and were reasonably good from broken play. The 8 was a bit of a surprise, as I didn't think that the Vic loosies played particularly well. The Q1 8 must be wondering what he needs to do to get a gig.

Of the ACT boys, the Jordan and Jordan show were standout performers in all the ACT games. It will be interesting to see how they go when surrounded by top echelon players. Similar comments to the Vic #8 apply to the ACT #6.

For all the talk about probable Qld bias, ignoring the front row, Qld only had a flanker and a wing selected. Like many others I though 5. Hewat, 8. Fox, 9. Nucifora, and 12. Pritchard must have been very close to selection, and suspect that they will be 1st cabs off the rank in the Shadow.

I am interested as to the positioning of Crichton and Summerhayes from NSW. Due to injury to others, Crichton played most games as a #6, and he looked quite good in that role. He doesn't seem to have grown much over the past few years, and if he doesn't shoot up and out soon, he will find himself too small for his preferred #8 position. He may even migrate to the #7 role. Summerhayes is a bit of a notta - not a second row (where he has played previously), not a No 8 (where he played most of this tournament after injury to Walker forced a reshuffle), and not a 6 (where he has also played) but useful as a utility player. I'd imagine that the selectors have him in as the Potgeiter type utility forward.

Like many others on here, I liked the cut of the jib of N1 #7, and the 4 loosies from N2, although #6 Burkett seemed to be a little quiet by his standards. These blokes didn't do too much fancy stuff, but they were into everything and their individual play complemented the other loosies in their team particularly well.

Duffy (N2 #9) is copping a few questions, and I suspect he may have been given a bit of benefit of doubt on the basis of his school footy combination with O'Shea. Goddard looks a complete package and with his sniper like goal kicking has a bright future in the game.

I still reckon that we shouldn't get too uppity about the squad until the final 3 positions are made public. Porter must be in contention for one of those, and if the other bloke is better than Porter, then we will be well served.

With so many QLD based Selectors, they actually appear to have done a fairly reasonable job, and may have even been a little harsh on several of the Qld players. I can't really see any Qld bias in the selections, which is what many thought would have been the case.

The proof of the pudding will be in the games v Fiji and NZ.
Worked in the 20's for the WA Hooker this year HJ ;)
 

SonnyDillWilliams

Nev Cottrell (35)
This weekend scots play cranbrook ... And going by Aussie schoolboys selections you might think scots is a 1 star team (Crichton)

This scots team played the joeys and Aussie schoolboy duo of Duffy/oshea and put a cricket score on them (thru the backs)

Either way,i hope guy porter scores another bag of tries, and reminds the no doubt absent selectors that they are at best dopey

7 tries ... And that was not enough ...if I was him I'd be dirty , don't care about all this 'suck it up ... No entitlement' ...

Selectors stuffed that up, no 2 ways about it

Scots to win in another demolition
 

blindsideflanker

Allen Oxlade (6)
This weekend scots play cranbrook . And going by Aussie schoolboys selections you might think scots is a 1 star team (Crichton)

This scots team played the joeys and Aussie schoolboy duo of Duffy/oshea and put a cricket score on them (thru the backs)

Either way,i hope guy porter scores another bag of tries, and reminds the no doubt absent selectors that they are at best dopey

7 tries . And that was not enough .if I was him I'd be dirty , don't care about all this 'suck it up . No entitlement' .

Selectors stuffed that up, no 2 ways about it

Scots to win in another demolition



Big call SDW.
Haven't seen Scots play this year but Cranbrook is not a bad side if all their players are available.[/quote]
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Anyone going along to the Battle of Bellevue Hill on Saturday that is prepared to do a match report for the blog?
 

Ted S

Sydney Middleton (9)
Big call SDW.
Haven't seen Scots play this year but Cranbrook is not a bad side if all their players are available.

I agree Cranbrook are a good side, I have seen them and know a few of the boys, but if both teams are at full strength and take it like a comp game, it will be a drubbing with Scots a much better and larger side.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
HJ. To get your quota you have to be at a certain level and I don't think WA have got there yet. Agree no bias to Q. The front row of NSW and Q picked themselves. NSW2 loosies were their strength andNSW 1 Q 1 BACKS were their strength .
Hutch I don't think is a true13 so then you add two Vic centers who play week in and week out in a B Div comp and I think we will have problems in NZ
What do you think is HH's position?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top