CAS Rugby 2023

[AroundTheAnkles]

Oh no they lost one to league!!!! Look at the gen blue 15s from 2019. Where are all those boys who stayed at public schools and sports highs now? That back row they had was exceptional and none of them are playing union and I promise you it's not cause of lack of ability but opportunity. Even non-GPS and CAS players, they've fallen through the system and all play league or don't play footy anymore. The system doesn't work it's over reliant on private schools and we have all these football nurseries in Western Sydney getting pilliged by league.

To be fair the system has changed very dramatically in the past 12 months. The Academy games for U15 and U16 are examples of this, as is the way the contracting of certain high profile players was managed last year vs 2 years ago. The changes will continue and with the money coming into the game fewer will be lost. IDK why we worry so much about the NRL, rugby is a superior opportunity by any measure. Globally it eats league, provides better earning potential and much better post playing global networks and opportunities.

 

[Snort]

This is all pretty silly.

There are boys who see the two Rugby codes as interchangeable career opportunities. Many of them will go to League regardless of what school they went to, because League tends to offer professional opportunities earlier. League has 17 professional sides looking to fill a roster: Union has five professional franchises. So kids straight from school go on to six-figure contracts in the hope that they'll amount to something. For the most part, Union can't compete with that - and I actually think that's healthy. Yes, some talent is lost. But the best 17 year-old won't necessarily be the best 21 year-old, and League tosses a whole heap of 21 year-olds onto the scrapheap (by which time they may have missed an opportunity to acquire some other marketable skills). It's not a bad thing to earn a professional contract through something other than running around a few schoolboys. And handing kids big money contracts at a very early age can create a big social problem, which may partly explain why ex-NRL players are far more likely to be arrested than ex-Union players.

Look, it's a competitive market, and Union will always lose players to League. That's life. But it's not entirely a bad thing, because the players who stick with Union tend to do it because they prefer the game and because they're ready to step up to professional football. Long term, that produces healthier outcomes.

 

[The Front Rower]

Charlie Poyton a good example of this. A player Barker developed over years in their rugby system.

Charlie joined Barker in either year 9 or 10, previous to that he was at St Auggies.

 

[RedOrDead]

Charlie joined Barker in either year 9 or 10, previous to that he was at St Auggies.

Think the comment you are replying to is sarcasm.

 

[WLF3]

This is all pretty silly.

There are boys who see the two Rugby codes as interchangeable career opportunities. Many of them will go to League regardless of what school they went to, because League tends to offer professional opportunities earlier. League has 17 professional sides looking to fill a roster: Union has five professional franchises. So kids straight from school go on to six-figure contracts in the hope that they'll amount to something. For the most part, Union can't compete with that - and I actually think that's healthy. Yes, some talent is lost. But the best 17 year-old won't necessarily be the best 21 year-old, and League tosses a whole heap of 21 year-olds onto the scrapheap (by which time they may have missed an opportunity to acquire some other marketable skills). It's not a bad thing to earn a professional contract through something other than running around a few schoolboys. And handing kids big money contracts at a very early age can create a big social problem, which may partly explain why ex-NRL players are far more likely to be arrested than ex-Union players.

Look, it's a competitive market, and Union will always lose players to League. That's life. But it's not entirely a bad thing, because the players who stick with Union tend to do it because they prefer the game and because they're ready to step up to professional football. Long term, that produces healthier outcomes.

Spot on Snort,

The reality is there are many footy boys who need an array of footy opportunities as they aren't necessarily academic or trade focused, so the fact that they have 2 code options is a benefit to them. You could also probably count AFL in this mix as there are transferable skills.

Whilst I prefer Union at school level, I do adhere to the saying that the best Rugby game is better than the best League game (just), however I believe there are many more better League games typically.
As a Roosters fan I get to watch many more terrific footy games than I do as a Tahs fan!

On the other hand, Union does offer many more worldly experiences than league and more international contracts.

On a fanciful note, imagine if we only had 1 footy code ie Union, so all the League and AFL players were in the Union pot.
Good luck to all the other Union counties!

 

[Hankspank]

Spot on Snort,

The reality is there are many footy boys who need an array of footy opportunities as they aren't necessarily academic or trade focused, so the fact that they have 2 code options is a benefit to them. You could also probably count AFL in this mix as there are transferable skills.

Whilst I prefer Union at school level, I do adhere to the saying that the best Rugby game is better than the best League game (just), however I believe there are many more better League games typically.
As a Roosters fan I get to watch many more terrific footy games than I do as a Tahs fan!

On the other hand, Union does offer many more worldly experiences than league and more international contracts.

On a fanciful note, imagine if we only had 1 footy code ie Union, so all the League and AFL players were in the Union pot.
Good luck to all the other Union counties!

Never thought of it that way WLF. Wow, be some sort of team if rugby was first choice and the others were fringe sports.

 

[Hippo]

Spot on Snort,

The reality is there are many footy boys who need an array of footy opportunities as they aren't necessarily academic or trade focused, so the fact that they have 2 code options is a benefit to them. You could also probably count AFL in this mix as there are transferable skills.

Whilst I prefer Union at school level, I do adhere to the saying that the best Rugby game is better than the best League game (just), however I believe there are many more better League games typically.
As a Roosters fan I get to watch many more terrific footy games than I do as a Tahs fan!

On the other hand, Union does offer many more worldly experiences than league and more international contracts.

On a fanciful note, imagine if we only had 1 footy code ie Union, so all the League and AFL players were in the Union pot.
Good luck to all the other Union counties!

It would be a seriously competitive side alright, good luck to the others indeed. Australia has 4 football codes all looking to sign skilled youngsters.

 

[Hercules Von Grimmelshaus]

They all just happen to be in gen blue programs and in other private schools before they make those decisions… seems a bit ridiculous. Your head coach goes to u16’s tournaments and walks up to players offering them positions at your school to win a rugby comp. At least Oniti came from a public school and was actually offered a better opportunity to go to a great school - rugby gave him that chance. Kids like Poynton who are already enrolled at a private school are brought across for the Barkers rugby team to win matches. Plain and simple. That type of mercenary attitude is shit.

You’re living in a Machiavellian fantasy land, the truth is these kids want to come to Barker why wouldn’t they, co-ed, broader subject choice, amazing facilities and the best head teacher in NSW.

 

[Waleed Aly]

If Aloys and Trinity went co-ed would they attract better players? Maybe that's the way forward

 

[Halfbackenthusiast]

If Aloys and Trinity went co-ed would they attract better players? Maybe that's the way forward

Yes this is the major reason cranbrook have opted to become co Ed, aloys and trinity should follow suit

 

[handswilldoit]

If Aloys and Trinity went co-ed would they attract better players? Maybe that's the way forward

Funny you should say this... hearing murmurings of Aloysius considering going co-ed as the final stage of their 'plan magis' in 2030... they could dominate the 2030s, a couple of the girls would probably get a game.

 

[JackJill]

If Aloys and Trinity went co-ed would they attract better players? Maybe that's the way forward

This theory about girls attracting better rugby players is stupid IMO. If a player is seriously committed to the sport he'll go to a good rugby programmed school regardless of single sex or co education. It starts with the rugby culture that the school creates that attracts and makes good players, for example Joeys, Riverview, Knox and even Oakhill. And scholarships isn't the pathway to take when trying to make a rugby culture within the school, having a good 1st XV team every year when the foundation of that team are boys brought in in senior years just pisses off the boys who have committed to the rugby program since day dot. If Aloys and Trinity want improve their program, they must invest time and training throughout all age groups, not just 1st XV and A teams, to nurture players all the way through, that'll create a strong and deep rugby program which will ultimately attract more boys at a young age to go to the school.

That's just how i'd approach it based on my perspective, feel free to critique.

 

[RedOrDead]

This theory about girls attracting better rugby players is stupid IMO. If a player is seriously committed to the sport he'll go to a good rugby programmed school regardless of single sex or co education.

No one is seriously suggesting that girls at a school will attract more rugby talent... it's clearly people taking the piss...

And scholarships isn't the pathway to take when trying to make a rugby culture within the school, having a good 1st XV team every year when the foundation of that team are boys brought in in senior years just pisses off the boys who have committed to the rugby program since day dot.

If you're not a first quality player you don't deserve to play 1stXV. And when you have 150 boys in a year group and are trying to compete with schools with 200 more boys in each year group, and already established rugby cultures, you have to go about things a different way. Pretty simple to understand.

 

[Waleed Aly]

This theory about girls attracting better rugby players is stupid IMO. If a player is seriously committed to the sport he'll go to a good rugby programmed school regardless of single sex or co education. It starts with the rugby culture that the school creates that attracts and makes good players, for example Joeys, Riverview, Knox and even Oakhill. And scholarships isn't the pathway to take when trying to make a rugby culture within the school, having a good 1st XV team every year when the foundation of that team are boys brought in in senior years just pisses off the boys who have committed to the rugby program since day dot. If Aloys and Trinity want improve their program, they must invest time and training throughout all age groups, not just 1st XV and A teams, to nurture players all the way through, that'll create a strong and deep rugby program which will ultimately attract more boys at a young age to go to the school.

That's just how i'd approach it based on my perspective, feel free to critique.

Having girls at the school would probably help,

This theory about girls attracting better rugby players is stupid IMO. If a player is seriously committed to the sport he'll go to a good rugby programmed school regardless of single sex or co education. It starts with the rugby culture that the school creates that attracts and makes good players, for example Joeys, Riverview, Knox and even Oakhill. And scholarships isn't the pathway to take when trying to make a rugby culture within the school, having a good 1st XV team every year when the foundation of that team are boys brought in in senior years just pisses off the boys who have committed to the rugby program since day dot. If Aloys and Trinity want improve their program, they must invest time and training throughout all age groups, not just 1st XV and A teams, to nurture players all the way through, that'll create a strong and deep rugby program which will ultimately attract more boys at a young age to go to the school.

That's just how i'd approach it based on my perspective, feel free to critique.

I disagree with a lot of that. Having a good rugby programme through out the grades will only get you so far, just look at Shore they have plenty of depth but their first xv are hardly ever producing.

Now look at Barker, they get destroyed in every grade leading up the first xv but then suddenly end up becoming one of the best teams in the country.

Getting the good players on scholarships makes a huge difference, and having things which will entice the players is another thing.

As mentioned in this thread one player left because he wanted to go to a co-ed school.

 

[Halfbackenthusiast]

Having girls at the school would probably help,
I disagree with a lot of that. Having a good rugby programme through out the grades will only get you so far, just look at Shore they have plenty of depth but their first xv are hardly ever producing.

Now look at Barker, they get destroyed in every grade leading up the first xv but then suddenly end up becoming one of the best teams in the country.

Getting the good players on scholarships makes a huge difference, and having things which will entice the players is another thing.

As mentioned in this thread one player left because he wanted to go to a co-ed school.

Getting destroyed in every grade other then 1st XV is a massive over exaggeration. They very a lot from age group compared to waves who are normally strong throughout the age group but they still win a lot more then they lose

 

[Waleed Aly]

Getting destroyed in every grade other then 1st XV is a massive over exaggeration. They very a lot from age group compared to waves who are normally strong throughout the age group but they still win a lot more then they lose

They lost to Oakhill in every grade but firsts last year.

 

[Halfbackenthusiast]

They lost to Oakhill in every grade but firsts last year

They played Oakhill twice, in the second fixture yes but oakhill are always incredibly strong in the juniors. A lot of Oakhill A sides remained undefeated against Scots and joeys.

 

[JackJill]

No one is seriously suggesting that girls at a school will attract more rugby talent... it's clearly people taking the piss...

Scroll up and numerous people were talking about the advantages of co-ed schools like Barker and how they attract boys.

If you're not a first quality player you don't deserve to play 1stXV. And when you have 150 boys in a year group and are trying to compete with schools with 200 more boys in each year group, and already established rugby cultures, you have to go about things a different way. Pretty simple to understand.

So the solution to having a poor rugby program is luring boys from established schools, especially ISA, to Barker to make their 1st team good? Like it isn't even offering kids much of a better education anymore it's purely about winning. Lachlan Hooper, Doug Phillipson, Charlie Poynton, Matt Hanley, Sam Sahyoun just last year to name a few, were all gun players at good rugby schools. There's a certain point between giving boys a better education, i.e Isaiya Katoa and Oniti Finau, and bringing these pre-established stars in just to make a superteam while the rest of the rugby program struggles.

And to answer your statement, a school needs to create 1st quality players, regardless if they deserve it or not. The way Barker are doing it just isn't healthy for the rugby program at the school.

This isn't just Barker anyway, New, Scots have similar problems, to create culture at a school they must invest time to create good players, not buy them in, a strategy View, Joeys and Knox excel in, and other schools should follow.

 

[JackJill]

Having girls at the school would probably help,
I disagree with a lot of that. Having a good rugby programme through out the grades will only get you so far, just look at Shore they have plenty of depth but their first xv are hardly ever producing.

Now look at Barker, they get destroyed in every grade leading up the first xv but then suddenly end up becoming one of the best teams in the country.

Getting the good players on scholarships makes a huge difference, and having things which will entice the players is another thing.

As mentioned in this thread one player left because he wanted to go to a co-ed school.

Shore have a lot of players yes, but they lack good players in depth that can replace a 1st XV player with little to no difference, which ultimately comes down to coaching. A reason why Joeys always are good is because they put the same amount of work into their B/C teams as much as their A teams, which is why their 2nds and 3rds teams beat a lot of 1st CAS and ISA teams. Barker is a different story considering the player backgrounds to which they get their players from, typically ISA teams which have nurtured and put work into a player throughout their schooling life, just to be taken by Barker, who has a lot more money, after they made a Gen Blue team. Yes Barker will be good but relying on imports doesn't seem right to me.

 

[RedOrDead]

Lachlan Hooper, Doug Phillipson, Charlie Poynton, Matt Hanley, Sam Sahyoun just last year to name a few, were all gun players at good rugby schools.

Believe it or not... Barker don't abduct these kids from these schools against their will... If the boys and parents didn't think Barker was a better school... then they wouldn't send them to Barker... Stupid argument.

And to answer your statement, a school needs to create 1st quality players, regardless if they deserve it or not. The way Barker are doing it just isn't healthy for the rugby program at the school.

Schools don't create talent. They receive it. And they then nurture the talent they have. Saying otherwise is utterly stupid. Joeys is great because they are a revered rugby school and hence they organically receive an abundant amount of rugby talent , which they admittedly nurture extremely well, but they haven't discovered some special formula that creates wallabies. They receive wallaby level talent and they make wallabies out of that talent.

Barker do an exceptional job with the talent they receive organically, to name a few, Tom Livingstone (robbed of an Aus Schoolboys selection IMO, and was laughably robbed from a CAS 1's spot by that Ethan. King bloke, despite outperforming him all year long), Bryn Edwards (Aus Schools), Adam Van Wyk (NSW), Gabriel Reid (who was a soccer player, who in 1 and a half years became a CAS rugby representative), Jakob Biet (NSW representative) and Hamish McDonald (NSW representative)... That was from last year alone... Barker has an outstanding opens program, admittedly they do need to start focusing on developing players earlier, but Barker is creating great players with the talent they have, they just don't receive the same talent as other schools do organically due to a smaller cohort of boys, and not having a long standing culture of rugby prestige.

View, Joeys and Knox excel in, and other schools should follow.

Almost like Joeys, View and Knox aren't competing against a co-ed environment... and have 200 more boys in every year group to pick from... and already have 100 years of established rugby prestige success leading to a strong culture to piggy back on. Not even remotely comparable to Barker's situation. Yet again a blatantly stupid argument.

Barker is an unprecedented situation, in a completely different situation to any school currently, or that any school in NSW has had to undergo before. It will need to do things differently. That is the truth.

You haven't made a single viable point. If you don't like it, that's fine. But take a page out of WLF3's book and at the very least have intelligent and logical criticisms.