Crackers8172
Frank Row (1)
Cranbrook 40-7
Cranbrook had enough ball to win 4-5 games
Cranbrook had enough ball to win 4-5 games
CAS Rugby 2025
- Thread starter Mule
- Start date
schoolboy fanatic#2
Frank Row (1)
Trinity First XV has entered the chat.
Brook footy
Frank Row (1)
Cranbrook beats Aloys 64-7, complete domination by cranbrook as expected. Poor discipline from cranbrook kept it from being a worse score line. I think it was around 21-0 at halftime so big second half for brook. 13 was the standout for cranbrook with 2 long range try’s.
scrumbledore
Frank Nicholson (4)
Cranbrook up 64 -7
Barker 33-7 I believe
Barker 33-7 I believe
Ziggy
Chris McKivat (8)
Boasting about the 1sts win but their depth isn't great nor do they have a large rugby program.
Waverley won 10 matches.
Trinity won 2 (includes 1sts)
1 Draw
Waverley had to go and find 8 other teams to play - mainly Sydney Boys
schoolboy fanatic#2
Frank Row (1)
Trinity 4th XV had to play sydney grammar as waverly didnt have the depth in there so called unbeatable rugby program. Not sure why you are questioning Trinity’s depth.
Knox_to_win
Allen Oxlade (6)
Knox_to_win
Allen Oxlade (6)
Exactly.. 15 new kids into the opens this year I heard.
And they can’t even beat Trinity.
Last edited:
Well, this has all gone pear-shaped pretty quickly.
I've looked back over the posts and I don't see any "boasting" over Trinity's win. I do see a lot of excuse-making from posters associated with Waverley. In my view:
* Yes, Waverley has more depth than Trinity. And always has, although I have to admit that my knowledge of this is limited, since it only goes back to 1973.
* I am happy to agree that if this Waverley team played this Trinity team five times, Waverley would probably win more than it lost.
* I don't care where Waverley's players come from. You play against whoever turns up, you do your best and you don't complain.
* Waverley is always strong opposition. I wouldn't put it past them to put up a real challenge to Barker.
But I also think that knowing how to lose is as important as knowing how to win. You lose with good grace, and you learn lessons from it. So, for example, "the dim light didn't suit our style of play" is an excuse. "Maybe our team should adapt better to new conditions" is a lesson. "We dominated the scrums and lineouts but didn't score points" is an excuse. "Maybe there's a problem with our execution" is a lesson. "Trinity got 29 penalties" is an excuse. "Could there possibly be a problem with our discipline?" is a lesson. "The better side lost" is an excuse. The lesson would be, no matter how good you are, it's how well you play on the day that counts.
I've looked back over the posts and I don't see any "boasting" over Trinity's win. I do see a lot of excuse-making from posters associated with Waverley. In my view:
* Yes, Waverley has more depth than Trinity. And always has, although I have to admit that my knowledge of this is limited, since it only goes back to 1973.
* I am happy to agree that if this Waverley team played this Trinity team five times, Waverley would probably win more than it lost.
* I don't care where Waverley's players come from. You play against whoever turns up, you do your best and you don't complain.
* Waverley is always strong opposition. I wouldn't put it past them to put up a real challenge to Barker.
But I also think that knowing how to lose is as important as knowing how to win. You lose with good grace, and you learn lessons from it. So, for example, "the dim light didn't suit our style of play" is an excuse. "Maybe our team should adapt better to new conditions" is a lesson. "We dominated the scrums and lineouts but didn't score points" is an excuse. "Maybe there's a problem with our execution" is a lesson. "Trinity got 29 penalties" is an excuse. "Could there possibly be a problem with our discipline?" is a lesson. "The better side lost" is an excuse. The lesson would be, no matter how good you are, it's how well you play on the day that counts.
Brook footy
Frank Row (1)
very well said, from what i saw trinity just turned up and played better. Waverley trying to make reasons and excuses for the loss but at the end of the day we’re into the CAS season now and waverley just didn’t turn up
Knox_to_win
Allen Oxlade (6)
Agreed. Waverley out of their depth. Deserves the loss.
Knox_to_win
Allen Oxlade (6)
Great point. Waverley just too poor and clearly out of their depth. Probably won’t even make the top tier competition post CAS now too. Will be fighting it out for the second plate.
Knox_to_win
Allen Oxlade (6)
Red card to Barker 12 the worst tackle I’ve seen in a long time.
Famed_Star
Allen Oxlade (6)
This wasn’t what was said.
This is objective data- not an excuse.
No one said this.
And on the ground.. if I was facing Waverley I would make them play on a cold dewey night too because they would be shit at it.. like running rolling mauls against them.. It was stupid for Waverley to say yes when they were always going to be worse at those conditions than their opposition. There is no upside for that choice for the school so agreeing to it was dumb - unless they had no choice - I have no idea.
I thought my match report was pretty funny- it obviously had Waverley glasses over the top though.
Last edited:
Trinity's oval is out of action due to construction. They played at Forshaw on a Friday night because it was what they could get. Not ideal for anyone, but nor is it a conspiracy.
Also, for what it's worth, if this Trinity side has a strength, it's their wingers. So it's in their interest to play in conditions in which you can get the ball wide. Last time I checked, both teams play in the same conditions.