• 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.

Australian Schoolboys / Under 18s 2019

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
The Schools Championships will provide a broader cross section of young blokes an opportunitu to play and be seen. I'm sure the guys attached to the academies will be watching and if they see some stand outs those kids could get an opportunity they otherwise wouldn't.

So it will no longer be the pointy end of our junior development pathway. I've heard the argument from the schools themselves that it wasn't their purpose anyway. This fits that bill. Treating them as just players and giving others an opportunity to play in what to them will be a meaningful tournament. And again. Some may catch the eye of the right people and gey further opportunities down the line.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Yeah I understand that, but you also have kids who are 15 playing 1st XV so again the kids who are good enough will be used to playing with kids older than themselves.

I've not taken any interest prior to now, to a newcomer it does seem odd. I understand the argument regarding stopping kids getting poached by league, I'm told quite a few of the boys at my son's school have already been contracted to Easts and Souths.

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Half my club side were signed up with either one of those two at 16. Same for the other side that made up the other half of the then State Championship winning Randwick team. Most attended private schools. Most took the opportunity to be exposed to a level pf training and development not present in Rugby. The academies voyld acrually have a net positive in that regard.
 

The Nomad

Colin Windon (37)
In some states kids finish HS at 17. Meaning they are effectively younger than their competitors. Additionally, being academies they'd have some degree of tie in with the likes of the Reds and Tahs etc.
Spot on , Qld year 12 students have been mostly 17 year olds in the past , this will change from this year with it being the first of the prep intake to reach senior , but it will still only be 50:50.

There are 3 boys in the Reds Academy that made the original Aussie Schoolboys squad picked after the comp at Riverview last year as 17 year olds that have finished school . Also a couple who have did the same but are still at school. Schoolboys has always been an U18 competition, so why not put your best U18 talent out there.

You can argue either way and make it sound reasonable, but the reality is the Academy pathway gives RA control of the U18’s, which I don’t think is a bad thing and also didn’t happen by accident.

Plenty will challenge the change from the tradition of Schoolboys , but most of the UK has made the transition to the Academy model and have out performed Australia at both U20’s ( except this year ) and opens over the past few years. Would like to think RA have decided to take a more active role in U18’s in an attempt to keep more of them in rugby pathways.
 

DaSchmooze

Herbert Moran (7)
Australian Schoolboys rugby team? A bit more prestigious than a piece of cake?


Perhaps but... It's still not a pathway to a national team, it's the end of the line for that pathway - it's its own thing - not connected to a club, an NRC team, a Super Rugby team or the National program. And not only that, the "do or die on that day" selection policy meant that the team cast aside potentially awesome players in putting it together. Mark Nawakaqatinskfijud%$! and the kid from WA are examples in the current u20 set up that didn't get a look in when they went through the school system and look at them now. They would have been lost from the high performance scene if it wasn't for the academy model and long term coaches keeping an eye on them.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that there is still a place for the School Boy champs, but in no way shape or form should the school system determine the player pathway for that age group.

I'm not baiting you with this question QH as I would be very keen to hear of an example you may have. I'm genuine when I ask...

Can you name me one person in say the last 30 years that was introduced to a sport at school, played it only at school and then was selected either for a national team or secured an NCAA scholarship?

To get that ball rolling I'd cross out Kurtley Beale as he had a history in League before going to Joeys but perhaps James O'Connor maybe that person? There are possibly some Westfield Sports High track and field kids who were talent ID'd in primary school but Westfields achieves their aims by competing as a registered club in the State Association - certainly not via the All Schools process.

Can you think of any?

I can't - so my point still stands. School pathways for almost all sports (other than the ones I mentioned previously) lead nowhere and come at the expense of providing quality school v school sport opportunities.
 

shanky

Larry Dwyer (12)
Having observed the new pathways close up, I’m a bit non-plussed, to be fair.

Back in the day, you wanted to get little Johnny onto the inside rail, you shelled out for GPS school fees.

These days, the academy road is the only thing that matters

State Champs was previously a dying tournament. This year is got a new lease of life as parents weighed up whether Johnny was more likely to get noticed via JRU than Schools.

The same old chestnuts got played out. Lads got picked for regionals without even playing a game. In other instances ‘last year’s form’ seemed to trump this year’s.

One example...Warringah beat everyone in the 16s but had less players picked than Gordon who came In third. No slight of course, just an observation.

There was gossip that last year’s academy boys were solid - that only 2-3 fringe positions were up for grab in most age groups

Sound familiar? Schools selection gripes going back over several years I’d say.

Plus ca change, plus c’est meme choise?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Having observed the new pathways close up, I’m a bit non-plussed, to be fair.

Back in the day, you wanted to get little Johnny onto the inside rail, you shelled out for GPS school fees.

These days, the academy road is the only thing that matters

State Champs was previously a dying tournament. This year is got a new lease of life as parents weighed up whether Johnny was more likely to get noticed via JRU than Schools.

The same old chestnuts got played out. Lads got picked for regionals without even playing a game. In other instances ‘last year’s form’ seemed to trump this year’s.

One example.Warringah beat everyone in the 16s but had less players picked than Gordon who came In third. No slight of course, just an observation.

There was gossip that last year’s academy boys were solid - that only 2-3 fringe positions were up for grab in most age groups

Sound familiar? Schools selection gripes going back over several years I’d say.

Plus ca change, plus c’est meme choise?

It's actually worse because at least in the school situation parents are out of the equation, whereas in the set-up you describe it's quite often run by a couple of aspirational parents.

Trying to pick winners/champions at this age is fraught with problems, we should be exposing the widest possible number of kids to the highest level possible for as long as possible not further narrowing an already constricted and contorted pathway.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Perhaps but. It's still not a pathway to a national team, it's the end of the line for that pathway - it's its own thing - not connected to a club, an NRC team, a Super Rugby team or the National program. And not only that, the "do or die on that day" selection policy meant that the team cast aside potentially awesome players in putting it together. Mark Nawakaqatinskfijud%$! and the kid from WA are examples in the current u20 set up that didn't get a look in when they went through the school system and look at them now. They would have been lost from the high performance scene if it wasn't for the academy model and long term coaches keeping an eye on them.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that there is still a place for the School Boy champs, but in no way shape or form should the school system determine the player pathway for that age group.

I'm not baiting you with this question QH as I would be very keen to hear of an example you may have. I'm genuine when I ask.

Can you name me one person in say the last 30 years that was introduced to a sport at school, played it only at school and then was selected either for a national team or secured an NCAA scholarship?

To get that ball rolling I'd cross out Kurtley Beale as he had a history in League before going to Joeys but perhaps James O'Connor maybe that person? There are possibly some Westfield Sports High track and field kids who were talent ID'd in primary school but Westfields achieves their aims by competing as a registered club in the State Association - certainly not via the All Schools process.

Can you think of any?

I can't - so my point still stands. School pathways for almost all sports (other than the ones I mentioned previously) lead nowhere and come at the expense of providing quality school v school sport opportunities.

Again, you're falling into the trap which is peculiar to rugby discussions - everything is a binary all or nothing argument. You talk of school v club as if it's some sort of competition between the two and that only one of them can provide an elite pathway. With respect, such limited thinking is part of why rugby is in such a mess.

The example you provide actually completely demolishes your whole point - there is no way that Kurtley Beale would ever have played rugby without going to Joeys. Zero, zilch, nil, nought.

Why do you introduce a bizarre condition to your quiz that anybody who has played league is eliminated? Surely attracting kids from other sports who have never played rugby is what we should be doing? Schools provide the best way for this to occur.

Anyway, if you think it's a good thing that WA Schoolboys are sending teams to Australian Schools Championships in rugby league and WA NRL are sending teams to national club-based Australian championships but rugby is only following the club path then you are welcome to your view.
 

The Nomad

Colin Windon (37)
Individual schools will continue to identify and develop rugby talent for the benefit of their rugby programs regardless of what pathway is considered top dog. Schools do this for not for the betterment of rugby in general, but for their own honour boards. Yes many have strong rugby traditions and have been and will continue to be referred to as rugby nurseries, but this again has very little to do with the Australian Schoolboys team other than supplying the ASRU with players to choose from.

The top U18 team in the country is now a mixture of schoolboys and club players, the need to still be at school is no longer in place so it opens it up to all lads who are 18 or younger and is now under the control of RA. I can’t see how this is a bad thing or how it damages rugby.
 

DaSchmooze

Herbert Moran (7)
Again, you're falling into the trap which is peculiar to rugby discussions - everything is a binary all or nothing argument. You talk of school v club as if it's some sort of competition between the two and that only one of them can provide an elite pathway. With respect, such limited thinking is part of why rugby is in such a mess.

The example you provide actually completely demolishes your whole point - there is no way that Kurtley Beale would ever have played rugby without going to Joeys. Zero, zilch, nil, nought.

Why do you introduce a bizarre condition to your quiz that anybody who has played league is eliminated? Surely attracting kids from other sports who have never played rugby is what we should be doing? Schools provide the best way for this to occur.

Anyway, if you think it's a good thing that WA Schoolboys are sending teams to Australian Schools Championships in rugby league and WA NRL are sending teams to national club-based Australian championships but rugby is only following the club path then you are welcome to your view.


I agree with QH -it's not a binary argument - schools and clubs have a role to play in developing Rugby (and all sports), but schools in particular need to remember what they do well (and I'd argue better than clubs) and that's core fundamentals and a game for everyone each week - the introductory level - the ground floor. Once players move beyond that level their onward development is best served by the state and national body and there's bucket loads of evidence that supports this.

I eliminate Rugby League players because of the similarities of the skill set - particularly at a Junior level. But let's say that Kurtley is an example of a 100% school based sports person who never ever engaged with the sport prior to or during his time at school who then went on to National representation.

That's 1 person - in 1 sport.

1

1 only

1 example of a school only based athlete with National representation.

Surely you can't justify the school system continuing to dictate the terms of the player pathway for this age group with only 1 person as evidence from the past 30 years.

Take a look at every single national representative in any sport you care to mention and every single one of them (bar 1 maybe) learnt their craft and was provided with life long participation pathways - high performance or otherwise - from the club system.

Undoubtedly their development was complimented with the games they played at school (and most certainly they learnt lessons from school sport that you can't in club sport) and I'm not discounting schools role in developing good people. All I'm saying is that a unified pathway for Rugby is long overdue and I'm glad it now finally exists.

Having RA call the shots for the pathway doesn't diminish the good work that's done in schools - not at all. But it does acknowledge that if these are going to be he next wave of State and National rugby representatives, then they have every right to stipulate the terms of their development.

RA is to be applauded for this.
 

Delphy

Ward Prentice (10)
Any chance you’d be able to find a NSW team list as I was under the impression a full squad was yet to be chosen.
EC78A39C-F0E6-4DCD-92DA-64CBBC9FCCD4.jpeg
 

NotMeSir

Bob McCowan (2)
Seems to be a bit of variation on the precise margin. Rugby.com.au has it as 41-20 and the live stream has it as 41-25. Pick your favorite result.

Some photos for those playing at home:

View attachment 10867View attachment 10868View attachment 10869View attachment 10870View attachment 10871View attachment 10872View attachment 10873


Nice shots Delphy.

For those who want to see more, I have loaded 40 or so shots of this game at:
https://michael-mullins.smugmug.com/18s-Rugby/
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Pathways are open from clubs and schools.

Problem is that is some areas junior club teams are merging or shrinking the player base.

If you look at the the pathway via school then the schools with a rugby program are restricted to sports highs ( perhaps 5), the private system in ACT ( 4 schools), NSW ( combined ISA,CAS and GPS etc) under 25 schools and similar in Qld. Not many compared to more than 800 secondary schools in New South Wales.
The total number of schools in NSW (including independent, state, Catholic, Private schools) is about 3000. About 9000 across Australia.

Both pathways need to be increased particularly as many of these schools are looking at or have introduced AFL and some League.
 
Top