CAS Rugby 2017

[carl spackler]

Heard on the grape vine at the awards night that there is some solid talent enrolled for 2017 in year 10 for Barker. Will give some depth. I still think Waverley and Knox will be the front runners next year but with Reimer, Coghil, Flaherty, Lloyd, Van Woerkom, and a bunch of other blooded 1st XV players, Barker will be a tough assignment for all schools.

From what I understand, there are four boys coming to Barker who were identified through the U15s Junior Gold Squad. All of these boys are forwards. What they really need in the 16s of 2017 is a play maker to get the best out of speed machine Kyle Galloway.

 

[Backline_Move]

I hope to god this is not true!!!!!!!!

What a truly horrible rumour to spread. This post has to be deleted immediately!

 

[Gilly]

From what I understand, there are four boys coming to Barker who were identified through the U15s Junior Gold Squad. All of these boys are forwards. What they really need in the 16s of 2017 is a play maker to get the best out of speed machine Kyle Galloway.

If you need one there is a 15 year old on the Central Coast - John Connelly. (NSW 14s and 15s) was a standout in the NSWvs Qld Gold squads game earlier this year , take a trip up to Bluetongue stadium Saturday 10th and you will see what i mean. I have watched this boy since under 10's am still surprised he hasn't found a school in Sydney

 

[rod skellet]

I am not sure but I don't think Barker does sporting scholarships...this lads parents would need to find the $$ for tuition fees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gilly]

I am not sure but I don't think Barker does sporting scholarships.this lads parents would need to find the $$ for tuition fees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was merely suggesting there was a player who fits the bill as discussed above they may wish to look at and see if there was an interest in attending Barker.

 

[Onside]

Info from Barker's Headmaster Blog re 2017 draw.,

It was an important CAS meeting to attend because the topic was to consider ways in which the winter season for 2017 could include additional schools in the Rugby draw. To be succinct, the CAS Heads were asked to consider abandoning the home and away draw in secondary school Rugby where we play one another twice. This would make way for additional fixtures against GPS or ISA schools where appropriate.

 

[formerflanker]

Info from Barker's Headmaster Blog re 2017 draw.,

It was an important CAS meeting to attend because the topic was to consider ways in which the winter season for 2017 could include additional schools in the Rugby draw. To be succinct, the CAS Heads were asked to consider abandoning the home and away draw in secondary school Rugby where we play one another twice. This would make way for additional fixtures against GPS or ISA schools where appropriate.

But what was the outcome? Retain the home and away or include GPS?

 

[Rugbybloke123]

Info from Barker's Headmaster Blog re 2017 draw.,

It was an important CAS meeting to attend because the topic was to consider ways in which the winter season for 2017 could include additional schools in the Rugby draw. To be succinct, the CAS Heads were asked to consider abandoning the home and away draw in secondary school Rugby where we play one another twice. This would make way for additional fixtures against GPS or ISA schools where appropriate.

I've heard that this has been in the making for a while now with all three competitions coming together to vs each other in the second half of the season. Personally I see it as a great idea as it changes the dynamics of Sydney schoolboy rugby which has been very stagnant for the past decade or more.

 

[Lydian Lion]

The CAS schools voted "NO" on the idea. 5 schools were yes 1 school was no. The CAS vote 1 in all in. Pity that the stronger schools don't get to play tougher opp and the weaker schools play teams more in line with their abilities. Just another example of school egos at play.

 

[White line fever]

Wow Lydian Lion,

I think that is EXTREMELY disappointing for a multitude of reasons :

1. This protects the school/s who are currently not competitive, and disadvantages the schools who are serious.
IMO every CAS school has the capability of producing strong teams, as most of the schools have sufficient numbers in their school, so constant failure is a culture. You should NOT be able to hide, or else join another association, like the finger nail painting co-operative!

2. The CAS need to change their system, it should/must be majority rules, as in this case, 5 schools get over ridden by 1,
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!

3. I would think playing more schools than just your own association would also be agreeable to the boys, as many of them know boys from other schools, play with them in district clubs, and may well bump into them at work 1 day, and what a way to start a friendship!

4. In the good old days, yes I am an old Waverlian, we used to play most of the GPS schools before our 1 CAS round of competition. This made us a better team, derrr!

5. How often is the topic who is the best school across the associations brought up, well here is a good barometer to find out!

I think most people from ALL associations, who enjoy this forum, will agree.

Interesting to see if anyone has any idea as to how to put this back to the schools. Remember there are many years ahead!

 

[sidelineview]

I agree to a certain extent but wonder how it would be structured.
I dont agree every CAS school is capable of producing strong teams. I would caution throwing a blanket over all of them.
Aloys for example have small numbers and unfortunately were weak this year. Maybe they will bounce back, im not sure.
Comparing numbers in CAS and GPS schools would be a worthwhile exercise.
Something that has changed from the good old days is the way soccer and AFL has eroded the rugby numbers
Rugby used to be THE winter sport but not now.

If CAS teams played each other once then played other teams from different associations such as GPS and ISA it would need to be graded i assume. You wouldnt want Aloys playing Scots for example.
And how would the winner of the Henry Plume Shield be determined.
Its an idea that may work but maybe not.

 

[MrTallTimber]

Rod, couldn't agree more this Barker side now has experience and will be a major player in 2017. That is 1 of the reasons my rankings are as follows :
1. Waverley
2. Barker/ Aloys.
4. Knox.
5. Trinity.
6. Cranbrook.

Ahhhh mate, I think your predictions are a tad out of order. Having the reigning CAS premiers at 4th is a bit of stretch to say the least

 

[Rugby Addict]

I gather the proposal was for 3 groups of 6 schools something like the following and the match ups make a lot of sense based on numbers and quality:

Group 1 (North): Joeys, Knox, Barker, View, Kings, Auggies ??Shore??
Group 2 (South/East): Scots, Newington, Waverley, Shore?? plus a few
Group 3 (Inner City): Aloys, Trinity, Cranbrook, Grammar, High, St Pius

They would play the other teams in their grouping as trials and then play their GPS/CAS/ISA games as comp games but over one round.

This is not dissimilar to what happened before GPS changed their season and CAS went to a 2 round competition as a result.

Not hard to work out which CAS school would find it hardest in their group and you can't really blame them.

 

[Rugbybloke123]

Agree completely ^
However would you try to have even schools from each association in each area?
I would put oakhill in group 1 as well, then Pats in group 2 or 3.
We are getting more and more hypothetical however do you think that stannies and kinross (ISA schools based in central west) would be included or left to fend for themselves out in the west ?

 

[White line fever]

I gather the proposal was for 3 groups of 6 schools something like the following and the match ups make a lot of sense based on numbers and quality:

Group 1 (North): Joeys, Knox, Barker, View, Kings, Auggies ??Shore??
Group 2 (South/East): Scots, Newington, Waverley, Shore?? plus a few
Group 3 (Inner City): Aloys, Trinity, Cranbrook, Grammar, High, St Pius

They would play the other teams in their grouping as trials and then play their GPS/CAS/ISA games as comp games but over one round.

This is not dissimilar to what happened before GPS changed their season and CAS went to a 2 round competition as a result.

Not hard to work out which CAS school would find it hardest in their group and you can't really blame them.

Sideline view and rugby addict, a few comments.
I disagree with sideline, all CAS schools have sufficient numbers to be competitive. I believe if you want to be a part of the CAS then you need to keep up, sorry but just accepting something else doesn't cut it imo, or join another association for rugby, otherwise the whole thing is too soft.
Rugby addict,like your suggestions and I do really think this isn't rocket science, a suitable format CAN be developed and changed over time, if need be.
A thought for us all, given the strong successes of our Wallabies teams over the last 10 years, WE NEED CHANGE, and I am sure our GPS , CIS etc associations would agree. Team lets go, as Russell Coit says!

 

[sidelineview]

All CAS schools have the numbers to be competitive with whom? What are the numbers of students playing rugby in all relevant schools ? As mentioned, numbers have been eroded in recent years.

Dictating terms to a school struggling for rugby playing numbers and struggling to be competitive may not be appropriate or acceptable. The strength of a schools 1st XV team can be a cyclic thing. Imagine telling a traditional CAS school to leave the rugby comp because they've had a few lean years ...... as if they would comply with a "yes Mein Furher"
I dont think its a simple equation. Traditional rugby schools would need to be accommodated.

Im not saying it couldnt work but a lot of due diligence is needed before an idea like this is seriously considered.

 

[White line fever]

All CAS schools have the numbers to be competitive with whom? What are the numbers of students playing rugby in all relevant schools ? As mentioned, numbers have been eroded in recent years.

Dictating terms to a school struggling for rugby playing numbers and strugglingx to be competitive may not be appropriate or acceptable. The strength of a schools 1st XV team can be a cyclic thing. Imagine telling a traditional CAS school to leave the rugby comp because they've had a few lean years .. as if they would comply with a "yes Mein Furher"
I dont think its a simple equation. Traditional rugby schools would need to be accommodated.

Im not saying it couldnt work but a lot of due diligence is needed before an idea like this is seriously considered.

Sideline,I do agree with most of your comments. It's not an easy solution but a position needs to be established.
I believe I am right in saying that each school has certain obligations that need to be fulfilled as part of being a CAS school and that involves sport, eg rugby.
An example being that you must field x number of rugby teams in each age group.
Every school DOES have sufficient boys to produce competitive rugby teams, it just depends on where the school wants to focus.
If schools don't focus on rugby, their choice, and become consistently flogged, then time to leave. I am sorry but the development of the serious players and the game will not develop with a "please everyone approach".
I think the point is we need to evolve the game and competition and not be bogged down by the poorest performer.
They can ALL do it, just their choice!

 

[sidelineview]

I would want to see rugby playing numbers in each age group for each school to gauge it properly. Also the effect other winter sports have had on rugby. Some schools may rise and fall in cycles with their rugby. Other schools may be in a constant decline.
But i assume there would be big differences in numbers between schools.
Also the ARU would need to get involved to promote and revive rugby in schools.
AFL is very good at marketing.

 

[White line fever]

Sideline, agree about the ARU but don't hold your breath, and soccer and the AFL are completely eating our lunch!
My point isn't about how it is now ie rugby numbers in each age group now,it's about where we may like to be in the future!
I think it's about drawing a line in the sand about were school rugby needs to go.
There was a great opportunity to blend the major associations,and still hold their own comps, but this was missed because of 1 school.
I can't find strong enough words,that can be published, to demonstrate this stupidity.
I guess the best way is to let things stay they way they are, see the same schools get absolutely HAMMERED, nearly every year, bar the odd break out year, because this is what will happen.
If any school doesn't want to step up to the plate then...... the consequences are their own doing.

 

[CatchnPass]

I gather the proposal was for 3 groups of 6 schools something like the following and the match ups make a lot of sense based on numbers and quality:

Group 1 (North): Joeys, Knox, Barker, View, Kings, Auggies ??Shore??
Group 2 (South/East): Scots, Newington, Waverley, Shore?? plus a few
Group 3 (Inner City): Aloys, Trinity, Cranbrook, Grammar, High, St Pius

They would play the other teams in their grouping as trials and then play their GPS/CAS/ISA games as comp games but over one round.

This is not dissimilar to what happened before GPS changed their season and CAS went to a 2 round competition as a result.

Not hard to work out which CAS school would find it hardest in their group and you can't really blame them.

Admit I'm struggling to see which would be materially worse off than under the present comp structure. Which do you think?