• 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.

CAS Rugby 2023

WLF3

Darby Loudon (17)
In my day we questioned could Waverley even class themselves as a private school with the Queens park facilities akin of the Government variety.
Nice comment! Clearly you haven't seen the rest of the school, and I guess had the Waves not joined the CAS then your school may have won more often, or at least a few times!
 

WLF3

Darby Loudon (17)
The coaches don’t pick the team, the selectors do. Coaches are kept at a distance from the process for that exact reason
That's true HVG, but not all these judges are CAS people. A Newington dad is a CAS selector, who I know well, and he was at QP when the Waves played New and he told what he was doing on the sideline with his clip board!

There have been too many glaring mistakes over the years, unfortunately though, that is prevalent in sport.
 

Goosestep

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Nice comment! Clearly you haven't seen the rest of the school, and I guess had the Waves not joined the CAS then your school may have won more often, or at least a few times!
Yep and considering most of the other cas schools also use public ovals it’s extremely ignorant.

always had a tough time at Waverley, it was called Death Valley cause A) they smashed most teams and B) it’s in a valley duh
 
Last edited:

Goosestep

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Your first point is simply not true. Every school is different, with different sizes, different geographic location, different cost and different deomographic... All of which DRASTICALLY affects a schools rugby ability. Let's move with the times. Realise that schools have different goals and abilities and adapt... Because old thinking is contributing to the suffering of rugby cultures in some schools and that's blatantly obvious.

The beauty of the tier system that we have discussed is that it is fluid. Shore would have been a tier 2 team (and still probably are), but with improvement could be moved into the top tier. Plus its MUCH easier to build rugby culture when you get to play teams of your standard... It's all well and good too say Aloys should improve their program... But if I'm an Aloys boy why would I want to play rugby where I concede 50 points to Barker, Knox and Waverley, and get physically manhandled by much more athletic boys week in a and week out... That argument majorly lacks nuance.
It’s not professional sports, a tier system won’t work cause it’s different boys every year .. it’s not the same team …
Ok so joeys or kings has random shit year get regulated to second tier then the next year annihilates every team 100 -0 what’s the good in that? … a tier system is a grave yard for schoolboy rugby.
 

workingdasnipe

Peter Burge (5)

Just came across this on my youtube page. Wouldn't it be great to see a repeat of this for the CAS comp! Great brutal rugby was displayed by the boys in blue and gold.
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
It’s not professional sports, a tier system won’t work cause it’s different boys every year .. it’s not the same team …
Ok so joeys or kings has random shit year get regulated to second tier then the next year annihilates every team 100 -0 what’s the good in that? … a tier system is a grave yard for schoolboy rugby.
The simple answer is that you don't place schools in tiers because of 1st XV performance in one year. The first place you start is the size of the Rugby program: does the school field four or five teams in each age group (or more), or just two? You do that because as far as possible you want each school playing the same opponent through the grades on the same day.

Then you look at the aspiration of the Rugby program: is it trying to provide a pathway to professional Rugby, or is the program primarily recreational? You do that because you don't want to put up kids who train twice a week against kids with NRL contracts who are pumping weights daily. It's a major safety issue.

And then you examine performance over a few years across all grades. You shouldn't be a tier one school if you have a strong 1st XV because of recruiting practices, but your 16Bs haven't won for three years.

So, if you do all that, you don't get "Joeys having a random shit year" and getting relegated (not "regulated"), because then the tiers aren't selected by morons.

Would it be an imperfect system? Yes. Would it take time to get it right? Yes. Would mistakes be made? Yes.

Would it be a damn sight better than the unholy mess we have now? Hell, yes.

And, by the way, if you think that teams winning 100-0 is an indication of a failed competition, just remember the Barker-Aloysius game a couple of years back. Or the 100-0 scorelines that sent Grammar and High to the 3rd XV competition.
 

Backintheolddays

Larry Dwyer (12)
The simple answer is that you don't place schools in tiers because of 1st XV performance in one year. The first place you start is the size of the Rugby program: does the school field four or five teams in each age group (or more), or just two? You do that because as far as possible you want each school playing the same opponent through the grades on the same day.

Then you look at the aspiration of the Rugby program: is it trying to provide a pathway to professional Rugby, or is the program primarily recreational? You do that because you don't want to put up kids who train twice a week against kids with NRL contracts who are pumping weights daily. It's a major safety issue.

And then you examine performance over a few years across all grades. You shouldn't be a tier one school if you have a strong 1st XV because of recruiting practices, but your 16Bs haven't won for three years.

So, if you do all that, you don't get "Joeys having a random shit year" and getting relegated (not "regulated"), because then the tiers aren't selected by morons.

Would it be an imperfect system? Yes. Would it take time to get it right? Yes. Would mistakes be made? Yes.

Would it be a damn sight better than the unholy mess we have now? Hell, yes.

And, by the way, if you think that teams winning 100-0 is an indication of a failed competition, just remember the Barker-Aloysius game a couple of years back. Or the 100-0 scorelines that sent Grammar and High to the 3rd XV competition.
Best synopsis I've read, but won't happen regardless due to entrenched 'tradition'. ISA does it best with their tiers. Absolutely critical to match (as far as possible), the rugby program and not just the 1st XV which can be stacked while the rest of the club/school gets belted. The 3rdXV comp in GSP isn't a bad compromise - different world we live in today and demographics very different and rugby on life support in Oz
 

Goosestep

Johnnie Wallace (23)
The simple answer is that you don't place schools in tiers because of 1st XV performance in one year. The first place you start is the size of the Rugby program: does the school field four or five teams in each age group (or more), or just two? You do that because as far as possible you want each school playing the same opponent through the grades on the same day.

Then you look at the aspiration of the Rugby program: is it trying to provide a pathway to professional Rugby, or is the program primarily recreational? You do that because you don't want to put up kids who train twice a week against kids with NRL contracts who are pumping weights daily. It's a major safety issue.

And then you examine performance over a few years across all grades. You shouldn't be a tier one school if you have a strong 1st XV because of recruiting practices, but your 16Bs haven't won for three years.

So, if you do all that, you don't get "Joeys having a random shit year" and getting relegated (not "regulated"), because then the tiers aren't selected by morons.

Would it be an imperfect system? Yes. Would it take time to get it right? Yes. Would mistakes be made? Yes.

Would it be a damn sight better than the unholy mess we have now? Hell, yes.

And, by the way, if you think that teams winning 100-0 is an indication of a failed competition, just remember the Barker-Aloysius game a couple of years back. Or the 100-0 scorelines that sent Grammar and High to the 3rd XV competition.
That’s all well and good … But the whole premise of the proposed tier system on this board was one based on promotion / relegation system similar to Premier league .. which is yearly …. That’s what people were promoting here.

… now your own “philosophy” rugby based program sounds far too impractical and political .. “who decides” when this promotion/ relegation take place ?? How many years ?? The headaches would be endless.

shore has turned there program around in a couple of years … under your plan they could be waiting decades ….
 
Last edited:

Rugby888

Stan Wickham (3)
Hi all,

Rugby News has interviewed all CAS first XV coaches and published detailed season previews ahead of round one. Here is a link to Knox and Cranbrook season previews:


 

AroundTheAnkles

Dave Cowper (27)
The simple answer is that you don't place schools in tiers because of 1st XV performance in one year. The first place you start is the size of the Rugby program: does the school field four or five teams in each age group (or more), or just two? You do that because as far as possible you want each school playing the same opponent through the grades on the same day.

Then you look at the aspiration of the Rugby program: is it trying to provide a pathway to professional Rugby, or is the program primarily recreational? You do that because you don't want to put up kids who train twice a week against kids with NRL contracts who are pumping weights daily. It's a major safety issue.

And then you examine performance over a few years across all grades. You shouldn't be a tier one school if you have a strong 1st XV because of recruiting practices, but your 16Bs haven't won for three years.

So, if you do all that, you don't get "Joeys having a random shit year" and getting relegated (not "regulated"), because then the tiers aren't selected by morons.

Would it be an imperfect system? Yes. Would it take time to get it right? Yes. Would mistakes be made? Yes.

Would it be a damn sight better than the unholy mess we have now? Hell, yes.

And, by the way, if you think that teams winning 100-0 is an indication of a failed competition, just remember the Barker-Aloysius game a couple of years back. Or the 100-0 scorelines that sent Grammar and High to the 3rd XV competition.
This is an interesting solution and here is the problem. A school like Barker has a fine first XV and very thin depth (on average)in every other grade and year. What tier should they be in? Newington 1’s beat Joeys by 2 points last week and there 2’s lost by more than 50. What tier should they be in?
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
That’s all well and good … But the whole premise of the proposed tier system on this board was one based on promotion / relegation system similar to Premier league .. which is yearly …. That’s what people were promoting here.

… now your own “philosophy” rugby based program sounds far too impractical and political .. “who decides” when this promotion/ relegation take place ?? How many years ?? The headaches would be endless.

shore has turned there program around in a couple of years … under your plan they could be waiting decades ….
Give me a call next time Shore wins the GPS...
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
OK, I guess a bunch of you think the recent shit-posting meets standards. It does not.
Tolerance set to zero - any more wanting to post crap / troll / incite flame wars gets banned.
No negotiation on it either.
FFS grow up.
PS - I will lock the thread too if needed.
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
This is an interesting solution and here is the problem. A school like Barker has a fine first XV and very thin depth (on average)in every other grade and year. What tier should they be in? Newington 1’s beat Joeys by 2 points last week and there 2’s lost by more than 50. What tier should they be in?
It's actually not a problem. If your only good team is your 1st XV, you're not a tier one school, you're just a top-end recruiting drive. You want to be a tier one school, do more than recruit half a dozen players a year (I don't mean to say that this applies to either Barker or Newington). One effect of the tiering is to allow schools to compete at the level appropriate to their program (and one desirable side-effect could be to stop the situation where schools feel they need to recruit Year 11s in order to field a competitive 1st XV).
 

Goosestep

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Give me a call next time Shore wins the GPS...
It's actually not a problem. If your only good team is your 1st XV, you're not a tier one school, you're just a top-end recruiting drive. You want to be a tier one school, do more than recruit half a dozen players a year (I don't mean to say that this applies to either Barker or Newington). One effect of the tiering is to allow schools to compete at the level appropriate to their program (and one desirable side-effect could be to stop the situation where schools feel they need to recruit Year 11s in order to field a competitive 1st XV).
Aren’t you contradicting yourself here ?
 

Goosestep

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Cause they’ve improved as a school… just cause the 1xv aren’t champions yet, doesn’t mean they haven’t improved.

there are no blowout scores, you can’t deny they're now competitive and belong in the first div
 
Top