• 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.

NSW AAGPS 2018

Tip the 2018 AAGPS 1st XV Premiers


  • Total voters
    86

WLF

Arch Winning (36)
The 1 teams are at a disadvantage,

Your reserve Hooker is actually the 4th choice. The 2 team takes the 2nd and 3rd choice.

It would be the same for all positions. But set piece is so critical. You have the best Hooker who never misses a throw and always hooks the ball in the scrum. And is as good as a 7 around the field.

He gets injured or subbed off and you get not next best. Or second next best. You get 4th.

Set piece and general play is going to drop. That is going to effect the performance of the team.

Same would apply for most positions. The 1 10 is a world beater destined for the Wallabies, the reserve is a fine Schoolboy utility back but not in the same league.

All the reserves must be given a full game. So every sub is critical.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk


Agree HB,

But be careful, if this is correct, as I have argued that the selections lacked logic, and got shot down, then it can't be said now that the bench selections are incorrect.

Remember selections don't matter! Just suck it up.

As sideline pointed out there is no logic, but that doesn't matter, as others were quick to point out.

Looks pretty silly now, doesn't it.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Agree HB,

But be careful, if this is correct, as I have argued that the selections lacked logic, and got shot down, then it can't be said now that the bench selections are incorrect.

Remember selections don't matter! Just suck it up.

As sideline pointed out there is no logic, but that doesn't matter, as others were quick to point out.

Looks pretty silly now, doesn't it.

I didnt say there is no logic regarding selections; I said that trying to argue logic about selections was a waste of time because the continual arguments keep going around in circles.

For example, in 2016 QLD I & II played off for 5th spot but QLD received a good representation of players in the two Schoolboys teams, even though NSW II & I came 1st and 2nd respectively. NSW people complained about it.

It was NSWs turn last year. NSW players received a good representation of players in the Schoolboy teams even though their teams finished 4th and 6th. QLD teams finished 2nd and 3rd from memory, so naturally enough QLD people complained about it.

Someone could have logically argued that Michael Pavlakis, on form, should have been one of the first players selected in one of the Schoolboys teams last year, regardless of his size, and especially as he was effectively tackling big forwards head on besides playing brilliantly in attack, but the selectors' logic was that they were going for players with size.

What logic can someone attach to the selection of Lathan Hutchinson-Walters in the Combines States team?
On one hand he was in stellar form playing 1st XV footy and deserved his selection, but was unfortunately injured and couldn't play Rep games; and that shouldn't have been held against him.
On the other hand, someone could logically argue that because he didn't play Reps he shouldn't have been selected ahead of other Rep players who risked injury and put the effort into the Rep games.

Based purely on Rep form, the CAS 9 should have made NSW1 ahead of the Scots/GPS 9 because the latter had an unhappy game against CAS. But it could be argued that he had been in good form playing 1st XV for Scots and he was playing behind a beaten GPS pack; and one below-par game shouldn't have been held against him, which it obviously wasn't.

I think some people forget that playing Rep footy is not always about going to the next level. It's a worthwhile and enjoyable experience in itself and to a large extent all anyone can do is to suck it up because the ''logic'' of the selectors always comes out on top.
 

WLF

Arch Winning (36)
I didnt say there is no logic regarding selections; I said that trying to argue logic about selections was a waste of time because the continual arguments keep going around in circles.

For example, in 2016 QLD I & II played off for 5th spot but QLD received a good representation of players in the two Schoolboys teams, even though NSW II & I came 1st and 2nd respectively. NSW people complained about it.

It was NSWs turn last year. NSW players received a good representation of players in the Schoolboy teams even though their teams finished 4th and 6th. QLD teams finished 2nd and 3rd from memory, so naturally enough QLD people complained about it.

Someone could have logically argued that Michael Pavlakis, on form, should have been one of the first players selected in one of the Schoolboys teams last year, regardless of his size, and especially as he was effectively tackling big forwards head on besides playing brilliantly in attack, but the selectors' logic was that they were going for players with size.

What logic can someone attach to the selection of Lathan Hutchinson-Walters in the Combines States team?
On one hand he was in stellar form playing 1st XV footy and deserved his selection, but was unfortunately injured and couldn't play Rep games; and that shouldn't have been held against him.
On the other hand, someone could logically argue that because he didn't play Reps he shouldn't have been selected ahead of other Rep players who risked injury and put the effort into the Rep games.

Based purely on Rep form, the CAS 9 should have made NSW1 ahead of the Scots/GPS 9 because the latter had an unhappy game against CAS. But it could be argued that he had been in good form playing 1st XV for Scots and he was playing behind a beaten GPS pack; and one below-par shouldn't have been held against him, which it obviously wasn't.

I think some people forget that playing Rep footy is not always about going to the next level. It's a worthwhile and enjoyable experience in itself and to a large extent all anyone can do is to suck it up because the ''logic'' of the selectors always comes out on top.


Definitely agree with most of your points, except the fairness of your last line.
That's ok people think differently.

Let's enjoy Riverview and hope the weather is excellent.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Seems no-one actually knows how the reserves are allocated.

If the process has changed in recent years, may explain why NSW II and QLD II recent success

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

That's a provocative statement that can lead to some lively discussion.

Putting the success of the NSWII & QLDII sides down to the way the reserves are allocated is to take merit away from the performances of those teams over the last 2 years.

The quality or lack of quality of reserves in any State squad can play a big role in the success of any of the teams but because of the player requirements under the General Rules regarding reserves, it can also stuff teams up if not managed right.

Besides the fact that the selectors dont always get it right, some players really rise to the challenge of playing on the bigger stage. So any player in the so-called second string reserves bench for NSWI for example can play out of his skin and be rewarded with a spot in the team on the Final day.

Using NSWII and 2016 as an example again, they were lucky to make the Final just ahead of Victoria that year.
The Coach played his strongest team (or what he thought was his strongest team) against WA in the first game, not knowing how strong or weak the WA team was.
NSW ended up having an easy win and gained a bonus point for scoring 4 or more tries.
But when they had to play their 3rd game against QLDI, the Coach was forced to give some players a start and play reserves to fulfill the player requirement Rules. There were quite a few of the stronger players sitting on the bench in the first half as a result.
QLD skipped to a comfortable lead by half time, but the Coach was allowed to put his strongest players on the field in the second half.
NSWII scored a few tries in that second half including a try on the bell which cut the score down to QLD winning by 7 points points or less, thereby giving NSW 1 bonus.

That 1 bonus point was enough to just get them into the Final ahead of a very good Victorian side and the rest is history. And it wasn't the reserve players who made that achievement, even though they contributed; it was more the players named in the 1st XV.

And regardless of whether the reserve bench in any team is a so-called first string or second string bench, those reserves can play well enough to steal a spot in the team on the Final day. There are no guarantees as to what the makeup of the teams are on that final day.
When NSWII were fortunate enough to make the Final in 2016, number 23 Oliver Smeallie played on the wing because he had played so well during the week and he had a blinder in the Final.
In fact, he wouldn't have been out of place in one of the Schoolboy teams but there was a glut of good wingers that year.

It's all a bit of a lottery in a way.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Definitely agree with most of your points, except the fairness of your last line.
That's ok people think differently.

Let's enjoy Riverview and hope the weather is excellent.

Of course its OK, but I'll bet the selectors, to a certain extent at least, already have an idea about who will be in their two Schoolboy teams.
They'll also have their policies in place about selecting players with size or speed or whatever it is this year.

I hope all the players get a lot out of it regardless of who makes or doesn't make the two Schoolboy teams.
It's a unique experience for them.
 

Rugby Season

Stan Wickham (3)
I didnt say there is no logic regarding selections; I said that trying to argue logic about selections was a waste of time because the continual arguments keep going around in circles.

For example, in 2016 QLD I & II played off for 5th spot but QLD received a good representation of players in the two Schoolboys teams, even though NSW II & I came 1st and 2nd respectively. NSW people complained about it.

It was NSWs turn last year. NSW players received a good representation of players in the Schoolboy teams even though their teams finished 4th and 6th. QLD teams finished 2nd and 3rd from memory, so naturally enough QLD people complained about it.

Someone could have logically argued that Michael Pavlakis, on form, should have been one of the first players selected in one of the Schoolboys teams last year, regardless of his size, and especially as he was effectively tackling big forwards head on besides playing brilliantly in attack, but the selectors' logic was that they were going for players with size.

What logic can someone attach to the selection of Lathan Hutchinson-Walters in the Combines States team?
On one hand he was in stellar form playing 1st XV footy and deserved his selection, but was unfortunately injured and couldn't play Rep games; and that shouldn't have been held against him.
On the other hand, someone could logically argue that because he didn't play Reps he shouldn't have been selected ahead of other Rep players who risked injury and put the effort into the Rep games.

Based purely on Rep form, the CAS 9 should have made NSW1 ahead of the Scots/GPS 9 because the latter had an unhappy game against CAS. But it could be argued that he had been in good form playing 1st XV for Scots and he was playing behind a beaten GPS pack; and one below-par game shouldn't have been held against him, which it obviously wasn't.

I think some people forget that playing Rep footy is not always about going to the next level. It's a worthwhile and enjoyable experience in itself and to a large extent all anyone can do is to suck it up because the ''logic'' of the selectors always comes out on top.

I totally agree. The querying about selections has been and always will be a bone of contention. How about just letting the selectors do their job. Surely they are the best placed and would be looking at many things and not just with rose coloured glasses on. Some of the GPS selections this year were interesting but that's the way it goes. Some of those who didn't get into 1's are now at least getting a second shot if they are good enough. Will they get it wrong? Sure they will every single year and someone will say what about this and how did that occur etc. No doubt there will be an outrage when final teams at the end of next week are announced. All I'll say is that there a number of kids who couldn't even get representation in the school First XV and yet a couple of seasons later are playing rep such as Australian Under 21s.

This is not the be all and end all nor should it be.
 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
All I am saying is that the 1st bench being the last picked is a significant handicap.

To some extent that defeats the purpose of having 2 graded teams. NSW I and NSW II. Because all 23 are part of the team and have to play, it's not really a NSW I 23 is it?

If it is done in an attempt to equalise the teams to somehow give all teams a fair chance to win, then why not just pick 2 mixed teams (the plain jumpers and the striped jumpers and make no reference to 1 & 2)

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
All I am saying is that the 1st bench being the last picked is a significant handicap.

To some extent that defeats the purpose of having 2 graded teams. NSW I and NSW II. Because all 23 are part of the team and have to play, it's not really a NSW I 23 is it?

If it is done in an attempt to equalise the teams to somehow give all teams a fair chance to win, then why not just pick 2 mixed teams (the plain jumpers and the striped jumpers and make no reference to 1 & 2)

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

I dont know.
Its logical to some and not logical to others.
 

Rich_E

Ron Walden (29)
I didnt say there is no logic regarding selections; I said that trying to argue logic about selections was a waste of time because the continual arguments keep going around in circles.

For example, in 2016 QLD I & II played off for 5th spot but QLD received a good representation of players in the two Schoolboys teams, even though NSW II & I came 1st and 2nd respectively. NSW people complained about it.

It was NSWs turn last year. NSW players received a good representation of players in the Schoolboy teams even though their teams finished 4th and 6th. QLD teams finished 2nd and 3rd from memory, so naturally enough QLD people complained about it.

Someone could have logically argued that Michael Pavlakis, on form, should have been one of the first players selected in one of the Schoolboys teams last year, regardless of his size, and especially as he was effectively tackling big forwards head on besides playing brilliantly in attack, but the selectors' logic was that they were going for players with size.

What logic can someone attach to the selection of Lathan Hutchinson-Walters in the Combines States team?
On one hand he was in stellar form playing 1st XV footy and deserved his selection, but was unfortunately injured and couldn't play Rep games; and that shouldn't have been held against him.
On the other hand, someone could logically argue that because he didn't play Reps he shouldn't have been selected ahead of other Rep players who risked injury and put the effort into the Rep games.

Based purely on Rep form, the CAS 9 should have made NSW1 ahead of the Scots/GPS 9 because the latter had an unhappy game against CAS. But it could be argued that he had been in good form playing 1st XV for Scots and he was playing behind a beaten GPS pack; and one below-par game shouldn't have been held against him, which it obviously wasn't.

I think some people forget that playing Rep footy is not always about going to the next level. It's a worthwhile and enjoyable experience in itself and to a large extent all anyone can do is to suck it up because the ''logic'' of the selectors always comes out on top.


I think there is a logical explanation for all those selection decisions and just because someone would have made a different decision if they were the selector doesn't, in my opinion, make the selection illogical.

Take the LHW CS selection for example. Some would agree, others wouldn't. For the record, I agree with it.

But like it or not, it is logical.

1. He would already have been well known to selectors ('in the system') having been picked at 15 for NSW1 u16s in 2017 (while attending Marcellin College Randwick).

http://www.nswwaratahs.com.au/news/...s-squads-announced-for-national-championships

2. The selection eligibility rules that apply to Aust Schools (and presumably NSW, although maybe not) state:

" (the player) must have been available for selection in all schoolboy representative regional or sub union teams, prior to or after the championships unless injured or under extraordinary circumstances—e.g. a family death."

https://www.schoolsrugby.com.au/201...-for-australian-schools-rugby-teams-for-2018/

3. He was injured at the time the CAS rep sides were selected.

4. He was playing great footy for Waves before he got injured.

On these grounds, I think his selection is very logical and warranted.
.
 

WLF

Arch Winning (36)
I think there is a logical explanation for all those selection decisions and just because someone would have made a different decision if they were the selector doesn't, in my opinion, make the selection illogical.

Take the LHW CS selection for example. Some would agree, others wouldn't. For the record, I agree with it.

But like it or not, it is logical.

1. He would already have been well known to selectors ('in the system') having been picked at 15 for NSW1 u16s in 2017 (while attending Marcellin College Randwick).

http://www.nswwaratahs.com.au/news/...s-squads-announced-for-national-championships

2. The selection eligibility rules that apply to Aust Schools (and presumably NSW, although maybe not) state:

" (the player) must have been available for selection in all schoolboy representative regional or sub union teams, prior to or after the championships unless injured or under extraordinary circumstances—e.g. a family death."

https://www.schoolsrugby.com.au/201...-for-australian-schools-rugby-teams-for-2018/

3. He was injured at the time the CAS rep sides were selected.

4. He was playing great footy for Waves before he got injured.

On these grounds, I think his selection is very logical and warranted.
.



Rich_E, Wristy and team,

Congratulations to the Scotsmen,

4 in the Aussie schoolboys squad is outstanding.
Well done to the coaches, parents,supporters and of course the boys.
 

SonnyDillWilliams

Nev Cottrell (35)
Savala didn't get much of a look in today

He seems very talented but a bit like strang, has good and not so good days

I'd suggest he might be a chance for final 6... at least in my estimation

Either him or the st augustines 10, Harry Wilson
 

bozo_at_oxford

Bob McCowan (2)
Savala didn't get much of a look in today

He seems very talented but a bit like strang, has good and not so good days

I'd suggest he might be a chance for final 6. at least in my estimation

Either him or the st augustines 10, Harry Wilson

Savala picked up a small injury and so he wasn't playing today but agree, he could get a look in, so could Wilson, Hopoate from auggies.
 

Show and go

Sydney Middleton (9)
Savala didn't get much of a look in today

He seems very talented but a bit like strang, has good and not so good days

I'd suggest he might be a chance for final 6. at least in my estimation

Either him or the st augustines 10, Harry Wilson


Harry Wilson got shafted he is a lot better player than bench for NSw 2.
I’m sure the roosters think so ,playing u20s currently and playing in the Aus schoolboys next week. I’m sure he will be starting in front of a few Aus rugby schoolboys next week.

As for Savala hopefully Brian Smith hasn’t forgot he is a 10 as Lachlan White obviously did giving him no time in his position at 10.
Re injury didn’t look good on video hopefully not that bad.

The nsw1 no 10 Edmed and no12 Walton did however have excellent tournaments and good luck to them in their Aus schoolboy selections well deserved.
 

CatchnPass

Vay Wilson (31)
Minogue from N2/Kings was the unluckiest 10/12 at the tournament not to be selected after a great season and trial matches v CAS and CHS, imo. His consistency and robustness (he rarely has a sub par match or injury) at both GPS and higher level is in contrast to others who seem to draw the accolades. It would be a tough call to see other 10/12s brought in over the top of him.
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
Shore 1sts and 2nds have matches against Cranbrook this week. This will be a real test for where Shore stands in the combined GPS and CAS pecking order.
 

Black & White

Ron Walden (29)
Shore 1sts and 2nds have matches against Cranbrook this week. This will be a real test for where Shore stands in the combined GPS and CAS pecking order.

I presume this match is a holiday trial game, can anyone update the site other such trial matches being played this week, particularly, Newington. Joeys tent to play Marist From Canberra, Newington sometimes Knox. Also, Kinross and their emerging status as a Rugby school could be feature as trial match. If they are being played will the stars from the National Schoolboy Championship be rested.
Any news will be appreciated.
 

Sparkle Motion

Frank Nicholson (4)
I presume this match is a holiday trial game, can anyone update the site other such trial matches being played this week, particularly, Newington. Joeys tent to play Marist From Canberra, Newington sometimes Knox. Also, Kinross and their emerging status as a Rugby school could be feature as trial match. If they are being played will the stars from the National Schoolboy Championship be rested.
Any news will be appreciated.



Newington play Trinity in the AJ Rae Shield games this weekend. Essentially all the A teams from 13s up play Trinity in rugby and football. Think the seconds in Opens do too.
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
I presume this match is a holiday trial game, can anyone update the site other such trial matches being played this week, particularly, Newington. Joeys tent to play Marist From Canberra, Newington sometimes Knox. Also, Kinross and their emerging status as a Rugby school could be feature as trial match. If they are being played will the stars from the National Schoolboy Championship be rested.
Any news will be appreciated.

Shore didn't have any pesky team disruptions from the National Tournament so they'll be fielding a full strength side.
 

Joker

Chilla Wilson (44)
Joeys are in Coffs Harbour on their annual training camp this week.
They take a squad of 40 players including the recent Schoolboy rep players
(poor buggers don't get much of a break)
They train but do not play any other schools. In the past they have had training runs against local colts teams.
While there they may try the legendary K'Pane Artisan Bakery. Best pies in town.

18920300_1922551684436982_5249763663520989659_n.jpg
 
Top