• 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 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

wyvernboy

Banned
Hi Propsarespeedy

When you posted the scores from Scots v New you said that the 16A's score was "not relevant " as 4 boys were playing opens and others missing due to injury/sickness.

First of all, cop the loss on the chin. It's not an official GPS comp and these boys will go around for another 2 seasons, so will be interesting when they all go up.

If you are making excuses for Scots loss due to players going up ( see my argument against yr10 boys going up and playing opens ) New had at 4 boys in the 2nds and 2 def starters that got injured from the winning Randwick state champs. Sure some might have been in sick bay alongside the yellow and blue boys.

Joker wants scores from 16A/B games. Not open/injury or sick bay reports. Every school in the 16's age group is in the same situation. Some schools decide to promote more players from their 16's age into opens than others. That's their problem. It might pay dividends in later years ( may not ).
But the result is the result and it was a big win against a heralded opponent.

The 4 Scots boys mentioned that played opens, some played ok and some imo disappointed and looked out of their depth ( which can happen when you put a 15 year old against 18 year olds in Rd 1 comp game ).

So, can we give the scores to Joker for the lower grades without any bs. When they hit opens, then game on.

BTW, the missing regular Scots 12 gave New a huge leg up. When you see him next, please thank him.

Wyvernboy
 

propsarespeedy

Watty Friend (18)
Hi Propsarespeedy

When you posted the scores from Scots v New you said that the 16A's score was "not relevant " as 4 boys were playing opens and others missing due to injury/sickness.

First of all, cop the loss on the chin. It's not an official GPS comp and these boys will go around for another 2 seasons, so will be interesting when they all go up.

If you are making excuses for Scots loss due to players going up ( see my argument against yr10 boys going up and playing opens ) New had at 4 boys in the 2nds and 2 def starters that got injured from the winning Randwick state champs. Sure some might have been in sick bay alongside the yellow and blue boys.

Joker wants scores from 16A/B games. Not open/injury or sick bay reports. Every school in the 16's age group is in the same situation. Some schools decide to promote more players from their 16's age into opens than others. That's their problem. It might pay dividends in later years ( may not ).
But the result is the result and it was a big win against a heralded opponent.

The 4 Scots boys mentioned that played opens, some played ok and some imo disappointed and looked out of their depth ( which can happen when you put a 15 year old against 18 year olds in Rd 1 comp game ).

So, can we give the scores to Joker for the lower grades without any bs. When they hit opens, then game on.

BTW, the missing regular Scots 12 gave New a huge leg up. When you see him next, please thank him.

Wyvernboy
Wyvernboy, I would put my house on the Scots 16a's beating Newington 16a's if scots had their full team, and I'd assume that lots of people would agree with that. The reason this score isn't relevant is because this game was not at all an accurate representation of neither Scots or Newington strength in the 16a's. And also, I did give scores without any BS I just added in information for anyone wondering about why Scots lost. I don't think theres any problem with this. If you don't want information, why would read the forum?
 
O

Old High Boy

Guest
Wyvernboy, I would put my house on the Scots 16a's beating Newington 16a's if scots had their full team, and I'd assume that lots of people would agree with that. ..

Nope, I dont agree with this assertion

I was the ref for this 16 A game at Newington, back in late April - and while the score was close (N 19 - 14), Newington always appeared to be in control of this match for mine...

Sure players are in an out for whatever reasons, however you can only play what's in front of you, everything else is immaterial...

That Newington kid at fullback/ wing - there ain't much to him, but he sure can play.

Just my 0.02 worth
 

TheMedow

Banned
Wyvernboy, I would put my house on the Scots 16a's beating Newington 16a's if scots had their full team, and I'd assume that lots of people would agree with that. The reason this score isn't relevant is because this game was not at all an accurate representation of neither Scots or Newington strength in the 16a's. And also, I did give scores without any BS I just added in information for anyone wondering about why Scots lost. I don't think theres any problem with this. If you don't want information, why would read the forum?
Propsarespeedy, every school would have atleast 1 player from year 10 in 1’s or 2’s. Just cuz yours lost doesn’t make the score ‘irrelevant’, grow up and cop the L mate.
 

propsarespeedy

Watty Friend (18)
Propsarespeedy, every school would have atleast 1 player from year 10 in 1’s or 2’s. Just cuz yours lost doesn’t make the score ‘irrelevant’, grow up and cop the L mate.
It's not the score that's irrelevant, it's the fact neither has as much talent on display that they usually would have. Also scots doesn't have 1 player, they have 4 who are all playing starting or benching for the firsts. I'm not saying Newington didn't deserve to win, I'm just simply stating the fact that this game was not a full display of the potential of either team. Old high boy, I believe Newington, would have held control as the scots team hadn't ever played a game with each other due to glengarry and changes in the team.
 
O

Old High Boy

Guest
Old high boy, I believe Newington, would have held control as the scots team hadn't ever played a game with each other due to glengarry and changes in the team.

I thought it was the first hit out - this season - for both teams. It was a good game to be in the middle for, both teams had plenty of talent on show..
 

letsruck

Allen Oxlade (6)
Propsarespeedy, every school would have atleast 1 player from year 10 in 1’s or 2’s. Just cuz yours lost doesn’t make the score ‘irrelevant’, grow up and cop the L mate.
The result isn't irrelevant its just that propsarespeedy was pointing out is the fact that the Scots 16s have lost quite a few players and the game wasn't a good representation of the teams full potential. Although we probaly won't see the 16s at full potential this season the point still stands that at full potential the Scots 16s would be one of the if not the best team in the 16s comp.
 

wyvernboy

Banned
Propsarespeedy

So by your reckoning, the 4 Scots boys in the opens would make up that diff even when New adds in their 4 boys. We will wait and see. You are very confidant as most Scots boys are. Even when you lose, you still think you won. It's ingrained.

Scots lost. BTW braking news Scots lost. Hard to accept losing to the great unwashed but ...... Scots lost. Can happen. I'm lovin it.

Not a betting man. I enjoy wtaching the game not my money. I'm happy with my house. I don't need yours.

Old High Boy. Yes he is a very good player. Moves well, has the skills and punches well above his weight. plays 15 generally. Has a very famous rugby surname.

Wyvernboy
 

propsarespeedy

Watty Friend (18)
I thought it was the first hit out - this season - for both teams. It was a good game to be in the middle for, both teams had plenty of talent on show..
I meant that this team had never played together in a previous season although Newington may not have either. Which players stood out to you?
 

propsarespeedy

Watty Friend (18)
Yes I believe they would certainly make that difference, as well as the other 3 injured Scots boys. The reason i'm confident in these boys is because of how they have performed from year 7 till now, Scots 15's even beat Newington last year with half the year absent. I don't understand why your so unhappy that I think this game doesn't mean much.
 

letsruck

Allen Oxlade (6)
Yes I believe they would certainly make that difference, as well as the other 3 injured Scots boys. The reason i'm confident in these boys is because of how they have performed from year 7 till now, Scots 15's even beat Newington last year with half the year absent. I don't understand why your so unhappy that I think this game doesn't mean much.
I don't think that 16s games matter much for any school because as mentioned previously their best players that usually carry the team end up going up to the opens which means that for any school their 16s aren't represented well for the players in that age group.
 

wyvernboy

Banned
If it didn't mean much, you would not be making excuses for the loss. You don't make sense. You brought up the 4 mssing boys not any New supporter. Agree that both sides were missing players and neither side were able to show their full potential but the fact is, from 7-7 I think at halftime, New went on with it and it was a solid, convincing win. Now, what happens next, we'll find out next year.

Your argument about the boys not having played with each other due to Glengarry etc, even strengthens my argument that these 4 boys should have been kept in the 16's. Now they won't see their team mates for close to 2 years. That is 2 years that they will have to make up in combos etc.

Let's leave it and move on. For your joint prem to happen, Joeys will need to lose one. You reckon Scots can beat Joeys at BH ? From what I saw on Sat, give you little chance. Not say New can win 100% at HH but we'll give it a go.

Wyvernboy
 

Ramen39

Bob McCowan (2)
If it didn't mean much, you would not be making excuses for the loss. You don't make sense. You brought up the 4 mssing boys not any New supporter. Agree that both sides were missing players and neither side were able to show their full potential but the fact is, from 7-7 I think at halftime, New went on with it and it was a solid, convincing win. Now, what happens next, we'll find out next year.

Your argument about the boys not having played with each other due to Glengarry etc, even strengthens my argument that these 4 boys should have been kept in the 16's. Now they won't see their team mates for close to 2 years. That is 2 years that they will have to make up in combos etc.

Let's leave it and move on. For your joint prem to happen, Joeys will need to lose one. You reckon Scots can beat Joeys at BH ? From what I saw on Sat, give you little chance. Not say New can win 100% at HH but we'll give it a go.

Wyvernboy
Newington are literally so bad, i don't understand your obsession with them.
 

letsruck

Allen Oxlade (6)
If it didn't mean much, you would not be making excuses for the loss. You don't make sense. You brought up the 4 mssing boys not any New supporter. Agree that both sides were missing players and neither side were able to show their full potential but the fact is, from 7-7 I think at halftime, New went on with it and it was a solid, convincing win. Now, what happens next, we'll find out next year.

Your argument about the boys not having played with each other due to Glengarry etc, even strengthens my argument that these 4 boys should have been kept in the 16's. Now they won't see their team mates for close to 2 years. That is 2 years that they will have to make up in combos etc.

Let's leave it and move on. For your joint prem to happen, Joeys will need to lose one. You reckon Scots can beat Joeys at BH ? From what I saw on Sat, give you little chance. Not say New can win 100% at HH but we'll give it a go.

Wyvernboy
I don't understand why you think that the game is an accurate representation of Newington or Scots strength just because "it was a solid convincing win" any half decent 16s squad would beat Scots when we're 9 players down. You keep clinging to this win like its an accurate representation of the 16s and the years to come but the truth is although Newington had a solid win it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that the Scots 16s are bad or that the Newington team is good.
 

AroundTheAnkles

Dave Cowper (27)
I don't understand why you think that the game is an accurate representation of Newington or Scots strength just because "it was a solid convincing win" any half decent 16s squad would beat Scots when we're 9 players down. You keep clinging to this win like its an accurate representation of the 16s and the years to come but the truth is although Newington had a solid win it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that the Scots 16s are bad or that the Newington team is good.
This is a bit boring, perhaps there is a better description than irrelevant, maybe something like "our under strength vs potential team". Anyway, my recollection (happy to be corrected) is that when the current 16's were 13's and 14's Newington and Scots had very close contests. The fact that Scots plays up several players in opens this year is irrelevant to the contest in the 16's this year. You can't have it both ways because presumably Scots would be weaker in the Opens if they didn't do so. Would that then be the excuse, Scots didn't do better in opens because we played our best options in 16's"? Some schools rush players developments more than others, very rarely does it pay dividends but Scots do have an extremely strong set of individuals in that cohort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top