NSW AAGPS Rugby 2012

[wreckless]

I'm sorry Wreckless, but I am going to watch the Bye this weekend. I know that they were enjoyed by a few hardy supporters sitting inthe grandstand when they played Shore. I for one, will be beside the flag pole with the best viewing position. Just look at the positives of watching Bye play.
You can have a beer.
No abuse from the opposition.
No inane nagging kids around! Keep the Bye in the game!

Have a great day at the fixture - looking forward to the match report! Wreckless

 

[George Smith]

Personally, I would really like to see something along the lines of this occurring in the near future. Each conference (GPS, CAS, ISA, CCC) conducting their own competition with an consistent, adequate point system that allows outright winners, rather that 3-4 way ties. As well as allowing teams the ability to play each other twice. This than allows say, 2 teams from each conference the opportunity to play an finals/playoff series.

In regard to IS's concern, each competition could potentially 'lower' teams that they do not deem as capable of competing within their competition (Example: SGS, SBH, TAS), into a separate conference, in addition to the original four. This could potentially allow for the improvement of some lower schools rugby to eventually be able to compete at the finals/playoff end of the series. Obviously, it could go the opposite way, and further degrade the standard of rugby. Yet, I do believe that it would increase the standard as it allows proper competition to occur, rather than the 100-0 games of certain teams at the moment.

For example, say there are roughly 20 weeks within the Winter Schoolboy competition at the moment. I am not as educated about the number of other schools in various competitions, but I am going to use the GPS competition as an example. Take into consideration that I have not included TAS, SGS and SBH as in my opinion they would be in the 'lower' competition, that I proposed above. This leaves 6 teams, playing each other twice, therefore 12 rounds. Anyway, the season would be as follows:

Term 2
Week 1 - 2: Internal Rugby Trials for Schools.
Week 3 - 5: Trial Games with GPS, CAS, ISA and CCC schools.
Week 6 - 10: Round 1 - 5 GPS Competition

Term 3
Week 1 - 7: Round 6 - 12 GPS Competition
Week 8 - 10: Conference Finals (Quarter's, Semi's, Grand Final)

Take Note: I do not mean to offend anyone, regarding the rankings of teams.

Just posted a new thread THE IDEAL NSW SCHOOLS COMP. along with school org chart etc.

 

[Gristlechewer]

Hey G- Chew - is there anything that you don't like!!!! Wreckless

Hyperdermic needles, Reschs and VB, Boogie boarders, bad Thai food, Lads and people that call soccer football. I am not overly fussed with Aussie Rules, Big Brother, soccer, hooliganism, racism in all ways, abad pie at the footy, a cold pie at the footy, the state of Australian politics, the state of the ARU and sour cream.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^U Forgot Flat champagne, & warm beer.

 

[rugby union]

For shore, I noticed lhp Robertson sent on in 1's late in the game, heavily strapped ankle and all. Is this an indication of his return? I watched him in the 2's and you would surely have to play him against newington. He was all over the park, seemed to be in everything. I'd really like to see this kid play a full match again at the top. Any word on whether this is likely?

Nd finally, Seamus Frost. That kid blew me away on the weekend. What a talent.

Wowsah I can confirm that Robertson is very close to being 100%fit and has played the last two weeks in the 2nds. After a full game in the seconds and a run on in the firsts it will be up too the coaches to pick him as he faces strong competition from McCathie. But he has recovered well and plays with his ankle heavily strapped. He is keen to play this week in the 1's against New (he hurt his ankle in the trial against New) however, the decision will be up too the coaches regarding which team he plays in

 

[scaraby]

SCANDAL

The Bye has been approached to play a game against the Wallabies. Sources close to the ARU say Deans is feeling confident they may get some points on the board. Even so certain shady characters were spotted handing envelopes over to the Bye coaching staff. Keep you posted.

The Bye was out in the Cross with KB (Kurtley Beale) and JOC (James O'Connor)...ARU refuses to comment but a little "Byedy" told me that they all may miss the match. At least they won't be having a jocular gasbag on the pitch afterwards I guess..........

 

[magpie52]

I’ve been thinking about the best way forward for the GPS comp. I base my suggestions on a few understandings:

1) Kids don’t enjoy getting flogged every week – these kids will soon get sick of rugby (when many of them actually like rugby & just want to have a game against someone of similar standard)
2) Kids from the stronger schools get no enjoyment flogging High or Grammar 80-0. It is much more fun playing a tight game against a worthy opposition
3) It is clear the Grammar & High are not as serious about their rugby as the other schools – and that is fine.
4) Grammar & High are important members of the GPS (it is not all about rugby)
5) In my lifetime I can’t see the GPS combining with other school associations for a rugby comp

Looking back at the 2012 GPS draw http://portals.studentnet.edu.au/sports/uploads/DocArchive/DOCARC0003493.pdf

Schools play 13 Saturday games:
· 6 trials (12 May to 21 July)
· 7 rounds of comp games starting 28 July & finishing 8 September

I also know that internal Saturday trials commenced way back on March 24. They had at least 3 designated Saturdays for internal trails (outside holidays) before the GPS athletics on 5 May.

So there are 16 Saturdays dedicated to school rugby.

My suggestion: home & away with a twist:

1) The 6 ‘rugby’ schools play a 10 round home & away comp
2) Grammar / TAS / High continue with their ‘combined teams weekend’ and play each of the big 6 once during the 6 Saturdays leading up to the formal ‘rugby’ schools GPS comp

The ‘rugby’ schools still have 6 Saturdays to fit in internal trials, a weekend against Grammar / TAS / High and trials against other schools before their comp starts

It means Grammar / TAS / High still get to play every GPS school – just not as often or intensively as they would in a competition round. They’ll also benefit by playing the ‘rugby’ schools during trials when their teams are not as established or well drilled.

When the ‘rugby’ schools play their 10 round comp Grammar / TAS / High can organise games against plenty of other schools of similar standard or finish their season early (might be desired to focus on study ?)

Whether this or another proposal is accepted, change is definitely needed.

 

[Wowsah]

Wowsah I can confirm that Robertson is very close to being 100%fit and has played the last two weeks in the 2nds. After a full game in the seconds and a run on in the firsts it will be up too the coaches to pick him as he faces strong competition from McCathie. But he has recovered well and plays with his ankle heavily strapped. He is keen to play this week in the 1's against New (he hurt his ankle in the trial against New) however, the decision will be up too the coaches regarding which team he plays in

Thanks for the info. What about Buckling?

 

[KOB1987]

looking forward to coming down to watch Kings v Joeys this Saturday, the old grudge match from my days..however, I will be preoccupied with a reunion crowd, so don't go counting on me for a Sunday match report! That said, I will try to supply a live feed from the ground with any exciting developments and scorelines.

 

[mark7]

looking forward to coming down to watch Kings v Joeys this Saturday, the old grudge match from my days..however, I will be preoccupied with a reunion crowd, so don't go counting on me for a Sunday match report! That said, I will try to supply a live feed from the ground with any exciting developments and scorelines.

In your opinion, knowing each teams outcomes this season as well as injuries. Who do you reckon will win this match Joeys or Kings?

 

[KOB1987]

I think it could well turn out to be the decider for equal second place on the ladder....both teams have similar for and against records, both did the same thing to Grammar, both have beaten View and both lost to Newington..I have only seen Kings play once when they were at their worst v. Shore, and I haven't seen Joeys so I can only go off stats and hearsay..I think if Kings were at full strength I would be confident saying they would win, but with the injuries I have read about it could make it a lot closer..that said, from what some people have said, playing Jones at OC might bring out the better player in him and wing is usually the easiest position to cover for..when there's nothing separating 2 teams I'll do what I do in the tipping comps, go for the home team.

so, Kings in a nail-biter!

 

[mark7]

I agree, it will be a tough game with Kings Centre Lalakai out and Kings other Centre Will Davis ( not to sure if playing, as he didn't play the Veiw game). Kings did win aginst Joeys in the trial but like you said that was with a full strength side. It will be intresting to see how the game turns out.
My opinion is Kings to win by a try or less.

Any other predictions on the other games anyone?

 

[providence]

Any other predictions on the other games anyone?[/quote]


Kings V Joeys; Perhaps the most enjoyable game of the weekend. Agree with you Mark re the tightness but I will go with the draw. (I will be there)

Newington V SHORE; Very close but expansive game. SHORE to take the lead before Newington step up a gear. Newington to win by 20+. I fear though that this could blow out aka New / Joeys in 2011 (50 ish to 5 or so).

Just my view.

 

[Done that]

SCANDAL

The Bye has been approached to play a game against the Wallabies. Sources close to the ARU say Deans is feeling confident they may get some points on the board. Even so certain shady characters were spotted handing envelopes over to the Bye coaching staff. Keep you posted.

My money is on the Bye.

 

[KOB1987]

My money is on the Bye.

I disagree, Scotland and Samoa have both managed to get the points over the bye recently, so the Wallabies should be able to as well.

 

[GPSrow]

I’ve been thinking about the best way forward for the GPS comp. I base my suggestions on a few understandings:

1) Kids don’t enjoy getting flogged every week – these kids will soon get sick of rugby (when many of them actually like rugby & just want to have a game against someone of similar standard)
2) Kids from the stronger schools get no enjoyment flogging High or Grammar 80-0. It is much more fun playing a tight game against a worthy opposition

could i also mention that kids in the lowest grading teams such as for Newington, the 5th XV or 6th XV do not find it enjoyable when they have to verse the joeys or river view 5ths and 6ths, when infact they go down to the 12ths or 13ths in some cases. This issue may seem minor, but to keep boys in the lower grades and to create depth in the schools that have not a lot of depth there needs to be a change to the fixtures and not letting this teams become demotivated, I'm sure a comparison can be made to the High 1st XV, and due to changes to there fixture, it had seen a better competition for them ( i hope)

 

[HarveyColon]

Promising in what way?

because it wasn't 97-0. I don't understand why you constantly talk down grammar's chances in younger age groups when you clearly have some affiliation with the school. 24-7 is a good result. What is also promising is the fact that 2 people from the 16a team actually played 1sts on the weekend....and they're still alive. Where do you draw the line IS......is a win promising?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

because it wasn't 97-0. I don't understand why you constantly talk down grammar's chances in younger age groups when you clearly have some affiliation with the school. 24-7 is a good result. What is also promising is the fact that 2 people from the 16a team actually played 1sts on the weekend..and they're still alive. Where do you draw the line IS..is a win promising?

I've pointed out before that results through age groups tend not to be repeatable in opens. This is because opens generally are drawn from 2 age groups and the combination of age groups tends to produce better teams at the other schools.
History at grammar suggests that,in fact, their combination is further behind the other schools than it ever was through the ages. This is because of the more limited pool of good players at grammar.
It is a hollow excuse/explanation that 2 kids eligible for 16s are playing opens: it was ever thus and most if not all the other schools have the same issue. If you look in the 2013 thread you will see how many 1stXV players will be back ext year at each school.
The reason I criticise it is because of my affiliation with the school: I would like the problem addressed. My measure of succes has nothing, at his level, to do with winning it has to do with imparting the fundamentals - if they were to be systematically imparted to all ages better results would follow but most importantly the kids would be better players and would enjoy the game more.
My detractors deny the existence of the problems that I see: they may be right, but the manner in which the results are achieved would suggest that basic skills (run, kick, tackle, pass) are not being imparted.
In the younger ages I see outside coaches who do not attend the games because of their own commitments. The appointment of such coaches seems, therefore, to be a hollow response since it is very difficult to see how they can assess the way the kids play if they don't see them do so. Training seems haphazard in the younger ages: little or no contact work and no practicing skills under pressure, for instance.
Dealing with the issues I perceive would enhance the kids' enjoyment of the game, produce better players and, maybe, get more kids playing. Many parents, mostly mothers, are horrified by the fact a collision sport can be lost by the margins we are talking about because the score, to them, implies something about the unevenness of the physical contest and, hence, the risk of injury to their child.
The round against joeys only serves to prove my point: the SJC results are not a consequence of brute force they are the result of boys being given basic skills to play the game.
I emphasize this is not the fault of any kid and their motivation is not in issue.
This is a complaint about the school's superficial responses to the problem: it is disingenuous because it purports to address the problem but does not. In a sense it insults the intelligence of the other schools, if you think about it.
Finally, the good idea of getting a bloke like Fear in is too little too late. A more sensible thing to do would be to get similarly skilled/experienced outside coaches in the younger ages (you only need 4!) who follow the age group from 13 to 16. If you get the right people this would give continuity of coaching that would systematically improve the skills and the rugby nous of every kid.
It wouldn't cost that much - hell they could even get Deans.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[George Smith]

I've pointed out before that results through age groups tend not to be repeatable in opens. This is because opens generally are drawn from 2 age groups and the combination of age groups tends to produce better teams at the other schools.
History at grammar suggests that,in fact, their combination is further behind the other schools than it ever was through the ages. This is because of the more limited pool of good players at grammar.
It is a hollow excuse/explanation that 2 kids eligible for 16s are playing opens: it was ever thus and most if not all the other schools have the same issue. If you look in the 2013 thread you will see how many 1stXV players will be back ext year at each school.
The reason I criticise it is because of my affiliation with the school: I would like the problem addressed. My measure of succes has nothing, at his level, to do with winning it has to do with imparting the fundamentals - if they were to be systematically imparted to all ages better results would follow but most importantly the kids would be better players and would enjoy the game more.
My detractors deny the existence of the problems that I see: they may be right, but the manner in which the results are achieved would suggest that basic skills (run, kick, tackle, pass) are not being imparted.
In the younger ages I see outside coaches who do not attend the games because of their own commitments. The appointment of such coaches seems, therefore, to be a hollow response since it is very difficult to see how they can assess the way the kids play if they don't see them do so. Training seems haphazard in the younger ages: little or no contact work and no practicing skills under pressure, for instance.
Dealing with the issues I perceive would enhance the kids' enjoyment of the game, produce better players and, maybe, get more kids playing. Many parents, mostly mothers, are horrified by the fact a collision sport can be lost by the margins we are talking about because the score, to them, implies something about the unevenness of the physical contest and, hence, the risk of injury to their child.
The round against joeys only serves to prove my point: the SJC results are not a consequence of brute force they are the result of boys being given basic skills to play the game.
I emphasize this is not the fault of any kid and their motivation is not in issue.
This is a complaint about the school's superficial responses to the problem: it is disingenuous because it purports to address the problem but does not. In a sense it insults the intelligence of the other schools, if you think about it.
Finally, the good idea of getting a bloke like Fear in is too little too late. A more sensible thing to do would be to get similarly skilled/experienced outside coaches in the younger ages (you only need 4!) who follow the age group from 13 to 16. If you get the right people this would give continuity of coaching that would systematically improve the skills and the rugby nous of every kid.
It wouldn't cost that much - hell they could even get Deans.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with IS. Fear is under pressure week in week out to produce results. To get a 'result' for a team that is being hammered does not necessarily mean they are being upskilled. When you are in an 1st XV comp against schools with players that have been groomed in rep teams for the past 5 years as well as advanced skills coaching with the ARU's JGS etc then the lads from Grammar are starting from well behind (even given their superior capacity for accelerated learning).

IS is correct in suggesting that the school needs to start from the ground up. That is, the U13s and U14s and start getting really good skills developed in a 'safe' environment well before they are really tested in an 'opens' age group that is characterised by a whole team of well developed physical and technical skilled players.

Some time ago Grammar OBs demanded the school to 'rectify the situation' similar to what is being experienced today. the solution was to import players. This is not a solution but merely putting short term band-aids to the sore. To ensure a sustainable solution is obtained then a leaf from Grammar's rowing program is needed. That is, develop core skills, gain a little momentum of success, allow the school kids to celebrate and support the success and then enjoy the ride.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Sorting out the First XV by hiring in Consultant coaches will not solve any problems, it will only serve to hide the root causes.
If Consultants are going to be hired, they need to come in with a plan for all teams down to the U13F's.
If Rugby'R'Us are not going to provide coaching support to all those teams for both training and gameday, then they must also come in with a plan to upskill the existing coaching staff at the School, so the basics can be taught (catch, pass, kick, tackle), and game plans introduced.
This should be supplemented by existing ARU/NSWRU Smart Rugby, Foundation and Level 2 Coaching courses for the School staff involced in the Rugby programme.
There should be a clear pathway, and consistency for the kids in the rugby programme from the Under 13F's to the 1st XV. Everyone on the same sheet of music.
Focus on individual skill development, then small group skill development and strategy, finally Team strategy and skills.

This approach is not too dissimilar to most education models so the various Headmasters and school teachers should not be too opposed to implementing such. Staggers me that they can't/won't implement such. Is the lack of resources the issue at SGS, or lack of will?

If you are not going to acquire the cattle, as per some models, then you have to develop your own cattle.

If the cattle are not ready to sit HSC, then either apply the resources to the cattle to bring them up to the level to perform at the HSC or find another qualification more suited to the standard fo the cattle you have.