• 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 Rugby 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

rugbysik

Stan Wickham (3)
It would be a great pity if the performance of this years Grammar opens dictates what happens for the next few years at Grammar. This years 16A's at Grammar will be physically able, if low on skills. They are nearly all year 10. The forwards are nearly all rowers (eg strong enough) and are competitive. They wont win much, but they wont get flattened either. Their worst results last year were around 50-0 to Riverview , which is poor but not a complete disaster. They got close to Scots and werent too far from Newington etc. They are a close knot group, and enjoy their footy. There is a strange parent ethos at Grammar where fast talented kids who could be good backs often end up in Soccer because their parents actually ban them from Rugby for reasons which are inexplicable. Its frustrating, but that's life.

50-0 is still a bad score. Against Scots they versed half the year (The worser half, I might add) as well they still got beat 5 tries to 1. Newington in that year are almost as bad as Grammar and High. So I wouldn't be surprised if they won't win a game in that year.
 
H

HarveyColon

Guest
Don't worry about newington being poor........that always seems to be solved quite easily

And you can't have "versed" someone its grammatically wrong: it's a pet hate of mine
 

wreckless

Bob Loudon (25)
Don't worry about newington being poor........that always seems to be solved quite easily

And you can't have "versed" someone its grammatically wrong: it's a pet hate of mine

What about in a "head to head" poetry reading Harvey? Surely you could "verse" someone in that!!! :). Anyway - I agree with your sentiments! Wreckless
 
T

Tight head Lion

Guest
Scots verse Waverley today at Queens Park @ 2.15pm. Scots by 40+. There are also 16's earlier
 
H

HarveyColon

Guest
no way,...how?......who were scots missing?....were there red or yellow cards given or something?
 

Snort

Trevor Allan (34)
Shore apparently trialling against Trinity tomorrow.

It was today. Shore 2nds played the first half, 1sts the second. The first half was one try apiece, but in the second Trinity scored two tries to one. What Shore 1sts did well was mostly done in the forwards. Their pack shoved Trinity back in rolling mauls several times, and the lineout worked like clockwork. Quite a bit of turnover ball was won. There wasn't much cohesion in the backs, but I guess this was a first run. Defensively, Trinity scored two long-range tries when the defence was outpaced and could not regroup. Shore's winger seemed to be the biggest player on the field but he saw very liitle ball.
 

Keen observer

Bob McCowan (2)
Trinity vs shore - yes Snort your correct in saying that a fresh shore 1st xv pushed a tiring trinity pack off the ball.... Just like they played on a pocket sized ground, ensuring that the intensity of contact and close proximity ensured an intense physical battle, fresh legs vs second half legs, limiting the opportunity for open expansive play...it was no wonder there was disappointment on all 30 shore players faces when they'd "lost" both halves... Played in the spirit of a trial no doubt as they formed a tunnel to clap on their second team of the match at half time....
 

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Just to clarify - the teams that Shore used today were not the 1sts, 2nds and 3rds necessarily, nor were they at full strength. Team 2 and team 3 consisted of the boys that they are unsure about taking further in 1sts/2nds/3rds trials (primarily from Year 10 and 11), and therefore do not represent the full strength of Shore rugby. Team 1 consisted mainly of boys in Year 12, and upon the replacement of their halfback, Pulver, due to a head knock, they lost a lot of structure and perhaps didn't perform as strongly as they should have.

I hate to make excuses but I believes it unfair to say that the Trinitys 1sts beat Shore 1sts whilst losing to the Shore 2nds. This is the first contact session the teams have had and the teams do not even slightly represent the 1sts / 2nds / 3rds.

Hope that cleared stuff up.
 

smokinjoe

Ward Prentice (10)
no way,...how?......who were scots missing?....were there red or yellow cards given or something?
Defence issues - a bit lazy. Scots always say they'll beat everyone by "40+" points but every year it's the same old story. It's been a long long time since they actually did what they say they'll do! Time to put up.
 

Done that

Ron Walden (29)
Just to clarify - the teams that Shore used today were not the 1sts, 2nds and 3rds necessarily, nor were they at full strength. Team 2 and team 3 consisted of the boys that they are unsure about taking further in 1sts/2nds/3rds trials (primarily from Year 10 and 11), and therefore do not represent the full strength of Shore rugby. Team 1 consisted mainly of boys in Year 12, and upon the replacement of their halfback, Pulver, due to a head knock, they lost a lot of structure and perhaps didn't perform as strongly as they should have.

I hate to make excuses but I believes it unfair to say that the Trinitys 1sts beat Shore 1sts whilst losing to the Shore 2nds. This is the first contact session the teams have had and the teams do not even slightly represent the 1sts / 2nds / 3rds.

Hope that cleared stuff up.
Perish the thought that people might think you are making excuses !!
It's totally inconceivable that Shore might lose a Rugby match .
Thanks for clearing "stuff up" for us.
 

CTPE

Nev Cottrell (35)
What Shore 1sts did well was mostly done in the forwards. Their pack shoved Trinity back in rolling mauls several times, and the lineout worked like clockwork. Quite a bit of turnover ball was won.

Sounds promising for Shore as the Trinity pack is is quite highly rated with plenty of rep players like Junior Satiu, Cam Orr, Jackson McLean, Malaki Afele and Vince Moresello to name but a few (and assuming that they played)
 

Snort

Trevor Allan (34)
Sounds promising for Shore as the Trinity pack is is quite highly rated with plenty of rep players like Junior Satiu, Cam Orr, Jackson McLean, Malaki Afele and Vince Moresello to name but a few (and assuming that they played)

All of them played except Orr. I'd say Shore won the lineouts easily, the scrums were fairly even, Shore shaded the turnovers and its rolling maul was highly effective. The disorganisation in the backs seemed to be due in part to Pulver's early injury and the fact that this was the first hit-out. Always a danger to read too much into trial form (although having said that, Scots losing to Waverley was a surprise and suggests that they may be more vulnerable than expected).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top