Selection politics and bias, Gold Squads unfairness etc.

[Hugh Jarse]

I'll give you that.

Perhaps ARU, the ASRU and/or NSWRU should have a chat to Mr Garling or a smiliar objective person/s to undertake a report into Rugbys Teenage structures and governance, noting that the Garling Report was specifically commissioned for the SJRU and the TOR limited the scope of the report.

Maybe the Albanese/Cosgrove Governance investigation may touch on such matters. Unlikely but hoping.

On a slight tangent but related. I stumbled on the Canadian model for Long Term Athletic Development t'other day. I was impressed by the staging and terminology that they use to describe the pathway:

There are seven stages within the basic LTAD model:
Stage 1: Active Start (0-6 years)
Stage 2: FUNdamentals (girls 6-8, boys 6-9)
Stage 3: Learn to Train (girls 8-11, boys 9-12)
Stage 4: Train to Train (girls 11-15, boys 12-16)
Stage 5: Train to Compete (girls 15-21, boys 16-23)
Stage 6: Train to Win (girls 18+, boys 19+)
Stage 7: Active for Life (any age participant)

In their model, you train for sheep stations at Stage 6 which for boys is 19 years onwards. I think many have the view that ARU commence this phase at the "boys 16-23" age group.

The link for the BC Rugby LTAD plan is here http://canadiansportforlife.ca/sites/default/files/resources/BC Rugby LTAD Implementation.pdf

Check out this page for the general philosophy underpinning the Canadian model. http://www.rugbyalberta.com/clientuploads/Coaching/LTAD.pdf
Caution: it is a 68 page pdf file that is a 4MB download.

 

[no9]

Amen - we are sending elite youngsters ".. into this breathing world, scarce half made up..'' of Super Rugby to learn their trade on the job. The squads take the punt on them because mature depth is so skinny, that they elect to grow their own from kidnapped school leavers.

Lee, I see the problem here that they then close their minds off to other players. Spread the development opportunities around, provide more higher level playing opportunities to observe and assess and stay open to late/missed development. Because they push so many resources into some of these kids so early they continue the support and ignore others more just claims on the belief that because someone has received better training they will overcome others talent.

If we could afford another ARC, which we can't, mature hard heads could prove themselves at a higher level than club rugby and get into Super Rugby from that. Presently it is too difficult for franchises to assess these blokes: for every Fardy you get 5 duds; so it's better to get a young star and groom him before somebody else grabs him.

Agreed we can't in the form that it previously took, but an ITM style option based around 2hrs travelling time from Sydney at the conclusion of the Shite Shield is a very do able option provided players realise it is based on opportunity to showcase talent and not to pay off a mortgage. You could groom young coaches and slectors in this set up as well and pick an open age team as well as an U21 side. Timeframe of around 6 to 8 weeks through September and October would wrap up the season nicely. Non S15 players only.

A lot of the best players get "recruited" by the private schools, whether through old boys or not; so their elite player pool is diminished. Players like McIntyre are getting rarer. But do they think that Oz rugby would be better off without privates schools from a theoretical point of view? Do they think we can transport the system of a small country like NZ with a lack of footie alternatives, and with it's historical 20 odd unions who can do comprehensive analyses of schools and junior players in each region without a big emphasis on private schools rugby? Should critics not think that by getting good rugby players into private schools we will get more players in a net where they can thrive as rugby players, and keep more of them in our code than otherwise?

Perhaps more to the point is that we are surrendering all power within the game to a select few and that is dangerous ground. The schools are already a rule unto themselves within the framework of rugbyin this country. The community perception is that the game is for the elite only and when more players are taken out of the CHS and club system to bolster what is already a profitable and successful business model then a monopoly isn't too far off. The first rule of engagement is to divide then conquer. By weakening an oppositions playing strength to bolster yours gives you an undeniable advantage. I wonder what the result of the CHS v GPS game would have been had Moeroa, Milne and Foketi, to name a few, had played in the all blue jumper?

Should we not, rather, do better in what can be done for the school players outside of the private school system instead of dismantling it, or saying something facile like schools should not recruit players ?

For those outside the GPS net a connection to the District clubs is the answer. But the clubs need some protection on the investment or at least some funding support. It's not fair that a club can invest substantially into the development of players only to see the vultures swoop in and cherry pick the best talent. Leave the GPS/CAS boys on their schools development path and if you must have age level development then it must be for those outside of the GPS/CAS only as it is then a case of double dipping and oversupply to a smaller cohort. Nothing wrong with organising opportunities though for these pathways to play against each other on multiple levels similar to the 16's nationals but with 2 teams from each. If the allure of playing GPS is unavoidable then you forfeit your place in the development squad. If we are really serious about correcting the imbalance then imagine the improvement to CHS teams if the GPS/CAS boys had been removed from the glee clubs 2 years ago and been replaced by others who are likely to fall under the CHS catchment.

More to the point than critical remarks from folks, I would like to see specifics of how to get disadvantaged school players and school leavers, especially Colts, into the elite system. Clubs already tender applications of young players from both Colts and Grade for the National Academy, but what else can be done?
.

I refer you back to point 1. People on high salaries generally have to justify why. If every one selected into the glee clubs at 15 weren't being heard of at 18 or 19 then those who pay might ask some tough questions about the talent identification skills of those getting the bucks. At best its's a clash of interests when a person who is paid to do one role is then an ARU nominated selector where his decisions can influence his percieved success. I would state Combined States results in the trials or Australia's performance at the last U20's championship as evidence that an inquiry into these roles needs to be held. I might add that guys like Rod Kafer are also of a similar opinion. Clubs may tender applications based on what they know of their best young talent but do those who receive them pay any attention?

 

[whatever]

I hear what your saying IIWII but understand that they've been doing what they're doing for 120 years. and realistically being private independent organisations first and foremost they have no obligation nor desire to do other than compete against each other in pursuit of premiership glory and nobody.not the ARU, NSWRU, NSWRU, CRU or SRU can change that tradition. They throw the most resources at the game at U13 - U18 levels for their own benefit and specific goals and a by product of that is that they consistently deliver the most players who are successful at both junior schoolboys and senior rep level.

Hold on, these are schools in the NSW educational system, not bloody multi-nationals. I believe, they receive Fed Govt funding based on their postcode (socio-economic demographics or whatever) and some NSW govt funds, to build or update their rifle ranges and/or install a heated swimming pool. They are not in some free-trade world without restrictions, the game has gone professional, they seem to have gone professional (non-existing scholarships) to the detriment of the game as a whole (reducing competitive district age competitions). Change or see the Wallabies struggle to maintain status as a tier 1 team.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In simple terms lets take a hypothetical GPS school with 1000 full fee paying students (including those on third party full fee scholarships) each paying $20k for the privalege of earning the GPS branded education.

Before federal and state funds kick in, that is $20m revenue each year.

6 Schools represents $120m revenue each year.

What sporting body or government is prepared to subsidise all or a combination of one or more of the ISA, CAS, AICES, CCC, or State High Schools to that level just to retain top rugby players outside the GPS system, or even to attract players FROM the GPS System due to better facilities, coaching, rep opportunities.

What would be gained by taking on and "breaking" the GPS system?

It is what it is and will remain a fact and a limitation that ARU and others will have to learn to deal with like families develop strategies to deal with the drunkard of an Uncle who always turns up to significant family occasions.

 

[whatever]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-GPS re: education. But it seems to me that the tail is wagging the dog, with the dog being rugby union.

Hope I am dead set wrong but I reckon the wallabies will become roo steak against the ABs this year; and I cringe with this one but the British/Irish lions will see us as cattle fodder next year.

 

[I like to watch]

Sorry Hugh but that is absolute rubbish.
I don't anyone thinks that the $10 or $12k difference between GPS to less salubrious Schools is dedicated solely to their Rugby coaching budget.
No one wants to break any institution.The most anyone is saying is that for the betterment of the game, they should participate in a more competitive competition than they presently involved.
And from that competition rep players are selected.
The only reason the ARU would not do this, as it is filled with old boys from this association. Which demonstrates how incestuous the game is.

 

[barbarian]

No one wants to break any institution.The most anyone is saying is that for the betterment of the game, they should participate in a more competitive competition than they presently involved.
And from that competition rep players are selected.
The only reason the ARU would not do this, as it is filled with old boys from this association. Which demonstrates how incestuous the game is.

So you are suggesting the ARU make changes to the structure of the GPS?

How? They currently have absolutely zero jurisdiction over that area.
.

 

[whatever]

So you are suggesting the ARU make changes to the structure of the GPS?

How? They currently have absolutely zero jurisdiction over that area.
.

As a last resort, banishment of player selection within the schoolboys representative sides until long overdue changes are made.

 

[I like to watch]

So you are suggesting the ARU make changes to the structure of the GPS?

How? They currently have absolutely zero jurisdiction over that area.
.

Forget about GPS, start a comp with divisions that goes for at least 12 or so weeks.Involve only participants in these comps to the only rep trials.
The GPS Schools can suit themselves whether they join or not.
But certainly aspiring Rugby players will cease joining GPS Schools later in their Schooling life, and stay or join Schools in this larger association of Schools.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In the same way that NSWJRU allows players who are NOT playing rugby in their Under 16 competitions to participate in the NSWJRU State Championships because having the rockstar Ghost Players representing their organisation is good for the ego and the pretence that their competition is at a higher level than it actually is.

While a large number of the more skilled players are locked up in the Schools system, what state body is going to allow a second and third string group of players become the State Representative team - NSW Schools (less GPS) would have a record at National Championships similar to the NSW Blues mungoball SOO teams of late. So would the SJRU Team.

Banishing GPS kids from representative selection would be rather counterproductive and probably lead to all sorts of restraint of trade claims being made by the GPS Old Boy Barristers and the like who may have too much time on their hands.

Edited: Spelling (numebr)

 

[whatever]

Forget about GPS, start a comp with divisions that goes for at least 12 or so weeks.Involve only participants in these comps to the only rep trials.
The GPS Schools can suit themselves whether they join or not.
But certainly aspiring Rugby players will cease joining GPS Schools later in their Schooling life, and stay or join Schools in this larger association of Schools.

Play it on a Thursday, so participants can still play club footy on weekends.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

CAS, and ISA to a lesser degree, are quite territorial about their competitions, although not as much as GPS.

It is well documented that CHS schools do not have enough competent and qualified staff members to actually run an effective rugby programme.
Best chance would be for players at CHS schools in an area to be corralled up under a Shute Shield Club almost as if they were a pre-colts academy squad. I'm not to sure that most Shute Shield clubs colts programmes have sufficient resources or inclination to do this. Wait - isn't that close to the SJRU village club model?

 

[barbarian]

Forget about GPS, start a comp with divisions that goes for at least 12 or so weeks.Involve only participants in these comps to the only rep trials.
The GPS Schools can suit themselves whether they join or not.
But certainly aspiring Rugby players will cease joining GPS Schools later in their Schooling life, and stay or join Schools in this larger association of Schools.

So basically say to the GPS and CAS "either ditch your 100+ years of tradition or you can't play for us"?

Talk about a recipe for disaster.

The key to breaking GPS dominance doesn't lie within the GPS system, it's in the CHS and AIC systems. The ARU should leave the GPS alone (which it does) and invest money and coaching resources in these other traditionally non-rugby schools.

Also to say GPS dominance is purely because of $$$ is plain incorrect. It's being able to train two or three times a week from the age of 13 with qualified, committed coaches and top-notch facilities. 99% of these guys aren't world beaters when they enter in year 7.
.

 

[whatever]

In the same way that NSWJRU allows players who are NOT playing rugby in their Under 16 competitions to participate in the NSWJRU State Championships because having the rockstar Ghost Players representing their organisation is good for the ego and the pretence that their competition is at a higher level than it actually is.

While a large numebr of the more skilled players are locked up in the Schools system, what state body is going to allow a second and third string group of players become the State Representative team - NSW Schools (less GPS) would have a record at National Championships similar to the NSW Blues mungoball SOO teams of late. So would the SJRU Team.

Banishing GPS kids from representative selection would be rather counterproductive and probably lead to all sorts of restraint of trade claims being made by the GPS Old Boy Barristers and the like who may have too much time on their hands.

Would not be for too long before the clouds would part and the glorious light would shine on all.

 

[whatever]

So basically say to the GPS and CAS "either ditch your 100+ years of tradition or you can't play for us"?

Talk about a recipe for disaster.

The key to breaking GPS dominance doesn't lie within the GPS system, it's in the CHS and AIC systems. The ARU should leave the GPS alone (which it does) and invest money and coaching resources in these other traditionally non-rugby schools.

Also to say GPS dominance is purely because of $$$ is plain incorrect. It's being able to train two or three times a week from the age of 13 with qualified, committed coaches and top-notch facilities. 99% of these guys aren't world beaters when they enter in year 7.
.

And I'm sorry to say they are not world beaters when they reach U20s or wallaby selection. We are on our way out of the tier 1 rugby group unless changes are made and quickly.

 

[Man on the hill]

Have heard that suggestion before & liked it before, HOWEVER, I doubt that GPS would follow that suggestion, why would they, what's in it for them?
What appears to matter to GPS is being able to dominate each other on the rugby field - a bi-product of that, is a disproportionate number of players (based on player populations) going through to higher rep honours from their competition.

It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts, more (better) players are attracted because more players get selected because more of the better players have been "enticed" to play there in the first instance.
Maybe if Aust Schools grew a set and insisted that their affiliates "toed the line" (whatever that might be) or else lose their affiliate status and through that the opportunity to be selected in various Schoolboy representative teams, thereby removing the original attraction to be recruited as part of the individual players' "pathway to gold", then some version of normal might be re-established.

A grass roots elite player revolt, no pathway to schoolboy rugby selection, maybe the players and their parents would think twice before turning their back on the competitions that have nurtured them at square one.

Now to find a court in the land that would support Aust Schools in such an interfering, Quixotic tilt!

 

[whatever]

The problem, I believe, is that age players are not honing their skills in competitive games over extended periods. I believe for a highly skilled open age player to be developed; a player needs to play in 2 competitive games per week (school & club) over the winter period.

The problem just doesn't exist in rugby but in league as well.

In most district age league comp there are 1 or 2 teams that overwhelm the other teams. In school boy league in the CCC system there is one particular school doing the GPS importing scheme; almost every age team wins their comp (undefeated) and wins on a weekly basis by the mercy rule. So what is being breed: footballers who don't know how get dirty and grind out a win. So when the said superstar footballer hits open age comps and suddenly it is not a walk over, guess what, all his deficiences come to the surface. The same can be said of the selective sport high schools - there is no weekly grind, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Just look at the NYC (Toyota Cup), we have players verging on 1st grade (NRL) that can't bloody tackle.

Big problems in both union and league.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Mungoballers tackling - Hmmmm

Most mungoballers do not tackle in the traditional sense.

Three players converge on on the ball carrier who generally runs directly into the waiting three players. The waiting three players then wrestle the ball carrier to the ground, and then they take the maximum amount of time that they can to get off the ball carrier, with an obligatory face scrunch or elbow to the back of the head or elsewhere while they get up off the ball carrier after the defence has realigned.

A "proper" clean one on one tackle properly executed in mungoland actually puts the defending team under pressure. It has almost been eliminated from the game.

 

[Gristlechewer]

And here is something to think about from the Land of the Darkness (reference http://www.allblacks.com/news/18284/Top-Under-17-players-selected-for-camps)



The Schools that those players selected by franchise region, for the 2012 camps, are: (I have removed the individual names of the boys because they are not important for the point I wish to make)

Blues region: (17 Schools, 39 boys) 


Sacred Heart College (4);
Mt Albert Grammar School (4);
King’s College (5);
Auckland Grammar School (5);
Kelston Boys’ High School (4);
Otahuhu College (1);
Onehunga High School (1);
Howick College (1);
St Kentigern College (5);
St Peter’s College (2);
Dargaville High School (1);
Whangarei Boys’ High School (1);
Okaihau College (1);
Rosmini College (1);
Takapuna Grammar (1);
Westlake Boys’ High School (1);
Massey High School (1).



Chiefs region: 
(7 Schools, 14 Boys)

Wesley College (3);
St Paul’s Collegiate (1);
Tauranga Boys’ College (1);
Hamilton Boys’ High School (4);
Cambridge High School (1);
Rotorua Boys’ High School (3);
Tokoroa High School (1).



Hurricanes region:

(14 Schools, 25 Boys)
Feilding High School (1);
Hato Paora College (2);
Francis Douglas Memorial College (2);
Stratford High School (1);
Lindisfarne College (2);
Napier Boys’ High School (4);
Wanganui High School (2);
Wairarapa College (1);
St Bernard’s College (2);
Wellington College (4);
Hutt International Boys’ School (1);
Naenae College (1);
Paraparaumu College (1);
Otaki College (1).



Crusaders/Highlanders region:
(13 Schools, 22 boys)

St Thomas of Canterbury College (1);
Christchurch Boys’ High School (3);
St Bede’s College (1);
St Andrew’s College (1);
Christ’s College (1);
Shirley Boys’ High School (1);
Marlborough Boys’ College (1);
Nelson College (3);
Otago Boys’ High School (4);
South Otago High School (1);
Southland Boys’ High School (3);
St Peter’s College, Gore (1);
Menzies College (1).

Anyone think that the top 100 Australian Under 17 players could come from 51 different Schools?

Yeah
If you got rid of that time and money wasting, pocket lining,corruption riddled fetid stain of a game the theives want us to call "football" aka soccer. And make the other states play a sport you can represent your country at instead of a pasttime. (Don't AFL people come back at that statement, you just annoy me, saying "We play Ireland." No you don't)
This would then put the true code to the fore rather than Cricket losing 13 of their Vic Academty players to AFL, Parents would be save thousands of Dollars every weekend propping up the Pillars of Salt known as the Hyundai A League, so that the administrators can lead a lifestyle that Uncle Sepp, that runs the sullage pit of sport would be accustomed to.

If THAT were to happen, YES there would be probably a better average. Thank You

 

[whatever]

Mungoballers tackling - Hmmmm

Most mungoballers do not tackle in the traditional sense.

Three players converge on on the ball carrier who generally runs directly into the waiting three players. The waiting thre players then wrestle the ball carrier to the ground, and then they take the maximum amount of time that they can to get off the ball carrier, with an obligatory face scrunch or elbow to the back of the head or elsewhere while they get up off the ball carrier after the defence has realigned.

A "proper" clean one on one tackle properly executed in mungoland actually puts the defending team under pressure. It has almost been eliminated from the game.

Agreed, but ten to fifteen years ago it was the other way around. That's what happens when a media company gets control of the game.

Maybe, I should have said they (NYC players) can't grab.