Australian Schoolboys and National Championships 2011
- Thread starter The Chosen
- Start date
- Status
Iluvmyfooty
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I really am sick of people coming on here and putting these players down - "there not the best and shouldn't be there". Put up or shut up, tell us Mr I should be a selector,who should and shouldn't be there, cause from what I saw at the Nationals this year the best were there. They played with a lot of courage today against a side that have been together for 8 mths (five nations games and a tour), are basically semi-professional and were physiaclly bigger and stronger. They didn't give up and we can be proud of what they gave us.
R
rugby_09
Guest
Well out of the 2 games, are there any players who anyone thinks will move up/down??
Iluvmyfooty
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I have no excuses for the Academy side. The system we have here in OZ is flawed no doubt but every system has its flaws. The overriding schools system is not healthy - look at the now diminishing standard of the major school comps - GPS was not strong this year, nor was CAS. ISA is dominated by one school. There is no regular competition for public schools sides. The sports high schools rely on their league players to play our game and give a false picture of the strength of their programmes.
I will not criticise the players or teams performances this will not achieve anything and shows total disrespect to those players that give their all in these games. I can offer my thoughts on how we do things better - play schools during the week and allow the players to be bought into senior clubs development system. The ARU can have their Academy for 19 - 21 year olds. I won't come on here and say generalisations and make accusations without some factual reasonable arguement to the detriment of these young men who have and should be proud of their achievements.
Yes I know how the last OZ schools side went in England. Selection policies had nothing to do with their results. Are you aware that in England and the other home nations, the more talented players are put into the professional academies of senior professional clubs at 15, take part in the professional training and guidance of these clubs and participate in full internationals at 16, 17 and 18 age level at least 5 times a year (its called a five nations tournament). The final result could be seen running around at Riverview this afternoon. Note the program for the game lists the England players affiliated club and no mention of school. Also, a number of these players actually played against the OZ schools on their tour. Their system currently is producing bigger and stronger players with a professional edge to their game. At this age their system, due to size and support of the professional clubs, is a success.
As I said before the team selected is made up of the best players I saw at this years Nationals. If you feel others especially if they are 17 please state their credentials and suggest they should be considered for the next camp in Sept but don't hide behind general statements.
I will not criticise the players or teams performances this will not achieve anything and shows total disrespect to those players that give their all in these games. I can offer my thoughts on how we do things better - play schools during the week and allow the players to be bought into senior clubs development system. The ARU can have their Academy for 19 - 21 year olds. I won't come on here and say generalisations and make accusations without some factual reasonable arguement to the detriment of these young men who have and should be proud of their achievements.
Yes I know how the last OZ schools side went in England. Selection policies had nothing to do with their results. Are you aware that in England and the other home nations, the more talented players are put into the professional academies of senior professional clubs at 15, take part in the professional training and guidance of these clubs and participate in full internationals at 16, 17 and 18 age level at least 5 times a year (its called a five nations tournament). The final result could be seen running around at Riverview this afternoon. Note the program for the game lists the England players affiliated club and no mention of school. Also, a number of these players actually played against the OZ schools on their tour. Their system currently is producing bigger and stronger players with a professional edge to their game. At this age their system, due to size and support of the professional clubs, is a success.
As I said before the team selected is made up of the best players I saw at this years Nationals. If you feel others especially if they are 17 please state their credentials and suggest they should be considered for the next camp in Sept but don't hide behind general statements.
northman91
Frank Nicholson (4)
could someone please post the Aus academy U19 side that played last week?
B
baldingwingforward
Guest
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Good posts bald one and Iluv. Reading both will get a good picture of the situation. I visited both warm ups today and you could see the difference in the two teams before the whistle went. One looked like a slick Super Academy side warming up and the other looked like a bunch of schoolboys.
Iluv was at the national championships and, give or take, I am sure he is right: that the team was a good representation of of the boys playing that week.
To whingers who say that the best lads weren't chosen, or weren't chosen because they didn't make the state sides, or couldn't because the whole system is f****d up, or this or that.... , fine, but use the appropriate thread here
This thread was set up to keep other threads clear of toxic comments and for people who have a particular interest in it.
Back to the rugby. The Oz boys will catch up with the young Poms after a few years. Right now our lads can't compete but give them the same training as young Oz rugby league players have had at their age, and the young Pom team has obviously had, and it would have been a closer result.
There are some splendid young players in the Oz team and you will see them come through - but, by comparison, not whilst they are at school.
There is a separate thread on this in the main "Rugby Discussion" forum - I think it's on page 2 now. In it I listed the Oz Under 19 team and how some of them played.
Iluv was at the national championships and, give or take, I am sure he is right: that the team was a good representation of of the boys playing that week.
To whingers who say that the best lads weren't chosen, or weren't chosen because they didn't make the state sides, or couldn't because the whole system is f****d up, or this or that.... , fine, but use the appropriate thread here
This thread was set up to keep other threads clear of toxic comments and for people who have a particular interest in it.
Back to the rugby. The Oz boys will catch up with the young Poms after a few years. Right now our lads can't compete but give them the same training as young Oz rugby league players have had at their age, and the young Pom team has obviously had, and it would have been a closer result.
There are some splendid young players in the Oz team and you will see them come through - but, by comparison, not whilst they are at school.
There is a separate thread on this in the main "Rugby Discussion" forum - I think it's on page 2 now. In it I listed the Oz Under 19 team and how some of them played.
stonecutter
Chris McKivat (8)
ILMF,
I agree with the sentiments of your reply above but somebody must be taken to task for the chasm of physical, athletic and playing ability that is getting wider each year in the youth age groups. I didn't see today’s game but you didn't have to be Nostradamus to predict the outcome.
I see a number of issues that must be addressed if we are to arrest the slide we are on as witnessed by recent disappointing results.
1. The ARU has to start looking at the health of the game below that of the Wallabies. The propaganda of "pathways" being available on a level playing field to all youth players is a mirage. The opportunities provided are not equal, schools dominate over club and region in selections and worse still there is unequal opportunity within schools where one association rules selections and within district/regional where northern teams rule. Sydney/Country provided another graphic display of selection inadequacy with a quota of players to be selected whether worthy or not.
2. Junior rugby has a fascination with playing players out of/ahead of their age bracket and chosen positions. WHY? What does this achieve? Who in gods name decided that the boy playing No8 for Australia "A" was suitable for the demands of that position? He is a tenacious and courageous player who probably justifies selection in another position but is completely unsuitable physically to the No8 role. He currently has the physical size of a 6 or 7 (his school position I believe). If he is the best player as a 6 or 7 then pick him. Don't reward players for not being the best in their chosen position as it is a disservice to their further development and an insult to those playing in the position. 5/8ths selected as 12/15's, centres as wingers and backrow to second row and vice versa are other examples on show currently. This smacks of selectors and coaches higher up the food chain wanting to leave their imprimatur on a team instead of doing what they were charged with - identify and develop the best players in each position.
What value is to be found in playing against older age groups (as witnessed by the current England tour). Why do we play younger against older boys then stand around congratulating ourselves on limiting the damage on the scoreboard. All we are developing is a losing culture. Again, don't blame the players, as they won't say no to the opportunity. A system that would allow even more opportunity, starting with age group qualification through school is Australian Schools U18 (year 12) and U17's (year 11) with no boys below these ages eligible for selection (their time will come and yes, I know some boys ages don’t align to their school year). An "A" team in each group could also be selected which would double the talent pool. This would help in identifying and developing each generation of talent and take some of the heat out of the selections. It would also put more emphasis towards Association II's games. Players could see a wider pathway to higher honours and help keep them in the game. These teams could then be matched against appropriate visiting opponents to test their talents evenly. Necessary funding should be provided by the ARU as this is the lifeblood of the game. Remember that a high percentage of players identified as the “next big thing” at 18yrs go on to have underwhelming senior careers, so lets cast the net wider as the ultimate goal of all of this is to produce high quality players capable of withstanding the greatest tests of international rugby as Wallabies.
3.There should be far wider identification of technical talent in all areas than is currently utilised and it shouldn’t be the private glee club that it currently exists as. Those in charge should be in contact with school coaches and district coaches and cross referencing the talent pool regularly. Too many good players develop at different rates and should be assessed accordingly. The stars of the 14’s state championships of 3-4 years ago are not necessarily the best players now, others have matured and stepped forward but are denied opportunities due to outdated form and reputation of others.
When we create a system that identifies players on ability and suitability rather than allegiances (at all levels) we will have taken a large step in the right direction.
As I left the grounds of Oakhill College on Wednesday afternoon my concerns were not so much for the score board but the immense differences between the two playing groups. One group showed athleticism, speed and power across the whole squad while the other lived off courage and determination which is not enough to compete in the current era. We have the raw talent to develop but it is often blocked from view by a narcissistic and narrow visioned system that is managed by too few. For those who believe it all gets better once players have left the schools influence and are under the guidance of the clubs/provinces then the U19’s selections and results are a reminder of where we currently are.
PS. While Augustines' were worthy premiers in the 1st XV ISA competition again in 2011, the rugby shield for best performed school across all ages in opens, A's and B's has been held by Oakhill for the previous 2 years. Augustines' are a respected opponent by all at Oakhill but are not viewed as a dominant force and look forward to resuming the contest in 2012.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Good post stonecutter. It's an old song we sing isn't it?
It's hard to compete these days against the richest union in the world the (England) Rugby Union, who would underwrite the costs involved of the various programmes their lads have access to. Add in a number of professional clubs chasing the cream of the cream and taking hold of them as the several rugby league clubs do to the cream of young league players here and you get what you mentioned:
As I left the grounds of Oakhill College on Wednesday afternoon my concerns were not so much for the score board but the immense differences between the two playing groups. One group showed athleticism, speed and power across the whole squad while the other lived off courage and determination which is not enough to compete in the current era.
Well said.
I mentioned something like this also and even a few days before when the England U/18 team played the Oz U/19 team at Weigall. [Yes, like the Oz Schools players yesterday all the England boys were born in 1993 or 1994. They had more 1993 boys than Oz, but I suppose they had a bigger pool to pick from and could select more 1993 lads.]
I'm not saying that England's system is just down to more money and a lot of professional clubs developing the cream but it is a big part of it. Oz cannot compete in either area as we don't have the money and we have only 5 professional rugby "clubs" - and their brief is not in the schools area anyway.
Our schools rugby is in the same situation as NZ schools rugby league would be competing against Oz schools rugby league. Sure, they would win every now and then with outstanding individuals, but they would likely not be competitive very often since the various Oz league clubs get hold of so many schools players at a young age.
I am very jealous of the league set up here in Oz for schoolboys but it's not something that Oz rugby is going to have in the foreseeable future.
I would like Oz Schools to beat all overseas schools teams but am not too downcast at losing to the England boys. I know that down the track as they become men that our lads will compete with them as the playing field levels out.
More important is identifying the right schools players to take into the academy system so that the catch up happens earlier. Maybe not though. There is probably no top rugby team in the world younger than the Wallabies at the minute.
Therefore some folks may say: what is the fuss all about? What would be the answer to that?
It's hard to compete these days against the richest union in the world the (England) Rugby Union, who would underwrite the costs involved of the various programmes their lads have access to. Add in a number of professional clubs chasing the cream of the cream and taking hold of them as the several rugby league clubs do to the cream of young league players here and you get what you mentioned:
As I left the grounds of Oakhill College on Wednesday afternoon my concerns were not so much for the score board but the immense differences between the two playing groups. One group showed athleticism, speed and power across the whole squad while the other lived off courage and determination which is not enough to compete in the current era.
Well said.
I mentioned something like this also and even a few days before when the England U/18 team played the Oz U/19 team at Weigall. [Yes, like the Oz Schools players yesterday all the England boys were born in 1993 or 1994. They had more 1993 boys than Oz, but I suppose they had a bigger pool to pick from and could select more 1993 lads.]
I'm not saying that England's system is just down to more money and a lot of professional clubs developing the cream but it is a big part of it. Oz cannot compete in either area as we don't have the money and we have only 5 professional rugby "clubs" - and their brief is not in the schools area anyway.
Our schools rugby is in the same situation as NZ schools rugby league would be competing against Oz schools rugby league. Sure, they would win every now and then with outstanding individuals, but they would likely not be competitive very often since the various Oz league clubs get hold of so many schools players at a young age.
I am very jealous of the league set up here in Oz for schoolboys but it's not something that Oz rugby is going to have in the foreseeable future.
I would like Oz Schools to beat all overseas schools teams but am not too downcast at losing to the England boys. I know that down the track as they become men that our lads will compete with them as the playing field levels out.
More important is identifying the right schools players to take into the academy system so that the catch up happens earlier. Maybe not though. There is probably no top rugby team in the world younger than the Wallabies at the minute.
Therefore some folks may say: what is the fuss all about? What would be the answer to that?
SuperGrover
Darby Loudon (17)
Great post Stonecutter,
However, I do have some reservations about your point #2...
While I cannot speak to your specific example of the No. 8 for Australia A, and am happy to concede that players being picked out of position can do a disservice to the boy selected and the team. I do strongly believe that boys should not be pigeon-holed to a specific position. There are many notable examples of test class players developing out of just such selections (kepu's rise to first choice loosehead from schoolboys No. 8 being just one that comes to mind).
Not only can such selections result in finding their 'true' position, but can also create a more well rounded player even if the experiment is unsuccessful. Just because you are the next best No. 10, doesn't necessarily mean you're not the best No. 12.
However, I do have some reservations about your point #2...
While I cannot speak to your specific example of the No. 8 for Australia A, and am happy to concede that players being picked out of position can do a disservice to the boy selected and the team. I do strongly believe that boys should not be pigeon-holed to a specific position. There are many notable examples of test class players developing out of just such selections (kepu's rise to first choice loosehead from schoolboys No. 8 being just one that comes to mind).
Not only can such selections result in finding their 'true' position, but can also create a more well rounded player even if the experiment is unsuccessful. Just because you are the next best No. 10, doesn't necessarily mean you're not the best No. 12.
Informer
Ward Prentice (10)
Having been through the schoolboy system all the way up to national level and been part of the ARU development squad with my son I have to agree that while for my boy it was worthwhile, many of the lads he went through with at state and even national level struggle when they get to colts, while others continue to bloom well after leaving school. Some of the ARU grads are now playing league or not playing at all.
I think the real issue is the quality of coaching and development at colts level, with many clubs struggling to find competent and experienced coaches and in offering a proper development program. This is where these boys look to find continuity and are often dissapointed. Promoting coaches who came up with the boys through the juniors is not the answer, they need experienced seniors coaches who know how to handle young men just out of school.
With the limited dollars on offer from the ARU I suggest this is where they would get the biggest bang for their buck. Much has been achieved but much more remains to be done to catch up with the UK.
I think the real issue is the quality of coaching and development at colts level, with many clubs struggling to find competent and experienced coaches and in offering a proper development program. This is where these boys look to find continuity and are often dissapointed. Promoting coaches who came up with the boys through the juniors is not the answer, they need experienced seniors coaches who know how to handle young men just out of school.
With the limited dollars on offer from the ARU I suggest this is where they would get the biggest bang for their buck. Much has been achieved but much more remains to be done to catch up with the UK.
U
Upright
Guest
Very astute observation Informer. Gordon appear to be moving in that direction with the appointment of Mark Hartill (former Wallby prop and 1st grade Shute Shield coach) as the Director of Colts for 2012 and I believe Head Coach of their Colts 1s. Gordon may well be on the way back.
Informer
Ward Prentice (10)
That is excellent news and exactly what I am talking about. Gordon have more juniors than any other club yet they tend to drift away. Give them a proper program supervised by experienced coaches and the current crop of schoolboys will stay at Gordon. Easts and Norths have done well this year with hardly any juniors to call on and are to be applauded.
Iluvmyfooty
Phil Hardcastle (33)
We need more than 1 club doing this and it has to start with 16 year olds and not 19 year olds
Informer
Ward Prentice (10)
Pretty hard to find that many professional coaches and quite a bit of progress has been made in juniors already in my view in the circumstances. It is once they leave school that they tend to drift away due to dissilusion with the system. Most kids experience a reasonable program at school, although those in the CHS system outside the selective sports schools might argue otherwise.
Man on the hill
Alex Ross (28)
perhaps looking at other sports for the lead would be a good example!
In Sydney Grade Cricket, Green Shield for U16s is acknowledged as one of the toughest youth cricket competitions in the world.
Players are not obliged to any one club along residency or location rules and it is a recruiting platform for each grade club to have an attractive proposition to put in front of players and their families; a far more appealing process than rugby, and with zero rules appros pos of recruitment, oh so more transparent!
You compare this to the opportunities for Junior Rugby and the whinging and carry on about eligibility!
S
skip
Guest
any match reports from yesterdays game, heard the schoolboys were comfortably beaten
http://austschools.rugbynet.com.au/default.asp?id=186010 for match report
an observer
Herbert Moran (7)
Credit where credit is due. England were well drilled and stronger than our Aussie Schoolboys, for reasons previously stated. Hats off to our boys though, they never gave up and the second half was way stronger than the first with better kicking, field position and more running of the ball. Considering the Aussie Schoolboys had 3 days in camp as a "team" they did themselves proud. Would be good to read a thorough match report such as what was written for Aus A. The match report on the austschools site is not comprehensive and incorrect. People need to stop bagging and blaming and offer the lads acknowledgement for what they have achieved in such a short space of time. More training to come, another trial, and then vs NZ. Good luck to all the players selected in both squads.
Iluvmyfooty
Phil Hardcastle (33)
It was interesting to see Dombkins and Cusack injured and not playing and Kris F'Sautia not at the game. What is the story with the injuries and are they available for NZ
- Status