What is it about schools rugby that polarises us so much?
I can understand it at the level of individual schools; in fact it is expected; but this year the serves and returns of serves in this thread have been like at Wimbledon.
Months ago when we started talking about likely players to make the Sydney GPS team and the teams of other school groups in the country we had a fairly good idea of who would get in because the players play against each other week to week and had done so in previous years. There was a rough benchmark. Then when they played in their school group against other groups we had to recalibrate our opinions about some players, up and down, because of the way they performed against a higher class of player.
We had differing opinions about the selection of state teams, and let's not go there again, but those who saw the Oz Opens tournament would no doubt have recalibrated again. Players were better than they thought when measured against a higher benchmark - or not as good.
Then we, in Sydney, saw the two Oz Schools teams play 3 games at home, and though their opponents were not of the same standard as they were, we realised that some of our players were not performing as well as we thought they would. Some of the problems in the Ones were from playing in a brand new team, but others related to a backline that lacked sympathy for, and cohesion with, the individuals in it. We recalibrated yet again and hoped the problems would be fixed on tour.
Then came the final exam for the Aussie Schools team against the ultimate benchmark: playing against the Kiwis., and we had to recalibrate our opinion of them for the final time.
My final assessments are -
- The forwards did a lot better than expected, outside of the set pieces, which were often average and sometimes worse than that. But some of the never give up mongrel at the breakdown warmed the heart.
- The 9,10, 12,13 nexus never functioned well in the 3 games I saw the Ones play. The quality of the halves was about the average and nowhere near as good as in the great flyhalf years of Cooper, Beale, Leali'ifano and Lucas. Nor was there a To'omua, who came later than the Fab Four of 2005. The best players of the back three of Oz Schools 2010 were obviously top players, after Holland had an opening shocker at St. Marys, but they got too little ball, and one of those “best” was strangely on the bench yesterday.
Somebody asked on the forum weeks ago: who of the 2010 tranche of schoolboys may be Super players down the track, and I mentioned a few names but added that the jury would be out on the centres until we played the Kiwis. At some point I also warned that they may not play that well together because they were similar players. They didn't measure up in their sternest test against a higher benchmark even though, earlier in the season, they looked as good as any centres I had seen since Robbie Horne, who played both 12 and 13 at school. Nonetheless I am confident that they will both emerge as top senior players.
Let's all give the lads a big pat on the back. I am sure we will see a lot of them in professional rugby and I am equally as certain that we will see many 2010 schools players who didn't get to tour, including some who didn't make their state team – or even get picked for the Ones of their school group. Also, there will be others, like young Tahs' lock Kane Douglas, who was completely unknown as a schoolboy player.
Let's not write off the lads who didn't play well yesterday, or whenever during the year. Nor should we discount the likely future merit of lads who did not play yesterday. We have all seen guys overlooked for schools rep teams because they developed later, or were injured, or were wrongly omitted. There are too many examples of each to mention.
We shall definitely "watch this space."