Australian Schoolboys & National Championships 2015
- Thread starter Monty Python
- Start date
- Status
Gil Bertilike
Frank Row (1)
I watched almost all of the games live (missed the first half of the Ba Baas v NZ game) and was disappointed with the overall performance of the Australian side. IMO the inside backs were average in both games, even with a forward pack going forward on Monday. The Samoans gave an insight into a weakness with the team having difficulty under the high ball although I had the impression that the kick tactic was more of a "let's try this" approach rather than the well Thought out out NZ game plan. Having said that the team was never in danger of losing against Samoa.
The NZ game was a different story with the Aussies under pressure from the start of the game. The astute NZ kicking game kept Aust under real pressure and that pressure produced points. I did not think the Austrlian team reacted to the kicking game and little, if any pressure, was placed on the NZ 10 by our back row.
Whilst the boys tackled well for long periods, I don't recall any real pressure being applied to the breakdown in order to win turnovers or even slow the ball down. NZ were comfortably in charge at the break.
The second half saw the NZ forward dominance increase and the Aust backs, particularly the centres had trouble holding the ball. A long range try from the NZ hooker and a dominant NZ rolling mall should have worried the coaching staff. Again our breakdown contest was poor with no one contesting the ball hard.
Unfortunately we were not good enough on the day.
I strongly agree with the criticisms if the coaching staff in relation to the treatment of the bench. To leave 3 boys off when the game was lost and the forwards were being dominated is very disrespectful to boys who have given their best effort and put HSC studies on hold. The scramble to attempt to get three players on with 40 seconds to go was embarrassing. The expressions on those boys faces at the end of the game said it all.
The NZ game was a different story with the Aussies under pressure from the start of the game. The astute NZ kicking game kept Aust under real pressure and that pressure produced points. I did not think the Austrlian team reacted to the kicking game and little, if any pressure, was placed on the NZ 10 by our back row.
Whilst the boys tackled well for long periods, I don't recall any real pressure being applied to the breakdown in order to win turnovers or even slow the ball down. NZ were comfortably in charge at the break.
The second half saw the NZ forward dominance increase and the Aust backs, particularly the centres had trouble holding the ball. A long range try from the NZ hooker and a dominant NZ rolling mall should have worried the coaching staff. Again our breakdown contest was poor with no one contesting the ball hard.
Unfortunately we were not good enough on the day.
I strongly agree with the criticisms if the coaching staff in relation to the treatment of the bench. To leave 3 boys off when the game was lost and the forwards were being dominated is very disrespectful to boys who have given their best effort and put HSC studies on hold. The scramble to attempt to get three players on with 40 seconds to go was embarrassing. The expressions on those boys faces at the end of the game said it all.
GPS Fantastic
Frank Nicholson (4)
I totally agree with comments made about not utilising the bench, it was obvious that things weren't going well, why not shake things up by putting the bench players on to both see what they could do, and give them a run. It must have been extremely frustrating for the boys to see what was happening with the game but not be given the opportunity to make a difference!!!
Cash
Sydney Middleton (9)
Take it easy sport, it was just a joke. And I re-iterate, criticism is good for the
And I could finish by retorting with a personal remark of my own, but as you said: let's grow up, and not act like children.
EDIT: just read Hugh Jarse's post, and in self-reflection, perhaps I was too harsh in singling out certain boys (although bear in mind my aim was NOT to ruthlessly shame them). I tried to keep it as positive as I could, but evidently it's brought about a few tears. Happy to delete it if necessary, but I'm not going to go to the effort to re-write it.
Happy to Chat
Nev Cottrell (35)
The boys were over coached and did not express their usual type of game. You can't do that it in 1 week it takes a whole pre-season and a couple of games for any team to get it right. This was evident between the 2 teams. One team trained to get to know each other the other trained to get to know a system of play.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wood Rat
Alfred Walker (16)
I wasn't going to say anything publicly. I have spent the last 18 years providing plenty of examples of how not to manage yourself to one of these young men. I must say the way he has managed himself in the face of such public insult, the philosophical and mature approach to this situation has been another reminder to me of how lucky I have been to watch his continued growth.
I don't believe he is entitled to anything he hasn't earned, and that being part of any team is an end in itself, but the last couple of years of work to gain a possiton in the team as a player with a particular skill set should earn more than the seven to ten minutes in two matches he received.
Although publicly, I for one have defended the efforts of the players, the confusing selections, ineffective strategy and poor game management on the part of the Aussie coaches, has not been lost on experienced officials outside the 'schools' hierchy. Your son will still prosper through the colts and grade programs purely based on the good character you describe. I can only imagine how frustrated you must have been for him! Thankfully the '80s old boys' schools pathway is the only one that is devoid of much ARU control.
Thoroughly enjoyed watching schoolboy rugby over the last 12 days. Have watched all the games live including Samoa Vs NZ.
All though outplayed in most games (except possibly against the Aus side), the Samoan boys who were generally outsized, out muscled and underprepared due to visa issues played with great resolve. I thought they were great and were very humble in how they presented themselves.
Kiwis were again to cunning by half, everything they did was slick, from the warm ups through to execution. Hats off to a class act, selection, coaching and most of all to the players (curse the darkness).
The Australian outfit.... interesting. Babaa's for and against smoked the Aus side. I sat and watched the training session when these sides went head to head. I know who would have had my money.
Was the issue with the player selection, maybe a couple, I think it was the game plan adopted more so and played out that way against the Darkness.
Forwards that stood up for Aus against NZ. Big #6, strong running, the only one to really challenge the line. #7 tried hard, lacked support at the breakdown. Best for Aus #9. Got crap ball but really put his heart and soul into the effort.
The Babaa's, everyone loves the Babaa's and they backed up with their style of rugby. Players that stood out over the tournament: #4 Swinton, big mean mother *#%er, #15 Coward, slick. #6 Allen, injured against the Blacks, sensational against the Samoans, #7 Smith, luv him. Note, Smith and Allen destroyed Aus side in "that hit out".
Parting comment... Bronze Boot? The room was stunned silent when the Aus award was announced. The young fella who got it, well done and no disrespect to him but perhaps a fullback or scrum half may have been a little closer to the top of the pile. What ever the case lets hope all the boys go well in the future.
All though outplayed in most games (except possibly against the Aus side), the Samoan boys who were generally outsized, out muscled and underprepared due to visa issues played with great resolve. I thought they were great and were very humble in how they presented themselves.
Kiwis were again to cunning by half, everything they did was slick, from the warm ups through to execution. Hats off to a class act, selection, coaching and most of all to the players (curse the darkness).
The Australian outfit.... interesting. Babaa's for and against smoked the Aus side. I sat and watched the training session when these sides went head to head. I know who would have had my money.
Was the issue with the player selection, maybe a couple, I think it was the game plan adopted more so and played out that way against the Darkness.
Forwards that stood up for Aus against NZ. Big #6, strong running, the only one to really challenge the line. #7 tried hard, lacked support at the breakdown. Best for Aus #9. Got crap ball but really put his heart and soul into the effort.
The Babaa's, everyone loves the Babaa's and they backed up with their style of rugby. Players that stood out over the tournament: #4 Swinton, big mean mother *#%er, #15 Coward, slick. #6 Allen, injured against the Blacks, sensational against the Samoans, #7 Smith, luv him. Note, Smith and Allen destroyed Aus side in "that hit out".
Parting comment... Bronze Boot? The room was stunned silent when the Aus award was announced. The young fella who got it, well done and no disrespect to him but perhaps a fullback or scrum half may have been a little closer to the top of the pile. What ever the case lets hope all the boys go well in the future.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Pretty sure the kiwis nominate the oz winner,and vice versa.
The sage
Vay Wilson (31)
I watched most of the games as well. The Australian Schoolboys were disappointing. But all is not lost!! The Baba's played very well, were competitive and all but won against NZ schoolboys: actually they should have won given the kicking opportunities. First off congratulations to the Kiwi's, great effort.
So what was the differences between the two teams?? Here are my thoughts:
1) Commitment to the Break-Down
Over a number of years I have witnessed an increase, (Qld schoolboy rugby mainly) in the reliance on "big runners" taking the ball up and breaking the line. Well guess what? the older you get and the higher the honours gained, the less likely this will happen. And if you are reliant on this structure of play, then you better darn well be present at the break-down (in good numbers) and good technique to retain possession!
The Baba's were more aggressive at the break-down and a lot more competitive; they just didn't want to give an inch. There back row hunted in a pack....instead of one of them there, a lot of times there were two or more at the break-down. I would like to mention one player that I had earlier called "a little light" (and it was about weight mainly, not derogatory to him!) and that was Sam Wallis. I am eating that pie now Sam and good for you, a bold and courageous performance!! Well done! (PS if you want a club Brothers will be happy to have you).
The Kiwi employed a "ball in hand" tactic, where they keep the ball up and look for support (normal NZ play) like the 1974 Barbarians; the support is there and the movement continues. This = big pressure and takes a lot of committed defenders and low tackling (a hard task). Too often we see our back rowers in schoolboy rugby in the centres positions and not doing there primary job of winning the breakdowns. That's why there are centres etc. that's there job, let them do it.
2) Playing out of Position and combinations
One of the main differences was the combinations. Whilst the Australian team (IMO) were the best individual talent (man for man), the combination of them lead to a lack of structure and hence purpose. Now I don't want for anyone to get too upset and I do not want anyone mentions to roll-up in a ball, but Goddard did not execute the box kick well, so why continue it? I think McGregor long grafting kick (alla Michael Lynagh) was the best strategy and he executed this perfectly on one occasion. However it must be used sparingly or else they will conteract it.
McGregor, Jooste, England and Kennewell did not work. The structure of the backline was not in place and therefore the outcomes were poor. I think maybe someone had to take the bit between their teeth run hard at the line and look for an angle. This is where Stewart and Hunt were successful to a degree with the Baba's. Jooste and Riley were out of position; I know Riley is a centre (and a good one as well), so why play him at wing? At this level it is very specialised, so I think a small fast winger with good foot skills would have been more successful re: Ngamanu, Verevis and Coward. Then Riley can play in his position as required. The same for Jooste; I think the role given to him by the coaches would have been confusing for all but the most experienced of players and hence the poor outcome again.
3) Preparation and Numbers
Rugby in Australia has been in danger of becoming a private school enclave and this will, over the long-term, cause the numbers to remain similar and the lowest in the pecking order of all the footballs. This is despite the International opportunities are probably only second to Soccer. Somehow more diversity is required.
Two weeks preparation is probably not enough. The Kiwi's have it right with at least a month. So this leads to the season question again and more discussion.
My best Australian schools: Harry Johnson Holmes, Ryan McCauley Robert Leota and Theo Strang.
For the Baba's: Harry Hooper, Lachlan Swinton, Koala Meni, Sam Wallis, Hamish Stewart, Tony Hunt and Josh Coward.
In the end congratulations to the Kiwi's and well done to our boys! Looking forward to the Colts year ahead and what that will bring.
So what was the differences between the two teams?? Here are my thoughts:
1) Commitment to the Break-Down
Over a number of years I have witnessed an increase, (Qld schoolboy rugby mainly) in the reliance on "big runners" taking the ball up and breaking the line. Well guess what? the older you get and the higher the honours gained, the less likely this will happen. And if you are reliant on this structure of play, then you better darn well be present at the break-down (in good numbers) and good technique to retain possession!
The Baba's were more aggressive at the break-down and a lot more competitive; they just didn't want to give an inch. There back row hunted in a pack....instead of one of them there, a lot of times there were two or more at the break-down. I would like to mention one player that I had earlier called "a little light" (and it was about weight mainly, not derogatory to him!) and that was Sam Wallis. I am eating that pie now Sam and good for you, a bold and courageous performance!! Well done! (PS if you want a club Brothers will be happy to have you).
The Kiwi employed a "ball in hand" tactic, where they keep the ball up and look for support (normal NZ play) like the 1974 Barbarians; the support is there and the movement continues. This = big pressure and takes a lot of committed defenders and low tackling (a hard task). Too often we see our back rowers in schoolboy rugby in the centres positions and not doing there primary job of winning the breakdowns. That's why there are centres etc. that's there job, let them do it.
2) Playing out of Position and combinations
One of the main differences was the combinations. Whilst the Australian team (IMO) were the best individual talent (man for man), the combination of them lead to a lack of structure and hence purpose. Now I don't want for anyone to get too upset and I do not want anyone mentions to roll-up in a ball, but Goddard did not execute the box kick well, so why continue it? I think McGregor long grafting kick (alla Michael Lynagh) was the best strategy and he executed this perfectly on one occasion. However it must be used sparingly or else they will conteract it.
McGregor, Jooste, England and Kennewell did not work. The structure of the backline was not in place and therefore the outcomes were poor. I think maybe someone had to take the bit between their teeth run hard at the line and look for an angle. This is where Stewart and Hunt were successful to a degree with the Baba's. Jooste and Riley were out of position; I know Riley is a centre (and a good one as well), so why play him at wing? At this level it is very specialised, so I think a small fast winger with good foot skills would have been more successful re: Ngamanu, Verevis and Coward. Then Riley can play in his position as required. The same for Jooste; I think the role given to him by the coaches would have been confusing for all but the most experienced of players and hence the poor outcome again.
3) Preparation and Numbers
Rugby in Australia has been in danger of becoming a private school enclave and this will, over the long-term, cause the numbers to remain similar and the lowest in the pecking order of all the footballs. This is despite the International opportunities are probably only second to Soccer. Somehow more diversity is required.
Two weeks preparation is probably not enough. The Kiwi's have it right with at least a month. So this leads to the season question again and more discussion.
My best Australian schools: Harry Johnson Holmes, Ryan McCauley Robert Leota and Theo Strang.
For the Baba's: Harry Hooper, Lachlan Swinton, Koala Meni, Sam Wallis, Hamish Stewart, Tony Hunt and Josh Coward.
In the end congratulations to the Kiwi's and well done to our boys! Looking forward to the Colts year ahead and what that will bring.
Happy to Chat
Nev Cottrell (35)
Very good analysis Sage. Just one more thing that got me was the lack of foresight to change plan when clearly we were not penetrating through the middle with the pick and drive. I know the kiwi's had Kennewell marked, and knew pretty well he does not pass, but the ball hardly got to Ngamanu or the wings were the pace and footwork may have created space.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sarcophilus
Charlie Fox (21)
given the "Public school" enclave is also under pressure from
other sports the
The sage
Vay Wilson (31)
Very good analysis Sage. Just one more thing that got me was the lack of foresight to change plan when clearly we were not penetrating through the middle with the pick and drive. I know the kiwi's had Kennewell marked, and knew pretty well he does not pass, but the ball hardly got to Ngamanu or the wings were the pace and footwork may have created space.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Happy to Chat, Yesterday at 4:41 PM Report
#574
Agree Happy. That's where experience comes into play. The players SHOULD know if the plan does not work the first 2-3 times then a change in the attack plan is required (maybe cut-out passes etc). Then they can always return to the original plan later in the game when they get some go forward momentum.
The same inexperience was shown for the Kiwi line-out throw in close to their line. They (the kiwi's) threw it long to a waiting kicker, unchallenged. The correct strategy for the Ozzies was for a flanker/No8 to be halfback for the line-out; place himself midway from the last Kiwi player in the line-out and the intending receiver (kicking #10 or #15). This then places pressure on the intending receiver and may produce an error.
The Kiwi's did this at least twice in the match and with no pressure whatsoever. Too easy!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Happy to Chat, Yesterday at 4:41 PM Report
#574
Agree Happy. That's where experience comes into play. The players SHOULD know if the plan does not work the first 2-3 times then a change in the attack plan is required (maybe cut-out passes etc). Then they can always return to the original plan later in the game when they get some go forward momentum.
The same inexperience was shown for the Kiwi line-out throw in close to their line. They (the kiwi's) threw it long to a waiting kicker, unchallenged. The correct strategy for the Ozzies was for a flanker/No8 to be halfback for the line-out; place himself midway from the last Kiwi player in the line-out and the intending receiver (kicking #10 or #15). This then places pressure on the intending receiver and may produce an error.
The Kiwi's did this at least twice in the match and with no pressure whatsoever. Too easy!!
The sage
Vay Wilson (31)
given the "Public school" enclave is also under pressure from
other sports thegene talent pool from the privileged dozen schools will be shrinking further, the seagulls flight path really needs to have a softened curve, maybe an ACT, WA or Victorian selector coaching team would reduce the impact/tug-o-war of the two public school super powers.
sarcophilus, Yesterday at 5:33 PM Report
#575 Like Reply
Paty305 likes this.
Maybe Sarcophilus. From what I saw (Qld trails and Australian Championships) I think the selections were probably spot-on, so additional selectors (from elsewhere), probably would not had a big influence on that process.
As far as coaching goes, it will probably be with Qld and NSW for a number of years until coaching staff develop further in other states. Merit eventually comes to play. What I think would be a good idea is to get recent Super 15 and International players to run some sessions (like the Kiwi's) as they will have experience at higher levels and may give some "tricks of the trade" to the younger players.
I must admit that the VIC team was a pleasant surprise from the Championships and showed a lot of determination.
other sports the
sarcophilus, Yesterday at 5:33 PM Report
#575 Like Reply
Paty305 likes this.
Maybe Sarcophilus. From what I saw (Qld trails and Australian Championships) I think the selections were probably spot-on, so additional selectors (from elsewhere), probably would not had a big influence on that process.
As far as coaching goes, it will probably be with Qld and NSW for a number of years until coaching staff develop further in other states. Merit eventually comes to play. What I think would be a good idea is to get recent Super 15 and International players to run some sessions (like the Kiwi's) as they will have experience at higher levels and may give some "tricks of the trade" to the younger players.
I must admit that the VIC team was a pleasant surprise from the Championships and showed a lot of determination.
BaysideBird
Bill Watson (15)
I wonder if it is time for the ARU and the State Unions to start running a universal 1st XV competition. Keep the GPS, AIC, whatever, as College Football style conferences, and build a competition that goes all the way to a 1st XV National Championship, get the State School teams to enter and play against the big boys. We need to build a proper grassroots school competition to bring out talent. I'm sure there's plenty of talent missed because they didnt go to a GPS school and didn't have the opportunity to play High Class rugby. The best thing about NZ Schools rugby is that a state school out of a struggling town can play against the most exclusive school in Wellington for the National Championship. That needs to be the focus. That rugby should be a sport for anyone and everyone, from professionals down to tradies.
GPS Fantastic
Frank Nicholson (4)
You don't necessarily need to have attended a GPS school to make the national team, there are kids that go through from state high schools as it is now
BaysideBird
Bill Watson (15)
How often does that happen though? The perception is, which seems to be rather true, is that rugby is moreso becoming a GPS-centric sport along the East Coast. The number of non-GPS reps is almost non-existant. All I am saying is that rugby should be made more accessible to all students, rather than an enclave of Private Schoolboys. How good would it be to see a school like Wavell Heights SHS or Keebra Park SHS take on Nudgee College for the right to represent Queensland at the National 1st XV Championships? It would be a great identifier for future talent and give greater options to National Selectors when comparing players.
- Status