GBC, thanks for the info, clearly you are providing info from an informative background so appreciate the insight.
So hope you don’t mind if we ask some more questions.
——————————————————————————————-
Again, where has all the “everyone knew about it” info come from, re the Australian Schoolboys being merged with general U18’s. This is the post on the Australian Schoolboys site. Clearly they weren’t in the picture when they were running their trials this year. This article is on their website in April 2018.
The announcement on Australian Schoolboy Rugby page:
"Many of these players will go on to higher levels—
–46 of them will play in either the Australian Schoolboys Rugby Team or the Australian Schools Barbarians Team against New Zealand and Tongan Schools in September
–27 of them will go on to be selected in the Team to tour Ireland and Scotland in November this year”
So 27 of them not selected as there were 3 boys who have left school were dropped in.
—————————————————————————————————
"The format changes are decided upon and known to everyone who is relevant well in advance of any media release. This means all the boys selected to trial have known about the changes for a while."
Clearly not based on the info above and were the “Schoolboys” (and their parents) that trialled at National Champs at Riverview in July, aware that they were competing for spots against other 18year olds who had left school and were already in State Franchise Development Academies.
I have talked to a lot of parents over the past few weeks at the games v NZ and Tonga and following the announcement of the touring squad, that doesn’t seem to be the case and based on the info provided above by Australian Schoolboys Rugby, why would you think any different.
"Boys who were eligible to travel to England with the Schoolboys & U/18's at the end of the year were trialled in Canberra and have been looked at. They were aware of what they were trialling for. Some, like PSS, who was supposed to be included in the original wider Aus squad, performed well and it has paid off with higher representative honours. Others, particularly from the QLD GPS comp, didn't perform to the level they needed to, and as a result they were not picked."
When were QLD GPS players not selected back in May for QLD I or II, (because it is chosen on previous years form), advised they were allowed to trial in Canberra and who were the QLD GPS boys that did so. Clearly Phrancis SS trialled but who else was invited and based on what criteria were you selected/invited to trial. After watching the Nudgee v TSS R9 game, surely all of those lads that weren’t in QLD I or II but have had awesome first XV seasons this year should have trialed. (To our NSW counterparts, I have am mentioning the Top 2 QLD GPS teams as NSW had a full season for selectors to watch before being chosen for NSW I or II where as QLD season had not commenced before the State Team selections. At the end of the QLD GPS season we had 2 outstanding teams and not all of those players were given any representative opportunites).
Where were the selection notices for the Canberra trials that you are referring too. I am assuming it was not a “Schoolboy” process so how were the other U17 and U18 lads aware of this additional opportunity that PSS was offered.
"Australian Schoolboys & U18's", I think it's a wonderful initiative. It will make us more competitive against other Tier 1 nations, and it avoids the loss of boys that find the transition from GPS rugby (5-6 days a week junior elite) to Colts rugby (2 sessions a week) disheartening."
Completely agree re transition from GPS Schoolboys to clubland Colts so happy to see an U18 program develop, however the transitioning of QLD Schools to most of the boys being 18 when they finish school, rather than 17, will mean that the boys available will mostly still be "schoolboys". It is only in the current 2 year window (as GO has said above), that the "Schoolboys + U18" logic is applicable. Then the first year out of school will be back to U19’s.
So questions relating to this process this year:
- Given this is developmental pathway, what is the benefit of dropping 3 lads in who are already getting the benefit of being with a State Franchise v taking 3 new players who would then also be given the opportunity to access further development.
Nothing against the lads at all, only from a pathway/development perspective, they have had access to opportunity, last year through Australian Schoolboys program, and they are on the development pathway through State Franchise development programs. So it doesn't make sense that they are being offered that initial opportunity over again when they have moved on. (Or should have).
If you look at the positions, Lock (Douglas), Backrower (Tizzano) Wing (Lea), surely you could look for a start, at the the Nudgee v TSS sides and find a couple of lads in there who played their first year of First XV this year, were not given representative opportunities, but are up to the size, physcality and work rate of their cohort. Could they have not been given the opportunity to trial in Canberra.
For PSS to jump over someone like Nonggor, it has been mentioned that he had a good tournament in Canberra, but was the competition of equal calibre ie a NZ International side?
Again just looking for some integrity and transparency in the process of selection for these so called “Development Pathways”.
Looking at this article in The Australian today and the relevant section on Schoolboy rugby, I am not the only one thinking that the process of selection is skewed, therefore we are not getting the best results at schoolboy level year in and out and we are not getting the best platform for developing players for the future.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...y/news-story/1ec43061864c95931107b44c05326450
Here is the relevant part to Schoolboy Rugby.
.......
Make no mistake, if Australian rugby did not have schools churning players out, against the odds I might add, in the face of stiff competition from Australian football and soccer, we would be up the creek without a paddle.
That does not mean that Australian Schools Rugby cannot do a lot more to support the game.
I have said before that a feature of New Zealand Rugby is their commitment to put self-interest aside in order to put the All Blacks first.
But then, of course, the national side has to be the right model. There is no use copying a flawed template.
Currently, the Australian Schools Rugby Union and the various associations are making selfish decisions that are not aligned with the needs of the Wallabies.
Rugby Australia should take a couple of steps to get the big rugby schools better aligned with the national cause.
The first step is that Australian Schoolboys must be successful. How can we produce successful under-20 sides and Wallaby programs if we are developing future Wallabies who know little about winning.
Over the past 10 years, our Australian Schoolboys have a 15 per cent strike rate against New Zealand and England. They mask their mediocrity by playing Tonga, Fiji and Samoa to get some wins.
To prepare to beat New Zealand in the term three break in September, our big schools should be playing competitive games all through term three so our players are match-ready. Instead, in NSW at least, the GPS and CAS competitions finish halfway through term three, so most of our best schoolboy players will face New Zealand schools without having played a match in more than six weeks.
This is dumb. The New Zealand national schools competition is just finishing.
Their players are in great form. They are battle-hardened. Our boys are starting way behind the eight-ball.
The second point I would make is that the Australian Schoolboys Rugby Union insists on teachers selecting and coaching the national team.
In New Zealand, the selecting and coaching is done by the professionals in their five Super Rugby franchises. But, of course, you have to have the right people in charge of those franchises.
New Zealand has worked hard to get smart and professional coaches on their payroll and they operate right throughout the system. In New Zealand, all the player information is gathered at schoolboy trials. It is then kept and shared with the provinces and the national body.
But if there is a good young scrum half in Taranaki, all the key people in New Zealand Rugby are aware of him and a pathway is created for him to develop.
It is not rocket science. It is just called “a pathway”. The player is not lost to other sports. And finally, we have to overhaul our selection model for the Australian Schoolboys.
The competition model, as I call it, is outdated. It forces our best young schoolboy players to play four matches in a week on bone-dry surfaces and then someone miraculously picks out “the best”.
Can you imagine the physical toll this model takes on players?
In New Zealand and England, this model was binned years ago, replaced with camp models, where professional coaches work with the top four or five players in each position in the country.
And by working closely with the players, these coaches quickly get to know the capability and capacity of each player and selection is far more accurate.
The players still play a game during camp, but their welfare is the main priority. And 99 per cent of the time, the best players are selected and they are fit and healthy and ready.
All these things are achievable if someone in the administration even knew about them. And if they do not know, they should hand in their resignation ticket.
