Maybe yes. Maybe no
I don't think you can apply a blanket generalisation Chalkie
The truth is that best in class of U16 aren't doing Club Rugby. If they were best in class as of right now they would have just played or they would be preparing for their school First XV season
Don't get me wrong there are some fine U16 players playing Club - a number of whom likely have good prospects in the game - but the quality of depth is pretty thin
There are 9 x U15 boys selected out of 46 spots available . Maybe a touch high but carrying 3 or 4 younger age boys to a team is not completely unreasonable
More the question is who and how . For example if a player can't get it done at their age group level and compete against best competition at his age group level - then it's fair to assume it's not going to happen in the age group above him
And it's sort of what's wrong with Australian Rugby generally and why it is in the state it is in .
At every level we are enamoured with size at the expense of heart , smarts , and skill
Yours is a good suggestion though in the scheduling of some U15 v U16 games in the rep round
This is where a lot of these questions would be answered
Just to clarify I am a product of the GPS system having been at IGS from 85 to 89 during the schools purple patch when they won 3 titles in as many years under the coaching of Steven Nance (went on to be the trainer for the Wallabies during their first world cup win) and Peter Wilson (David Wilson's, yes the Wallaby, younger brother) and I think that the GPS system is a big part of the Australian Rugby problem. The GPS players are no better than any quality club player but they are always put up on a pedestal and are often, no always given spots over equally as good non GPS players.
I have also coached junior rugby in our previous NSW union for 6 years having coached teams to 2 minor premierships, 4 grand final wins and one grand final runner up. I was also part of that unions Rep program as a coach and selector for a couple of years so I do have some understanding of the game and its issues.
Further to my last were I made a comparison between an u15 player and an u16 player, the same holds true for a Division 1 player and a Division 2 player. During the u16 trial games the Logan team who finished last in the Division 1 comp played Souths who are on top of the Division 2 comp. Logan beat them by 40+ yet South's have more players in the Rep teams. Logan also played Wynnum another Division 2 team and also beat them by 40+. There is a big difference between Division 1 and 2 in both skill level and execution not to mention that the Division 1 boys play at a consistently higher level. There is a reason why the Division 1 teams always beat the Division 2 teams, it's because the players are better which makes me wonder why so many Division 2 players have also found their way into the Rep teams. Hang on I think Sunny has hit the nail on the head, I think that you will find that every private school boy in the u16 comp some how managed to get a spot in the Rep team including the boy who never played a game.
On the Rep weekend Logan beat Brothers, even though the score was only 12-10 Logan actually dominated the game and it was only a couple of late tries by Brothers that made it look close. How many players did Brothers get in and how many did Logan get in?
The reason why I stepped down from my previous NSW union Rep program was because of all the back room politics which tended to shape the team for the worse. This is my first hand observation. I hand hoped things would be better here but it seems not. What a shame for all those young lads that should have been picked and weren't.