CAS Rugby 2012

[Artbeet]

The younger Vevers has a good boot, but needs to take his game to another level to be a real force. He hsd been solid at junipr level ,but not dominant as otherd have caught up in size. Will be interesting to see if he stands out on the U16 games this weekend.

 

[no9]

Watched the CHS I's & 2's again yesterday at Warringah .
At the risk of being "disrespectul", the gulf between the two teams was even more evident yesterday than it was when they played CAS.

And yet Vevers has been given his shot. Goes to show that some selectors are able to identify a good performance and are able to see beyond the influence of other peoples opinions without it necessarily having anything to do with the immediate oppositions form. Going on your policy I'll expect to see the Country boys all lining up for NSW in a week or so.

 

[rtd32]

But, you've got to hand it to the highly under-rated Aloys pack.

You can hardly claim the Aloys forward pack to be under-rated seeing as 3 of the 8 have a starting spot in either CAS 1's or 2's (more than Waverly, Cranbrook, and Knox can boast). Also, keep in mind Aloys are tied last with Cranbrook and if their forward pack really were so good they probably wouldn't be there. The best we've seen of Aloys is a 1 point victory over Knox which hardly evidences the idea that the "Aloys forward pack is over-rated" (based on the amount of representative players it has)

 

[footy10]

The best we've seen of Aloys is a 1 point victory over Knox

I think the point KeenEye is trying to make is that Aloys has played games where they are considered the write-off, yet was within 7 point against Trinity and Waverley, and only due to individual brilliance from the opposition backs have they been unable to get the win. I haven't seen Aloys tipped to win a game on this forum yet, most people posting scorelines of 14+, but Aloys was up over Trinity last weekend for a large portion of the game, and similarly were always in the Waverley game by a couple of points the week prior. You can't persecute a team that is losing by less than 7 week in week out, with a these losses not coming at the hand of their CAS forward reps.

 

[rtd32]

You can't persecute a team that is losing by less than 7 week in week out, with a these losses not coming at the hand of their CAS forward reps.

nowhere does a trophy say 'nearly won', especially when your looking at the team at the bottom of the ladder with every game being a "near loss" but only 1 win to show for it... Sure your point is valid, and perhaps Aloysius is underestimated by some people, but I don't think it's their forward pack seeing as individual players from Aloys have had a number of mentions throughout this forum, and it is clear that the rep selectors are in accord with this. I never implied they were over-rated, just stated they were not under-rated

 

[I like to watch]

You can't persecute a team that is losing by less than 7 week in week out,

Faaaark, I have just realised it's the ex Aloys boys in the Tah's that is the problem!









or just a coincidence!

 

[Done that]

And yet Vevers has been given his shot. Goes to show that some selectors are able to identify a good performance and are able to see beyond the influence of other peoples opinions without it necessarily having anything to do with the immediate oppositions form. Going on your policy I'll expect to see the Country boys all lining up for NSW in a week or so.

You're clearly missing the point.

My comments were directed at your claim that I was being disrespectful to point out the clear difference in standard between CHS I's & II's , the difference being even more obvious to a man with
a seeing eye dog , on Sunday last.It's apparent that you don't believe that the standard of the opposition team should be taken into account when considering the relative merits of players performances.

In respect to Vevers , he played well enough to be given a shot in CAS I's undoubtedly , but having watched he & Clark play in a number of games , I rate the latter the better of the two .Simple as that, & is not
based simply on the CHS games.
The selectors think that Vevers deserves a shot & I don't quibble with that .No doubt however , they would be mindful of , & take into consideration , the fact that Clark has been playing with a significant injury , (which requires surgical repair ), for several weeks , & consequently has not played a game since the CHS match, & because of this injury may well be below his best (if he plays ), against GPS & ISA.

BTW , aren't you being a little disrespectful to the Country boys ?

 

[It is what it is]

You're clearly missing the point.

My comments were directed at your claim that I was being disrespectful to point out the clear difference in standard between CHS I's & II's , the difference being even more obvious to a man with
a seeing eye dog , on Sunday last.It's apparent that you don't believe that the standard of the opposition team should be taken into account when considering the relative merits of players performances.

In respect to Vevers , he played well enough to be given a shot in CAS I's undoubtedly , but having watched he & Clark play in a number of games , I rate the latter the better of the two .Simple as that, & is not
based simply on the CHS games.
The selectors think that Vevers deserves a shot & I don't quibble with that .No doubt however , they would be mindful of , & take into consideration , the fact that Clark has been playing with a significant injury , (which requires surgical repair ), for several weeks , & consequently has not played a game since the CHS match, & because of this injury may well be below his best (if he plays ), against GPS & ISA.

BTW , aren't you being a little disrespectful to the Country boys ?

Not entering into this debate but again I have a concern for Clark.
Who is advising him to play when the injury requires surgery AND affects his performance?
Somebody, anybody, step in and help the kid make some smart decisions.
There is life after schoolboy rugby and he should be told that once you cross the white line and play, there are no excuses.

 

[The_Riddler]

nowhere does a trophy say 'nearly won', especially when your looking at the team at the bottom of the ladder with every game being a "near loss" but only 1 win to show for it. Sure your point is valid, and perhaps Aloysius is underestimated by some people, but I don't think it's their forward pack seeing as individual players from Aloys have had a number of mentions throughout this forum, and it is clear that the rep selectors are in accord with this. I never implied they were over-rated, just stated they were not under-rated

Aloys are a perennial cellar dweller team with the odd good team who repeatedly falls short, whilst being within grasp of glory. 2009 was the year Aloys should have won the comp. From memory they were winning every game with 5 or 10mins left and lost a significant number of games on the bell and ended up finishing 3rd. Subject to being corrected, all their losses that year were within 7 points.

They will never be a team that are over-rated because of their history, and frankly, the lack of any silverware since the early 1970s.

Nevertheless, for a school which prides itself on its year-in-year-out academic achievement and fantastic "school spirit", it competes very well against the bigger schools with 300 kids in each year as opposed to 120ish at Aloys.

From experience, being the underdog is often more fun than being the favourite.

 

[Trinity4Lyfe]

Williams is in Year 12. I don't believe he is doing Pathways.

From what I've heard Williams is infact doing pathways

 

[Eshayz]

Anyone at the CAS game at View today? Updates would be appreciated

 

[CAS Footy]

GPS 1st 35-CAS 12 im pretty sure

 

[It is what it is]

Yes GPS 35 (7 tries no goals) def CAS 12 (2 tries and 1 conversion....Wileman & Paterson both scored tries)
GPS Goal kicking was atrocious and score was restricted as a result. GPS No's 10 & 15 shared the kicking duties and most of the kicks went nowhere near the posts.
Good start to CAS with 75 m try after great run by Paterson and strong finishing by Wileman.
GPS did more with their possession and scored a couple of simple tries off the back of CAS defence quitting too early on the inside.
CAS lacked penetration with the fair share of ball they had and really lacked a couple of wrecking ball runners to get over the advantage line.
This was particularly evident when pressing the GPS try line where they were constantly repelled.
For GPS No 6 was a stand out with some outstanding long runs and aggressive play with the ball and in defence.
CAS Line out was OK but could have dominated with more accurate throwing/calls???
GPS No 8 won a lot of ball at 2 in the line out and was strong in general play.
GPS counter rucking was a feature of their play and won them a lot of turnover ball.
For CAS No 10 Vevers tried hard but lacked effective ball runners, while Creeley hit it up hard all day.
CAS No 9 needs to have a few more snipes in attack to take pressure off his No 10.
Pretty flat atmosphere and poor quality match to be honest.

 

[Man on the hill]

& the seconds?

 

[Man on the hill]

For CAS No 10 Vevers tried hard but lacked effective ball runners, while Creeley hit it up hard all day.
CAS No 9 needs to have a few more snipes in attack to take pressure off his No 10.

These would be the same 9, 12, 13 & 15 as last week Vs CHS? But Clarke was hung out to dry & dropped? Oh well plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

 

[It is what it is]

& the seconds?

Sorry missed that match

 

[It is what it is]

GPS II's won 36-25 according to the other thread.

 

[smokinjoe]

Saw 1sts game today. GPS bigger, faster and more skilled. Line speed in defence was superb. If there was an opportunity GPS took it sharply both in close and out wide. CAS lineout was marred by inconsistent throws (GPS threw a few crooked ones too). Scrums ok for both. Worse goalkicking than the 14 Bs! Thank god CAS finally kicked a goal. For GPS Nos 6, 4, 2,12, 14, 15. For CAS 9, 15 looked good when ball went wide.

 

[Fendsbrah]

Watched both the 1sts and 2nds today. 2nds provided a much more intriguing match then a lacklustre CAS 1sts could manage. 2nds were strong in the forwards with Kitchen(K) being a standout as well as Wood(A) who (if my count is correct) had four steals and constantly put pressure on at the breakdown. In my opinion Jamo had a solid game however questions will almost certainly still be asked about his defence.

1sts on the whole was a poor game of rugby to watch as a CAS supporter. GPS had excellent line speed which served to shut down the CAS backs. Vevers(A) was constantly under pressure and as a result CAS had poor back line attack which lacked true flair that is generally attributed to the likes of Creeley(K) and Clunies-Ross(T). Jenkins(B) had another strong game at no.9 however as previously mentioned he needs to take on the line and truly test the ruck defence to take some pressure off his no.10, whether it be Vevers or Clark. Ultimately the game was won in the forwards, GPS counter rucking was a constant thorn in the side for the CAS boys with numerous steals to the GPS boys. I thought no. 6 for GPS had a truly fantastic match with excellent runs and strong defence.

In all honesty, i was a bit disappointed. For all the hype that comes with a CAS vs GPS fixture, it was no better than the usual schoolboy rugby seen week in, week out.

 

[Cubesquare]

Well I do recall saying that the CAS team would have no chance against the GPS side without the penetrating ball runners from trinity and from the sound of it, it appears that's what they lacked today. Still believe that the selectors have gone for a conservative pick. Regardless, the GPS side is traditionally dominant compared to the CAS, so well done to the boys for sticking it out, I am sure they will bounce back against the rest of the rep sides to come