CAS Rugby 2015

[DrinksBoy]

Knox 16' played a very competitive game against auggies this weekend, stand out players:
Knox:
number 1 prop
fullback
wings
Auggies:
number 8
half back
fullback

overall good game, enjoyable to watch, a lot of aggression going into the forwards but auggies came out on top.

One winger was very good can't remember which number though. The other one had a very poor game, looked like he had a bad wrist or something (hopefully nothing serious there).

Credit to number 10 Sam Schofield, played a very composed game leading the backs. It would have been hard to fill the big shoes of the previous 10 but in my opinion did extremely well

 

[noregrets]

Result From This mornings Trial Game (Riverview v Waverley)
Riverview 17 beat Waverley 10.

Extremely dirty game with a total of 9 cards given out. 4 Red (2 to each team) and a combine 5 Yellow. Rumours going around the Referee was considering abandoning the game due to its extremely dirty nature, particularly from the Waverley side (whats new). Ref did not think twice when giving cards. Waverley really needs to get their act together, extremely unacceptable performance.

With Riverview missing 5 to 8 key players to injury and athletics (including their star Aussie schoolboys 5/8 Jack Mcgregor) they still outclassed a full strength Waverley team who at the best of times couldn't hold on to the ball. They had the chance one two occasions to level the game up but missed 2 penalties from right in front both times, a shocking kicking performance. The Waverley hooker couldn't through the ball in straight the whole game, which will be exploited by many teams this year. They struggled running the ball, with their #9 and #10 not delivering quick enough ball to the outside backs. However the Riverview defence was particularly strong even in a weakened side.

Overall with this performance against a extremely weakened Riverview side, Waverley will battle to contend for a top 6 placing in the competition.
Riverview game rating (8/10) considering extremely under strength team.
Waverley game rating (3/10) not a very pleasing performance at all.

Written by a true 'View parent. None of the niggle in the game was started by Riverview? Takes two to tango remember. Riverview had players red-carded as well so they were no angels. Next time, just try to be a bit less one eyed.

 

[Runner]

Surely the red cards will be dealt with by the respective schools. No matter who we support inappropriate play is inappropriate and if one school or another via parents/students/etc views the other school with distain then trial matches may not be as readily forthcoming

 

[sidelineview]

I like the way the Waverley players wont take any rubbish from opposing teams. Unfortunately it always seems to be the Waverley players who start the trouble according to some people posting comments here. These biased comments were posted regularly last season; it just happened from the trial game on the weekend and will happen again this season.

 

[RugbyFan14]

God I hope he has moved on but if not he should be given a BIG SHAKE UP!!!!!

As I've posted before i believe Andrew Maloney was a fine coach. This was recognised in his appointment as an Australian Schoolboys assistant coach and by being recruited to the position of Director of Rugby at Churchie.

I think we need to recognize that this is a school. It is a mistake to over-estimate the importance of rugby in the overall school program. Since rugby ceased to to be compulsory in the junior school there is a large cohort of boys at Barker who never have and never will play rugby. There is a limit to what the coach can do if a majority of boys choose not to play rugby.

 

[RugbyFan14]

The ARU Policy is that no player can play more than 2 years up an age.

From the Australian rugby FAQ page re the Two Year Window Policy:

Can a player participate in an Age Grade competition more than two years above his or her age for their school/club?

• Yes. In exceptional cases, where a player’s physical development, skill level and experience is such that he or she may be allowed to participate in an age grade competition that is more than two years and no greater than three years above his or her age.

• A player wishing to participate in an age grade competition more than two years above his or her age should carefully consider the information in Schedule A of the Two Year Window Policy, complete the Consent Form including assessed by a Level 2 coach and submit to your Competition Manager.

The policy itself (COM009) (which i won't bore everyone with) contains detailed information about the exception. I saw the whole game and he played well. The policy is there for good reasons. The exception is part of the policy for good reasons. Saturday was a good example of the policy (including the exception) working effectively.

 

[Mook]

You'd think that at a large school like Barker, there would be a beter option than a year 9 scrum-half? Could be a serious lack of depth at Barker this year.

 

[Fred87]

You'd think that at a large school like Barker, there would be a beter option than a year 9 scrum-half? Could be a serious lack of depth at Barker this year.

In 2013 Barker only fielded 3 teams in u16s. Year behind didn't win a game against a CAS opponent for first few years of high school. So yes, Barker are looking at a lack of depth for a few years.

This year i believe Barker are looking at 4 rugby teams in u16s, 15's and 13s, only 3 in under 14's and only 5 open teams. This is way down on prior years. In soccer there are 8 teams in Yr7 and 7 teams in yr 8. I seriously believe the ARU need to have a think about what is happening in their traditional heartland of Sydney private schools.

 

[noregrets]

http://www.cas.nsw.edu.au/home/winter-sports/rugby/previous-winners/

I think 'BadBoy' just got ripped!

 

[BRUMBIEJACK]

In 2013 Barker only fielded 3 teams in u16s. Year behind didn't win a game against a CAS opponent for first few years of high school. So yes, Barker are looking at a lack of depth for a few years.

This year i believe Barker are looking at 4 rugby teams in u16s, 15's and 13s, only 3 in under 14's and only 5 open teams. This is way down on prior years. In soccer there are 8 teams in Yr7 and 7 teams in yr 8. I seriously believe the ARU need to have a think about what is happening in their traditional heartland of Sydney private schools.

I am a parent at Waverley and rugby numbers are strong, particularly in the lower years. I would wager that the school may also have the smallest intake bar St Aloysius given space issues, so the playing numbers are I think pretty Impressive. I'm not sure the reasons exactly but there are probably several - lots of boys play junior rugby in the Randwick/Easts catchment area before they hit school, and many play rugby league in juniors so rugby union is the natural winter choice.

Only teachers and recent old boys coach which has an impact on the psyche of the boys (I've written before about how I think specialised 'directors' of rugby at school level is bad, and removes the teacher/student bond that makes rugby a community rather than a sport). And compulsory attendance of year groups at rugby home games at QP (soccer is played next door and finishes before the rugby starts) keeps it in the minds of the boys and for some perhaps not-so-subtly reminds people of the importance of the game in the school.

I agree with the sentiment expressed above re the ARU. Looking around on Saturday at QP with team after team playing each other in trials I thought this is one reason why the ARU has been fat, dumb and happy when it comes to trying to grow rugby at the grass roots. It's because they have always relied on the schools to do it for them and have never been challenged.

AFL is rapacious in trying to steamroll every other code in Australia and are cashed up, well organized and ideologically motivated. My experience of rugby in the ACT was similar - very little support from HQ and virtually zero effort to promote or expand the game.

It's a significant worry when a large school like Barker has trouble getting numbers into rugby.

 

[Hasbeen]

Not a good day for the the boys at Barker losing in the 16A's, 16B's, 2ndXV & 1stXV.

!6B's - tried hard and didn't give up but fitness and discipline cost them the match.

16A's - led for most of the game 21 to 12, despite the best efforts of the forwards to give the game away then fell apart in the last 20min. The back 3 did a great job of putting on the points but the forwards were lacking in fitness and basic skills. Their scrummaging was poor, front row had no idea how to counter or compete in the scrum, what is Barker teaching these kids?
Not a great deal of fitness as most of the forward pack were walking around the paddock while the backs were running. Barker were lucky to get an intercept which was converted, so score line could have been 26-14, not 26-21.

2nd's - 0-0 for most of the game and a close contest with the Barker boys never giving up, but the Stannies boys eventually linked a few plays together to edge ahead and win, well done. i think fitness was a key issue here.

1st's - I'm conflicted here. Want so much to praise and encourage these boys but when I see a school play a Yr9 boy @ scrumhalf I am thinking to myself that there is something very wrong here, the incumbent is sick and the next best we have is a kid in Yr9. What does this say about the other boys who have committed to playing rugby for the school. While the No9 played OK, got to the breakdown, passed the ball etc.. he got hammered by the big boys who seemed to target him. When replaced by the 2nd's scrumhalf we finally got some quick ball and started to go forward eventually scoring and showing he had a greater understanding of what was needed to get across the line, experience v youth, wins every time. The coaching staff have a lot to answer for on this one in my opinion. There are a few U16 boys playing up in this side and I think it would be better to leave them in the 16's and work on building a strong team over the next 2 yrs than raping & pillaging in the vain hope of winning a few games this yr.

Agree with the comments - the props in the 16A's were experiencing difficulty I think one has played hooker for many years. Fitness is a real issue with the forward pack. The 16B's played as well as can be expected considering most were C grade players filling in for injuries. The 16's this year will face challenges in being competitive. I fully endorse the comments on the use of year 10 boys in the Opens. It is far better in my view to keep the 16's competitive and let the team mature. The growth and maturity in play developed between 16 and 18 years means it is only a few who can adapt to playing up like this.

 

[William88]

I agree with the sentiment expressed above re the ARU. Looking around on Saturday at QP with team after team playing each other in trials I thought this is one reason why the ARU has been fat, dumb and happy when it comes to trying to grow rugby at the grass roots. It's because they have always relied on the schools to do it for them and have never been challenged.

AFL is rapacious in trying to steamroll every other code in Australia and are cashed up, well organized and ideologically motivated. My experience of rugby in the ACT was similar - very little support from HQ and virtually zero effort to promote or expand the game.

It's a significant worry when a large school like Barker has trouble getting numbers into rugby.

For me, this is one of the biggest issues facing junior rugby. It appears to be a very top heavy funding model. With schools as an afterthought until those boys play in the state championships.

 

[Snort]

For me, this is one of the biggest issues facing junior rugby. It appears to be a very top heavy funding model. With schools as an afterthought until those boys play in the state championships.

Cranbrook played trials against St Pius on the weekend. The 14B trial was cancelled because St Pius only had 25 players available in the age group.

Now, when I was at school, St Pius was a hugely enthusiastic Rugby school. Not especially good, mind, but massively keen and located in a traditional Rugby heartland. Now, it seems, the school struggles to field two under-14 teams.

Why does this happen? Pick your own causes. There's more choice now, for one thing. Many schools now offer not only soccer, and some AFL, but also a wide variety of non-football winter sports. So inevitably numbers will be down, because boys who otherwise would have played Rugby for want of choice now have other options. Also, I suspect, parents are more concerned about physical safety. There are many, many more big kids running round than when I played (not all of whom are of Polynesian descent). Parents of smaller boys are reluctant to expose them to risk. But, against all of that, Rugby has been slower than many other sports to market itself aggressively. It needs to wake up to the erosion of its base, quickly.

And, of course, it's not only about player numbers. A kid who runs round in the 14Bs may never be a footballer after he leaves school. But if he learns to love the game, he'll support it, encourage his boys to play, and so on. Rugby needs the players who won't be stars as well as the ones who will.

 

[loiterer]

Cranbrook played trials against St Pius on the weekend. The 14B trial was cancelled because St Pius only had 25 players available in the age group.

Now, when I was at school, St Pius was a hugely enthusiastic Rugby school. Not especially good, mind, but massively keen and located in a traditional Rugby heartland. Now, it seems, the school struggles to field two under-14 teams.

I understand that they have something like 3 times that number in the U13s, a number of whom are rep players of the local district. Likely to be strong competitors. I agree that the non-stars who play for the love of the game are at least as important, for rugby's future, as the stars. Though, I am not sure that the Wallabies are picked on the basis of what U14's team they were in.

 

[Snort]

I am not sure that the Wallabies are picked on the basis of what U14's team they were in.

I hadn't realised that I had said that they were.

 

[formerflanker]

And, of course, it's not only about player numbers. A kid who runs round in the 14Bs may never be a footballer after he leaves school. But if he learns to love the game, he'll support it, encourage his boys to play, and so on. Rugby needs the players who won't be stars as well as the ones who will.

Yep, fully agree. Let's look at the Tahs crowd last Sunday of 27,000ish.
Say 50% women and young kids, therefore 13,000 or so men, many of whom had played rugby - but only 100 or so who have played at the elite level. That's a lot of past age group players and current weekend warriors who support the game.

 

[loiterer]

I hadn't realised that I had said that they were.

You didn't say that they were, I was just trying to make the point that kids develop at different paces and it sometimes it takes longer for it to click into place. I accept that it was probably a gratuitous line.

 

[CNorth]

Then shouldn't pius be moved to a comp with similar numbers re 1 team per age group for the benefit of all the other kids that do play b and below.

 

[sarcophilus]

They are in a different competition
matches discussed so far are just trials

that competition(association) has its own thread in this place, but they don't talk much.
That association has three Divisions to facilitate schools of varying commitments to rugby and seems to be open to any school that wants to commit.

 

[DrinksBoy]

Solid game from Knox against auggies, however perhaps missing input from their star flyhalf. The fullback was definitely MOM having come off a hat trick against Collingwood. Both should be aussie schoolboys contenders in a couple of years

Same with the number 9, played a very solid game controlling the forward pack around