WLF3
Billy Sheehan (19)
RoD,Are you insinuating the ARU does a good job of retaining schoolboy talent?
Or that you believe that St Leo's Billy Pollard, who is from a through and through rugby league family, and who I know for a fact said before he came to Barker wanted to play in the NRL... would he have magically picked union without ever playing it seriosuly?
It seems to me everything I have said has been completely logical.
Come on man. It's getting old. Knox does it, Kings does it, Waverley does it, Newington does it... etc. etc. etc. Accept it and move on. If it pushes more kids to union, or even makes it more of a possibility, I love it. Give me more of it. Schoolboy footy isn't that important where we should be getting upset about which school gives away more scholarships when in reality all schoolboy rugby is, is a way to create, nurture, develop and solidify union talent in the game. We are all union fans. What's good for Barker footy, is good for footy. What's good for footy is good for you as a fan.
Aside from whether it is or isn't good for Rugby, my gripes are as follows.
By suddenly bringing in established superstars in year 11 or 12 it undermines the culture of rugby at schools, particularly for the younger boys who think they have a chance 1 day but then start to say "probably not" as some star will suddenly appear, having heard this first hand, and boys start to talk about all the new ring ins at the beginning of each new year. Let's not kid ourselves!
If schools are going to bring in new boys, imo, it should happen no later than year 9 so they have to prove themselves, and as we all know things change as boys grow, NOT in year 11 or 12 when they are bona fide superstars.
The other issue is for the parents who have paid fees for years only to have their boy, who has always been an A/B grade player, being shafted at the final jump. Until you have experienced that it tends to fall on deaf ears, BUT IT REALLY HURTS!
Finally I think the import strategy is fundamentally flawed because if you do it to excess people say "well you should have won the comp, you bought it", and then if that school fails to win then people rightly say " well aren't you guys a bunch of idiots".
It's a no win strategy imo, and thinking that winning at ALL cost is acceptable is as dumb as it sounds.
An acceptable reason though may be for safety reasons such as a front rower if your cohort is very poor and therefore there may be a safety reason. But these legit reasons are few and far between.
For mine these issues outweigh the opportunity given to a few select boys, who typically will never be seen at that school again.
We have also experienced the fact that the parents of these chosen few also typically give NO help to the BBQ , canteen etc where parents help out, they tend to swan around like they are above it all, have seen it many times 1st hand!
Rant over.
Last edited: