CAS Rugby 2023

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Barker were without their first choice no 8 and 9 today apparently. Their substitutes played well. From View's perspective their 7 was very strong over the ball drawing a number of penalties while the View 10 had a strong game. Good kick and has no fear taking on the advantage line. Both hookers did very well at lineout time considering the shite conditions. Both sides struggled with getting their lifts right despite throws that looked good. I thought Barker played into Views hand a bit given they spread the ball wide at every opportunity when playing tight and using their bigger forwards may have been a better pay. Bottom line is both of these sides are very competitive and will be a handful for the best sides in both competitions.

Nice write up.

I thought Barkers 3,5,8,12,15 all had a strong impact on the game. For View 7 and 15 were my best. Bet the 10 wishes he could get the first 2 kickoffs back. Set Barker up for a fast start. As a View supporter I was happy to see them stay in it through to the end when after that beast of a maul try it looked like it could have been one way traffic.

Also have to say I though the Refs in 1sts, 2nds & 3rds did a good job which can often be a blight

 

[rod skellet]

Nice write up.

I thought Barkers 3,5,8,12,15 all had a strong impact on the game. For View 7 and 15 were my best. Bet the 10 wishes he could get the first 2 kickoffs back. Set Barker up for a fast start. As a View supporter I was happy to see them stay in it through to the end when after that beast of a maul try it looked like it could have been one way traffic.

Also have to say I though the Refs in 1sts, 2nds & 3rds did a good job which can often be a blight

Good summation and yes the first two kick offs not going the 10 were not ideal for View. I did like the game the View 10 played. composed and not afraid to take on the line. Both sides defense was excellent, but that 22m rolling maul by Barker leading to the first try really set the tone for the game. That said Barker did not play to their strengths in my opinion. Given the conditions, both sides passing game was good with View being the more dangerous ball in hand. Neither side looked to me to have a real standout out player, but also neither side had any distinct weakness which will bode well for both teams as the season progresses.

 

[Halfbackenthusiast]

Good summation and yes the first two kick offs not going the 10 were not ideal for View. I did like the game the View 10 played. composed and not afraid to take on the line. Both sides defense was excellent, but that 22m rolling maul by Barker leading to the first try really set the tone for the game. That said Barker did not play to their strengths in my opinion. Given the conditions, both sides passing game was good with View being the more dangerous ball in hand. Neither side looked to me to have a real standout out player, but also neither side had any distinct weakness which will bode well for both teams as the season progresses.

Barker had the same issue last year in their 1st gps game against Scot’s . Playing right into Scot’s strengths but we’re quick to bounce back the next week. I’m sure Dean will revise their game plan

 

[Snort]

So how do we read the tea leaves after Saturday?

I know, "they're only trials", so it's hard to be too definitive. In particular, Joeys are notorious for playing experimental combinations in trials, so while a win over Joeys is always enjoyable and never easy, it may not be quite as meaningful as it might seem (I remember the year when Tane Edmed's Trinity side beat Joeys and went on to win only one of five Associated Schools games). Even so, it was a good result for Knox. Barker also look as though they're title contenders again.

Waverley's game is harder to assess. They had players out, and maybe Newington is under-rated, but if I were a Waverley supporter I'd be a bit concerned. It's rare for Waverley to cop a heavy defeat in a trial, even against GPS opposition. And the results also suggest that there's not all that much between Trinity and Cranbrook, who have both now gone down to St Augustine's by similar margins.

 

[Walshy81]

So how do we read the tea leaves after Saturday?

I know, "they're only trials", so it's hard to be too definitive. In particular, Joeys are notorious for playing experimental combinations in trials, so while a win over Joeys is always enjoyable and never easy, it may not be quite as meaningful as it might seem (I remember the year when Tane Edmed's Trinity side beat Joeys and went on to win only one of five Associated Schools games). Even so, it was a good result for Knox. Barker also look as though they're title contenders again.

Waverley's game is harder to assess. They had players out, and maybe Newington is under-rated, but if I were a Waverley supporter I'd be a bit concerned. It's rare for Waverley to cop a heavy defeat in a trial, even against GPS opposition. And the results also suggest that there's not all that much between Trinity and Cranbrook, who have both now gone down to St Augustine's by similar margins.

I agree, not a lot to go by.

What was the result Trinity v Augs?

 

[Snort]

I agree, not a lot to go by.

What was the result Trinity v Augs?

Something like 12-26.

 

[Moey]

12-5 Augs at full time. Cranbrook were dominant, but ultimately wet weather conditions were their true opposition and therefore weren’t able to execute. Auggies backline was electric and their 15 was untouchable.

Cranbrook showed a lot of promise during the game. However, the weather didn't suit their style of rugby, lacking a final product. Standouts for cranbrook were 3 (Ah-Colt), 4 (Girle) and 6 (Mackenzie).

 

[scrumhead99]

Cranbrook showed a lot of promise during the game. However, the weather didn't suit their style of rugby, lacking a final product. Standouts for cranbrook were 3 (Ah-Colt), 4 (Girle) and 6 (Mackenzie).

Agreed. I think (1) Rouse, (2) Smith), (8) Jackson, (13) Tovio, (15) Crowther all played great too. I think the forwards in general had a good game and these two backs were standouts compared to the rest.

 

[WLF3]

So how do we read the tea leaves after Saturday?

I know, "they're only trials", so it's hard to be too definitive. In particular, Joeys are notorious for playing experimental combinations in trials, so while a win over Joeys is always enjoyable and never easy, it may not be quite as meaningful as it might seem (I remember the year when Tane Edmed's Trinity side beat Joeys and went on to win only one of five Associated Schools games). Even so, it was a good result for Knox. Barker also look as though they're title contenders again.

Waverley's game is harder to assess. They had players out, and maybe Newington is under-rated, but if I were a Waverley supporter I'd be a bit concerned. It's rare for Waverley to cop a heavy defeat in a trial, even against GPS opposition. And the results also suggest that there's not all that much between Trinity and Cranbrook, who have both now gone down to St Augustine's by similar margins.

Hi Snort!

I watched the New v Waves game last sat, a few observations.

1. Newington well deserved to win, they are a polished side and very fit. Whilst early days, I think they will definitely be a threat in the GPS comp.

2. Waves did have 2 key forwards and 2 key backs out, the backline had a number of year 11 boys in fly half and the centres, the Newington backline was terrific and won that battle. The Waves forwards dominated the 1st 10-15 mins and could easily have scored a couple of tries but didn't and Newington snagged a great backline try almost against the run of play. A few of the Waves forwards were clearly not match fit, as they did not go on the Japan tour and as the game progressed the New forwards came into their own.

3. We will see if the boys missing last week join the team this week v View, and if so, I would expect a far stronger performance.
Given that View only lost by a couple of tries v a strong Barker side last weekend then I think it's safe to assume View will be hard to beat at
View this Sat.

All will be revealed after this Thursdays training.

Also, unlike last Sat, the weather forecast is excellent so it should allow all schools to show their full potential.

 

[777]

WLF3,

How did Waves 13-16a go last weekend?

 

[schoolboyfooty]

WLF3,

How did Waves 13-16a go last weekend?

All won quite dominantly

 

[WLF3]

WLF3,

How did Waves 13-16a go last weekend?

Waves 13as won 73-7
Waves 14as won 29-12
Waves 15as won 21-10
Waves 16as won 26-0.

 

[Joker]

the weather forecast is excellent so it should allow all schools to show their full potential.

That I feel dry conditions will show Newington's strength.
They should dominate at the brick pit

 

[Snort]

Lots of use of the word "dominate" in these pages. And, when it's used to describe a 73-7 victory, it's entirely appropriate. However, too often it's used to mean "had a lot of possession and territory but couldn't score". I was watching Sydney University v Randwick on Saturday, and for the whole of the first twenty minutes University was camped in Randwick's 22, had all the ball, and the score remained 0-0. Was Sydney University "dominant"? Or was the Randwick defence "dominant"? - after all, with all that ball and territory, the students couldn't scrape a point (they made up for it later). Not that I expect it to change anything, but I really don't think you can say you "dominated" if you didn't outscore the other side.

 

[Moey]

Does anyone have the Waverley team sheet from last weekend?

 

[WLF3]

Lots of use of the word "dominate" in these pages. And, when it's used to describe a 73-7 victory, it's entirely appropriate. However, too often it's used to mean "had a lot of possession and territory but couldn't score". I was watching Sydney University v Randwick on Saturday, and for the whole of the first twenty minutes University was camped in Randwick's 22, had all the ball, and the score remained 0-0. Was Sydney University "dominant"? Or was the Randwick defence "dominant"? - after all, with all that ball and territory, the students couldn't scrape a point (they made up for it later). Not that I expect it to change anything, but I really don't think you can say you "dominated" if you didn't outscore the other side.

You are indeed a lawyer!

If you approach the bench the distinction to be made here is that this is just footy talk, and in most cases here, dominant means territorial and ball retention dominance. Yes probably no/minimal points were scored but put simply, 1 side looked better than the other for a period!

Eagerly await the defense!

 

[Moey]

Anyone know much about the St Pats lineup this year other than standouts, Alex Conti and Mitch Woods?

 

[Snort]

You are indeed a lawyer!

If you approach the bench the distinction to be made here is that this is just footy talk, and in most cases here, dominant means territorial and ball retention dominance. Yes probably no/minimal points were scored but put simply, 1 side looked better than the other for a period!

Eagerly await the defense!

Makes sense, WLF - but then people can say "dominated possession" or "dominated territory". That way we know what's meant! So, to take my example of the Uni/Randwick game, I wouldn't say Uni "dominated" Randwick in the first 20: I'd say that they monopolised possession and territory, yet weren't good enough to score (and I'm a University supporter).

 

[Joker]

Makes sense, WLF - but then people can say "dominated possession" or "dominated territory". That way we know what's meant! So, to take my example of the Uni/Randwick game, I wouldn't say Uni "dominated" Randwick in the first 20: I'd say that they monopolised possession and territory, yet weren't good enough to score (and I'm a University supporter).

 

[WLF3]

Makes sense, WLF - but then people can say "dominated possession" or "dominated territory". That way we know what's meant! So, to take my example of the Uni/Randwick game, I wouldn't say Uni "dominated" Randwick in the first 20: I'd say that they monopolised possession and territory, yet weren't good enough to score (and I'm a University supporter).

Touche Snort. It's a hung jury!