CAS Rugby 2023

[AroundTheAnkles]

In all due respect AA, View isn't Joeys and I still don't see the logic.

Why would a school stuff up all the lower grades when at best I think if teams were matched evenly View might win 50% of all games.
I actually think that would also be a struggle against the Waves age groups.

I think I recollect this also happening last year v View, and the results were a joke.
I guess if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, the result will change!

I hear you, Waves generally has decent depth so I think Joeys would go head to head at least for A's and B's at a minimum and then alternate. it's a different situation if they play a school like Barker where there is no depth, you would probably play their A's against Joeys B's and find a worthwhile opponent for the A's and other games for the lower grades. Not sure what Views capper is but I wouldn't like to send lower graded players out against Waves teams. Perhaps the View boys are treating the weekend as belated penance for Easter.

 

[WLF3]

WLF3, like Snort, I have banged on about evenness of match ups before.

I don't understand why associations don't ask schools to nominate a 'division' for each of their teams. If the Waverley 14A's nominate as division 1, and the Waverley 14B nominate as division 2 and that was known amongst the sportmasters / MICs, then schools can be matched up on that basis. eg. If the Riverview 14A's nominate as division 2, then the Waverley 14Bs play Riverview 14As and Waverly 14As need to find another division 1 team to play.

Nomination of 'division' can be subjective by each school, or could attempt to be more robust (ie. points system based on club players, rep players, years experience, rugby league club standard, league rep player, etc). Presumably the sportsmasters / rugby MIC meet up each week and for the first few weeks of the trial season could review the accuracy of the 'division'. I am sure they could easily review 5 minutes of iphone match footage each week to also ensure the nominated division is appropriate.

These division and their adjustment during the trial period then could inform the structure of the CAS comp. eg. Division 1 has all the teams who are considered division 1 after the trials. It might also mean that strong rugby schools have both their A and B team in the division 1 comp and the weaker schools have their A team in division 2 or 3.

I guess what I have described above is pretty similar to the SJRU grading approach and I know that many will say it doesn't work for schools as it means that have teams spread all across Sydney and therefore is logistically impossible (especially for those with boarders), wrecks school spirit, etc, etc.

If rugby wants to stay viable at the school level, then I can't see another alternate (other than a division structure between merged associations).

Yes ap1, I too have commented on exactly this type of format but it won't happen unfortunately.

There is no point in having a CAS specific divisional comp, there would be only 3 schools in div 1.
It needs to involve multiple associations to have the sufficient number of schools to make a reasonably sized division.
The GPS will never buy into this, I think the ISA may well, but not even sure if all the CAS schools would.

I actually think the grading criteria, and work involved to do this, would turn the Sports Masters off, and I understand that, as they have many other sports to also look after.
The only issue that may one day force such a merge might be based on safety issues, ie 1 school being undersized/limited ability etc.

In the case I put forward, ie View v Waves, I am sure it has an easy fix, and that is, play against the corresponding teams.
Waves played Newington last week and the matchups were normal.

How is this any different? Simple it's not.

 

[WLF3]

I hear you, Waves generally has decent depth so I think Joeys would go head to head at least for A's and B's at a minimum and then alternate. it's a different situation if they play a school like Barker where there is no depth, you would probably play their A's against Joeys B's and find a worthwhile opponent for the A's and other games for the lower grades. Not sure what Views capper is but I wouldn't like to send lower graded players out against Waves teams. Perhaps the View boys are treating the weekend as belated penance for Easter.

Ha Aa, pretty sure the View boys have nothing to do with this, it goes much higher up.
Your Joeys analogy v Waves As and Bs, is spot on, likewise Joeys v Barker, so it boils down to who you are playing.

In this case, View v Waves, it should be like for like.

 

[RedOrDead]

WLF3, like Snort, I have banged on about evenness of match ups before.

I don't understand why associations don't ask schools to nominate a 'division' for each of their teams. If the Waverley 14A's nominate as division 1, and the Waverley 14B nominate as division 2 and that was known amongst the sportmasters / MICs, then schools can be matched up on that basis. eg. If the Riverview 14A's nominate as division 2, then the Waverley 14Bs play Riverview 14As and Waverly 14As need to find another division 1 team to play.

Nomination of 'division' can be subjective by each school, or could attempt to be more robust (ie. points system based on club players, rep players, years experience, rugby league club standard, league rep player, etc). Presumably the sportsmasters / rugby MIC meet up each week and for the first few weeks of the trial season could review the accuracy of the 'division'. I am sure they could easily review 5 minutes of iphone match footage each week to also ensure the nominated division is appropriate.

These division and their adjustment during the trial period then could inform the structure of the CAS comp. eg. Division 1 has all the teams who are considered division 1 after the trials. It might also mean that strong rugby schools have both their A and B team in the division 1 comp and the weaker schools have their A team in division 2 or 3.

I guess what I have described above is pretty similar to the SJRU grading approach and I know that many will say it doesn't work for schools as it means that have teams spread all across Sydney and therefore is logistically impossible (especially for those with boarders), wrecks school spirit, etc, etc.

If rugby wants to stay viable at the school level, then I can't see another alternate (other than a division structure between merged associations).

Can't agree more.

 

[RedOrDead]

The AAGPS was established to provide organised games between schools of similar aspiration. The motto of the Association is “Unity in Diversity”. The following features of the Association have developed over a long period.

Joker. Tradition isn't everything. It can change. Just cause it used to be the right way to do things, doesn't mean it will always be the right way. I'm sure I don't need to make some analogy or argument for you and I to agree there.

The issue is... GPS Schools know longer have "similar aspirations", or if they do, they now have very different ways of getting there. Hence Grammar, Boys, TAS separating themselves further and further from the other schools everyday. You and I are both rugby fans, its why we spend so much time on this forum talking about it. The fact of the matter is this will be positive for rugby. More kids from weaker rugby schools will be likely to sign up and stick with it when they get even match ups every week. Additionally, we could really capitalise on the entertainment factor of a Super 1st XV competition. Imagine a Joeys vs Barker grand final last year. What the entertainment factor could do for numbers. What a marquee sporting event could do in the battle with rugby league. The scouts it would draw to try and keep our talent in Union.

I do understand trying to move boarders around to every school in Sydney would be damn near impossible with the current means of doing so. But I do think we could do it with just the 1stXV. Move them to a later time, or do a Friday night or something. As I said I think it would benefit rugby.

 

[scrumhead99]

Snort, Yes I have heard all that before and I did say that it would be fine where a school has more teams in an age group, then the fs can play some other school. However if any school has 5/6 teams in an age group I believe it is essential that these teams get matched up.

Furthermore, without trying to bang on too much, the Waves are nearly always very strong in the age groups, and again this year.
So it makes no sense and is a waste of time imo. No winners here!

WLF3, I 100% agree. I think it's a really stupid system. It makes no sense and quite frankly will be a waste of time no matter the results.

 

[Joker]

What the entertainment factor could do for numbers. What a marquee sporting event could do in the battle with rugby league. The scouts it would draw to try and keep our talent in Union.

Is this what has become of the CAS system? You have allowed already sporting scholarships, created an arms race for the best talent you can lure from leagues club and domestic rep teams and then you think your rugby program is designed purely for entertaining the great unwashed masses and creating financial incentive for kids who should be studying. No thank you. Schoolboy is a for school boys NOT semi professional players and those who wish to create empires.

Finally, AAGPS and CAS do play one another in a match that pits the best of each.
Last year was...

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Must be a timer on this conversation.

Every year

 

[Snort]

Incidentally, not to talk about the actual games or anything, but I gather Trinity plays St Pius this weekend, not St Gregs.

 

[Ziggy]

I hear you, Waves generally has decent depth so I think Joeys would go head to head at least for A's and B's at a minimum and then alternate. it's a different situation if they play a school like Barker where there is no depth, you would probably play their A's against Joeys B's and find a worthwhile opponent for the A's and other games for the lower grades. Not sure what Views capper is but I wouldn't like to send lower graded players out against Waves teams. Perhaps the View boys are treating the weekend as belated penance for Easter.

100% Agree
Don't pay too much attention to the Waves vs New result as Waves had a few players out and a full strength Waves vs A Full strength New would be an more even contest.
I believe a few Waves players return this week and they should do View with ease.

Overall from 13's-16's, Waves has very good depth into As and Bs as most play for either Randwick Warriors, Easts or junior league club on a Sunday. Beyond that it then starts to drop off.

I think one of the major problems at Waverley (and I imagine this goes for other schools) is the handing out of "scholarships" to players that come into year 11 and 12. Like someone else mentioned before these are almost semi pro players and they can at times break up the cohesion built over the 3-4 years and this annoys other team members as well. Eg. A full paying student and an A's player from 13's to 16's can all of a sudden be relegated to a lower team because of a scholarship player. It's not to say that the particular scholarship is better but there have been promises made.

I also don't know what the rules are around players that repeat year 12 but I believe that if a student repeats year 12, then they are not eligible to play.

 

[WLF3]

100% Agree
Don't pay too much attention to the Waves vs New result as Waves had a few players out and a full strength Waves vs A Full strength New would be an more even contest.
I believe a few Waves players return this week and they should do View with ease.

Overall from 13's-16's, Waves has very good depth into As and Bs as most play for either Randwick Warriors, Easts or junior league club on a Sunday. Beyond that it then starts to drop off.

I think one of the major problems at Waverley (and I imagine this goes for other schools) is the handing out of "scholarships" to players that come into year 11 and 12. Like someone else mentioned before these are almost semi pro players and they can at times break up the cohesion built over the 3-4 years and this annoys other team members as well. Eg. A full paying student and an A's player from 13's to 16's can all of a sudden be relegated to a lower team because of a scholarship player. It's not to say that the particular scholarship is better but there have been promises made.

I also don't know what the rules are around players that repeat year 12 but I believe that if a student repeats year 12, then they are not eligible to play.

They can play if under 19 in that year I believe, the rest I absolutely agree with and the issues it creates are proven.

 

[Walshy81]

Based on the match report Cranbrook had 13 entries into Auggies 22 compared to their 5 into Cranbrooks. Good signs yet obviously issues with execution on the day.

Hey Fanatic, I get it. Let's hope Cranbrook sort that out. Maybe Auggies defence was/is very good.

Any idea who Cranbrook play on 27 May in the last trial - CAS website still has Auggies listed, but obviously that's no longer the case.

 

[Jumping_jack]

There is one Waverly kid that has had joined Joeys this year. He is in the thirds or fourths, his family have a connection that goes some way back.

He got a run in the firsts on the weekend.

 

[Brumbie run]

Hey Fanatic, I get it. Let's hope Cranbrook sort that out. Maybe Auggies defence was/is very good.

Any idea who Cranbrook play on 27 May in the last trial - CAS website still has Auggies listed, but obviously that's no longer the case.

Cranbrook vs augs is correct, they play each other again.

 

[Jumping_jack]

100% Agree
Don't pay too much attention to the Waves vs New result as Waves had a few players out and a full strength Waves vs A Full strength New would be an more even contest.
I believe a few Waves players return this week and they should do View with ease.

Overall from 13's-16's, Waves has very good depth into As and Bs as most play for either Randwick Warriors, Easts or junior league club on a Sunday. Beyond that it then starts to drop off.

I think one of the major problems at Waverley (and I imagine this goes for other schools) is the handing out of "scholarships" to players that come into year 11 and 12. Like someone else mentioned before these are almost semi pro players and they can at times break up the cohesion built over the 3-4 years and this annoys other team members as well. Eg. A full paying student and an A's player from 13's to 16's can all of a sudden be relegated to a lower team because of a scholarship player. It's not to say that the particular scholarship is better but there have been promises made.

I also don't know what the rules are around players that repeat year 12 but I believe that if a student repeats year 12, then they are not eligible to play.

I think you don’t know what your talking about.

8 - 9 Waverley genuine 1sts players out this week. More than the 6-7 of last week.

 

[CAS Fanatic]

Hey Fanatic, I get it. Let's hope Cranbrook sort that out. Maybe Auggies defence was/is very good.

Any idea who Cranbrook play on 27 May in the last trial - CAS website still has Auggies listed, but obviously that's no longer the case.

Cranbrook vs augs is correct, they play each other again.

Yeh both schools will face off again in a Friday night thriller down at easts 1, should be a good telling for how both sides have progressed.

 

[dusk]

100% Agree
Don't pay too much attention to the Waves vs New result as Waves had a few players out and a full strength Waves vs A Full strength New would be an more even contest.

I love these completely 1 sided comparisons. Newington have also been experimenting (and lost their star scrum half Koby Owen due to an ACL injury earlier this year), the same way any school does in trial matches. Injuries or not, Waverly got out classed by a talented and well drilled side. The trial match between Newington and Knox a week before will tell you the same thing.

 

[Walshy81]

Yeh both schools will face off again in a Friday night thriller down at easts 1, should be a good telling for how both sides have progressed.

I'll make an early prediction... Brook by 10.

 

[Jumping_jack]

I love these completely 1 sided comparisons. Newington have also been experimenting (and lost their star scrum half Koby Owen due to an ACL injury earlier this year), the same way any school does in trial matches. Injuries or not, Waverly got out classed by a talented and well drilled side. The trial match between Newington and Knox a week before will tell you the same thing.

100% Newington were better on the weekend and won deservedly.

Injuries have impacted the Waverley team to a pretty huge degree though.

This weekend Waverley will be missing 5 genuine players from their 1st XV forward pack and 3 genuine backs(including the centre pairing from last year) and a fringe winger.

And it’s not as though they have lost no ones. It’s all the rep players/returning first XV players that are out. They will be a different team if they get them all back by CAS, but they’re 2nd XV in particular this weekend will be particularly weak, it’s almost lucky they are playing view thirds.

 

[RedOrDead]

Pfffft “hell” … the Dudes Literally in the wallaby squad not even a year out of school

Yes. He's FANTASTIC. Incredible. I love him. One of our only bright spots...

But Barker had that bloke in the doldrums. He barely broke a tackle.

Joeys weren't beating Barker.