• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

NSW AAGPS 2017

Tip the 2017 AAGPS 1st XV Premiers

  • Total voters
    92
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
formerflanker

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
bigmac said:
but as training methods and frequency ramp up in later years it's hard to keep up if your school takes a more balanced approach ie limited to 2x a week training.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A Scots teacher recently presented a paper at an international boys school conference that showcased the academic timetable being adjusted to accommodate sports science training for all sports at the school.
 
bigmac

bigmac

Billy Sheehan (19)
The Honey Badger said:
SDW, I can assure you the GPS opens training program would be as intensive as any school.

In fact I would think Shore would have a fitness advantage on most schools.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for what happens at shore but joeys boys in top open teams (1990s) tell me they trained twice a day during season so about 10 sessions a week. All boarders so no logistical issues with travel.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
 
Troy Dickson

Troy Dickson

Herbert Moran (7)
The Honey Badger said:
Has Rourke been named as captain?
Click to expand...

The Honey Badger said:
Has Rourke been named as captain?
Click to expand...

Misinterpretation... The aus team has not been solidified yet as there are still 5 to 6 players to be added to the group.

See ASRU website on Monday 21st August with announcement of full updated squads.

Just quietly, thanks to roar for embarrassing the youngster getting hit . Should have come up with a better hit against a worthy opponent. Not someone getting the old hospital pass.
 
One eyed pirate

One eyed pirate

Ward Prentice (10)
SonnyDillWilliams said:
re Shore . what I don't understand if why they start off strong in 13s and 14s, and then slide?

This years 13As were definitely competitive . unless I am mistaken they beat Scots, Kings, Riverview (often convincingly) and then were respectable against strong Joeys and Newington teams

unless I am mistaken this years Shore 16As weren't too bad a few years back, and now they have had some hidings

I am not hinting at the unmentionable .. but I have seen the facilities that Scots has . full sized ice baths, hyperbaric chambers, etc

and so whether Shore just isn't interested (rightly or wrongly) at throwing the money at the ongoing progress?

I don't know . but what I do know is Shore has the cattle . and that isn't by itself enough
Click to expand...
This is the first time I have disagreed with you. Put simply, if the school refuses to compete for sporting talent in high school years and only accepts children if they are enrolled literally the day they are born (no exaggeration) then you will not end up with the best high school sporting cohort. You can easily get kids into scots, Kings, Joeys and New if you either have the money or sporting talent or both. The younger Shore age groups go ok because they have usually been playing rugby from U6s in the North Shore junior rugby comps. Shore opens rugby trains hard. The only other thing I would say is that you can question the school's support of rugby because they are pushing AFL and this is being funded by the AFL. Also it is stupid to keep entering their boys into games they will lose-the longevity of rugby at Shore requires a Div 2. Do rugby premierships matter? I don't know, maybe Shore is doing the right thing? I think you will find that the Shore boys 3-5 years out of school are doing well compared to many gps premiership rugby players.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
SonnyDillWilliams said:
re Shore . what I don't understand if why they start off strong in 13s and 14s, and then slide?

This years 13As were definitely competitive . unless I am mistaken they beat Scots, Kings, Riverview (often convincingly) and then were respectable against strong Joeys and Newington teams

unless I am mistaken this years Shore 16As weren't too bad a few years back, and now they have had some hidings

I am not hinting at the unmentionable .. but I have seen the facilities that Scots has . full sized ice baths, hyperbaric chambers, etc

and so whether Shore just isn't interested (rightly or wrongly) at throwing the money at the ongoing progress?

I don't know . but what I do know is Shore has the cattle . and that isn't by itself enough
Click to expand...

I think that the answer is complex as you allude to. The growth of AFL and soccer at the school must have some impact.

In terms of success at 13s and 14s, I'll provide explanation from my observations (others may disagree). Even in these age groups, the Shore teams are smaller than their opponents, but the compensate for this by playing a particular style of rugby which is quite successful at that level. They are able to get two or three fast kids to the break down more quickly than the other schools. At the lower ages, this is enough to secure their own ball and to either disrupt or steal opposition ball. As the boys get older, the physicality becomes more and more important and these same kids now get blown off the ball more often than not. Playing rugby against boys who are bigger and stronger than you eventually leads to fatigue and defensive lapses, which lead to tries.

I saw the Shore and the Kings 15s up on the Gold Coast in the last holidays and the difference in the physical development of the boys in each team was significant, it almost looked as if they were from two different age groups. At least a part of this must be put down to training programmes.

I note from the Riverview round that Shore lost all of the opens games, won the 16Bs, drew the 15Es, won the 14Bs, and won 13 A, B and D. All other games to Riverview. You would not have seen this 5 years ago, the results would have been evenly split.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Quick Hands said:
I think that the answer is complex as you allude to. The growth of AFL and soccer at the school must have some impact.

In terms of success at 13s and 14s, I'll provide explanation from my observations (others may disagree). Even in these age groups, the Shore teams are smaller than their opponents, but the compensate for this by playing a particular style of rugby which is quite successful at that level. They are able to get two or three fast kids to the break down more quickly than the other schools. At the lower ages, this is enough to secure their own ball and to either disrupt or steal opposition ball. As the boys get older, the physicality becomes more and more important and these same kids now get blown off the ball more often than not. Playing rugby against boys who are bigger and stronger than you eventually leads to fatigue and defensive lapses, which lead to tries.

I saw the Shore and the Kings 15s up on the Gold Coast in the last holidays and the difference in the physical development of the boys in each team was significant, it almost looked as if they were from two different age groups. At least a part of this must be put down to training programmes.

I note from the Riverview round that Shore lost all of the opens games, won the 16Bs, drew the 15Es, won the 14Bs, and won 13 A, B and D. All other games to Riverview. You would not have seen this 5 years ago, the results would have been evenly split.
Click to expand...
I have never worked out the answer to this question: why does a school like Shore (grammar and even TAS being other examples) have smaller boys? To take Grammar: I accept the possibility that selecting for apparent academic merit or ability may select boys less willing to confront physicality and that such boys may not wish to get bigger through resistance training (as it was once called) but that shouldn't stop the average height being the same in the same ethnic populations within each school: to my observation there has been a height discrepancy for 40 years.
SBHS is the same but the answer there is clearer.
And since taller stronger boys make the best rowers, and Shore (frankly) dominate rowing, why don't they have these boys at their disposal for rugby? Is there any correlation between Shore's difficult period in rugby and the onset of one sport rowers?
 
Armchair Selector

Armchair Selector

Johnnie Wallace (23)
The problem IMHO for Shore is the sum of a number of factors;

poor coaching (in previous years) which has been addressed and looks to be on the right track. Shore U14s age group were strong this year and augurs well for the future.

year round rowers. Has taken talented fit kids away from Rugby and other winter sports. I think part of a being at school should be participating in both winter and summer sports! Interesting only happens in older age groups, then Rugby seems to falls away.....

A "first in" enrollment process that means if you're not on the waiting list "post partem" you have no hope. Limited recognition of other factors such as parent as an old boy or sibling. Certainly not sport.....

A lack of enrollment diversity (most likely as a result of the enrollment process) With the exception of some bursary programmes (non sport)

Whilst a lot is made of boys moving from other schools to strong Rugby schools, not all move with the promise of financial support.

Not all parents are in a financial position to fund a GPS school from year 7. Especially with boarding costs if from the country. The majority moving from ISA, AICES, CAS, CHS to GPS schools (when they can get in) from year 10 and are paying full freight.

Why not make sporting ability a factor for enrolment? Why is sporting ability different to musical or academic ability?

Dubious admission practices in older years. Not going to debate this. Not just school scholarships though but also fees being paid by old boys or professional sporting bodies (League). I have a view that if a young player is on any contract with a professional club (soccer, league, union whatever), they should be ineligible to play amateur school sport.

Lack of success in previous years Sport should only be part of the school experience (albeit important). If I have other school sport options where I dont get mercilessly flogged each week, I may consider them.

Range of competing sports AFL Soccer Winter Rowing Tennis Cross Country

All above is meant to be constructive. A little "self reflection" would go a long way if those in a position to make change are prepared to listen


The trials of Shore Rugby could have its own thread....
 
One eyed pirate

One eyed pirate

Ward Prentice (10)
i agree with all that. One of the 'reflective' questions is, are they doing the right thing by not chasing students with sporting ability? maybe they are, i dont know. Perhaps its both Scots and Shore who are doing the right thing because Scots is clearly very focused on winning all sports, whereas Shore is succeeding at academics (and some sports). At least they are succeeding at something. i notice that View won both firsts and seconds soccer.
My personal view, and many will disagree with this, but if i am spending all that money on private schools then academics must be the primary focus. Sport is important but its behind academics. Based on current results, this puts a line through Scots, Joeys, View and New. Kings has improved and is just behind Shore. All are behind Grammar (selective).
 
One eyed pirate

One eyed pirate

Ward Prentice (10)
maybe there are deals that i dont know about but as far as im aware thats not right. Call the registrar and say you have a 3 year old and you want to enrol them for year 7. Answer "unless you enrolled them the day they were born you are unlikely to receive a spot" because there are so many that do. I disagree with the policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top