NSW AAGPS Rugby 2010

[rugbywhisperer]

This bias toward "identified" players and the lobbying from schools has been going on for years.I remember when I was at high school ( many ,many years ago over 25 in fact!) and after having played " blinders" in each match.I was told in passing,by a leather-patched tweed-coated gentleman ( too young and naive to recognise arrogance then) that even though I was a stand-out performer it was bad luck that I went to the wrong school !! ( I attended an eastern suburbs CHS school).You see it here in Qld as well,players that are in development squads seem to get the "rails run" at selection time.Oh well,such is life.I look forward to the Nationals at Ballymore.

Welcome over to the good side Goldenone. You will find a more stimulating discussion.

 

[Lee Grant]

babarian

I know a couple of ex-GPS selectors and what you have said squares with what they have told me a few years back. Each unit of the team to be selected: front row, backrow, back 3 etc etc had three selectors each and they spread themselves around the traps in trial games and comp games. I asked one of those guys how he could compare a lad from a weak team with a player from a strong team and he said it was one of the hardest things to assess but the two other selectors he worked with at least recognised the difficulty and did the best they could.

I also agree with your sentiments.

 

[Spewn]

And I think we need to step back and have a look at the GPS rep system. The point has been made here that the process of GPS selections have not changed for decades. The structure of Australian junior rep rugby has. I dont want to change the GPS system.

Barbarian,

You make a good point. The GPS competition for some schools and players is more about getting selected than the competition itself. And that is as you say because the pathway to senior and rep careers has changed. It is way too heavily geared towards the schoolboy selections. That is why the GPS selections can have such a profound effect on the playing futures of some boys. The problem with stepping back and looking at ourselves and saying "who cares" is that it still matters to the boys who missed out for whatever reason (quotas, ignorance, bias - all the old favourites). You might not care, but they do. Those selections can nip enthusiasm for the game in the bud real quick. I've seen it happen time and time again. I say say scrap this whole over the top schoolboy rugby thing, particularly the nonsense of starting state schoolboy selections at under 16. That's ridiculous. It starts the bigger than Ben Hur reputations far too soon.

 

[barbarian]

The problem with stepping back and looking at ourselves and saying "who cares" is that it still matters to the boys who missed out for whatever reason (quotas, ignorance, bias - all the old favourites). You might not care, but they do. Those selections can nip enthusiasm for the game in the bud real quick. I've seen it happen time and time again. I say say scrap this whole over the top schoolboy rugby thing, particularly the nonsense of starting state schoolboy selections at under 16. That's ridiculous. It starts the bigger than Ben Hur reputations far too soon.

Well, to be honest, if a boy quits the game because he missed out on GPS thirds or seconds or whatever then he doesnt have what it takes to make it to the top anyway. I understand how they might feel and how much it can matter in the general scheme of things, but it is certainly not the be all and end all by any means. I have a few mates playing first grade who didnt play GPS, one who didnt even paly in the Firsts. It just takes hard work.

 

[shorter]

Nanai its good to see you still posting your opinions on players heavily throughout rugby forums. After observing some of your other posts it appears you take quite a liking to the scrumhalf position? Any chance you played it throughout your schooling years? Or mabye more obviously have a relation to one of the halfbacks mentioned

 

[pitbull]

Yeah some of the comments made by a certain user are pretty critical...these players are just kids, and its pretty impressive that they have made the first fifteen at their school. If that isn't enough for some people, maybe take yourselves back to sportal? A fair analysis of a players game is fine, but the scrutiny and venom in some of the posts leave me astounded

 

[Lee Grant]

Let's not throw too many stones, but let's also agree with pitbull that these players are just kids and if they don't perform well from time to time, and if they are selected instead of somebody else we think is in better form, let's not blame them. To the best of my knowledge they are not rapists nor murderers, just teenagers having a go on the rugby field.

Let's not get vicious or sarcastic about the selectors either. We may question their selections, and I certainly do, and they may have a bias towards players they know better than others they don't know well - other things being equal - but let's not trot out tiresome conspiracy theories year after year. Let's asume that selectors, like players and like referees, are imperfect, and they won't get everything right all the time.

Nobody should assume that I am pointing my fingers at them - I am criticising the vibe.

.

 

[Nanai]

Yeah I agree Lee. I said a while back it's time to leave everything behind but I seem to keep getting hooked back into the discussion - largely my fault.

pitbull if you are referring to me as overly critical I apologise ... but I simply try to be measured and I've said a few times that all the kids deserve a pat on the back. I tend to forget that the boys probably manage to find this stuff. I don't believe I was overly negative about anybody - but that's the nature of opinions and forums - there are inevitably some who get criticised. I don't think 'scrutiny and venom' is a good assessment of the things I've been writing - if it was directed at me.

shorter, as you seem to want me to justify myself; without giving away too much:
I am a former scrumhalf/flyhalf. I played rugby for two different Sydney clubs through the 90s.
I am also a level 2 coach who specialises in that particular area of the game. I have been with a few CAS schools in various coaching capacities in the past.
I've seen a wide variety of GPS games this year (read back) for professional reasons.
I have no GPS school affiliations, and no relatives involved with (or attending) any of the GPS schools.
Finally, this is a discussion forum. It doesn't pay to insinuate that relatives would be amping up their kids on a forum - those kinds of accusations plagued sportal. What is said on this forum (and others) has absolutely no bearing on reality and boys/friends/family have nothing to gain from doing it. It's simply a place to throw around opinions back and forth for those who are interested.

Getting back to the train of discussion... I agree let's move on from selection politics. This discussion will pop up every year and the same tired old arguments (like mine) will get thrown around. 'Play the ball, not the man' is a good rule to follow, and now that GPS/NSW selections are over its time to get back to discussing the games and enjoying the competition.

 

[pitbull]

sorry for the "certain user" part of my post, wasnt directed at any one person. Just a general observation that sometimes those on the sidelines can forget their place, and make remarks that are unnecessary.

 

[Lindommer]

I like your tone lads, keep it up.

 

[Spewn]

This is getting a bit too warm and fuzzy.

Just for the record, I don't think much of the selections, and I still can't stand the position on Grammar (and High I suppose). There should be no token or quota selections. And if a Grammar boy is selected, don't write him off or assign him to the "Can't play because he's from Grammar" bin. Happens far too readily over the past few years.

Apart from that, I'm looking forward to rest of the season, especially Kings being beaten and yet again sharing the premiership.

 

[deefence]

Perhaps one of the most offensive comments I have read on this forum

 

[Spewn]

Now that the Oz selections have been made I would like to make two points. One is the fantastic representation by the Kings boys. Proof that the kings team is very good ( although I still predict a mishap and a shared title). The second is the absurd number of scots boys selected in gps teams but none in Oz teams. Anyone who was at newington for the gps v cas games could not fail to miss the number of bumble bee socks running about particularly in the second game. My conclusion - a very strong lobby from scots in the selection process which in turn means deserving players from other schools miss out.

 

[qwerty51]

Looks like it's between Kings and Newington. Kings had 5 and Newington had 3 players in the Oz side.

 

[Spewn]

You would have to say so on that representation.

 

[NorthernSon]

Hmm,
What is evident in OZ selections is the representation of the majority of deserving NTS boys in the squads. Every 50/50 call at selection Manu Sutherland and Ben Whittaker as ARU contributing selectors will succeed in having one of there boys gain a jumper. Also note that the NTS coaching staff have been welcomed with open arms by both Scots College and Kings since February training entire squads and enhancing the teams development whereas some "Traditional" Rugby Colleges give them a cold shoulder with their individual NTS Boys having training limited to school holidays.

The results are in the pudding with Kings excelling in the past 2 seasons and Scots the big improver with limited cattle available.

The question remains though should the Traditional Colleges change their approach and let the ARU them assist in a similiar way to Kings and Scots or run the risk of further minimal OZ representation? note Iggies, Shore and Joeys.

 

[Spewn]

Good point. I agree scots are on the improve and if that is the reason it makes sense. It also explains some of the selections I would also suggest grammar take advantage of it. It would help advance some of their deserving players (not many) but would breathe a bit of life into the rugby there. It's been the same thing for years.

 

[barbarian]

My conclusion - a very strong lobby from scots in the selection process which in turn means deserving players from other schools miss out.

You just dont get it mate. The GPS selections arent a fucking lobby system. I think a far more reasonable explanation would be Scots put forward a number of very good performances against other GPS sides in the selection period. Flogging Joeys anyone? Maybe now it has been shown the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole.

 

[Spewn]

Rubbish. It has how hard a school pushes that counts. Mind you the involvement of NTS makes sense. I don't think you get it mate. I think you don't understand the perspective of boys outside the strong schools trying to get an opportunity - ie a good player from Grammar. They have no chance and it is not because those one or two players suck. It's because they don't have a strong lobby from their school. If you think there is no influence or push from individual schools you know nothing about how things happen in the real world.

PS scots did put in good performances like being thrashed by View.

 

[barbarian]

Look, we have this topic well covered over the last few pages and dont wish to open it again. I agree with what you are saying- it is hard for the lesser schools to be noticed, much like it is hard for a player from Parramatta or West Harbour to be picked for NSW. However I wont stand here while you are making uninformed observations about a selection process you clearly have no idea about. The NTS has no involvement whatsoever in GPS selections, for example.

How about we resolve to say selection is a difficult process at any level, there are always winners and losers, and move on to discussing the rugby, which we all can see with our own eyes unlike closed rooms negotiation.