NSW AAGPS Rugby 2012

[Tom Burke]

Tom, the implication of that is that Joeys formally join the nuclear arms race. I'm not sure that is going to happen and, in any event, we will all be dead before anybody can boast a comparable legacy.

I wasn't trying to imply that they 'buy' a premiership, I apologise if you feel that I did. Rather, I was suggesting that they adopting the approach that Newington, Scots and Riverview take where they have the Master In Charge who's sole responsibility is rugby. It has come to my attention that at these schools, their MIC focuses on rugby, and on the odd occasion, teaches a class. I believe this makes it more semi-professional as there is less chance of disorganisation and everything runs smoother as the MIC has one thing to worry about, rather than rugby as well as organising classes etc. Joeys will never join the arms race, and yes, all of us will be long gone before any other school has amassed 54 premierships, including 24 championships, but if Joeys want to make it 55 premierships, a new approach needs to be taken.

 

[ld2b]

Any way you look at it, it comes back to a change in priorities and resources for the school and that means more dollars

 

[Rugby from the backrow]

I'm sorry I'm a bit lost here
Are you saying that Joeys has never offered a
'music" scholarship to a good rugby player? If so I beg to differ
As for needing a master in charge of Rugby I thought all Joeys masters were in charge of rugby
Certainly in the games against Riverview were they won 90% of the games they were much more organised through out the schook

 

[John Dale]

Riverview vs Scots
I did choose to go to this game over the New vs Joeys game merely to see a team with a dominant pack up against a team with a dominant backline. I think we all know which is which.

Scots 4 trys, 3 converted, 1 penelty. 29. Kellaway 4/5
Against
Riverview 3 tries, 3 converted, 1 penelty. 24. Freeman 4/4

Onto the game:
- Riverview forwards displaying there intentions very clear, taking it up continuously on the edge of the ruck, getting over the advantage line. It was working, I just think at the speed it was done was keeping the scots forwards in it. They would get 4 to 5 meters over the ad line and then for some reason wait a good 7-10 seconds some even longer to do it again, giving the scots forwards time to reline and match up.
- Scots, doing what they do best, played a very lateral game, going from one side of the field to another, moving the big riverview forwards around endlessly. Not a perfect performance from the boys in yellow, a few unforced errors, but still very dangerous when the ball was shifted.

As for the trys. Riverviews, one was from a set peace off a lineout putting the prop over in the corner. (probably try of the game). One from close to the line forward play. And the last from a quick tap close to the line.

Scots, cant remember there first one, pretty sure it was out wide. Second one was one halve time, with lose ball jumped on by the scots 12 running up the middle of the field, then across in the corner. Right on halve time, coach killer for riverview as it was right before riverview scored. Making it 2 trys each at the break, and one penalty to scots.
Then their two second halve trys, one down the sideline running about 50m then the other, just good ball movement with running decoys.

Some players I thought stood out
Scots:
- - 10, Horwitz, controlled the game very well keeping his composure and throwing nice passes all day. Could not have asked for much more from the flyhalf.
- - 8, Crighton, first time seeing him play, was informed he was a yr 10 student. Did play well. Played nice and tight, stood up to the big view boys that were charging at him. Look forward to seeing him in the future.
- - 15, kelloway. As expected, terrorizing the view defence all game. Scored a good try. Was the main strike force for scots continuously hitting the line at speed, view found him hard to defend. To ad to that the cohesion amongst the scots backs was something to admire, all the decoy runners and ball carriers in position was good to watch.
- -- The scots pack as a whole, don’t know individuals. But there ball retention is to be commended. In my eyes it was ultimately what one them the game continually giving there backs good ball to play off. Did tremendously against a much bigger more physical pack.
- - The scots 9, did a good job always getting the quick ball, clearing it with real urgency. Quite the opposite to the Riverview 9 who did a hell of a lot of ball watching.


Riverview:
- - Rorke, second row. Would not mind seeing his stats. A mountain of work in attack and defence. Would often take 3 sometimes ever for scots boys to get him down.
- - Whiteley (at 12!!), had a slow start with a few loose carries. Scored a good quick tap try late in the game to give view a chance. I think it was defense that he earnt his write up today. As Jim stewart was held off quite well.
- - Dempsey, a good game. Making a few linebreaks, breaking tackles proved hard to be contained.
- - The prop that scored the first try in the corner. After watching this spectacle I made a note to keep an eye out for him. He tackled all game and ran the ball very well. Would love some more info on him? Name? did he play reps? Good player!

Riverview under a large injury cloud. The second halve they lost there hooker and one prop, one of there second rowers. This effecting their lineout. Then in the backs, Mete the new winger, and the fullback with the a shoulder injury I believe. Oh and the reserve hooker in replacement also came off with a shoulder problem. Having halve of the seconds team to finish the game off I guess earns them a share of gratitude. Hope none of them serious injuries or the riverview boys will find themselves stretched for depth I think.

To sum it up I would say scots did enough to won, however it was taken down to the wire with Riverview almost going over in the last play.

So view, kings and joeys all losing their last 2 matches. Unexpected. Will report back later in the week for round 4 predictions
Thanks for Reading
John Dale

 

[Micheal]

Back to rugby.

Any early predictions for the upcoming round whilst we wait for further reports on yesterdays games?

Shore vs View

Shore's mobile pack to flood the View forwards and shut down the Big three, before swinging it wide and exposing View's weaknesses in that area. Will be close but Shore by 4-7.

Kings vs SGS

Kings to attempt to get back into the swing of things with an easy round against Grammar. Will be hungry after past performances. Kings by 40+

Scots vs Newington

Either way will result in one of them being bumped from the top of the table. I personally think Newington will be too strong across the field, but Scots are continuing to surprise doubters. Newington by 7 +

 

[Wowsah]

Is there any possibility that a moderator could perhaps clean out a few of these posts as they contribute nothing and are better suited to another thread. It's getting tiresome to read some of the drivel surfacing recently.

 

[Rugby lover]

- - The prop that scored the first try in the corner. After watching this spectacle I made a note to keep an eye out for him. He tackled all game and ran the ball very well. Would love some more info on him? Name? did he play reps? Good player!

The props Nathan Kelly, he's in yr 11 and has represented u16's NSW and u16 GPS in 2011 he represented GPS 3's and combined states this year

 

[Outside Shoulder]

Pulver looked hot under the collar again this week. An especially poor performance from the often bombastic Shore half against a tough Grammar outfit in admittedly atrocious conditions. The fabled "scoot" failed to rear its ugly neck, and the explosive three point defence from the boys in black limited Pulver's options. It caused me to wonder if Pulver has earned his place in representative footy, or has been reliant of the unchecked nepotism of the GPS competition thus far. Solid performance as always from Penklis, whose footwork remains the best of any front rower in the competition. Grammar prop Healy tweeted at half time "All day black, all day black #scrumcaptain".
To sum up, Shore looked mediocre from the outset, with Joe Kang cruising over the line untouched, and a sublime conversion in 80mph winds from "mad dog" Robertson took Black up 7 nil. from there shore regained their ascendancy however failed to use the wind to its full advantage. A poor game from Shore, looking more like SCEGGS than SCEGS.

 

[Stack Attack]

Have a bit of faith in the scots lads! Scots to the fore!

 

[CTPE]

Is there any possibility that a moderator could perhaps clean out a few of these posts as they contribute nothing and are better suited to another thread. It's getting tiresome to read some of the drivel surfacing recently.

LG must be on hols or got really, really lucky last night and this morning!!

 

[Micheal]

Pulver was dropped from the GPS 2nds to the GPS 3rds before missing out on NSW selection completely. However, he was quite rightly chosen in Combined States, where he was hands down the best halfback of the state championships, something that earned him selection within the Australian schoolboys.

Such a series of events shows that if anything, Pulver was not reliant, but rather the victim of the nepotism of the GPS competition.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Pulver was dropped from the GPS 2nds to the GPS 3rds before missing out on NSW selection completely. However, he was quite rightly chosen in Combined States, where he was hands down the best halfback of the state championships, something that earned him selection within the Australian schoolboys.

Such a series of events shows that if anything, Pulver was not reliant, but rather the victim of the nepotism of the GPS competition.

Given he as in his school's II's in 2011 he must have been something of an unknown quantity: no? Was he in NGS or whatever it is?
Why do you put it down to nepotism?
Who was favoured and do you say he should have been GPS 1's?
I aks all this having only ever seen him play without knowing who he was!

 

[Micheal]

In what way did the nepotism cost him?
Who was favoured and do you say he should have been GPS 1's?

It obviously didn't cost him in the long run, and I believe that Andrew Ferris is a great player and therefore deserved his position within the GPS 1s. The thing that I believe was unwarranted was Pulver's dropping from GPS 2nds to 3rds, something that could have inhibited his chances to make it further representatively.

 

[Micheal]

Given he as in his school's II's in 2011 he must have been something of an unknown quantity: no? Was he in NGS or whatever it is?
Why do you put it down to nepotism?
Who was favoured and do you say he should have been GPS 1's?
I aks all this having only ever seen him play without knowing who he was!

Haha sorry I didn't mean to rustle any feathers with that statement. He was in the schools 2nds in 2011 behind Jock Merrimen, the Australia A halfback that year, and as such he flew under the radar until this year.

But given his form within the GPS trials, alongside his performances in the GPS games, I thought his dropping was unwarranted, thats all.

 

[Wowsah]

Pulver looked hot under the collar again this week. An especially poor performance from the often bombastic Shore half against a tough Grammar outfit in admittedly atrocious conditions. The fabled "scoot" failed to rear its ugly neck, and the explosive three point defence from the boys in black limited Pulver's options. It caused me to wonder if Pulver has earned his place in representative footy, or has been reliant of the unchecked nepotism of the GPS competition thus far. Solid performance as always from Penklis, whose footwork remains the best of any front rower in the competition. Grammar prop Healy tweeted at half time "All day black, all day black #scrumcaptain".
To sum up, Shore looked mediocre from the outset, with Joe Kang cruising over the line untouched, and a sublime conversion in 80mph winds from "mad dog" Robertson took Black up 7 nil. from there shore regained their ascendancy however failed to use the wind to its full advantage. A poor game from Shore, looking more like SCEGGS than SCEGS.

Possibly the strangest and most mean spirited post I have read on here to date. "bombastic"? How the hell does that word even come to mind when describing someones/anyones game let alone a schools rep? I suggest you check a dictionary. 80mph winds?. What is a player doing tweeting at halftime? To suggest "nepotism" indicates Pulver is not worthy of his rep honours. Let me tell you, Pulver is an outstanding half and deserves every single moment of schoolboy rep and to suggest otherwise is quite unfair and uninformed. Amongst other things, the fact the kid made the side from CS puts to bed your nepotism theory. Finally, to suggest any team in this competition play like girls is terribly uncalled for and only shows how little you know or how young you are. Having said that, if they 'look more like sceggs' then what would that be saying about the boys they played who's interests you have attempted to promote?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Haha sorry I didn't mean to rustle any feathers with that statement. He was in the schools 2nds in 2011 behind Jock Merrimen, the Australia A halfback that year, and as such he flew under the radar until this year.

But given his form within the GPS trials, alongside his performances in the GPS games, I thought his dropping was unwarranted, thats all.

Mate i have no idea one or the other: it just seemed to me that he was an odd lot in that he hadn't been earmarked all the way through school.
All the selectors need to be encouraged to back the kids who suddenly bloom or fly under the radar irrespective of the reputations of their more fancied peers.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Possibly the strangest and most mean spirited post I have read on here to date. "bombastic"? How the hell does that word even come to mind when describing someones/anyones game let alone a schools rep? I suggest you check a dictionary. 80mph winds?. What is a player doing tweeting at halftime? To suggest "nepotism" indicates Pulver is not worthy of his rep honours. Let me tell you, Pulver is an outstanding half and deserves every single moment of schoolboy rep and to suggest otherwise is quite unfair and uninformed. Amongst other things, the fact the kid made the side from CS puts to bed your nepotism theory. Finally, to suggest any team in this competition play like girls is terribly uncalled for and only shows how little you know or how young you are. Having said that, if they 'look more like sceggs' then what would that be saying about the boys they played who's interests you have attempted to promote?

And he's cheapening the "Shoulder" name!
Even if Pulver did not meet expectations:
its one game - i would be cautious judging anyone on 1 game at any time but against Grammar I think its doubly dangerous - New looked nothing particularly special to me against them and they're going to prove me wrong.
everyone (other than Tim Horan) has lesser games;
the oz schools tournament over 5 or 6 (?) days is likely to be a pretty good test of a bloke - particularly a halfback and certainly a better one than a windy wet Weigall;

 

[Wowsah]

Mate i have no idea one or the other: it just seemed to me that he was an odd lot in that he hadn't been earmarked all the way through school.
All the selectors need to be encouraged to back the kids who suddenly bloom or fly under the radar irrespective of the reputations of their more fancied peers.

Agreed. Selectors often miss talent throughout schoolboy, they can't find everybody. In Pulvers case, he was found late which at least shows there is a willingness for selectors at the higher level (not GPS, State) to select previously unknown players. Often it is not until colts that young players are noticed. On the flipside, there are some very average players who seem to get much more attention then they perhaps should and it isn't until colts that they get found out.

 

[THE REF 94]

Pulver looked hot under the collar again this week. An especially poor performance from the often bombastic Shore half against a tough Grammar outfit in admittedly atrocious conditions. The fabled "scoot" failed to rear its ugly neck, and the explosive three point defence from the boys in black limited Pulver's options. It caused me to wonder if Pulver has earned his place in representative footy, or has been reliant of the unchecked
nepotism of the GPS competition thus far. Solid performance as always from Penklis, whose footwork remains the best of any front rower in the competition. Grammar prop Healy tweeted at half time "All day black, all day black #scrumcaptain".
To sum up, Shore looked mediocre from the outset, with Joe Kang cruising over the line untouched, and a sublime conversion in 80mph winds from "mad dog" Robertson took Black up 7 nil. from there shore regained their ascendancy however failed to use the wind to its full advantage. A poor game from Shore, looking more like SCEGGS than SCEGS.

I could not disagree more. Pulver orchestrated the whole of Shore's attack putting the forwards inthe right psotion and using the wind effectively with a few box kicks. He even drove back a couple of forwards with tackles. I agree Penlis was your best player, but to say he has the best footwork of any prop in the competition? Also, as others have alredy said, Angus is one person who had to work exceptionally hard to gain Australian duties. He was dropped to the GPS 3rds and then had to outshine both QLD and NSW halves to gain Australian selection. Your team played well yesterday, but your serving to ruin the improvements they made with comments like that by inviting criticism.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I agree Penlis was your best player, but to say he has the best footwork of any prop in the competition?

I just assumed this was a joke. Having the best footwork of any prop in the comp may be part of "the problem".