- Status
PREDICTION
This weekend, Scots should give Shore their first loss of the season.
Kings should be keen for a win as it is the first real competition match since Newington. Riverveiw face a strong Kings side and it will be interesting to see how the game ends as anything can happen ( eg. Shore vs Kings). But my prediction is Kings to win.
Joeys to slaughter Grammer.
This weekend, Scots should give Shore their first loss of the season.
Kings should be keen for a win as it is the first real competition match since Newington. Riverveiw face a strong Kings side and it will be interesting to see how the game ends as anything can happen ( eg. Shore vs Kings). But my prediction is Kings to win.
Joeys to slaughter Grammer.
Micheal
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
My early predictions:
Joeys vs. Grammar:
Going from today's performances and Grammar's injury toll, I can't see this being pretty. Joeys to be far too dominant and winning by 60 +
Kings vs. Riverview:
Kings to be hungry after recent performances and confident after today. Will be too strong across the park as Riverview's injury toll grows. Kings by 5 - 10.
Shore vs. Scots:
People to continue to doubt Shore week in week out despite their performances. Will be the game of the round and will all depend upon Shore's ability to contain the star studded Scots backline. However, I believe Shore's determination and resilience will see them to victory, and once again prove that a champion team will reign supreme over a team of champions any day of the week. Shore by 4 - 7.
Joeys vs. Grammar:
Going from today's performances and Grammar's injury toll, I can't see this being pretty. Joeys to be far too dominant and winning by 60 +
Kings vs. Riverview:
Kings to be hungry after recent performances and confident after today. Will be too strong across the park as Riverview's injury toll grows. Kings by 5 - 10.
Shore vs. Scots:
People to continue to doubt Shore week in week out despite their performances. Will be the game of the round and will all depend upon Shore's ability to contain the star studded Scots backline. However, I believe Shore's determination and resilience will see them to victory, and once again prove that a champion team will reign supreme over a team of champions any day of the week. Shore by 4 - 7.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Didn't see the game CTPE but youre speaking my language: I have decided the imports/scholarship crap is totally irrelevant to grammar rugby.
i know Old fella wont like this - although his precious 16A's went down to Kings 30 zip and that might cause him to wonder whether things are quite as good as he thinks they are in the old Grammar 16A's and whether the matters re: rugby which have been so well received by the school are relevant - either that or theyrelaughing up their sleeves at him.
What has really got to me this year with Grammar rugby is that the kids they are sending out in nearly all age groups have no grasp of the basics - catch, pass, run, tackle. I dont mean by this that they aren't all that good at any of these skills: most of them just dont have them.
They dont know the laws - the one thing these supposedly smart kids might be expected to know.
Instead of spending their training time practising backlin moves they need to be learning how to catch a frigging rugby ball.
They would not expect them to sit the HSC without being able to read and write.
The lack of emphasis on skill just causes me to wonder what the school think is being achieved by sending kids out to get flogged 100-0: what is the purpose they think is being served?
Grammar should withdraw from the 1st competition unless and until they are prepared to put the time into the basics from the 13's to the 1sts.
Im not to sure, Scots alongside Newington are the teams to beat so far in the season. You are right about Shores determination, this has seen them win the past games. But Shore now have to compete with the teams on the top end of the ladder. This will be a complete new game for Shore. If they want to win this game they have to be hungry for it.
H
Harry Stevenson
Guest
The Shore boys are currently undergoing HSC trial examinations.
Micheal
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
They downed Kings a week after Kings were victorious over TSC by 40 points or so, and today beat Riverview by the same margin that Scots did last week. Not only that, but they were victorious over Scots in the trials (albeit in some of the most horrendous conditions I've seen rugby played in). Whilst the toughest of there games are still to come, I believe that the only team that has truthfully earned the title of 'the team to beat' is Newington.
Despite their recent results, I'm still not convinced of the Scots side. Their backline is clearly formidable, but the strength of their forward pack could ultimately be their downfall this season.
G
GretchenWeiners
Guest
The school isn't merely sending out boys to get slaughtered. The Grammar Boys arn't stupid, they go out there every week to play some rugby and improve. Last week they lost against Shore in a contested match with a scoreline that didn't blow out, a team that beat Kings mind you. Today, Grammar was at King's home ground playing against some very angry football players with a long list of injuries. On top of that, Grammar honestly played quite average and the boys know that it can't get worse from here.
"Instead of spending their training time practising backlin moves they need to be learning how to catch a frigging rugby ball."
Im interested to know how you even know what the Grammar boys do in training, funnily enough practicing backline moves also involves catching the ball. In past comments you've inaccurately stated the training schedule of the boys which makes me question the integrity of your poorly constructed post.
"They don't know the laws"
I understand there is a little bit of exaggeration here, but that doesn't change the fact that this statement is just incorrect, again. It would be nice of you to explain your point rather than make a backhanded comment on the intelligence of the boys, how offensive.
and Finally, "Didn't see the game." Lovely. Thanks for your opinion on a game you didn't watch.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I didnt know that selective misrepresentation had become a profession but I suppose it must be a boon if you get in on the ground floor.
You are clearly only talking about the 1st XV. Everyone has injuries and everyone gets them.
I wrote:
"In nearly all age groups" is not solely or even mainly about the 1sts: the open division is no more than 20% of the age groups.
I am identifying and lamenting a much wider problem which a less defensive reading of the post would have revealed.
Since you choose to misread it I shall cite an example of systemic indifference: there is no one that I have seen in the 1st XV that has a left foot kick. They spend their time running around onto their right foot and when they cant quite get onto their right foot they just return a pop gun kick down mid field (at least 2 Riverview tries came from this shortcoming). These kids knew a year ago they would be in the 1sts, not least because of all the angst about whether they should play other GPS school's 1sts - remember that? A year is long enough to produce a viable left foot kick: I have a 13 and an 11 year old who can kick with both feet, who have never played soccer or AFL. The 16's coach must have known that no one had a left kick: any coach worth a pinch of sh*t would have told the half, the 5/8, both wingers and the fullback (at least)(and all of the candidates for those positions - though there is no reason why every kid shouldnt be told this) they needed to develop left foot kicks - and if those kids were in opens in 2011 then its even worse and it must have been as obvious to their 2011 coach as it should have been to the 16s coach.
There is a difference between teaching skills, to be trained and executed under pressure, and practising moves, with little or no or no meaningful pressure, which work fine in training but can never be used in a game because you cannot pass and catch under pressure.
Rugby is a game about time and space and the resultant pressure: there's not much point having a reasonable pass when theres no pressure if it disappears when there is. When it disappears it is lacking - I assumed it was understood that in evaluating skills it only matters whether you can apply them under pressure.
The tackling is woeful: and, though I didnt see the game, you cant score 100 points from penalty goals.
It is a pity you didn't link to the posts you are referring to: given your track record in this one there is every chance you have misquoted and/or misunderstood. Again this was not a comment directed specifically at the 1st XV. Have a guess how I know what the rest of the school does.
I have seen, in many age groups and certainly the 1sts and opens, boys take the ball in their own in goal and try to run it out: if they were world beaters this might be acceptable. They clearly do not know that they can touch it down for a 22 restart. That is the most obvious example of a simple and fundamental law. Failure to advert to it sugests that what knowledge they do have comes from watching league.
Also, the school has an obsession with bringing back young old boys to help with rugby (and other sports). If these kids had ever won a GPS comp game this might be understandable but they have not. This is a lazy way of appearing to address the issue with "specialist" rugby coaches to augment the permanent teaching staff. Surely the tendency of this approach to perpetuate the problems of recent years is obvious to even casual observers? Why wouldn't they seek young blokes who need some money who went to other schools and have played rugby post school - hell grab some kids from Uni colts! Introduce some people with different backgrounds in the game instead of perpetuating the cycle.
It was no such thing and could not rationally be interpreted as that. If some of what follows is in words of more than 1 syllable forgive me: these kids are reputedly smart. They can do well in exams. They can learn what they want to learn.
What is the justification for such indifference to the content of the laws that they cannot be bothered learning them AND, more importantly, why aren't their coaches sufficiently incisive to realise, particularly as they are coming through the ages, "this boy doesnt know this law - I will explain it to him"?
The answer is simple: because no one cares enough about the consequences of not knowing the laws. Its not that it is intellectually beyond them it is that they simply dont care enough, or maybe at all. Given their intelligence it is the one area in which they might have either a comparative or an absolute advantage over the other schools - if you believe the academic hype.
My post is quite clearly about the unacceptable, inexplicable state of rugby at Grammar and not about a game I did not see - there is not mention of the game. No opinion was expressed about the game: it is hard to imagine there is anything good from a game lost by 100 points and I am sure if there had been you would have mentioned it.
I watched Gramar v Kings games in 4 age groups yesterday and that is part of the basis for my comments - which are general and not specific to any particular game. Re-read my post and you will see there is not a single comment about the game: I look forward to your apology.
My post may be poorly constructed: it may explain why you thought it was about a game I didn't see whereas it is actually about an apologist mentality that excuses mediocrity (or worse): the presence of a will to do something to address the paucity of skills would go a long way to evening up these contests. Pretending there is no skills issue will ensure that nothing is done about it.
The sentiment behind your post typifies the problem. My issue is with the lack of preparation they have undergone for the task. Identifying their courage, their injuries, their good points just ignores the underlying reality of the problem - and there is a serious problem: isnt there?
Making apologies for the boys, as your post seeks to, only perpetuates the problem: the value of amateur childhood sport lies in part in the fact that if you are true to yourself you cannot hide behind excuses. The results will speak for themselves down the years and the "coulda dones" become nothing but testament to preparation that was not undertaken and corners that were cut. It teaches you about reality - among many other wonderful things.
Thinking it can't get worse is ludicrous - it might be worse next week: each week has been worse than the last. It might get worse next year and it will get worse after that, based on what I have seen and the institutional pattern of ignoring fundamentals. As my wife says "they're not there to learn rugby": but she means it in a different way!
To use my analogy: how many years would "the school community" at Grammar put up with not reading the correct text book for the HSC? How would they view a mark in the HSC that was sub par in circumstances where the school decided not to open the text book - "lets just wing it"? And just as with the HSC, preparing to play 1st XV rugby should not begin in March of your last year at school.
Simply, if you are going to play the game you need to acquire the fundamental skills necessary to play it and you need to be theoretically capable (theoretically because sometimes mistakes are made) of executing under pressure. The lack of those skills makes me wonder why Grammar bothers.
Since it does not aspire to excellence and it has no plan to produce reliable competence what is the point of playing against schools from a school system that was set up so long ago that its ongoing relevance to a place like Grammar is difficult to see?
You are clearly only talking about the 1st XV. Everyone has injuries and everyone gets them.
I wrote:
"In nearly all age groups" is not solely or even mainly about the 1sts: the open division is no more than 20% of the age groups.
I am identifying and lamenting a much wider problem which a less defensive reading of the post would have revealed.
Since you choose to misread it I shall cite an example of systemic indifference: there is no one that I have seen in the 1st XV that has a left foot kick. They spend their time running around onto their right foot and when they cant quite get onto their right foot they just return a pop gun kick down mid field (at least 2 Riverview tries came from this shortcoming). These kids knew a year ago they would be in the 1sts, not least because of all the angst about whether they should play other GPS school's 1sts - remember that? A year is long enough to produce a viable left foot kick: I have a 13 and an 11 year old who can kick with both feet, who have never played soccer or AFL. The 16's coach must have known that no one had a left kick: any coach worth a pinch of sh*t would have told the half, the 5/8, both wingers and the fullback (at least)(and all of the candidates for those positions - though there is no reason why every kid shouldnt be told this) they needed to develop left foot kicks - and if those kids were in opens in 2011 then its even worse and it must have been as obvious to their 2011 coach as it should have been to the 16s coach.
There is a difference between teaching skills, to be trained and executed under pressure, and practising moves, with little or no or no meaningful pressure, which work fine in training but can never be used in a game because you cannot pass and catch under pressure.
Rugby is a game about time and space and the resultant pressure: there's not much point having a reasonable pass when theres no pressure if it disappears when there is. When it disappears it is lacking - I assumed it was understood that in evaluating skills it only matters whether you can apply them under pressure.
The tackling is woeful: and, though I didnt see the game, you cant score 100 points from penalty goals.
It is a pity you didn't link to the posts you are referring to: given your track record in this one there is every chance you have misquoted and/or misunderstood. Again this was not a comment directed specifically at the 1st XV. Have a guess how I know what the rest of the school does.
I have seen, in many age groups and certainly the 1sts and opens, boys take the ball in their own in goal and try to run it out: if they were world beaters this might be acceptable. They clearly do not know that they can touch it down for a 22 restart. That is the most obvious example of a simple and fundamental law. Failure to advert to it sugests that what knowledge they do have comes from watching league.
Also, the school has an obsession with bringing back young old boys to help with rugby (and other sports). If these kids had ever won a GPS comp game this might be understandable but they have not. This is a lazy way of appearing to address the issue with "specialist" rugby coaches to augment the permanent teaching staff. Surely the tendency of this approach to perpetuate the problems of recent years is obvious to even casual observers? Why wouldn't they seek young blokes who need some money who went to other schools and have played rugby post school - hell grab some kids from Uni colts! Introduce some people with different backgrounds in the game instead of perpetuating the cycle.
It was no such thing and could not rationally be interpreted as that. If some of what follows is in words of more than 1 syllable forgive me: these kids are reputedly smart. They can do well in exams. They can learn what they want to learn.
What is the justification for such indifference to the content of the laws that they cannot be bothered learning them AND, more importantly, why aren't their coaches sufficiently incisive to realise, particularly as they are coming through the ages, "this boy doesnt know this law - I will explain it to him"?
The answer is simple: because no one cares enough about the consequences of not knowing the laws. Its not that it is intellectually beyond them it is that they simply dont care enough, or maybe at all. Given their intelligence it is the one area in which they might have either a comparative or an absolute advantage over the other schools - if you believe the academic hype.
My post is quite clearly about the unacceptable, inexplicable state of rugby at Grammar and not about a game I did not see - there is not mention of the game. No opinion was expressed about the game: it is hard to imagine there is anything good from a game lost by 100 points and I am sure if there had been you would have mentioned it.
I watched Gramar v Kings games in 4 age groups yesterday and that is part of the basis for my comments - which are general and not specific to any particular game. Re-read my post and you will see there is not a single comment about the game: I look forward to your apology.
My post may be poorly constructed: it may explain why you thought it was about a game I didn't see whereas it is actually about an apologist mentality that excuses mediocrity (or worse): the presence of a will to do something to address the paucity of skills would go a long way to evening up these contests. Pretending there is no skills issue will ensure that nothing is done about it.
The sentiment behind your post typifies the problem. My issue is with the lack of preparation they have undergone for the task. Identifying their courage, their injuries, their good points just ignores the underlying reality of the problem - and there is a serious problem: isnt there?
Making apologies for the boys, as your post seeks to, only perpetuates the problem: the value of amateur childhood sport lies in part in the fact that if you are true to yourself you cannot hide behind excuses. The results will speak for themselves down the years and the "coulda dones" become nothing but testament to preparation that was not undertaken and corners that were cut. It teaches you about reality - among many other wonderful things.
Thinking it can't get worse is ludicrous - it might be worse next week: each week has been worse than the last. It might get worse next year and it will get worse after that, based on what I have seen and the institutional pattern of ignoring fundamentals. As my wife says "they're not there to learn rugby": but she means it in a different way!
To use my analogy: how many years would "the school community" at Grammar put up with not reading the correct text book for the HSC? How would they view a mark in the HSC that was sub par in circumstances where the school decided not to open the text book - "lets just wing it"? And just as with the HSC, preparing to play 1st XV rugby should not begin in March of your last year at school.
Simply, if you are going to play the game you need to acquire the fundamental skills necessary to play it and you need to be theoretically capable (theoretically because sometimes mistakes are made) of executing under pressure. The lack of those skills makes me wonder why Grammar bothers.
Since it does not aspire to excellence and it has no plan to produce reliable competence what is the point of playing against schools from a school system that was set up so long ago that its ongoing relevance to a place like Grammar is difficult to see?
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
OK, the ladders:
Official AAGPS:
=1. Newington..8
=1. Shore..8
3. Scots..6
=4. Kings..4
=4. Joeys..4
6. Riverview..2
7. Grammar..0
Hypothetical Super Rugby:
1. Newington..20
2. Shore..17
3. Scots..13
4. Kings..11
5. Joeys..8
6. Riverview..7
7. Grammar..0
Hypothetical Top 14:
1. Newington..19
2. Shore..17
3. Scots..12
4. Kings..10
5. Joeys..8
6. Riverview..7
7. Grammar..0
Official AAGPS:
=1. Newington..8
=1. Shore..8
3. Scots..6
=4. Kings..4
=4. Joeys..4
6. Riverview..2
7. Grammar..0
Hypothetical Super Rugby:
1. Newington..20
2. Shore..17
3. Scots..13
4. Kings..11
5. Joeys..8
6. Riverview..7
7. Grammar..0
Hypothetical Top 14:
1. Newington..19
2. Shore..17
3. Scots..12
4. Kings..10
5. Joeys..8
6. Riverview..7
7. Grammar..0
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Is the consensus that 'View have underperformed relative to potential this year?
THE REF 94
Frank Nicholson (4)
Yesterday I think they played outstandingly, Shore just played the best I've seen them play in a long time as well.
I would say so Inside Shoulder.
A disappointing season for the Riverview boys, and to be honest they are not too far off the mark. An error resulting to a try on halve time resulted in a loss against scots.
Another error against Shore yesterday saw a gift 7 points. So it seems they are close, but just a long way off.
In contrast to last year I do think they lack the leadership. However this is all just my opinion from the grandstand.
CTPE
Nev Cottrell (35)
The simple answer is yes - they had the best draw, a great set of forwards and some competent backs. Like Kings, I think that the heavy representative schedule of games in the most recent school holidays has taken the edge off a lot of their stars. The fact that their bye doesn't come until round 6 hasn't helped jaded and injured players recovery time. That said, Newington, Shore and Scots have been playing great rugby.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
how many of the view kids are back next year?
how many of kings?
how many of kings?
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
my 4 way tie is still possible but this is what I need to happen:
Kings to win all of their remaining games
Shore to beat Newington but lose to Scots & Joeys
View to beat Newington
Scots also beat Grammar
It will then be a 4 way tie between Newington, Shore, Kings & Scots!
Not looking likely I confess, but you never know!
Kings to win all of their remaining games
Shore to beat Newington but lose to Scots & Joeys
View to beat Newington
Scots also beat Grammar
It will then be a 4 way tie between Newington, Shore, Kings & Scots!
Not looking likely I confess, but you never know!
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
he was talking about the hierarchy not the boys.
There is a need on the part of the grammar community, of which I am a member, to step back, stop shooting the messengers and evaluate what is a serious problem. It is not just grammars problem either: it is a problem for the gps comp.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Man on the hill
Alex Ross (28)
Is the home team first listed - might drag off to Bellevue Hill if it is! That game has shaped up as a grand final in week4.
CTPE
Nev Cottrell (35)
It's early days to look too far ahead as a lot can change before next season and with three rounds of the current GPS season still remaining Kings will be very keen to finish their 2012 campaign on a high note with victories over View, Joeys and Scots, particularly after their huge wins over Grammar and Epsom College this week following their bye last weekend.
To answer the question though of the non year 12 boys to have regularly started in their firsts this year, Kings will have Jack McCalman, Jono Burke and Lucas Bateman in the forwards and Corey Tulloch, Harry Jones and Will Davies in the backs returning. In their current table topping seconds they'll have Rob Black, Sam Connor and Ben Stacy in the forwards and Rory Davis, Charlie Friend, Sam Carter and John Robertson in the backs also returning - of these named firsts and seconds players most were in their undefeated 16As in 2011. In addition there are a number of boys in their 2012 16As who are standing out - James Kane and David Ballantyne (together with Jono Burke) have been selected in this years NSW Schools U16s team and George Lehman and Hugh Taylor have been selected in the Sydney u16s team - and all will be playing at the U16 Nationals in September.
- Status