You really want it?? Sorry but the boys have to do it themselves. Newington will play for their premiership against Shore and the championship against View.
- Status
You really want it?? Sorry but the boys have to do it themselves. Newington will play for their premiership against Shore and the championship against View.
Shore and View need the whole School Boys National Team hahaha.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
do the other schools think playing grammar is a waste of time?
Is there a feeling among the other schools that however weak they are because, historically, they have been a member they should play 1sts?
What is grammar's take on continuing? And I mean by that what does grammar think that continuing to play in the comp does for the students?
If you can answer either of these questions you will be on the way to answering the question.
My view is that grammar, students and staff, have not addressed the object of continued participation at the top level. If they identified their aim or if we knew what it was some headway towards a solution might be possible.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Both Shore and View will be respected by Newington over the next couple weeks as skilled, tough and well drilled opposition, particularly the Shore forwards. But after surviving and winning against Kings,Joeys and Scots I believe New now have the momentum to achieve wins over these schools. They now know they have the balance in both forwards and backs. Further they have the experience of having beaten both schools, but not by huge margins giving them both confidence, but tempered with the realization that they will in both games need to be mentally focused and physical committed. Further, this team have the culture of being humble and respectful qualities of a champion team. Nevertheless, if Shore can beat Scots, Game 6 at Stanmore will be the match of the round and the GPS competition. Lets hope its sunny day.
H
HarveyColon
Guest
The bottom line is......Grammar is actually useful to any other team in the GPS competition. I am aligned with grammar and despite sounding harsh, it is agood opportunity for other teams to practise their moves with live defence before facing stronger opposition.
secondly: if a bunch of 15 kids say they want to go out and get slaughtered every week then show them the respect they deserve because they punch massively above their weight. They deserve that chance of an upset (not this year or next) if they string a good year together.
Thirdly: I don't know what the headmaster knows about rugby (despite needing a ladder for his in-house library) but it seems he doesn't give a stuff. He'll stand up in the assemblies (so i am told) and talk about how unfair it is that other schools are importing and what not but won't change the unfotunate genetic pool of the institution.
From all this, it would seem that in the short term grammar are as good as gone until that vallance gets his head out of the proverbial anus . Also there are plenty of big people at grammar who don't play rugby: talent always goes unnoticed.
I know for a fact that there are people in these open teams that don't know the rules of the game either
SO....>>> to sum up, grammar need to use the talent they have and cultivate it like a seed rather than having a dismissive headmaster who recognises that people are being imported but will still let his students get the poon beaten out of them. it has to start from under 13's. The kids at that school always seem really thin too, just feed them more and lower the prices at the tuckshop.
secondly: if a bunch of 15 kids say they want to go out and get slaughtered every week then show them the respect they deserve because they punch massively above their weight. They deserve that chance of an upset (not this year or next) if they string a good year together.
Thirdly: I don't know what the headmaster knows about rugby (despite needing a ladder for his in-house library) but it seems he doesn't give a stuff. He'll stand up in the assemblies (so i am told) and talk about how unfair it is that other schools are importing and what not but won't change the unfotunate genetic pool of the institution.
From all this, it would seem that in the short term grammar are as good as gone until that vallance gets his head out of the proverbial anus . Also there are plenty of big people at grammar who don't play rugby: talent always goes unnoticed.
I know for a fact that there are people in these open teams that don't know the rules of the game either
SO....>>> to sum up, grammar need to use the talent they have and cultivate it like a seed rather than having a dismissive headmaster who recognises that people are being imported but will still let his students get the poon beaten out of them. it has to start from under 13's. The kids at that school always seem really thin too, just feed them more and lower the prices at the tuckshop.
S
Sydneybra
Guest
I know Shore's backs are playing out of their skin for their size and could go pretty well against Scots (best backline in GPS) but I don't think their backs can match Newington's backline physically. The smallest Newington backs are probably the size of the biggest shore ones and this is a massive disadvantage. I just can't see them controlling Taane, Tepai, Abrahams and Vlahos. I think these boys will be too strong running at the shore line and could crack them with good running lines (Morea). Forwards should be tightly contested with New having a slight advantage.
H
Harry Stevenson
Guest
Personally I think Shore are to strong for the Scots boys especially with Shore having the home advantage. They seem to look dominate in both their forwards and backs. Can't say the same about Scots who were beaten in the Trials by Shore.
H
Harry Stevenson
Guest
Robertson is currently in the 2nds.
rugbyscribe
Herbert Moran (7)
The current information on the AAGPS website shows that both Joeys and King's second XVs are undefeated after 4 rounds of the GPS competition. As both their first XVs have not probably had the results many had been expecting after the same number of competition rounds I'm interested in hearing whether those in the know think that there are players in these seconds sides that could offer more than their counterparts in the firsts?
A fine point. As someone who takes great interest in Joeys Rugby, as they are renowned for there rugby, I did notice the extreme quality of the their 3rd XV. Scoring trys that you would normally only see in a high qualty 2nd XV game or a 1st XV game. The skills possessed by these supposed '3rd grade footballers' is quite outstanding.
After 3 games (they had the bye) they have scored 90 points and only conceded 12. Note they have not played the 'grammer/tas/high' round yet.
Dare i ask the question, are Joeys (unfairly) chasing the inaugural 3rd XV premiership?
rugbyscribe
Herbert Moran (7)
If that were the case wouldn't their seconds team be going as poorly as their firsts - which they are not.
Looking at Joeys seconds do you think that players like Nick Penissi, Tiger Parker, Tom Cleary and Jono Hardy (as a backrower) may have made a difference to the firsts performances if they were in that team?
random2
Johnnie Wallace (23)
As a fellow Joeys rugby enthusiast i agree with this post. Some of the players, especially in the backs, that currently make up the 'green machine' as referred around the college are genuine 1st grade players, many have played games in 1st over the past two years. Its not the players in 2nds who are pushing for 1st spots, but rather those in 3rds. Joeys will take both the 2nd and 3rd grade trophies this season, but this 'stacking' may have cost them the 1st grade premiership
random2
Johnnie Wallace (23)
Hardy and Penissi ahead of Goldie, Murphy and O'Donohue is a big call. Tiger, Cleary, Pat Vaughan and Angus McGrath could have all easily been featured in the 1st as could have Connor O'Shea and Teviata Mackini. But players like Ben Rodgers, Zach Guilfoyle, Dom Huggett and especially Brendon Follington in thirds also could have made the side.
O
Outside Shoulder
Guest
Grammar's exit from the competition would be a bad move. As seen by 2011's 1st VIII, one good year can change everything. The problem is that year has not come. The school's academic focus is obviously a limiting factor, and their unwillingness to semi-professionalize their rugby doesn't help. Also contributing the problem, dishonesty and inexcusably blatant flouting of the GPS code of ethics by other GPS schools.
At grammar the word "culture" gets thrown around a lot, and its true many boys don't play rugby because its not a large part of the school's ethos, however no one can deny that the boys out there in the opens want to be out there (with sport not being compulsory in years 11 and 12, and the boys given an option to not play 1st comp this year), so in the opens the idea that they don't want to be playing, or playing in the 1st division, is just false. The problem at least to some extent lies in the sporting structure. The coaching jobs in the younger years and grades (13b, 14c etc) go to old boys of the school 19, 20 year olds who are enthusiastic, but lack experience and don't command the respect older/more experienced coaches would.
Furthermore, especially in the opens (which explains the depth) is the lack of uniformity across the grades. I know the grammar seconds play to a different structure, in this respect it seems Grammar have underutilized Fear, who should be building some depth in the 2s, 3s and perhaps 16A, as injuries in the 1s have also weakened the 2s considerably. A better solution than spreading Fear more thinly across is to hire more specialist coaches, and for a comprehensive coaching plan to be laid out.
Another problem with Grammar rugby (to which i am occasionally guilty), is too much speculation from those who have no current insight other than occasionally sitting on the sidelines trying to relive the glory days of their school years. This kind of unwarranted and often misinformed commentary does nothing to help the confidence of the boys, nor does it make any valid change. these concerns perhaps may be more relevant at FOGR or other grammar related area.
In conclusion, spending is required to pull Grammar out of its current slump, which Grammar seem all too happy to do, provided its on a concert hall, rather than a decent coaching structure. The school's justification for spending in this manner is that it will impress new parents and build a prestigious reputation, however spending on a half decent rugby program will arguably do exactly the same thing, and give the boys a chance against some of the larger triangle scholars.
At grammar the word "culture" gets thrown around a lot, and its true many boys don't play rugby because its not a large part of the school's ethos, however no one can deny that the boys out there in the opens want to be out there (with sport not being compulsory in years 11 and 12, and the boys given an option to not play 1st comp this year), so in the opens the idea that they don't want to be playing, or playing in the 1st division, is just false. The problem at least to some extent lies in the sporting structure. The coaching jobs in the younger years and grades (13b, 14c etc) go to old boys of the school 19, 20 year olds who are enthusiastic, but lack experience and don't command the respect older/more experienced coaches would.
Furthermore, especially in the opens (which explains the depth) is the lack of uniformity across the grades. I know the grammar seconds play to a different structure, in this respect it seems Grammar have underutilized Fear, who should be building some depth in the 2s, 3s and perhaps 16A, as injuries in the 1s have also weakened the 2s considerably. A better solution than spreading Fear more thinly across is to hire more specialist coaches, and for a comprehensive coaching plan to be laid out.
Another problem with Grammar rugby (to which i am occasionally guilty), is too much speculation from those who have no current insight other than occasionally sitting on the sidelines trying to relive the glory days of their school years. This kind of unwarranted and often misinformed commentary does nothing to help the confidence of the boys, nor does it make any valid change. these concerns perhaps may be more relevant at FOGR or other grammar related area.
In conclusion, spending is required to pull Grammar out of its current slump, which Grammar seem all too happy to do, provided its on a concert hall, rather than a decent coaching structure. The school's justification for spending in this manner is that it will impress new parents and build a prestigious reputation, however spending on a half decent rugby program will arguably do exactly the same thing, and give the boys a chance against some of the larger triangle scholars.
THE REF 94
Frank Nicholson (4)
I agree, more to come on this topic later, as firstly Shore must worry about the very tough game against Scots. But it is true that in the trials Newington's physical backline ran through Shore's, and they didn't even have Moeroa that day due to injury. All I can say that is the backlines defene has improved tremendously since the trials. Newington has the ascendency no doubt, but so far Shore had been able to contain the schoolboys in the kings backline and were able to scramble well against Roverview's, who play a similar sought of pattern to Newington. Shore has good speed and reads the opposition's plays well. it's just a case of whether they can continually make the physically demanding tackles, especially after two physical challenges against Riverview and Scots.
THE REF 94
Frank Nicholson (4)
Valid argument, definately the team that has impressed me the most this year. One of the few teams that has the full package. You can't underestimate the home advantage for this match as well. Another big positive for Newington is that they have the bye this week, and get to play Shore after their toughest game of the season against Scots. Definately gets tougher and tougher for Shore from here, but so far they have risen to every challenge.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
FOGR has become an underground organization that meets in darkened alleyways for fear of reprisals.
The good doctor stopped teachers who were coaches from attending the annual dinner: not really indicative of, even, an open mind to the role of rugby.
Importing has nothing to do with this problem: see Shore. I'm not sure, therefore, why Vallance makes statements like that to the school - either do something about it or get on with it.
It's not a question of the boys wanting, or not, to play 1sts: they're kids. But even so the issue is: what is it that it is hoped will be got from playing in 1s? What are they hoping to achieve?
This is a game played solely for enjoyment it's not rorke's drift - surely they're not out there defending the honour of the empire?
They would get a better game and the true level of their abilities would/might emerge in 2s - so whats the harm in playing in a closer game: you would actually learn more about the game by doing so and, because individual performance would have the potential to affect the outcome, you'd learn more about yourself.
A better all round experience I would have thought.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The good doctor stopped teachers who were coaches from attending the annual dinner: not really indicative of, even, an open mind to the role of rugby.
Importing has nothing to do with this problem: see Shore. I'm not sure, therefore, why Vallance makes statements like that to the school - either do something about it or get on with it.
It's not a question of the boys wanting, or not, to play 1sts: they're kids. But even so the issue is: what is it that it is hoped will be got from playing in 1s? What are they hoping to achieve?
This is a game played solely for enjoyment it's not rorke's drift - surely they're not out there defending the honour of the empire?
They would get a better game and the true level of their abilities would/might emerge in 2s - so whats the harm in playing in a closer game: you would actually learn more about the game by doing so and, because individual performance would have the potential to affect the outcome, you'd learn more about yourself.
A better all round experience I would have thought.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Man on the hill
Alex Ross (28)
That, my friend, is not the exclusive domain of Grammar (and i'm not limiting my thoughts to players).
Eggsie
Stan Wickham (3)
To a Qld outsider this sounds similar to the problems GT were having last year when they went down by 73 points to NC. The gulf this year not quite as wide, and by all indications will improve as years go on. Not sure that having younger past students as coaches is neccessarily a bad thing though, I have sons who are learning heaps from a couple of young coaches who have more recent experience in the modern game...
Jaghond
Ted Fahey (11)
IS, Re your post at #5
Would / should it also be a consideration for any current review of the situation to assess the risk of serious injury to players who might not be appropriately skilled / competent when it comes to scrum-time ??
And I don't mean this in anyway as a derogatory comment.
From reports to date - the size and ability of some of the other teams this year may provide a real concern for the SGS team in coming weeks - and it would seem prudent to take this into account.
As a referee, it wouldn't matter if it was the 13F's, 14A's or 1st XV - we are constantly aware of such issues, and hopefully take whatever mitigating steps we can to minimize any risk.
I don't believe any parent would wish to see their son seriously injured, just for the sake of maintaining ateam in the top grade, would they ??
I know I certainly wouldn't.....
If this has been canvassed elsewhere - humble apologies.
I do agree however, that change must start at the base - the U13's or even earlier - in order to bring about sufficent change in school's attitude to rugby and ability to compete safely at the top level.
Cheers
The Hound
Would / should it also be a consideration for any current review of the situation to assess the risk of serious injury to players who might not be appropriately skilled / competent when it comes to scrum-time ??
And I don't mean this in anyway as a derogatory comment.
From reports to date - the size and ability of some of the other teams this year may provide a real concern for the SGS team in coming weeks - and it would seem prudent to take this into account.
As a referee, it wouldn't matter if it was the 13F's, 14A's or 1st XV - we are constantly aware of such issues, and hopefully take whatever mitigating steps we can to minimize any risk.
I don't believe any parent would wish to see their son seriously injured, just for the sake of maintaining ateam in the top grade, would they ??
I know I certainly wouldn't.....
If this has been canvassed elsewhere - humble apologies.
I do agree however, that change must start at the base - the U13's or even earlier - in order to bring about sufficent change in school's attitude to rugby and ability to compete safely at the top level.
Cheers
The Hound
- Status