ian johnson
Frank Row (1)
Pretty embarrassing how the Barker boys are trying to claim the win via their YouTube post. They are also deleting comments which are stating the truth about Waverley being the winning team. Quite juvenile if you ask me.
NSW CAS Rugby 2020
- Thread starter rod skellet
- Start date
Pretty embarrassing how the Barker boys are trying to claim the win via their YouTube post. They are also deleting comments which are stating the truth about Waverley being the winning team. Quite juvenile if you ask me.
ian johnson
Frank Row (1)
You lost the game fair and square. If anyone was hard done by it was the Waverley team. Waverley had 3 yellow cards throughout the game and two of them at the same time. Pretty embarrassing how Barker would proceed to allow the Waverley team to score. Stop being a sore loser mate. Barker 3 peat? Well thats over.... time to delete your account
Des Hasler
Frank Row (1)
I've just watched the last 20 minutes thanks to gogetyerselfalife on youtube, WOW what a brutal game! Good to see the two heavyweights of the comp battle out. I was just wondering what that silly account @DionYazdani'sUncle thought about Dion's positional change to squeeze into a red jersey? Was also suprised about the raw talent of Joel Kardash being dropped from the starting team as I thought he was one of their best against Aloys and Newington.
Unlucky to the Trinity lads on the weekend, attended the game but unfortunately wet weather and standing behind the gates didn't see me staying past the first half. Cranners looked too strong with some speed out wide to seal the deal.
Kind Regards,
Dessy
Unlucky to the Trinity lads on the weekend, attended the game but unfortunately wet weather and standing behind the gates didn't see me staying past the first half. Cranners looked too strong with some speed out wide to seal the deal.
Kind Regards,
Dessy
DionYazdani'sUncle
Frank Row (1)
Wallahi, you ask and you will recieve brotha. Uno what theu say back home '
إذا صليت لله يجيب'. put that into google translate u flops. any gametime is good gametime for my boy Dion and clearly the barker staff have ben reading my posts since they put DIon into the 1s. Also all youse took the piss out of me for saying Dion over kardash and youse all look silly now. did u see him get palmed.
Were given every oppurtunity to win - with the scrum calls going their way and the three yellow cards - and still allowed Waverley over the white paint. Simple as that.
That video is embarrassing to Barker and should be taken down. Implies they won 18-17 from Mitch Wheal's penalty goal when they clearly didn't.
aussiefooty
Bob McCowan (2)
Not sure how it implies Barker win just from a kick because after all it is Barker Highlights and also the fact that it says the score in the video title which if you payed attention is “Barker College Vs Waverley 2020 CAS Round 2 [17-18]” the video has barker as the first school named and by using common sense you would work out Barker’s score is also the first score named.
ian johnson
Frank Row (1)
Actually, they recently changed the title of the video from “Barker College Vs Waverley 2020 CAS Round 2 [18-17]” to “Barker College Vs Waverley 2020 CAS Round 2 [17-18]”. They were implying they were the winners but changed it.
Black & White
Vay Wilson (31)
HelloBrumbiejack
Fully Agree,I saw many of the Newington/Barker Games last year and there was a vast difference in the Barker Age Groups. The Barker Opens and 16s were extremely strong with the Barker 16Bs winning 41-0 against New and a 33-5 win to their 3rdXV. Although,In all fairness, Newington lose a team per age group as they advance through their year groups. So the older they get the less teams they have in any particular age division. As a new supporter, elements within school's leadership are letting down the college down with a overly liberal sense of choices in sport.
Sorry, back to Barker age groups, I saw the 13s Newington run riot over, with the 13As winning 62-0, while an understrength New 14As won 35-5 over Barker. However, in the 15As it was a 28-19, although many of the 15s were now playing in the 16s. 16s was a hard game with a narrow 7-5 win to New. So Barker do favour their older age groups.
As for the Waverley results, you find those results would be repeated against Trinity, Cranbrook and St. Aloysius.as well. To spell out bluntly, many of these results are due a poor attitude to Rugby, as a sport within these schools and their failure to " Pull their weigh" as competing Schools.
Who is blame, a School's Leadership and the teachers who, against their will are conscripted into coaching as part of their extracurricular duties.
A few thoughts...showing some of the difficulties in matching up the younger age groups (from an an Aloys parent).
13A vs Knox was pretty even last year, but Knox steamrolled Aloys 14A on the weekend (10 or so tries to 1). Aloys 14B played Knox 14C, which on paper sounded like an OK match up, but Aloys won about 15 tries to 1. Aloys 14C played Knox 14D and that was an OK match up.
Perhaps they could combine all school associations, schools play some trial matches against each other, have them watched by independents, schools then nominate each team for a division and get graded based on trial performance and prior year results. Hopefully the schools have enough integrity to not tank matches in the hope of getting in an easier grade.
As many have said, weekly floggings don’t help either teams and unfortunately have to be fixed in priority to school traditions. Pretty much every parent I know, from the rugby mad old boy to the first time rugby parent simply wants to see teams which are evenly matched. The boys just want to play footy and I don’t think they mind who they play.
13A vs Knox was pretty even last year, but Knox steamrolled Aloys 14A on the weekend (10 or so tries to 1). Aloys 14B played Knox 14C, which on paper sounded like an OK match up, but Aloys won about 15 tries to 1. Aloys 14C played Knox 14D and that was an OK match up.
Perhaps they could combine all school associations, schools play some trial matches against each other, have them watched by independents, schools then nominate each team for a division and get graded based on trial performance and prior year results. Hopefully the schools have enough integrity to not tank matches in the hope of getting in an easier grade.
As many have said, weekly floggings don’t help either teams and unfortunately have to be fixed in priority to school traditions. Pretty much every parent I know, from the rugby mad old boy to the first time rugby parent simply wants to see teams which are evenly matched. The boys just want to play footy and I don’t think they mind who they play.
Snort
Nev Cottrell (35)
I agree you wouldn't get an exact fit. But the fact that you can't make it perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't make it better.
Easy example: there will soon be quite a few schools that want to play Rugby, but not too seriously, and can manage only one team an age group. Say Grammar, High, St Andrews, Redlands and so on. That's fine. Let them have a competition where they can play against schools with similar programs and aspirations. That's as important as any other tier, because those boys grow up to love the game and become supporters, and Rugby needs as many of those as it can get.
The test for tiers should take account of the 1st XV, but should look more broadly at the Rugby program of each school. Every now and then you find a school that doesn't have much depth but somehow produces a 1st XV full of stars. As often as not, these stars have been recruited to the school in Year 10 or 11. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a substitute for a Rugby program with strength in depth. I think a few schools in that position would find themselves in the second tier, with a very competitive 1st XV but not much else.
It would take time to get it right, maybe. What has been clear to me for ten years, though, is that the structures we have at the moment don't work well for anyone.
Up and In
Herbert Moran (7)
Spot on, Snort. Great observation. A school's rugby depth shouldn't be measured by its 1st XV success, and 1st XV success isn't necessarily a measure of a school's rugby programme's effectiveness. People are tired of hearing schools boast of their rugby programme's success when it's patently obvious that it's propped up by means unrelated to skill development.
I just hope the catalyst for change isn’t a serious injury to a player in a lopsided match.
MagicMike
Stan Wickham (3)
Exactly there are a couple of videos like this on YouTube. Just the score 18-17 with no names. All Barker highlights (fair enough if produced for Barker), but no recognition of the loss. You can’t miss the teary boys from Hornsby walking off though!!
Number 7
Darby Loudon (17)
I love the energy you are putting into this topic however I think it would be extremely difficult to create tiers of schools by any criteria and avoid the mismatches we are seeing now.
If the criteria was depth (say Tier 1 min # of teams at 28-30) then you would only have Joeys, Kings, Shore, Knox, Riverview in a tier; then the next tier of almost everybody else (not sure about numbers at Waverley).
If the criteria was quality of the 1sts then you would have quite a big Tier 1 grouping but you would have the same current problems:
a) Schools like Barker (Tier 1) with weak u13/14's getting flogged each week which by your own criteria is no good and;
b) Schools like Shore (Tier 2 but 30 teams) would have to host two schools every weekend. Logistical nightmare.
My strong view is that the focus by some schools on their 1st XV above all else is the most unhealthy aspect of what is going on. Here's two suggestions to limit those schools relying on intakes of superstar players to bolster their 1st's:
1. Any player receiving an inducement from any outside source related to a sporting team cannot play 1sts. This will stop those schools who have become NRL player incubators wharehousing stars with no intention of doing anything other than playing league after school.
2. Any player who doesn't sit the HSC (or IB) cannot play 1st's. This stops any player playing for a school with no intention of participating in any other part of school life, which all the school marketing brochures say is important to them
.No doubt controversial but there are plenty of other schools out there who can cater for those with no other purpose at school than to play rugby.
Flavio
Ward Prentice (10)
We had a discussing regarding this the other night and agreed anyone fitting the above criteria should also not be selected in any pathway squad or Australian schoolboy team. Why should the ARU and schools put all this effort in training and coaching someone who is going to leave the game at the first opportunity. There are plenty of those that miss out because a signed league player has taken their spot and would die to have the opportunity
Easts even sent someone to sign a player mid Australian Schoolboys tour of England. He should have been sent home immediately.
One possible way of grading teams is to add up the number of years each boy has been playing for both a club (league and union) and school and add the team total. You would hesitate to guess a top 16A team would have the majority of boys playing club and school since the U6's . So 10 years x 2 = 20 points for that player. A U16c team may have most boys only playing for school for say 5 years so 5 x 1 = 5 points for that player and so on. Maybe a 20% weighting on the rep players as well
Not perfect, my son has played since the u5's and at school since Y5 and is in the C's (should be the B's) but definitely not an A's player, he leaves those to his reports
Hasbeen
Bob Loudon (25)
There may be a possible trade practices implication if the ARU/schools were to impose such a requirement/restriction which may be viewed as anti competitive. Depends I guess on whether it could be viewed that the ARU and/or schools are engaged in trade or commerce. I have no doubt the NRL would have a go at it.
Snort
Nev Cottrell (35)
I love the energy you are putting into this topic however I think it would be extremely difficult to create tiers of schools by any criteria and avoid the mismatches we are seeing now.
If the criteria was depth (say Tier 1 min # of teams at 28-30) then you would only have Joeys, Kings, Shore, Knox, Riverview in a tier; then the next tier of almost everybody else (not sure about numbers at Waverley).
If the criteria was quality of the 1sts then you would have quite a big Tier 1 grouping but you would have the same current problems:
a) Schools like Barker (Tier 1) with weak u13/14's getting flogged each week which by your own criteria is no good and;
b) Schools like Shore (Tier 2 but 30 teams) would have to host two schools every weekend. Logistical nightmare.
My strong view is that the focus by some schools on their 1st XV above all else is the most unhealthy aspect of what is going on. Here's two suggestions to limit those schools relying on intakes of superstar players to bolster their 1st's:
1. Any player receiving an inducement from any outside source related to a sporting team cannot play 1sts. This will stop those schools who have become NRL player incubators wharehousing stars with no intention of doing anything other than playing league after school.
2. Any player who doesn't sit the HSC (or IB) cannot play 1st's. This stops any player playing for a school with no intention of participating in any other part of school life, which all the school marketing brochures say is important to them
No doubt controversial but there are plenty of other schools out there who can cater for those with no other purpose at school than to play rugby.
I agree with some of this. But one point that needs to be understood is that the way things are at the moment, schools with smaller Rugby programs need to import players to keep their 1st XVs competitive with the bigger schools. It's not just an attempt to win games, it's a safety issue. I know at least one school makes a point of recruiting front rowers in about Year 9 or 10, because it's worried about scrum injuries (and that's a serious, legitimate concern if your school doesn't have enough prop-sized players at a senior level). If you're going to field teams against powerful Rugby schools (Waverley and Barker, say) you have a duty of care to ensure that the players aren't seriously mismatched (and so exposed to harm) - and for some schools, that means recruiting.
The NRL issue is a real one. But it's complicated. Let's say you're a junior NRL player whose club pays your fees to go to Whatsit College for two years. You play Rugby there, maybe a bit of League on the side. You get your NSW Schools jumper. Then you go and play under-20s NFL. Now, under your rules, that guy would be barred from playing school Rugby. I don't know about that. Isn't it better that he plays some Rugby so that if he decides to switch back, he knows the game? Quite a few players do this (Matt Rogers being perhaps the best example).
As for the HSC rule, how do you enforce it? Things have changed a bit, I know, but as far as I know the HSC comes after the football season. A player can cheerfully go through saying he'll sit the HSC, and then not do it, surely? Unless the HSC trials are used as a benchmark, I guess, if they still happen.
As for the tiering system, I agree that Tier 1 would be quite small to start with: maybe eight schools. Of course, you wouldn't get each school playing each other school in each grade each week, but that doesn't happen now, and you could get closer. It would take a few years to even out, I imagine, but I think the tiering structure would, over time, even out the competitions. What has happened under the current structures is that the competitions have become less even over time.
To take the Associated Schools as an example: every school but St Aloysius has won at least once in the last ten years. That's healthy. But it's also deceptive. Trinity and Cranbrook, for example, usually manage to put together a competitive 1st XV but their 2nds and junior teams will often go through a season with only one or two wins. St Aloysius is a smaller school with an intake that's at least partly academically selective, and takes pride in the fact that it will not recruit footballers. That's admirable, except if you play in a competition in which no other school shares those limitations. Hence, a 95-7 scoreline, to a side that is unlikely to win this year's premiership.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. I just know we can do better. Not perfect, but better, and I'll settle for that.
Flavio
Ward Prentice (10)
This is a spreadsheet I did last year, with data from Myschools and School team lists. It shows a correlation between the number of students, less the number that have language background other than English to the number if rugby teams. It make the presumption that BOTE students are less likely to play rugby. So you need about 60 available potential players for each team. KNOX is a bit of a stab in the dark and BOTE of Trinity seems way out of wack, if it were 40% it would be on the money.
So the only way in increase numbers of team is increase students, less BOTE (Less $$$$$) reduce competing sports get rid of AFL or maybe make it the sport of choice
So the only way in increase numbers of team is increase students, less BOTE (Less $$$$$) reduce competing sports get rid of AFL or maybe make it the sport of choice
Snort
Nev Cottrell (35)
Trinity's demographic is not Rugby-friendly.
The school has had, since the 70s, a large intake from migrant backgrounds (especially Greek and Lebanese). Some of these boys have played Rugby; many have preferred soccer. It now has an extremely large intake from Indian and Sri Lankan backgrounds, which has been better for its cricket than its Rugby. 71% is a surprising number, but not out of the question.
The school has had, since the 70s, a large intake from migrant backgrounds (especially Greek and Lebanese). Some of these boys have played Rugby; many have preferred soccer. It now has an extremely large intake from Indian and Sri Lankan backgrounds, which has been better for its cricket than its Rugby. 71% is a surprising number, but not out of the question.