• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

NSW JRU State Championships & Representative Teams 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

Newbie

Bill McLean (32)
What was the card for ? Newbie are you sure they didn't choose players because of cards? In the past I haven't seen players not chosen because of a card

O&U,

I can't comment on the past however I do know that the NSWRL when selecting their junior teams tend to ignore players with discipline issues, irrespective of the talent. It's a policy that makes sense and one that obviously has universal application.

Ultimately I can only go off what I was told hence the reason why asked all here if my source was correct (i.e. I was looking for a lad that was chosen who was also 'carded'). Does anyone know of any?

As most will recall I reiterated what I had been told before the selections and it's congruent with the non-selection of Lachy Taylor who was by far the best lock in the State Championship.

Furthermore Taylor's club form this year has been excellent (I have seen two of his games)! He deserved selection without a doubt, however he wasn't selected but he was 'yellow carded' on the first day!
 

Newbie

Bill McLean (32)
Why isn't there a regional carnival for 17's??

Good question!

I'll take it one further and ask why NSWJRU does not have an U/18's division, or at least a open division! They have an opens Sunday competition!

I'm a clubby when it comes to rugby and I love the concept of a NSWJRU and NSWSRU team for the U/16's this year. For mine I would love to see this translate to the U/18's. One can dream after all ... ... ... Lol!

For mine It would be interesting to see how many lads actually move to the one of the recognised rugby teams for colts. I personally have concerns with U/18's playing colts even if it is in 3rd grade!
 

Rugby Mum

Watty Friend (18)
O&U,

I can't comment on the past however I do know that the NSWRL when selecting their junior teams tend to ignore players with discipline issues, irrespective of the talent. It's a policy that makes sense and one that obviously has universal application.

Ultimately I can only go off what I was told hence the reason why asked all here if my source was correct (i.e. I was looking for a lad that was chosen who was also 'carded'). Does anyone know of any?

As most will recall I reiterated what I had been told before the selections and it's congruent with the non-selection of Lachy Taylor who was by far the best lock in the State Championship.

Furthermore Taylor's club form this year has been excellent (I have seen two of his games)! He deserved selection without a doubt, however he wasn't selected but he was 'yellow carded' on the first day!


At The State Championships the ref at one of our games had more cards than a poker hand!!! Basic penalties were given and then a struggle with his pocket: until he flashed his yellow card. One was given to a player with 5 secs to go in the game for not rolling away. i believe they were for repeated warnings - some not too sure...
 

Newbie

Bill McLean (32)
At The State Championships the ref at one of our games had more cards than a poker hand!!! Basic penalties were given and then a struggle with his pocket: until he flashed his yellow card. One was given to a player with 5 secs to go in the game for not rolling away. i believe they were for repeated warnings - some not too sure.

Hey Mum,

Was it the referee that looks like Roger Moore? He can tend to get itchy with the cards! Not many like him but I think he is a great referee! He educates as he referees (which some find annoying). Personally I like it!

I called out to him at the regionals two years ago when he was gesturing for a drink of water from the refs tent. As I was near the tent I yelled out to him and asked if he wanted his Martini shaken but not stirred. It got a lot of laughs from the other refs (and a smile from him) so I'm not the only one who thinks the same!
 

Rugby Mum

Watty Friend (18)
Hey Mum,

Was it the referee that looks like Roger Moore? He can tend to get itchy with the cards! Not many like him but I think he is a great referee! He educates as he referees (which some find annoying). Personally I like it!

I called out to him at the regionals two years ago when he was gesturing for a drink of water from the refs tent. As I was near the tent I yelled out to him and asked if he wanted his Martini shaken but not stirred. It got a lot of laughs from the other refs (and a smile from him) so I'm not the only one who thinks the same!

Not Sure it was. I think "Roger Moore" reffed our Sunday game - talked to the boys as he called the game - don't mind the education at all. Respect the role the refs -without them no games!
 

overs and unders

Stan Wickham (3)
Newbie if the card rule is correct... Josh Mitchell wasn't picked because he got a yellow card although he was a stand out in the SC...correct ??
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Here are some facts about the recent Under 16’s State champs. I would prefer to let the facts speak for themselves and leave Gaggerlanders to draw most of their own conclusions.

These facts have been sourced from information in the public domain. There may be slight errors based on errors in the source information. By amalgamating data available from a variety of sources, some objective facts become quite obvious. What follows represents a small subset of data available from about a 40 minute data gathering exercise, followed by some electronic filtering and counting in a spreadsheet. Thanks Mr Excel.

There are 4 competitions for Under 16’s administered by SJRU.
Under 16 A Sundays – 197 players in 8 teams
Under 16 B Sundays – 244 players in 9 teams
Under 16 C Sundays – 158 Players in 6 teams
Under 16 A Saturdays – 136 Players in 6 teams
Total kids on the books of Village footy teams = 716.

From this talent pool, the District Associates chose 195 players to do battle in the NSW Junior State Champs.

Not all Districts entered teams.
Randwick District has two U16 club teams, and only 1 child took part in the State Champs and he was in the 17 team. Both these two teams play in the A division, one in the Saturday A Comp, one in the Sunday A Comp. There was no Randwick District Team in State Champs.

Easts District has 1 team of 23 players, and only 1 child took part in the State Champs, and he played in the West Harbour Team. There was no East District Team in State Champs.

Sydney Uni has 1 Team of 29 players, and none took part in the State Champs. This team plays in the Saturday A competition. There was no Uni District Team in State Champs.

Why couldn’t Randwick, Easts and Uni register a combined team? They seem to have enough players.

Southern Districts has 2 teams, although their District team was almost entirely from one club who play in the Sunday A competition, along with two boys playing in the U17 grade. There were no players from the other club team which plays in the Saturday A competition. The District team lost two games and drew one at State Champs.

Southern Zone therefore represents 155 players. This association is entitled to showcase 25 of their best at the regional tournament after State Champs. Only 27 boys were at State Championships over the Long Weekend from Southern Zone Village Club Teams.

The situation is not quite as bad from the other zones, however Western Zone has 208 players registered for Village Park Footy (Eastwood 96, Penrith 51, Wests 61). 71 of these 208 were at the State Champs. This association is entitled to showcase 25 of its best talent at the regional championships. The 3 district teams won one, drew one, and lose seven games during State Champs.

Northern Zone has 367 registered players playing across 4 districts (Gordon 153, Manly 51, Norths 63, Warringah 100). 97 players from Northern Zone played at State Champs, including 20 players who are registered with clubs that does not appear in any competition administered by SJRU. At State Champs, Teams from this Zone played 16 games including the final. Of these 16 games 11 were won, 4 lost and one drawn. This association, representing 387 players, is entitled to showcase 25 players at the regional tournament.

The Northern Suburbs District team is an interesting case study. This district has two teams, totalling 63 registered players. One team (Mosman) has 41 players and plays in Sunday 16 B division. The other team (Hunters Hill) has 22 players and is plays Sunday 16C grade. The State Championship District Team players are all from Mosman. They were the Under 13, U14, and U15 State Champions, and a beaten finalist this year. There must be something special n the water bottles at State Champs, because the results from Mosman this year in the Sunday B Division have been lacklustre: beaten by Newport 12-17, beat Lindfield (now in div C) 34-19, beat North Rocks 41 -12, and a close one with Easts 33-31. Easts did not field a team in the State Champs despite staying within two points of the reigning state Champions. According to the ARU JGS lists, the Mosman Whales, who play in B division for club, has 11 JGS players - from lower North Shore Schools such as Hills Sports High, Scots and Cranbrook. Most clubs with 41 players on their books would register two teams, and have one or two players back up for the other team from time to time.

At NSW JRU State Champs, regular SJRU competitions were represented by:

32/136 Saturday A Grade Comp players. (102 missed the cut)
71/197 Sunday A Grade Comp players. (126 missed the cut)
60/244 Sunday B Grade Comp players. (184 missed the cut)
8/158 Sunday C Grade Comp players. (150 missed the cut)

3 players were young age players from Sunday Under 17B teams, and one was from a Under 17A team.

20 players are in Clubs that do not play in SJRU Competitions.

Are there really 60 kids in the Sunday B grade who are better than the 126 kids from the A grade who didn’t get a geurnsey for their District team?

For the Regional Tournament, 93 players from the 195 players who were listed in the State Champs programme have been selected in the Zone Teams. These players are 42/60 Sunday A Comp, 20/60 Sunday B Comp, 2/8 Sunday C Comp, 9/32 Saturday A Comp, 18/20 “non playing” members, and 4 players listed could not be found in the Programme for State Champs.

How important is past reputation/performance?
2011 SJRU Under 15 = 23 names. 22 of these were at State Champs. 6 of these are registered with clubs that are not playing this year. All 22 of the SJRU U15’s at State Champs will be in the Regional tournament, 11 @ MNZ, 2 @ MWZ, 4 @ MSZ, 5 @ Barbars.

What is the role of the Regional Tournament?
Surely it is to select the best players for the SJRU U16 team, and not to stroke the ego of Zone and District Administrators, selectors and coaches by establishing which Zone has the best players.

The numbers of players in each zone, then numbers of players from the zone who play at the State Champs, the record of the district teams from some of the zones, and the numbers of players selected for higher development via the JGS programme all suggest that the current structure for the Regional tournament based on Zones is not fair, and some kids from better performing teams are being overlooked as the SJRU maintain an outdated ego stroking and unfair Zone Team Model.

State Championship Results
Northern Zone Teams
Gordon Played 5 won 5
Norths Played 5 won 4 Lost 1
Manly Played 3 won 1 lost 1 Drew 1
Warringah Played 3 Won 1 Lost 2

West Zone Teams
Eastwood Played 3 Won 1 Lost 1 Drew 1
Wests Played 3 Lost 3
Penrith Played 3 lost 3

South Zone Teams
Southern District Played 3 Drew 1 Lost 2

Is this fair?
At State Championships, Manly and Eastwood were in the same pool, with Gordon and Wests ( A nice incestuous SJRU pool). They drew with each other, and both teams beat West’s and lost to Gordon. Conclusion is they are roughly equal or are they?

Eastwood will have 19 players at Regional Tournament - 15 players in MWZ and 4 in Barbars team.

Manly only have 5 players at Regional Tournament – 1 in MNZ, 2 with MSZ and 2 in Barbars.

The number of development opportunities available to the Manly kids hardly seems fair and equitable compared to those available for Eastwood kids. Meanwhile Southern Districts seems to be positively pampered for a team that did not win any games at all, and has zero competition for places from other Districts within the Zone.

The lions share of places in the SJRU regional tournament are given to kids who are not regularly playing in the SJRU competition.

Why do kids who clearly are not playing any Village club rugby get to benefit from having two pathways to higher honours?

The performance of the two teams containing the players who do not appear to be playing much SJRU rugby, suggests that these players will form the majority of the 2012 SJRU Under 16 team. “Scholarships Thread” anyone?

The often heard tale that Schools prevent kids from playing SJRU rugby appears to be exactly that based on the number of Schools superstars that were playing at St Lukes on the Weekend.

Given that, it is difficult to understand why Easts can not raise a competitive team by roping in their stars from Cranbrook, Waverley and Scots. There were some of these boys, who would have played their early footy at Easts, listed as playing for other districts at St Lukes.

Similar for Randwick. Unlike Easts, they even have a team which is seeming to perform rather well in A division Sunday comp.
How can Manly sustain a competitive team at State Champs, and the Wicks chose not to show up? (Surely not due to the money Problems at Brook Street?). Like Easts, there is a good argument for the Wicks to get their Scots, and Waverley boys back if they feel that they must strengthen the village club team. I noted that one Coogee U16 lad who has recently been parachuted into Scots even had to play in the Under 17’s to get noticed on the weekend.

Poor old Two Blues. Since the Raptors have gone across to Penrith, they’ve got nothing…..
 

Newbie

Bill McLean (32)
Newbie if the card rule is correct. Josh Mitchell wasn't picked because he got a yellow card although he was a stand out in the SC.correct ??

I had asked that question earlier and no one replied in the affirmative! So you are informing me that he was yellow carded? If so it probably explains a lot of questions about his no- selection!

Let me however add this; why was his partner Alvarado not picked. He had an equally great tournament.
 

Man on the hill

Alex Ross (28)
Zone teams will now compete at the Regional Carnival to be held on the weekend of 30th June and 1st July at Grantham Field, Lucretia Rd., Seven Hills.

Much smaller tournament this year than years gone by. The snouts tell me that it will be only 4 teams in both ages with no country squads playing, just the 7 nominated metro squads + WA in the 15s. 4 games on Saturday and likely 8 on Sunday. Just hope they get clear weather to show their goods - good luck to all involved.
 

Man on the hill

Alex Ross (28)
Clearly the selectors were looking for something quite different! Without wanting to cast aspersions is it not amazing how the flavour of the team tends to reflect the coach! History is rife with such examples!

Not so sure that would have been the case - they used like 30 boys in SJRU 16s last year, so in a 23 man squad it would not be possible (fitness & availability not withstanding) to just double it over. On Titterton - he was the best in an ordinary pack, as he was last year, and then benefited from the metro squad process to keep pushing his case.
 

wreckless

Bob Loudon (25)
Not so sure that would have been the case - they used like 30 boys in SJRU 16s last year, so in a 23 man squad it would not be possible (fitness & availability not withstanding) to just double it over. On Titterton - he was the best in an ordinary pack, as he was last year, and then benefited from the metro squad process to keep pushing his case.

MOTH & Newbie - agree that Hector Titterton played well in an under performing pack but I also think you do a disservice to the Sydney Uni #18 Stuart Mill ( who started at 7 in both of Sydney Uni's games and had 100% game time! ). This kid goes all day, does play "village" rugby, as well as for his school on Saturday! His work rate over the weekend was second to none. Former NSW Country player until starting school in Sydney this year. One to watch I reckon!
 

Man on the hill

Alex Ross (28)
One to watch I reckon!

No argument - my point was more geared at the change in process as the boys get older. Last year [U16] boys had multiple opportunities to shine - this year, after 2 seasons of intense rep football including SJRU & NSWJRU teams - the selectors no doubt arrive armed with their lists of "proven" names (with a few others mixed in) to keep things interesting and go to work from there. & like is said - 30 into 23 does not fit!
 

Jaghond

Ted Fahey (11)
[quote="Hugh Jarse, #189…..[/quote]

Hugh J,
Would your analysis alter much if you take into account that the SJRU Comp Rules allow(ed) for players to be considered eligible for rep selection if they have played a certain number of matches over 2 years ?? For example, in the 2011 SC's, a number of Gordon players participated, ( and also some other districts, I believe) without actually having played ANY club matches in 2011 - based on their participation in the 15's in 2010.
This was obviously an attempt by SJRU to try and keep "their" club players participating past U.15's - and I believe also applies to U17's as well.
Rekindles that old debate - " we trained for you ( the Schools) - so we want to try & keep them playing for Clubland as long as possible".
Not sure if there is a "right" answer to the question, but it seems that once the players get to the 16's and above, their schools exert a significant amount of influece moving forward.
Cheers.
The Hound
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
(edited)
Would your analysis alter much if you take into account that the SJRU Comp Rules allow(ed) for players to be considered eligible for rep selection if they have played a certain number of matches over 2 years ??

This was obviously an attempt by SJRU to try and keep "their" club players participating past U.15's - and I believe also applies to U17's as well.
Rekindles that old debate - " we trained for you ( the Schools) - so we want to try & keep them playing for Clubland as long as possible"

Hound,

To the first question - No

I understand what you are saying, and I know that the rules allow this eligibility criteria. I shouldn’t take the bait, but it’s been a bit of a slow day here at the coal face.
This is not an anti-Gordon rant. My target is at a higher level, but if the cap fits... as they say.

As I have said earlier in the thread, just because the NSW JRU Comp rules may allow the practice of ghost players playing in State Championships doesn’t make it morally right.

This tacit approval of Under 16 ghost players representing Districts, Zones and SJRU makes a complete mockery of the strict regime imposed by the very same administrators to ensure that players are qualified for the finals series in basic club footy from Under 10 level upwards. I agree with the latter process.

You have stated “This was obviously an attempt by SJRU to try and keep "their" club players participating past U.15's - and I believe also applies to U17's as well.
Rekindles that old debate - " we trained for you ( the Schools) - so we want to try & keep them playing for Clubland as long as possible".”

There may be elements of this but I reckon that the main reason that occupants of the SJRU Ivory Tower allow kids who are not actually playing in their competition to represent Districts, Zones and SJRU at State Champs and higher is the very same reason that many of the village club administrators may be tempted to play kids who haven’t met the finals eligibility criteria in the lower age grades. That is to try to give their teams the best chance of winning the competition by what ever means possible. The words ego fluffing, Colonel Blimp, vicarious victories spring to mind. If the SJRU Wallahs can orchestrate a competitive team to represent them, then we mere spectators can be impressed with their obvious importance at the Carnivals, as they strut around like peacocks in their fine SJRU branded attire. Not really much different from JON last Saturday night at Etihad Stadium.

Without the Ghost players being available for SJRU at representative level, SJRU ability to claim one of the three team slots available for NSW teams at the National U16 champs would be severely diminished.

Perusal of the CAS, GPS, ISA, CCC squad lists for the Schools tournament this weekend, compared to the SJRU Zone representative listing shows that nearly all of the Northern, and Barbarian Zone squads, and chunks of the Western and Southern Zone squads are competing for NSW Schools team slots as well. The majority of the SJRU Ghost players are in the Northern Zone and Barbarian Zone Teams. What real hope do the battlers in village clubland really have of greater glory?

Some schools seem to be happy for their top flight U16’s to be playing State Champs, but discourage them from participating in the Sunday Village Club games, even though the kids may have had an allegiance to that club since they were 4 or 5. Other schools appear to discourage any contact with village clubs.

I know of many parents who use the old “School won’t release Johnny argument” to bolster their own ego and sense of self importance, when this does not appear to the actual School policy. (Bit of a variation on the old “Henry is on a scholarship at ……”. If all the “Nigel is on a Scholarship” rumours were true, School fees would be about $100k per year to cover the kids scholarships who are paying nothing!) F’r’instance my contacts with the Wallaroos reckon that they would have an A Grade Village club side if their Scots and Cranbrook boys were available. They are probably right. The reality appears to be different as even those who have “recently enrolled” at those schools are regularly playing for village clubs other than Easts, and others (now graduated) have done so in the past without the sky falling in. This leads me to believe that the claims from parents are BS.

Where to from here? Does the whole pathway model need a serious restructure?
Perhaps we should do away with the concept of a Country Juniors Team, City Juniors Team and Schools Team at National Champs and move towards a model of Sydney 1, Sydney 2, and NSW Country team at U16 Nationals.

Each of these teams would be a mix of School and village club boys. The onus would be on the Schools Selectors and the Juniors Selectors to get around all the talent, meet, agree, select the best available talent and do away with any pretence that the boys are playing for the overall betterment of NSW Schools RU or SJRU. The reality is that the boys (and their parents) just want to play rep footy for whomever they can.
 

Rugby Mum

Watty Friend (18)
Hound,

To the first question - No

I understand what you are saying, and I know that the rules allow this eligibility criteria. I shouldn’t take the bait, but it’s been a bit of a slow day here at the coal face.
This is not an anti-Gordon rant. My target is at a higher level, but if the cap fits. as they say.

As I have said earlier in the thread, just because the NSW JRU Comp rules may allow the practice of ghost players playing in State Championships doesn’t make it morally right.

This tacit approval of Under 16 ghost players representing Districts, Zones and SJRU makes a complete mockery of the strict regime imposed by the very same administrators to ensure that players are qualified for the finals series in basic club footy from Under 10 level upwards. I agree with the latter process.

You have stated “This was obviously an attempt by SJRU to try and keep "their" club players participating past U.15's - and I believe also applies to U17's as well.
Rekindles that old debate - " we trained for you ( the Schools) - so we want to try & keep them playing for Clubland as long as possible".”

There may be elements of this but I reckon that the main reason that occupants of the SJRU Ivory Tower allow kids who are not actually playing in their competition to represent Districts, Zones and SJRU at State Champs and higher is the very same reason that many of the village club administrators may be tempted to play kids who haven’t met the finals eligibility criteria in the lower age grades. That is to try to give their teams the best chance of winning the competition by what ever means possible. The words ego fluffing, Colonel Blimp, vicarious victories spring to mind. If the SJRU Wallahs can orchestrate a competitive team to represent them, then we mere spectators can be impressed with their obvious importance at the Carnivals, as they strut around like peacocks in their fine SJRU branded attire. Not really much different from JON last Saturday night at Etihad Stadium.

Without the Ghost players being available for SJRU at representative level, SJRU ability to claim one of the three team slots available for NSW teams at the National U16 champs would be severely diminished.

Perusal of the CAS, GPS, ISA, CCC squad lists for the Schools tournament this weekend, compared to the SJRU Zone representative listing shows that nearly all of the Northern, and Barbarian Zone squads, and chunks of the Western and Southern Zone squads are competing for NSW Schools team slots as well. The majority of the SJRU Ghost players are in the Northern Zone and Barbarian Zone Teams. What real hope do the battlers in village clubland really have of greater glory?

Some schools seem to be happy for their top flight U16’s to be playing State Champs, but discourage them from participating in the Sunday Village Club games, even though the kids may have had an allegiance to that club since they were 4 or 5. Other schools appear to discourage any contact with village clubs.

I know of many parents who use the old “School won’t release Johnny argument” to bolster their own ego and sense of self importance, when this does not appear to the actual School policy. (Bit of a variation on the old “Henry is on a scholarship at ……”. If all the “Nigel is on a Scholarship” rumours were true, School fees would be about $100k per year to cover the kids scholarships who are paying nothing!) F’r’instance my contacts with the Wallaroos reckon that they would have an A Grade Village club side if their Scots and Cranbrook boys were available. They are probably right. The reality appears to be different as even those who have “recently enrolled” at those schools are regularly playing for village clubs other than Easts, and others (now graduated) have done so in the past without the sky falling in. This leads me to believe that the claims from parents are BS.

Where to from here? Does the whole pathway model need a serious restructure?
Perhaps we should do away with the concept of a Country Juniors Team, City Juniors Team and Schools Team at National Champs and move towards a model of Sydney 1, Sydney 2, and NSW Country team at U16 Nationals.

Each of these teams would be a mix of School and village club boys. The onus would be on the Schools Selectors and the Juniors Selectors to get around all the talent, meet, agree, select the best available talent and do away with any pretence that the boys are playing for the overall betterment of NSW Schools RU or SJRU. The reality is that the boys (and their parents) just want to play rep footy for whomever they can.

This has been an ongoing debate for years. I suggest selecting the cream of the crop from NSW country Juniors, Sydney Juniors and NSW Schools and have a tournament similar to the regionals between these three teams - where the ARU step in and select a well balanced and talented NSW I and NSW II - making it equal for all three bodies to put forward their best. I believe Queensland so so well at the Nationals as there structure is similar to the suggested. Takes out the nepotism people can be accused of and allows kids to be promoted on their performance and ability. Just a thought!!!!
 

Man on the hill

Alex Ross (28)
Where to from here? Does the whole pathway model need a serious restructure?
Perhaps we should do away with the concept of a Country Juniors Team, City Juniors Team and Schools Team at National Champs and move towards a model of Sydney 1, Sydney 2, and NSW Country team at U16 Nationals.

Each of these teams would be a mix of School and village club boys. The onus would be on the Schools Selectors and the Juniors Selectors to get around all the talent, meet, agree, select the best available talent and do away with any pretence that the boys are playing for the overall betterment of NSW Schools RU or SJRU. The reality is that the boys (and their parents) just want to play rep footy for whomever they can.


YES it needs a serious overhaul - urgently. BUT, having read the Garling report & more importantly the "official" responses - NO WAY.

Further, if you have ever got anywhere near enough to watch and hear the protagonists at the epicentre - it's clear that the member unions within schools have a "healthy rivalry" and I'm told that the uneasy peace that is the "love-in" between NSWJRU / SJRU / Schools / Country has to be hammered back together at the start of every season and that all the "understanding" between the 4some provide barely adequate coverage for the cracks in the facade of their relationship as they all posture for top dog status.
 

Rugby Mum

Watty Friend (18)
YES it needs a serious overhaul - urgently. BUT, having read the Garling report & more importantly the "official" responses - NO WAY.

Further, if you have ever got anywhere near enough to watch and hear the protagonists at the epicentre - it's clear that the member unions within schools have a "healthy rivalry" and I'm told that the uneasy peace that is the "love-in" between NSWJRU / SJRU / Schools / Country has to be hammered back together at the start of every season and that all the "understanding" between the 4some provide barely adequate coverage for the cracks in the facade of their relationship as they all posture for top dog status.
And there lies the problem...;)
 

#1?

Larry Dwyer (12)
Seems it's all about me, not the kids. Until they get rid of parents, coaches, managers and selectors egos then no progress will be made.

This is a great idea but with 4 sets of interest groups involved, this is never going to happen.
 

Newbie

Bill McLean (32)
YES it needs a serious overhaul - urgently. BUT, having read the Garling report & more importantly the "official" responses - NO WAY.

Further, if you have ever got anywhere near enough to watch and hear the protagonists at the epicentre - it's clear that the member unions within schools have a "healthy rivalry" and I'm told that the uneasy peace that is the "love-in" between NSWJRU / SJRU / Schools / Country has to be hammered back together at the start of every season and that all the "understanding" between the 4some provide barely adequate coverage for the cracks in the facade of their relationship as they all posture for top dog status.

A very compendious summation MOTH! In a nutshell as one would say!
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Haven't read the Garling Report (and responses) for a while. Will need a refresh.

IIRC it was fairly lightweight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top