NSW JRU State Championships & Representative Teams 2014

[Quick Hands]

Well ,there were few howls when Hunters Hill went to Norths, there's an argument they should have gone to Eastwood I guess (that should entice Slugga back into the fray).
With those easts numbers thats only to age 12 or so: in U14s they have only one junior side and I think all play under the Wallaroos banner after 12.
the Wicks have a number of junior clubs that peter out very quickly from high school age.

I had wondered at the Norths/Hunters Hill affiliation. I don't remember it historically and in fact HH weren't in the juniors competition when I played in the 70s, so I assume they either didn't have juniors or were affiliated with Eastwood.

HH to Norths doesn't seem to make sense geographically.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Normanhurst played their home games at Normanhurst High School - so I always assumed that they were either a school team or very closely related to the school.

Field's still there - I had a vague feeling there was Normanhurst OB's side in subbies once

 

[Druid]

What a squandered opportunity Hornsby was/is - should have been a growth club: good private schools to prop them up, Normanhurst boys high (who played a bit RU I thin), Ku-rin-gai High (with some Oz schoolboys - I think), connection to Knox IIRC through a teacher and some players who went there.
Mind you Knox had a pretty solid connection to Gordon too.

As is Parramatta, a couple of well placed clubs (with suitably motivated volunteers) in the growth areas (Rouse Hill, Kellyville, Castle Hill) at the correct times and those clubs/district would be very strong. As opposed to the case now where the is 1 strong club and the other 4 clubs struggling to survive (e.g. Each club under 100 players, including mini's)

 

[tavytoo]

As is Parramatta, a couple of well placed clubs (with suitably motivated volunteers) in the growth areas (Rouse Hill, Kellyville, Castle Hill) at the correct times and those clubs/district would be very strong. As opposed to the case now where the is 1 strong club and the other 4 clubs struggling to survive (e.g. Each club under 100 players, including mini's)

if your description of a club struggling to survive is "less than 100 junior players then most county clubs are severly under threat and part of that problems has been the neglect by ARU in encouraging participation by running programmes similar to ARL and NRL with development officers in individual primary and secondary schools in all small, regional towns not just the occasional run out to the country in advance of the Super 8 season by the tahs or the rare gala day run by elusive aru development officers

 

[Druid]

I don't know that I would disagree with you althought some of it is relative to expectations.

In Sydney the competition offers every age group from U6's - Opens (U18's). Parents with more than 1 child (particularly new parents), woul dlike all their children to play in the 1 club, and where possible not play up an age group. To have 1 team in every age group (with some reserves) even up until U12's would require a club to have 97 players. so, unless the club just offers up to Under 12s I would say under 100 players that they are struggling. And this is all before you look at kids wanting to play in grades equalling their ability and therefore look for club with at least 2 teams in Junior Age Groups.

In the country areas many areas/regions only have every 2nd age group and may start at a higher age group than U6s. Hence to have a team in every age group offered the number of players would be much less.

 

[Quick Hands]

From the NSWRU annual report - NSWJRU section:

The introduction of the Junior Gold Cup by
Australian Rugby Union will see a change in role
of NSWJRU, in relation to representative fixtures.
This may necessitate changes to our representative
calendar but the challenge will be to retain some of
the traditional aspects such as the City Country Day.
There is a need to embrace new initiatives which
give benefit to all of junior rugby, not just our most
talented players.

http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Portals/3/PDFs/NSW Rugby-web.pdf

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Where is Slugga?
He's gone very quiet.
The so called super combo team representing the Norths Rep Side, put together from the alleged cream of Hunter Hill and Mosman, who were going to slay all before them and make it a one sided comp played the understaffed chatswood, who he reckons were just making up the number.
Slugga? Slugga?
Guess who came away with the biscuits?
aint no super team i can assure you of that

 

[Slugga]

Haven’t gone anywhere inside shoulder, it’s just that there has been nothing added to the conversation that requires a response. Oh, and I don’t suffer from an anal fixation with those I disagree with.

For starters you are verballing me and once again my point has missed you, so I will try once more.

With regard to Chatswood/Gordon the question is whether they are using the comp as a convenience or stepping stone to reps. If they fold after the state champs then the answer is probably yes, in which case it is a slap in the face for the comp and proves my point that the self-indulgent empire builders, who you are so keen to defend, are part of the problem of declining participation.

The Mosman/HH merger, strange bedfellows in itself and not alleged but unquestionably the ‘cream’ of the North’s district, suggests ego and self indulgence once again. God forbid they should stay separate and have teams in the B comp!

Add in the questionable dominance of HH/North’s in the rep sides last year and what you have is a pattern that suggests what is good for rugby takes a back seat to personal ambition.

In summary I have no problem with the older age groups merging into a district comp but what we have now is a mix. This is sucking the life out of rugby as a few clubs dominate the scene at the expense of others. Who is driving this? Not the kids.

A case in point is Hornsby who cannot field a 16’s team and have lost players to Wahroonga, possibly Chatswood, Dural and Beecroft, the latter with squads of 26 and 27 respectively . If you can’t see an issue in this than you’re clearly part of the problem and a world away from having a solution.

 

[Rugby Addict]

Slugga - Chatswood were very content to finish playing club rugby at Under 15's as has been the case throughout their junior rugby careers and still enjoy one last year of rep rugby with Gordon when the pressures of playing 2-3 games each weekend become too much. Previous administrators had the right balance.

The goal posts were changed without taking into account the physical toll these games take on the boys by people who must simply not get it. No one that I have spoken to who has a son playing 2-3 games every weekend thinks it is a good idea.

Yesterday's game between Chatswood and Mosman Hunters Hill was a high standard, brutally tough game and luckily the GPS/ISA games have not started yet but it was tough for the few CAS kids backing up from an A Grade game on Saturday - and if the parents care about the health of their sons they will not let them do it week in/ week out for the rest of the year because their will be no one left.

Mosman Hunters Hill organised a joint team and that is exactly the type of situation Chatswood were aiming for but could not get a joint team going and are subsequently left with 14 players with mates of mates helping out on a weekly basis but this is not sustainable. It is hard to get kids to play in a game like yesterday if you are not a rep player because the standard is not far short of a State Championship final and it is not for the faint hearted.

As for self indulgent empire builders you are missing the point. Chatswood are a high quality team who love playing together and the boys drove the decision to play again this year not the parents - with the ultimate aim of playing for Gordon again because they love it and the State Champs are the highlight of their rugby year.

It would have been easy for Chatswood, HH and Mosman to hide away in the B comp like the Eastwood district teams but not sure what that would achieve for club rugby.

I can never remember a Hornsby team in this Age Group but they probably had one in the lower divisions - certainly no Hornsby player has ever represented Gordon in this Age Group. The issue of Hornsby not fielding a team is not Chatswood, Mosman, Hunters Hill, Beecroft or Dural's fault.

 

[Slugga]

Rugby addict I’m not sure if you are disagreeing or largely supporting what I’m saying.

No doubt Chatswood are content to finish club at 15’s and enjoy a last year of reps but that IS exactly the point. It’s not about Gordon’s preferences; it shows a total disregard for non rep players and undermines the competition in general should they fold after state champs.

If you don’t want fierce, high level club games then don’t merge or if you do then have a level playing field and turn it into a district comp.

I doubt it would have been easy for Chatswood/HH/Mosman to, as you put it 'hide-away in the B comp' because it’s not their style, they are after all the elite of Sydney rugby. The fact that you suggest by Beecroft/Dural not stacking their team they are somehow hiding away in the B comp is typical of the elitist attitude that exists. That Hornsby has never had Gordon representation only demonstrates that if you want to get ahead you’ll need to join the leading clubs.

So, why is this bad for rugby?

Firstly it makes recruitment and sustainability for clubs like Hornsby near impossible while leading clubs become top heavy. Secondly it ignores what IMO club rugby should be about, that is participation and expansion of the game. And finally it pisses people off and drives kids out of the game.

The perception that rugby is an exclusive private school club has existed from year dot, now that club rugby has headed down the same path it comes as no surprise that both state school and club rugby are in decline.

 

[Slugga]

Post script.

In the event of once again being accused of a hidden agenda my son is at a private school, plays club and representative rugby so anyone who may disagree address my argument and save us the ad hominem attacks.

And have a nice day

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'll let your own posts prove your disingenuousness

For starters you are verballing me and once again my point has missed you, so I will try once more.

The Mosman/HH merger, strange bedfellows in itself and not alleged but unquestionably the ‘cream’ of the North’s district, suggests ego and self indulgence once again. God forbid they should stay separate and have teams in the B comp!

And what’s the Mosman/HH 1stxv about. Is the competition a training run for the self appointed elites? That’s how it’s being treated but they could at least be honest about it. Mind you I fail to see how flogging sides by 40 points is in the interests of the game.

And in deference to Rugby Addict's post - Chatswood were up 3 tries with 5 minutes to go and let HH/M in for 2 consolation tries after taking their foot off the pedal.
So he is being a little kind to HH/M, IMHO, in his assessment of the closeness of the contest but it was tough at times.

 

[Slugga]

You already tried that one on IS. As I stated back then, the jist of the comment is about the rise of super teams in general and its impact on rugby.
That you can be bothered to troll past blogs (on more than one occasion) and cherry pick comments that are out of context to the current discussion proves only that you don't like my opinion and has little to do with the essence of my argument.

In short you’re a tedious bore. I have better things to do then play your petty sniping games, unless you have anything new to say that is rugby specific there is little point in continuing any correspondence.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You already tried that one on IS. As I stated back then, the jist of the comment is about the rise of super teams in general and its impact on rugby.
That you can be bothered to troll past blogs (on more than one occasion) and cherry pick comments that are out of context to the current discussion proves only that you don't like my opinion and has little to do with the essence of my argument.

In short you’re a tedious bore. I have better things to do then play your petty sniping games, unless you have anything new to say that is rugby specific there is little point in continuing any correspondence.

Context?
Cherry pick?
Jist (sic)?
Rolls eyes emoticon

 

[Azzuri]

2014 U16 State Champs... teams to watch? ... a penny for your thoughts

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Penrith
Gordon

 

[10to12]

Agree IS. Penrith appears to have assembled quite a team from all over so will be right up there. Gordon ,Norths and Eastwood all appear to have lost some boys to the schools and their reluctance to let them play if they are in 16a or opens.
Does anybody know weather ACT and Victoria are playing this year or has the JGC satisfied their rep program.

 

[Azzuri]

Am aware of the reluctance to allow opens players to play for rep sides but not 16 a's. Apart from school trials isn't there only one round of the GPS program before the state champs?

 

[10to12]

Am aware of the reluctance to allow opens players to play for rep sides but not 16 a's. Apart from school trials isn't there only one round of the GPS program before the state champs?

It appears that some boys from Scots,Joeys and Kings are not around this year. It might just be that they have decided to concentrate on school.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Am aware of the reluctance to allow opens players to play for rep sides but not 16 a's. Apart from school trials isn't there only one round of the GPS program before the state champs?

Yes.
A number of boys in U16s - essentially the younger ones in year 11 and a few year 10ers - would be in their school's opens.
Some of the TSC U16's have changed to Randwick I am told and i think there is not much coming out of SJC for U16s - maybe 1?
Garry Owen III will know all about it.