School sporting scholarships/recruitment

[sidelineview]

It’s more fun if you snap at only some of the bait.

Grow up mate

 

[Quick Hands]

Do you need Braille?

Is he on a scholarship?

 

[WLF]

Grow up mate

Sideline, ignore IS he is well balanced, has a chip on both shoulders.

 

[Quick Hands]

It’s been going on for years at other schools and clubs, why not Waverley?
Peter Sterling came up from Wagga (?) and played with the eels in a semi v manly while still at school, IIRC.

But hang on, isn't Waverley strictly a union school? I thought all those evil league types went to Marcellin.

 

[WLF]

But hang on, isn't Waverley strictly a union school? I thought all those evil league types went to Marcellin.

QH, of course it is, has always been a union only school.

 

[WLF]

You poor fool.
This is what I wrote: “It’s been going on for years at other schools and clubs, why not Waverley?”
It’s a statement of fact about other schools and a question as to why Waverley would not do it. There’s no rule against it in CAS.
You read into it a criticism of your favourite school because you have a well founded inferiority complex.

Here's reality buddy,


The truth is it's extremely difficult to have an inferiority complex when a school, in this case Waverley, has won twice as many CAS comps since it's inception in 1943 as it's nearest rival Knox.

That would be news to you, guaranteed.

Furthermore, something you clearly don't know, but I do, is that prior to 1943, Waverley was 1 of the most dominant Rugby schools in Sydney, the only schools who often challenged were Joeys and Kings, occasionally Shore.

I know from your comments that is news to you, and really who cares, except STOP coming across as a know all, when you don't, when all you do is bag young boys,and schools, grow up.

Be constructive with your comments or do us all a favor and leave the site.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Come on IS, surely there was Grammar game v Waverly back in dark ages you can quote.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Come on IS, surely there was Grammar game v Waverly back in dark ages you can quote.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

There were indeed.
I remember a guy wearing a watch in the 13s and me complaining to the ref because it was a seiko with a steel band. I was penalised for backchat, as I recall. AT QP so that was a bit hometown reffing.
I remember Ugarte - they were tougher than us: thats why they wear that very mungo jersey with a V. (that will no doubt drive SLV and WLF mad)
Although I do recall our 6 Turning up second last pre-season trial directly from the cells at Darlo.

 

[WLF]

There were indeed.
I remember a guy wearing a watch in the 13s and me complaining to the ref because it was a seiko with a steel band. I was penalised for backchat, as I recall. AT QP so that was a bit hometown reffing.
I remember Ugarte - they were tougher than us: thats why they wear that very mungo jersey with a V. (that will no doubt drive SLV and WLF mad)
Although I do recall our 6 Turning up second last pre-season trial directly from the cells at Darlo.

If you remember Ugarte, then I was on the field that day.
I remember you had a very good 10 and 15, other than that....
and it wouldn't have mattered what jersey we wore.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If you remember Ugarte, then I was on the field that day.
I remember you had a very good 10 and 15, other than that..
and it wouldn't have mattered what jersey we wore.

those were the days

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You've seriously lost the plot on this.
Why don't you go to your profile, select members you ignore on the bottom right, and throw in anyone who gives you the shits.
Their posts will no longer be visible.

A world of warning: ignore does not stop PM's

 

[fatprop]

OK Children, this thread is a shit fight, here are a couple of the forum rules as a reminder, play nice or be banned

6. Play the ball not the man / No personal abuse of forum members, players, officials and public figures. Personal comments will be deleted and you'll get a card or ban.
This also applies to comments about players, coaches, Referees and other public figures. Feel free to criticize their play and decisions with reasoning, but not slander them as a person.
"Like last weekend, he's always seagulling and it gives me the shits" is OK.
"He's a f*ckwit who'll never amount to anything" is not.
Only a complete knob jockey resorts to personal insults anyway.


10. If another poster does not understand or agree with your point after 3 or 4 attempts, LET IT GO, WALK AWAY. It is very boring for other posters when the thread gets hijacked by two people having an argument.

If you have a problem with a poster or a post - report it, starting a shit fight will not be a option for all participants from now on.

You should all also note the thread title, if your post isn't on point it will be deleted, if your post is quoting something not on point, it will be deleted


You have been warned, play nice or find somewhere else

 

[sidelineview]

Fair enough.
Anyway on the subject of Waverley offering scholarships/recruiting Im not sure what they're up to this year.
The successful last two seasons have been with players who have come through the age groups from Year 7, with the exception of one if memory serves me correctly.

Regarding scholarships and recruitment in general i think there can be a very fine line between it being a good thing or being undesirable in schoolboy rugby.
If a particular age group in any school has proven to be weak then it could be justifiable for a school to bolster the playing group so they can be competitive in the Opens. No one likes to get smashed every week.

On the other if you were the parent of a talented player who had progressed through the age groups from Year 7 only to see him outed for a 1st XV spot by an import you'd be entitled to be dirty. It wouldn't be good for morale or look good for the culture of that school.

If parents of a student apply for a scholarship on the genuine grounds of being financially challenged and that student happens to be a good rugby player, indigenous or otherwise then its also justifiable and can lead to more players choosing rugby post school.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The debate is not about kids who would attend the school but for economic circumstance who apply for a scholarship: the debate is about targeted recruiting of students because of their rugby prowess.
The real problem with rugby scholarships is what it does to schools from which the recipients have come. A weak year in a school is a weak year in a school: there is no shame in it.
Schoolboy rugby is not an end itself.
Part of the purpose of school sport is to confront children with challenges that have no wider implication than dealing with adversity.
Buying your way out of adversity, to achieve something that has no intrinsic value, sends a number of messages which are antithetical to a holistic education and do not provide good life-lessons.

To strain and struggle to the end of strength;
To lean on skill, not ask a gift of chance,
To win, or lose, and recognize at length
The game the thing; the rest, a circumstance.

The reason sporting scholarships are bad for rugby generally is that giving them narrows the game's potential footprint in at least 2 ways:

• It takes a potential rugby playing kid from a usually lesser rugby playing school or club where his presence might encourage more kids to play the game;
• It tends to confine the rugby playing universe to the private schools who already play it and who have the resources to recruit players.

The fact is that if everyone recruited by offering scholarships, rugby at the schools would get better but the overall education would be worse and the game would further contract to an even narrower group of relative privilege.
As every week of Super Rugby demonstrates there is no future in that.

 

[sidelineview]

There is a difference between coming 1st in the comp and being smashed every week. It can happen given the cyclical nature of school rugby. Facing adversity and facing adversity can be reasonable or too harsh.
Perspective.
Unfortunately whereas rugby used to be strong in public schools (look at the number of CHS players in the NSW teams from 1977 as compared to last year's teams) its not strong now. Matraville High for example is now a league school.

Taking players from those schools only allows them to play the game. It gives them an opportunity and may sway them to pursue rugby post school. Big picture.
Private school rugby and Club rugby is the life blood of the game concerning grassroots development.
Wishing it was something else doesnt change the reality of the situation.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The life blood?
Life ebbs.
Blood soon.

 

[sidelineview]

The life blood?
Life ebbs.
Blood soon.

Cryptic

 

[BAR]

Couldn't agree with you more IS. The other cause in contracting rugby's footprint is that the schools with the wherewithal to offer scholarships for rugby players are the very schools that actively discourage those same players from continued involvement in club rugby.

 

[sidelineview]

Couldn't agree with you more IS. The other cause in contracting rugby's footprint is that the schools with the wherewithal to offer scholarships for rugby players are the very schools that actively discourage those same players from continued involvement in club rugby.

That doesnt make sense

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That doesnt make sense

Oh yes it does: the kids go to the schools but in return the schools prevent them playing club rugby: its the price of the free ride.
Thats why there is virtually no club rugby after 15s - so the knock on effect is that the 12 kids who would have played rugby with a club go to league when the 3 scholarship boys take off to their new educational institution.
I hope you don't think the school's recruit for the good of the game. They recruit to placate their short sighted old boys and attract deluded parents.