• 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.

Wallabies at the Rugby World Cup 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ruggo

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Lee Grant said:
There is nothing wrong in following schoolboy rugby. Without it Oz rugby would be a basket case; in fact were it not for schoolboy rugby this forum wouldn't exist because rugby union as we know it would have died after WWI. Without the schools you wouldn't have so many juniors trotting out every Saturday. Some schools have 40 or 50 teams running out every week.

The problem Oz rugby has is not with the sport at private schools. The problem it has is that it does a poor job in recruiting enough youngsters to join up with their village clubs, and after they do, keeping them in the sport. Not all families can afford to send their kids to private schools and many drop out compared to the lads at rugby schools who are locked in.

Everybody is aware that many of the cream of the crop are recruited by big schools but Oz rugby could do a better job with the ones that aren't. There are more lads like Horne and TPN, who never went to private schools, than have been discovered. They don't get recognised properly, or they weren't signed up in the first place, and/or the other codes got them first.

Also, rugby missionary work at public schools is poor.

I realise this is a very simplistic view and that others know more about the problems than I do including the conflict of interest between the Junior Unions and the ARU, but his fault, the other guy's fault, my fault, nobody's fault, we have to recruit more to the game and keep them there AND also benefit from private school rugby, which itself is under siege.
.
Click to expand...

Everything you say above Lee makes perfect sense. Getting a development officer to come and run a session at a school is like beating your head against a wall. I have no beef with the private school system though I would love to see a more even balance. I would love to see more of a bond being developed between rugby clubs and local public schools. It has to be the best way to tap into the wider community. We could do worse than than take notice and inspiration from some the initiatives our competitors impliment.

I can only speak for my local area though watching the state union not work harder at development frustrates me as a club person. It is never good for the game to see loyal volunteers throw their hands in the air, say this is to hard as nobody is supprting them only to walk away from the grassroots eliment of the game.
 
AngrySeahorse

AngrySeahorse

Peter Sullivan (51)
Agree Ruggo, I'd add small denominational schools to the list with public schools too, they often get lumped in with the big private schools when infact they get pretty much looked over as much as the public schools. I've seen some volunteers out country way just give up after seeing so many kids go over to league year after year. Its depressing. Big point for mine is that I dont want to see the schools system taken away in Sydney but as others have said the pathway needs to broaden, current situation is unacceptable.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Lee Grant said:
There is nothing wrong in following schoolboy rugby. Without it Oz rugby would be a basket case; in fact were it not for schoolboy rugby this forum wouldn't exist because rugby union as we know it would have died after WWI. Without the schools you wouldn't have so many juniors trotting out every Saturday. Some schools have 40 or 50 teams running out every week.

The problem Oz rugby has is not with the sport at private schools. The problem it has is that it does a poor job in recruiting enough youngsters to join up with their village clubs, and after they do, keeping them in the sport. Not all families can afford to send their kids to private schools and many drop out compared to the lads at rugby schools who are locked in.

Everybody is aware that many of the cream of the crop are recruited by big schools but Oz rugby could do a better job with the ones that aren't. There are more lads like Horne and TPN, who never went to private schools, than have been discovered. They don't get recognised properly, or they weren't signed up in the first place, and/or the other codes got them first.

Also, rugby missionary work at public schools is poor.

I realise this is a very simplistic view and that others know more about the problems than I do including the conflict of interest between the Junior Unions and the ARU, but his fault, the other guy's fault, my fault, nobody's fault, we have to recruit more to the game and keep them there AND also benefit from private school rugby, which itself is under siege.
.
Click to expand...

I agree, but during all that time when the private schools kept the game "afloat" it was an amateur game everywhere (in name at least) and it wasn't actually afloat: The NZRU bailed the ARU out a couple of times including by playing the one off game at the SCG in 79 for the Bledisloe and by providing jerseys because the ARU could not afford them. I have read that the Wallabies during this period actually went to England with no kit because the ARU couldnt afford it.
i suppose the question ultimately is whether the aim of the die hards like us is to have it the number 1 rugby code or whether we're happy having regular lean trots: I'll never forget the Beldisloe in 1979 but 30 years between drinks to get that feeling??????
 
rugbysmartarse

rugbysmartarse

Alan Cameron (40)
who should be the Australian RWC backup 7?

So McCalman gets another go at 7, despite his performance against Ireland. Pocock has an ouchie, and may go down in a knockout game, so we have little time to trail a backup.

Who would you play at 7 against USA and Russia to get them up to speed. Must be from the current squad (no-one suggest McCalman takes a dive for the team so we can swap in Beau).

Saia? could half con the opposition into thinking he is george smith
Higgers? at least he's quick

My pick is Burgess. Tackles well, and is experienced at standing over a ruck
 
Richo

Richo

John Thornett (49)
You stole my pick!

I dislike all the available options equally, to be honest. Higgers drifts too wide too often, McCalman lacks the physicality, Burgess is too small (or is he?)... I'm throwing up in my mouth a bit, but maybe it's Sai'a?
 
tigerland12

tigerland12

John Thornett (49)
Doesn't matter really, the fact is Deans fucked up by leaving Robinson/Hodgson at home and instead taking a needless amount of 6/8's
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Review the stats from the game against Ireland. McCalman made plenty of tackles and had plenty of involvement at the breakdown.

Pocock is one of the World's best 7s. We simply don't have an equivalent player to him.

I think trialling Burgess or S. Fainga'a at 7 would be absolutely crazy at this point in time.
 
waratahjesus

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
Why saia, why not Ant, defense shore, he gets involved in the breakdowns anyway and loves a pilfer, gives Robbie one less option in a mis field he can't work out as well.
 
Richo

Richo

John Thornett (49)
S

Skippy

Guest
Dumbest post ever.
Must be tongue in cheek?
I'm sick to death of reading people, on a website renowned for intelligent comments, suggesting player x who has played x position all his career can move into another position simply because of this or that.
Come on, get real people. This might be how it works in 3rd grade subbies where you move a fat bloke who can motor into 12 or a beanpole fullback into the second row - but it doesn't work like that at Super level and most certainly doesn't work at test level.
 
Joe Mac

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
Skippy said:
Dumbest post ever.
Must be tongue in cheek?
I'm sick to death of reading people, on a website renowned for intelligent comments, suggesting player x who has played x position all his career can move into another position simply because of this or that.
Come on, get real people. This might be how it works in 3rd grade subbies where you move a fat bloke who can motor into 12 or a beanpole fullback into the second row - but it doesn't work like that at Super level and most certainly doesn't work at test level.
Click to expand...

Skippy, seems like you might have a few roo's loose in the top paddock. This thread is not supposed to be taken seriously.
 
S

Skippy

Guest
Fair enough. But in general I do find the suggestions people make on this site to magically transform Higgers into a /1213 and Fainga'a's (plural!) overnight into backrowers, sheer ignorance of the intricacies of each position on the field. Higges could not pick up the running lines, angles, sleight of hands, passing skills, lateral movement in defence required at 13 without going right back to grade rugby in Brissy and starting all over again... and even then he might not make it. Just because he's big and has a turn of pace for a big man doesn't just justify the stupid idea.
Remember Richard Harry? He played backrow for Eastwood for many years before someone suggested he move to prop. A nuggety build (probably still over 6ft) it took him several seasons to learn his trade (and that was jsut learning tight head, he already knew how to play in the forwards). Of course I think Richard Harry would agree the most enjoyable part of his positional movement was the requirement to eat and put on a lot more weight!
 
Richo

Richo

John Thornett (49)
Skippy, Fainga'as as flankers is a bit of an old joke (mostly) around these parts...

...and the Higgers to 13 is from an old Spiros column (last year?) that provoked more than a handful of chuckles.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Braveheart81 said:
Review the stats from the game against Ireland. McCalman made plenty of tackles and had plenty of involvement at the breakdown.

Pocock is one of the World's best 7s. We simply don't have an equivalent player to him.

I think trialling Burgess or S. Fainga'a at 7 would be absolutely crazy at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct, IMO. for all of their grit the angles are all just completely different.
Riddle me this if we needed one no 7 why didnt he need a backup and if, as dingo said, open sides weren't going to matter, why did we take Pocock...and how come we looked so ordinary without a no 7 if this tournament was not going to depend on 7s????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top