| LUBBE XV | VOWLES XV | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | C. KLOPPER (Glenwood) | 1 | A. PEVERELLE (Hilton) | |
| 2 | M. WISEMAN (Michaelhouse) | 2 | H. PRINSLOO (Westville) | |
| 3 | L. CELE (Glenwood) | 3 | K. MCHUNU (Glenwood) | |
| 3 | J. ELS (Westville) | 3 | F. HENDRICKS (Ferrum) | |
| 4 | S. QOMA (Westville) | 4 | T. DIXON (Kearsney) | |
| 5 | J. MEYER (Kearsney) | 5 | J. SESINK-CLEE (Michaelhouse) | |
| 6 | K. NICHOLSON (Westville) | 6 | K. XABA (Glenwood) | |
| 7 | M. SADIKI (Michaelhouse) | 7 | D. MULLER (Westville) | |
| 8 | S. DE MARIGNY (Hilton) | 8 | M. PALVIE (Glenwood) | |
| 9 | R. VD WESTHUIZEN (Pionier) | 9 | M. DAHL (Hilton) | |
| 10 | J. BOSSR (Glenwood) | 10 | B. PRETORIUS (Michaelhouse) | |
| 11 | A. DUMA (Maritzburg College) | 11 | I. MUKENDI (Glenwood) | |
| 12 | S. MADUNA (Glenwood) | 11 | T. MAHLANGU (Westville) | |
| 13 | D. DU RANDT (Glenwood) | 12 | J. TEDDER (Kearsney) | |
| 14 | J. WHEELER (Westville) | 13 | L. FURNESS (Michaelhouse) | |
| 14 | S. BUTHELEZI (Westville) | 14 | X. GUMA (Maritzburg College) | |
| 15 | J. MORGAN (Glenwood) | 14 | K. MUNANGI (Maritzburg College) | |
| 15 | V. FOSTER (Michaelhouse) | |||
| BLAUME XV | SCHWARTZ XV | |||
| 1 | N. MTHEMBU (Northwood) | 1 | A.J. PRETORIUS (Glenwood) | |
| 1 | J. ELS (Westville) | 2 | Q. VORSTER (Glenwood) | |
| 2 | J. VAN VUUREN (Kearsney) | 3 | B. VAN ROOYEN (Glenwood) | |
| 2 | D. LEE (Westville) | 3 | W. GILBERT (Westville) | |
| 3 | L. MAZIBUKO (Michaelhouse) | 4 | C. JACOBS (Pionier) | |
| 4 | K. BLOSE (Glenwood) | 5 | A. EVANS (Clifton) | |
| 4 | L. WHITFIELD (DHS) | 5 | M.L. BARNARD (Westville) | |
| 5 | J.L. BRYNARD (Glenwood) | 6 | C. GLOVER (Maritzburg College) | |
| 6 | M. VIDIMA (Glenwood) | 6 | A. BRUMMER (Glenwood) | |
| 6 | L. NDABANDABA (DHS) | 7 | D. ATEMBE (Maritzburg College) | |
| 7 | R. VOSLOO (Clifton) | 8 | M. NTULI (DHS) | |
| 8 | T. GUMEDE (Kloof) | 9 | S. DUBAZANA (Glenwood) | |
| 8 | J. MILLER (Kearsney) | 9 | C. HUNT (Glenwood) | |
| 9 | G. SIMPSON (DHS) | 10 | C. RITCHIE (Kearsney) | |
| 9 | K. GOEDEKE (Clifton) | 10 | N. VAN ROOYEN (Westville) | |
| 10 | G. COETZEE (DHS) | 11 | D. MCGHEE (Hilton) | |
| 11 | H. TAMAHANE (Maritzburg College) | 12 | M. HOLTZHAUSEN (Glenwood) | |
| 11 | S. MHLAMVU (Westville) | 13 | S. SIBISI (St Charles) | |
| 12 | D. LOFTUS (Hilton) | 14 | S. PAU (Kearsney) | |
| 12 | B. BOULLE (Westville) | 14 | F. GOBLE (Michaelhouse) | |
| 13 | H. NAUDÈ (Westville) | 15 | M. KRIEL (Maritzburg College) | |
| 14 | G. LUBBE (Glenwood) | 15 | M. NESBIT (Kearsney) | |
| 15 | D. BRYAN (DHS) | |||
| NKOSI XV | FRASER XV | |||
| 1 | S. BUTHELEZI (Richards Bay) | 1 | W. BOTHA (Pionier) | |
| 2 | F. BOTHA (Pionier) | 2 | P. KEEVE (Vryheid) | |
| 3 | D. LEE (Westville) | 3 | L. MTHETHWA (Empangeni) | |
| 3 | L. SOSIBO (Greytown) | 4 | K. JOHNSON (Sarel Cilliers) | |
| 4 | H. VAN EDEN (Sarel Cilliers) | 5 | F. VAN GREUNEN (Empangeni) | |
| 4 | B. MALINGA (Howick) | 6 | N. MLOTHSHWA (Sarel Cilliers) | |
| 5 | M. CHAMANE (Greytown) | 7 | A. KHANYILE (Wartburg) | |
| 6 | B. ZITHUMANE (Port Shepstone) | 8 | C. SWANEPOEL (Pionier) | |
| 7 | S. THEMBE (Eshowe) | 9 | W. NGUBANE (George Campbell) | |
| 8 | A. MDUDI (Port Shepstone) | 9 | F. KOTZE (Weston) | |
| 9 | C. SEVERS (Ashton) | 10 | R. POTGIETER (Pionier) | |
| 9 | K. HLENGWA (John Ross) | 11 | K. MAQAM (South City) | |
| 10 | T. DU PLOOY (Sarel Cilliers) | 12 | X. KRIEL (Sarel Cilliers) | |
| 11 | N. NZUZA (Weston) | 13 | N. VILJOEN (Pionier) | |
| 11 | L. SITHOLE (Ferrum) | 14 | J. WARDEN (Pionier) | |
| 12 | R. FOURIE (Ferrum) | 15 | R.LE ROUX (Pionier) | |
| 13 | N. MADIBA (Sarel Cilliers) | |||
| 14 | M. NGUBANE (Ladysmith) | |||
| 14 | B. ZULU (Sarel Cilliers) | |||
| 15 | L. NDOU (Wartburg) | |||
| KZN REPRESENTATIVES | ||||
| Glenwood | 21 | |||
| Westville | 16 | |||
| Kearsney | 8 | |||
| Michaelhouse | 8 | |||
| Maritzburg College | 7 | |||
| DHS | 6 | |||
| Hilton | 5 | |||
| Clifton | 3 | |||
| Pionier | 2 | |||
| St Charles | 1 | |||
| Northwood | 1 | |||
| Ferrum | 1 | |||
| Kloof | 1 | |||
| Total | 80 |
@umbiloburger: {shrug} … better late than never hey …
http://blog.schoolboyrugby.co.za/?p=11561
All the best to Glenwood wrt Gr8 recruiting. Not that what I think matters but I have no issues there. Hopefully Glenwood sticks with these top kids all the way to gr12 now. WELL STATED
@umbiloburger: Agreed – it was a very relaxed atmosphere – with the selectors chatting to boys who were injured – giving them a few tips during the game. Chatting to the ref – and he emphasized to the boys the great GK record in KZN over the past years being the team that returned consistently with good results and he said that the boys are a good bunch and the record should remain again this year.
Eased a lot of the tension and there was a good camaradrie already developing between the various schools from what I saw. Kudos to the panel.
@umbiloburger: “Old” experienced head there. But the team would have still got it right if they balanced the books with selectors.
I’ve just about said my piece about this, but discussing it with someone on Whatsapp this morning I think I may be confusing selection wth coaching. When the boys get to trials, are they given a “marking plan”, where they are all told what the selection criteria are. So forwards, going to be counted on the number of rucks they hit, as in an actual count, so hit the ruck, even if the hits already made by the loosies have done the job and the crash ball is the best attacking play. Or whatever, just make sure everyone knows, so the “dayglo” factor is removed. Is that selection, is it coaching, or is it both. I don’t know, and since I’m never going to be a selector maybe I should do what I do with matches. Predict nothing, expect nothing, just sit back and enjoy the result.
So, that’s me on this. Ranted and raved enough, I’ll go and do some towing, pitch up and enjoy the rugby on Saturday. Northwood going to be hurting, going to make for a good match. Hockey will be a test as well, Northwood a very good side who beat House well.
@Gungets Tuft: Full credit must be given to Bruce Collocott. Apparently his approach to the U16 trials is fantastic. Small things like not wearing your school socks, selectors chatting to the players before their games etc etc. him and his team always seem to get it right.
@umbiloburger: I am on record as saying I don’t agree with the two from College, just as I said that I cannot believe that there are no boys from House. It’s not just the U18 that I think needs an overhaul.
I would feel the same no matter what school were from if it’s matched by 25% of the trials from a school that shows a shortage in depth.
I don’t think anything more than a first team “squad” is justifiable at trials. If you’re not good enough for your school team how on earth can you justify a trials spot. Sending that many means extra admin, less time for each player invited to be seen. Drop the numbers, formulate trials differently, give every boy a chance in a strong pack and a weak one, or behind a strong and weak one. Swap #9’s and #10’s in the same way, along with the rest of the backs, let’s see how they handle going backwards. Fewer people, more time to do a good job of testing skills, teamwork, temperament. Give key positions like hooker a chance to throw to strong jumpers, then let him find the weaker ones.
@SBR Fan: Put some school colors up, add something of value, then ask your question again. You can snipe all you like, but until you fault me on the points I make or the questions I’m asking you’re just background noise.
What about Furniss, De Marigny and Sadiki? Where was Dixon???
My predictions before regional trials are looking on point – 14 must have been Guma or Mukendi?
@GreenBlooded: And don’t forget the Japanese
Probables … stand to correction but as I saw :
1 A. PEVERELLE (HILT)
2 M. WISEMAN (MHS)
3 L. MAZIBUKO (MHS)
4 S. QOMA (W)
5 J. SESINK-CLEE (MHS)
6 K. XABA (GW)
7 D. MULLER (W)
8 M. PALVIE (GW)
9 M. DAHL (HILT)
10 B. PRETORIUS (MHS)
11 T. MAHLANGU (W)
12 J. TEDDER (K)
13 D. DU RANDT (GW)
14 Not Sure
15 V. FOSTER (MHS)
Obviously going to be changes as the PDI requirement not met.
Careful, Westville also have red socks that look like Michaelhouse socks.
I really hope that is the case. Let them select the whole MHS team for all I care. We will get a hiding at CW but at least it will put paid to the year in year out conspiracy theories about GW.
Not so sure about Glenwood dominating selections – in the probables team today I saw more MHS socks than anything else.
@Gungets Tuft:
1. Glenwood had information evenings in Boksburg, Sakunda and Pretoria to accommodate the several inquiries they had received from those areas. beet was given an official response on the matter from Glenwood.
2. The majority of the evening revolves around a marketing video followed by question and answer sessions. I have seen the video and at no stage does it cover numbers at trials etc etc.
3. Yes they do, but they did not select themselves. Maritzburg Coll have two selectors in the U16 trials. But no concerns there.
4. You are attacking the process because it appears to favor Glenwood. I doubt if you would be carrying on like this if it favored any other school. I am not on any of the KZN committees and as such I cannot explain. What I can say is what I am told when I ask questions. Ask your school to ask questions of the KZN Exec.
I can’t answer for the 1stXV coaches or the South Durban selectors about who should go to trials or be selected. But personally, and I have said this before, I do not agree with it. We unfortunately do not know what permutations the selectors are dealing with and if they feel the need to invite 21 back, then so be it.
@Gungets Tuft: Do you want some cheese with your whine?
Was anyone at Woodburn today? What is everyone’s predictions ?
@umbiloburger: Am I wrong.
1. Did Glenwood have a recruitment day at Concordia that was moved to a guest house as a result of local opposition.
2. At any time during the presentations was it mentioned what Glenwoods representation was at trials and final trials. Careful how you answer that one because you know there were observers there.
3. Do Glenwood have 2 coaches and 2 selectors.
4. I am attacking the unknown about the process. What is it. The challenge to you is to show us how that process unfolds, constitution based, then show us what actually happened at voting.
You are depicting it’s an attack because you don’t see fit to explain. It’s got nothing to do with the Red Black and White, it’s just questions, no attack.
Then answer me another set of questions. Do you believe that those 21 all deserved to be at final trials ahead of all those who did not make it. And do you believe it’s right that Glenwood send 30+ to trials, do they expect them to get in, or is it just a marketing gimmick.
@RBugger: Hahahahaha that’s the try I was talking about.Our hero, Toby, was made to look like a piece of paper by Stone.That man put a number of people on stretchers that year.I remember the televised game against Grey PE where their wing had to be taken off in an ambulance.
Bertram was a freak of nature.Huge, strong and blady fast!He gave Monde Zondeki a hard time on the track too…and he was blitz!But ja, he stopped growing and was playing hooker for GCB in matric.We were so relieved when Grey bought him, and our age group finally got some victories against Selborne in under 14 and under 15
@Playa: What a side that was – we also had some beasts in the pack, it was such a rounded side – i also remember Stone having an 80 odd meter run and your wing getting in his way, brave attempt. Let me tell you somehting, Stone hurt a lot of guys that year, he took CJ Van Der Linde off the field – CJ tried to bounce him and saw his arse hahahaha
Jeez, Bertram Johnson – without doubt, the best primary school rugby player I have ever seen in my life. We played against Grey Bloem at u13 level, and he single handedly destroyed them – he ran right through them, scoring a fantastic hatrick. He was then bought by Grey – thas was way back in 1996/1997 – so even then, boys were being bought.
He sort out stopped growing though – i remember him making the SA Academy side in Matric and then he vanished off the radar, I wonder what happened to him?
@McCulleys Workshop: Is that the 1st team rankings? You commented on the growth. GW are growing their rugby (and other codes too) so look at the junior rankings.
Anyway, trials will always bring disappointment to some and jubilation to others. I also haven’t seen a perfect system yet, even at junior club level.
I commend the selectors for their time and effort, doing all this work for no reward and undue criticism.
@umbiloburger: I did as you said and this is what I saw…
Rank Team Avg
1 HJS Paarl 4.60
2 Paarl Gim 4.50
3 Paul Roos 4.44
4 SACS 3.84
5 Monument 3.83
6 Affies 3.83
7 Michaelhouse 3.79
8 Nelspruit 3.77
9 Grey College 3.75
10 EG Jansen 3.68
11 Oakdale 3.66
12 Outeniqua 3.56
13 Bishops 3.51
14 Grey PE 3.44
15 Jeppe 3.40
16 Selborne 3.34
17 Maritzburg College 3.21
18 Noord-Kaap 3.20
19 Waterkloof 3.19
20 Worcester Gim 3.16
This is becoming tiresome to read. The continuos onslaught of GW.
@McCulleys Workshop: None so blind as those who don’t want to see. Please, how can you say GW haven’t improved. Look at the rankings and look at how they have narrowed the gap on Grey and Affies. Look at the U15 results against Paul Roos, Paarl boys etc. u14A and u16 unbeaten.
@Gungets Tuft: So we attack the process and the leadership of KZN Schools Rugby and now you resort to this condescending approach of attacking GW and their staff. Not becoming of a the Red black white.
@RBugger: Of course you can mention it wasn’t their strongest side ever, but it goes to show everyone has those years. Last year was not the worst year for College, a win over Affies and all KZN opposition, except for the narrow loss to Glenwood on Goldstones, a more decisive loss on Dixons to what was rated as a very good Glenwood side. We’ll not raise the question of numbers of boys in CW and SA Schools from each ..
There will be a limit to professionalism. Professional in our approach to conditioning, coaching (but it will be teachers or students in the lower teams), but wholesale scouting across the country won’t get my support. I believe it is an unsustainable strategy which will damage our ability to draw from local sources. We already fight the decline of PMB and the perception that Govt schools lack something (Old Boys heading off to House, Hilton and Kearsney). We have enough challenges without trying to manage a mercenary army … there is plenty of talent in KZN, we need to attract them legitimately.
@RBugger: I was in Std 8 that year.I remember that year as if it was yesterday. We had to endure the Brent Russel show in Slummies when Brent tore us apart on his own.In the return slaughter in King, Johnson aka Stone bounced Toby Mdaka on the left wing for the final try.I still remember that whole backline (ok, except for the right wing)…Fowles, Russel, Sparks, O’Connor, Johnson, Gibson…jeez I’m trembling just thinking about those okes.
Were you at Selborne Primary by any chance?You would have been in the same class with one Bertram Johnson…now that’s a man that was feared in the Dale Junior corridors in my time
@Gungets Tuft: Of course you can – cani mention how weak that Affies side was hahahaha, I am only joking, I am not sure KC have ever beaten an Affies or Grey side, so well done
@Playa: While I was there, we had the 1998 Dream Team – Brent Russel was at flyhalf that year (did not make SA Schools) but believe me, he was the best school boy flyhalf I have ever seen in my life. We also had B Sparks at centre, Nick Johnson on the wing who both played SA Schools. Gibson our fullback played SA Academy – but we still took a beating against Grey Bloem.
The thing with College, the past couple of years their first xv have not been as dominant of formiddable as in the past. When I was at Boys High, the likes of KC or GW were not thought of, at least not by us. We always spoke of and worried about the game against College, we knew that it would be physical and tough – I never beat them in my school career!
All I am saying, is that is no longer the same – College were the force in those days. It has now shifted – SBR has become blady professional, the likes of College and PBHS are very much traditionalists and do not seem to buy into the culture of semi pro rugby, which in the long run, is a good thing. Most of the boys will never be pro rugby players anyway.
@Gungets Tuft:
@RBugger: Oh shame, you poor soul, you went to Selborne a some point?It’s ok, you’ve turned out ok actually…thanks to Boys High
On a less serious note. I hear you.I still beg to differ.I don’t have the records, but was there ever a time (a 10 year period to simplify things) in College’s history where they lost more than they won against KC, Hilton, MHS, DHS or GW. I left Westville out on purpose because that rivalry is relatively new, 20 odd years if I’m not mistaken.
Anyway, my whole point is have Boys High ever had a dry couple of seasons in their history?Have College?Have Grey Bloem?Have Affies?I believe the answer is yes to all.Do teams still fear Grey College as they did 10 or so years ago? Hell no!Does that speak to Grey’s downfall? Hell no! Look at the Selborne-Grey results across the board, and compare them to 5 years ago.Selborne have improved, period.Look at their results against Dale and QC for example. Junior A Team games going for 50plus points.Unheard of.never happened in my lifetime before.
College losing to Kearsney at 1st team level, has happened and will happen again.It means nothing. The day College is not able to provide enough fixtures for a derby against KC is the day I will start believing College rugby is in danger.When something that has never happened before, actually happens.
@RBugger: Can we at least claim having beaten Affies last year?
@Gungets Tuft: I can’t comment on the hookers, as I do not know them. I am not saying you do not have a valid point, I am jsut asking for the facts. So you have now mentioned a player who should perhaps be there, I will find out why he is not there and hopefully come back to you – that is the thing, you can find out certain selections by being an outsider and simply asking.
Look, to me, College will always be a fantastic school – but I remember them as rugby beasts, the English School who could give the Afrikaans Schools a real go – it is just different now, that is all.
@Playa: I understand what you are saying, but the results speak for themselves I am afraid. I am a Selborne (up to standard 8) and a Pretoria Boys High old boy – now sadly, watching Boys High recently, has not been great. They have dropped, no matter what way you look at it – the same can be said for College. I am not saying this affects the History or the school in anyway, I am simply talking about the rugby aspect.
College were once formidable, they were feared – we had huge respect for College and always knew, if we won, it would be a victory savoured for a long time to come. This is sadly not the reality any more. KC have not raised there game that much, they are a decent side with huge heart who play around Dixon and Tedder, but they are not an Paarl Boys.
Grey Bloem have lost to top opposition this year – Affies, Monnas and Paarl Boys – can you imagine College or KC playing those 3 sides, I can tell you this, we would play with heart and guts for around 40 or so minutes and then the curtain would come down.
Grey are a power-house, they have lost 3 to top sides – and all 3 were very tight.
The reason i had a dig, was because of the perceived notion that KZN do not do well at CW because of selection and GW influence in selection – this is simply not so, KZN do not have the depth of players at their disposal. Like I have said, if College or KC played Monnas, Affies or Paarl and you could not call the winner before the game, then KZN would do well at CW – but we all know what would happen 9 out of 10 times, we would take a proper hiding, fact.
I agree with Gungets Tuft not being happy with the amount of players from GW going to trials – but this is really neither here nor there, as long as the best squad is selected, then I am happy for anyboy who feels up to it, having a go at trials.
@RBugger: Sam Swanepoel is not only the 8th best hooker in KZN. That’s a fact. Yet 7 hookers have been invited ahead of him. If he was not invited because he didn’t have a shot, then at least 4 of the others don’t either. Scholtz, not invited back. Seriously. It’s not about College – it’s about 1 school dominating the process (and how that is allowed to happen), but I really do give up. I have cars to tow.
College beat Kearsney last year. It’s not been a great run for the first side, but I am happy to say there’s been no mass suicide in Sleepy Hollow, we lack many things, but not context. Next year’s been another year for 153 years, I’m sure the old girl will be fine.
As for all the talk of College falling off – has anyone spoken to the sides other than the Firsts about that?
Team Opposition Result Score
1st Kearsney lost 20 – 23
2nd Kearsney won 20 – 10
3rd Kearsney lost 15 – 20
4th Kearsney won 24 – 3
5th Kearsney won 60 – 7
6th Kearsney won 53 – 0
7th Linpark 2nd won 70 – 0
8th Kearsney 7th won 50 – 9
16A Kearsney won 27 – 26
16B Kearsney won 31 – 0
16D Kearsney 16C won 17 – 0
16F Hilton 16E won 32 – 0
15A Kearsney won 16 – 14
15B Kearsney lost 5 – 20
15C Kearsney won 17 – 0
15E Kearsney 15D lost 5 – 24
14A Kearsney won 49 – 19
14B Kearsney won 17 – 12
14C Kearsney won 17 – 5
14D Treverton lost 19 – 22
14E Kearsney 14D won 40 – 12
@RBugger: @Pedantic: I think boys deserve more credit than that. College Fever is not a thing of the past because College rugby has gone backwards, but because boys have a more competitive spirit and schools have improved their game, simple as that.Has GCB gone backwards because they lost 3 games in a row for the first time since 1994??? I think not.
Anyway, my view is kids today choose to stand up to the big boys of yesteryear, as opposed to fearing them.They match them, as opposed to the other guys having gone backwards.There are enough examples of schools who have fallen off, and I don’t think College is one of them. That’s my opinion.
Give credit to the KC, Glenwood, Westville etc boys who have raised their game, and apply a different mindset to what their forefathers had.
@Pedantic: I agree about the respect – and it’s present between the Tier 1 schools and all the others. It’s ludicrous to thing that Kearnsey and College (and the others) would not respect DHS, Campbell or Northwood.
@RBugger: What you’re saying is that the end justifies the means, or that the end result is all that matters. My argument has been generic, not aligned to a school in particular, but here’s the angle.
When Glenwood go on a recruiting drive to Concor .. sorry, a guest house in Boksburg, you can bet your very last cent that part of that marketing includes the numbers of boys they get to first trials and final trials. While they won’t print it, they will inform their guests that Glenwood provides more than a 1/4 of the boys for final trials, that even 3rd team players get a shot – there’s an implied guarantee. Then you see 2 selectors and 2 coaches from Glenwood, and it’s not supposed to raise an eyebrow. So, it’s not just the trials, it’s everything around the selections.
No matter, it’s done, but unless the other schools put a brake on it then nothings going to change, next year will see Groundhog day, and the next. One school is making the rules, nobody seems to know why, or they’re not willing to talk about it. But no worries, Umbiloburger is going to pop by with the constitution and voting and we will see a pattern I am sure.
@Pedantic: It’s so bizarre because Westville backup frontrower is Beast Mtebela, who you’d think would be a much better fit in at trials.
The rank order is Els-Stoltz first choice, then Mtebela then hooker Lee, so Gilbert basically the Westville 5th choice.
Hopefully if it’s an error, it has been corrected.
@RBugger: Valid point, I think the days of “College Fever” the week before the College clash are now over. In the past the guys prepared themselves for a hiding where recently they believe they have a shot.
@RBugger: Is the option to send 2nd and 3rd team players to provincial trials open to all schools?
@Pedantic: Certainly is a big deal when looking at the bigger picture. But it is alarming that these wins are mostly current – I think it is now 4/5yrs in a row?
Having spoken to a lot of KC boys, the general consensus is that GW are the top dogs, the team they want to beat. The history however, is with College and they always want to beat them, but they are not seen as the brutes they once were.
@McCulleys Workshop: I am not saying it will definitely yield results, I am just pointing out a difference. I mean, Border aren’t exactly world beaters at CW and yet we play 2 terms of rugby there, maybe even 3 – just as an example, and yet Dale, QC and Selborne could all have a brilliant season and yet be dismal at CW.Bad example, maybe as Border is hampered by politics more than anything.But look at their record in the 80s and 90s.
Also note that, though CW takes place at the end of the 2nd term…a grade 12 player from KZN has played 20 months of high school rugby compared to 33 months played by a WP schoolboy in the same grade – who still has two more left in him. CW just becomes a culmination of it all.The culture part of it.Which only exists in a handful of schools in KZN.
You guys have pointed out numerous times the difference between boys who supplement their schoolboy rugby with club rugby and those who only play for their schools for example.I am not saying it’s a guarantee of success, just pointing out a reality.Talent without culture will get one nowhere in rugby.That’s why you will find individual schools in KZN competing well against the national powerhouses, but implode as soon as they wear the black and white colours of their province.
sorry, fact indicates that College, just like all the other KZN schools, are not up with the TOP 10 sides in the Country.
Fact indicates that the best players get picked year in year out for CW – i am asking you to tell me who should have been picked who has not been picked – if there is no answer, well then, selection must surely be fair and correct.
It is no secret that College are not the beast they once were, KC certainly are not a TOP 5 side, so there celebration is well founded. I am not having a dig, I am telling you what I see.
I asked you for your comments on boys going to trials – ie, do you not think that perhaps the likes of College and KC etc, simply do not feel it is right sending second team players? If GW or Westville wish to do so, fair enough – are they actually making it into the CW side, if not – I do not see a problem.
I’m still convinced the selectors got the Westville 1st and 2nd tightheads mixed up at trials.
I think they played one half each of the Highways chukka – and the prop in the 1st half was by far superior in the scrumming department (not sure how his DF stats were) but as a tighthead we want a scrummager right ?
I remember last year there were several Westville 2nd team players who got the nod ahead of their 1st XV counterparts – interesting.
@Gungets Tuft: When you consider it was only the 10th win KC could muster in nearly 7 decades then one realises how big it is for the boys – huge respect between the teams.
@Gungets Tuft: I do not think you are reading my post to you correctly, I am asking a few questions, not posting facts.
Fact indicates that
@RBugger: So you’re content with 2nd and 3rd team Glenwood boys, and 2nd team Westville boys going?
No comment on the “College are no longer feared”, all you had to do was witness the celebration from the Kearsney boys on Saturday to realise that it’s still a prized win.
Your comments on Glenwood having the best depth available is not backed up by the facts. Look at the results of their open teams this year to get the idea. Nothing supports Glenwood having 21 at final trials, you can dress it up any way you like. It’s not about College, it’s about selection criteria which is clearly wrong. Glenwood won 3 from 10 in the Opens – 1st, 3rd (10-5), 5th (19-15).
@umbiloburger: @Playa: UB – I’m still not convinced. I don’t see a huge improvement in GW, WV or MC’s rugby over the last 5 years because of the number of current top of the pops sides they play. I’m not a buyer of it. I also don’t see how playing on the 3rd term helps us at CW which takes place at the end of the 2nd term.
@Playa: You are 100% correct about playing a full season. The schools were coerced into dropping term 3 rugby for soccer. If you want to bark with the big dogs, then you’ve got to play them.
@Gungets Tuft: Hi there. Here is the thing, I need to know the players that have not made it that should be there. Every year there is this same argument, but it always seems to me that the best side has been picked – the players that should be there are.
I understand the ill feeling towards Glenwood as they get so many more boys to trials, but does this influence the CW and Academy side in anyway. I still see the best players being picked.
Maybe the other schools choose not to send so many boys – perhaps they are given the option, but do not bother to send anyone other than 1st xv players?
I do not mean any disrespect to College, who in my day were right up there with the best Rugby Schools I have ever played, but lately, they are no longer a real force in SBR. GW are not world beaters by any means, but they really did make College look silly – yes it could be an off day, but not to that extent. College, like my old school Pretoria Boys High, seem to have lost something on the rugby field, I am not sure what it is or why it is, but the truth is, College are no longer feared.
I do not think there would be any point sending numbers of College Boys, or KC boys to trials – perhaps it is just that the selectors are looking for depth and feel that GW have the best depth available?
Either way, does it really affect the MAIN SIDE that is choosen?
@umbiloburger: I struggle to buy that whole ‘to get better, play the top opposition’ mentality.If you look at the College, Glenwood and Westville fixture lists for example, those guys on average play 4-5 games against the big boys each year. Look at the FS, only GCB play the so called big guns, in the Noordvaal, ou have Monnas/KES/EG in the Lions/Valke region, and Affies in Pitoli, with Garsies, and Kloof providing support…but who is the most successful of them all…yeah, the dreaded Wes Kaap. Not because they run around the country looking for top 20 teams to play, but because in any given year, they form at least 25% of that top 20 a least. Culture and coaching.
In the WC (and the EC to a large extent, add the FS region and the Noordvaal as well), cricket is what people do when there is no rugby opposition available. Swimming and waterpolo…what is that? (Un)fortunately that is not the case in KZN.You guys have too many other distractions…i.e. a lot of schools play one term of rugby, swimming and polo seem to be on the same pedestal as ruggas, there’s surfing, and ballet, you name it! Not a bad thing, I actually applaud the balance, I wish I had it. Just saying that be honest. If the rest of the world plays 7 months of rugby a year and you play only 4…you wont be as good as the rest, regardless of the quality of opposition.And if you’re gonna fill up those 4 months of rugga with the ‘big guns’, you aren’t doing the boys any favours.
@RBugger: The problem is not the coaches, it’s the selectors. I get the distinct feeling that the coaches are not brought close to the selection – hence me feeling as I do. The selector positions are governed by building influence, or maintaining influence – getting the right team together is secondary to that. Amazingly they seem to mostly (!!) get the right teams, but it’s not the primary aim.
@Beet: Howzit Beet, hope you are well. With regards to two players being equal, but the one more known with a certain coach, then yes, the one more known would be picked – we are all human and this is natural. But I do not see the problem, if they are of the same calibre, then it is neither here or there – of course, just a pity for the player who losses out. Like I said, the coached want the best players available to them, end of story. If there was a kid who was far better, then that is a different story.
Another factor is this, trials can not be seen as the be all and end all – the coaches should have an idea of their team before trials – if someone dominates at trials and makes one of the pre picked players look silly, then this may sway their thinking.
Look, like you know, i am a big supporter of Schramm, at SA U20 trials if was exceptional – did that mean he deserved to make it, no it did not – he did not have a great 2014 and let himself down somewhat – then he rocks up at trials all excited and has a blinder – that is not enough, it is about showing commitment and performing week in and week out and wanting to do your team and yourself proud.
I would expect that the selectors watch all games through the year, obvioulsy not at the same time as this would be impossible. They should know who they want in their side before trials begin – from there, it is about seeing how those players pair with each other.
And I will never stop saying this – KZN are not up with the Top Schools in the Country, no where near. I had a quick look at your Regions Beet – KZN gave Border a 50 point hiding back in 2013. You see, when it comes to WP, BULLS, FS, and even the LIONS, the strength lies in their depth – if a player gets injured, another is always on hand. If Dixon or Palvie gets injured, do we (KZN) have another player who will fill that role, making it look as if everything is as what it was – ie, the player is not missed at all. I know my feeling on it.
@Pedantic:
Not at all. Don’t think we need the IQ test, I can look back at legions of top rugby players who weren’t going to get a Mensa invite any time soon but yuo would never leave out of the squad. Unless you were talking about the selectors, in which case …. 
I’m never going to have a go at the players. They don’t pick themselves, they don’t invite themselves. That the trials actively enforce a selfish approach is a pity, just notice how many boys suddenly pitch up with dayglo socks, red headgear etc to know what’s going on there. The instinctive team man is lost. That’s a challenge of another sort.
The boys will pull it together when the time comes, it’s what they do. I clearly remember a College boy from GK 2 years ago utterly stoked by how he and Staples “hunted as a pack” during that GK tournament when KZN won all 3 games. No rivalry, no hangover from the political overtones. The “adults” can learn a lot from them.
I’m further bothered by the talk of a IT system of some sort used at selections. Counting the number of hits here and engagement there. Flip, the reason I choose SBR over Super 15 and CC is precisely because it’s NOT like that, that the formulaic approach is secondary to the flair that schools rugby should encourage. Tjaaarsiss, don’t start me on that. Schools encourage to turn out square pegs for Varsity (“You had better do Maths and double science or the Varsity won’t accept you”), now we’re trying to coach the joy out of SBR as well. Please tell me it isn’t true ..
Maybe it’s just me, Uber-Ballie ….
the last few posts seem to indicate that KZN should be competitive. We have the talent – we have the track record against some of the top schools nationally – and while not being one of the top 2 we should be competing in the top 4 or 5 regularly.
So it really dies seem to point towards a structural issue to be addressed or a mental block (belief) by the KZN team. Perhaps this is also indicative of why so many SBR players are very happy to pack their bags and move elsewhere without looking at a Sharks contract first (no loyalty from the Union – so no loyalty from the players?)
I considered this over the past few years since i’ve been back in KZN. When there is a capping ceremony at KP (great idea) – would be awesome if a Sharks player was there to shake hands with the players (clubs, schools etc,) – but not seen in the few I’ve been to. Would be great if the boys were taken on a tour of the change rooms/facilities and walked out onto the main field to drink in the atmosphere and create a dream (not done so far); would be great if the players were given a Currie cup ticket to attend a game and sit in a designated area and the announcer points them out to the crowd. (all of these are just examples of very “cheap” ways that one creates a loyal boy who will be wanting to play for the Sharks in a few years time).
Consider the Club scene – when they (DRSU) played up in Pretoria and represented KZN 2 years back – they had a full tour of Loftus and got to take photos in the Bulls change room etc. – why there and not the Shark tank? Just a personal observation that may well be missing the mark and be unrelated, but I think it gets back to what @Pedantic: was saying “The boys have to be willing to live and die for the black and white jersey – pretty much like any College rugby player that takes the field from an A to F team.”
@Pedantic: Thanks
@Redblack White: Spot on. I was chatting to a highly respected and experienced SBR Official the other day – he was saying that he believed leadership and team dynamic are crucial if we are to compete at CW. The boys have to be willing to live and die for the black and white jersey – pretty much like any College rugby player that takes the field from an A to F team.
How we create that in such a short space of time, I don’t know, but with this in mind, personal traits need to be taken in account at trials also.
Gungets gonna kill me coz now we need an IQ test AND a psychometric test before trials
@Thumper: At Woodburn today.
U18
13 : 00 – 14 : 00 NKOSI XV vs FRASER XV
14 : 00 – 15 : 00 BLAUME XV vs SCHWARTZ XV
15 : 00 – 16 : 00 LUBBE XV vs VOWLES XV
16 : 30 – 17 : 00 POSSIBLES vs PROBABLES
U16
13 : 00 – 14 : 30 MOFOKENG XV vs VENTER XV
14 : 30 – 15 : 30 SORENSON XV vs MCLAREN XV
15 : 30 – 16 : 00 PROBABLES VS POSSIBLES
@beet: Regardless of the process, what you said in an earlier post is absolutely correct. What KZN needs is COHESION.
I think it was Pedantic who said that the team, once picked, is what it is and we can then all take a go at individuals and try and justify who would have been a better fit – we would probably not be succesful.
The thing is that we are probably not going to compete man for man against the likes of the WC , BB and Lions – but as Pedantic also points out in a much earlier post, the College team this year is small, has no real super-powers or X-factor players, but as a team, when they are cohesive, they can deliver a great performance (and I am only using them as an example because of allegiance) I am sure the same goes for the other top teams in KZN
The point is, if we are not winning enough games, and by our own admission we are not naturally blessed with the freaks and X-factor players, surely we should become more competitive with pure gees, skills, gameplan, coaching and teamplay. If this is lacking in our structures today then somebody else needs to take up the challenge.
@Pedantic: Where and what time are final trials?
@kosie: You might be right. It’s an issue all over SA for a few weeks and then it’s buried for another year. Just last week a user expressed unhappiness about Centurion’s representation in the Bulls teams and pointed to the convenor being from that school as a possible reason.
There is a very good tried and tested selection process being used by youth club rugby in KZN which is worthwhile for all the other unions to look at. A little follow up on a different issue last year suggested that their wasn’t much willingness on schools part to acknowledge the value that club rugby officials add so based on that it’s hard to see SBR adopting something club rugby has developed. Also the selection process sort of funds itself so introducing independent selectors would come at a new cost.
Anyway even without major changes, power sharing would be a step in the right direction in my opinion. I say don’t exclude the major contributing rugby schools at Exec level. Limit each school to a max of one selector in however many the panel consists of – we currently have 2 schools with 2 while others have none. Obviously this goes hand in hand with an acknowledgement that a form of bias whether it be intentional or unintentional does exist in this process, which is a stumbling block in itself. At all costs KZN must avoid a situation where control ends up in the hands of 1 or 2 schools.
A cornerstone objective should be to ensure there is ongoing faith in the system, particularly amongst those without a say in it’s running.
@beet: I have followed this thread with interest and if I am correct, it seems the selection process is a big debating point.
Why not have a post to try and get the ideal selection process for CW? The experts could assist in this regard. It would be interesting to see what comes out, or are we going to have something similar to what we have
@umbiloburger: You are probably right about them being harsh.
One is a generalisation though and you are free to disagree that those conditions exist with regards to selectors all over SA making impartiality that much more difficult. So harsh but a reality in my opinion.
With the other post I pointed out each region’s strength. You say depth is an issue in KZN but what about Border, EP, SWD, Boland, Lions, Valke, Griquas, Pumas and to an extent FS, don’t they face the same challenges. I met two of the new CW coaches last year and they were both very motivated. I don’t recall either of them making excuses for non-performance. The old convenor is a nice guy but sometimes got the feeling that a win against Border CD would be an achievement
. Oh yes and all the top players in SA basically came from only 15 different schools 
For the record the locks in the PRG vs Gim game which I watched are not all 2m. I was communicating with someone just the other week about van Rhyn the Gim captain. He is an yster and will hopefully still grow (his family are late growers apparently) but at the moment he is no bigger than Dixon.
It’s a freakish year – HJS, Oakdale, Monnas, Affies, EG all have 2m tall locks. All the more reason to make sure accurate lineout throw ins are prioritised.
Interesting feedback about the hookers. Based on the analysis, why isn’t the Weston boy in the main game? One hooker who didn’t hit rucks according to DF has been part of the HP since day 1. What is your feeling about reshuffling trial teams at halftime to overcome one-sided games. It doesn’t make much sense to hit rucks if you’re winning plenty of ball without committing numbers to the breakdown.
All the best to Glenwood wrt Gr8 recruiting. Not that what I think matters but I have no issues there. Hopefully Glenwood sticks with these top kids all the way to gr12 now.
@Gungets Tuft: I was a prop. We wore our IQ on our jerseys
@umbiloburger: So your evaluation at trials involves an IQ test??
Any luck with the Schools rugby constitution and the minutes of the meeting where the committee was voted in. All this in depth knowledge on the trials, attending the GK trials, you’re close enough to get your hands on it. See it as a service, getting all the commentators here off the Unions case, it’s the right thing to do.
@Pedantic: Maybe the selectors that are aligned to schools did go back and brief their boys on what was being looked for. Spot the mistake then.
@umbiloburger: The fact that selectors are using Dartfish to compare trials players goes a long way in showing that they want to select the best players available.
Having said that, they should get all players from each position together at the beginning of trials and inform them of what they’re looking for in the particular position – that way you get all players aware of what’s expected of them and they can focus on showing their position specific abilities instead of trying to grab the limelight and get noticed, which as you would know, happens all the time.
Wings, centres and FB’s should be scoring the tries with the players around them fulfilling their roles and creating the opportunities. A prop, hooker or lock at trials should have scoring a try as the last thing on his mind, however, at trials sometimes it’s the only way to get noticed. As a result we see a lot of selfish play where players are not offloading when they should.
We have two 2M locks in the final trials tomorrow – Sesink-Clee from MHS and Evans from Clifton.
@umbiloburger: If we wanted to look like you this would be optional, but we don’t!! There is more to life
@beet: Hey beet, the last two posts of yours I think are seriously unfair. I haven’t heard of any excuses from KZN High Schools. Perhaps you have and can shed some light. Depth is a critical factor when selecting a team for CW. Does KZN have the depth…with only one reasonably large lock on offer, no we don’t.
Last year everyone on this blog raved about Tedder at 10. He was a brilliant player. But in reality he should never have played at CW. He was in no physical condition to play. His match against GW showed this. So why did he go? No depth.
On the question of who should be selected when 2 players are of equal standard is simple….choose the clever one…they are always the better players. Same policy used by the Sharks, Manchester United and many others.
@beet: Heibo Beet….that’s harsh. Did you by any chance watch the Paul Roos vs Paarl Gim match? All four locks were 2m plus and over 115kg. Our biggest lock I think is dixon at 195!!! Thank heavens Glenwood have secured genetically modified humans for KZN. Their current age group teams have some serious “menere” in their packs. Van der Mescht a case in point and if you see their U14 front row, then you will understand what it takes to play at the required level. These youngsters are exceptional and hopefully will go all the way.
Let’s take a look at the role of a selector looking at hookers. What are the requirements:
Scrum ability
Throwing ability
Defensive ruck
Attack ruck
Skill levels etc etc etc
A video was done of the games at Woodburn last week using dart fish. On scrum and line out ability there apparently wasn’t much difference between the top hookers. So then look at rucks hit, both attacking and defense…..your first choice guy hit not a single ruck and your second choice hit three….. all this in 50 minutes of rugby. But they were brilliant hitting the gap between the centers and had a few nice line breaks and carries. But they never hit the rucks which is a critical factor. There are more tackles than anything else in the game other than passing and if your hookers don’t hit them…..then you will have a problem.
Selecting a team isn’t easy, and I am yet to meet an impartial parent. The best team will be selected and let’s hope that they will do us proud.
By the way the hooker that hit the most rucks affectively was a kid from Weston. Interesting.
@RBugger: Here’s a scenario. As a selector you have to assess two players and pick 1 for a youth week. You know one player really well coz he is from the school where you earn a living and earn an incentive bonus (based on the performance of the team you coach and the number of players that make the youth week team) + you know the player’s parents + you’re in big with the school’s Old Boys. The other you hardly know, he comes from a different school. They perform equally well in the assessment. Who do you pick?
And how much better than the player from your school would the foreign player have to be before you consider him the first choice?
@RBugger: @umbiloburger: Applying what you say to the traditional strength of the individual regions:
WP: Winelands schools alone very strong, should always beat KZN
Boland: KZN should beat them based on strength of schools yet we lost badly to them not too long ago
EP: Grey PE strong but KZN top 4 can compete with them in most seasons and KZN Top 6 can beat all the rest in PE
Border: Their Top 3 are decent but KZN Top 6 can give them a go and have got good results against them in the last few years.
Pumas: Their Top 2 are strong but KZN Top 4 can compete here
Valke: Their Top 2 are strong but KZN Top 4 can compete with them
Lions: Monnas strong, KES and now Jeppe good but Florida gone. KZN Top 5 can compete here.
Bulls: Affies, Klofies very strong, Garsies, Menlo have come to the party, Centurion gone but Eldies have stepped in, PBHS there too. They should beat KZN all the time
Free State: Grey College strong but limited to 10 players on the field, KZN top 6 would slot into FS positions 2-7. No reason we can’t compete here.
Leopards, Griffons, Griquas we should beat.
So 2 regions have a permanent edge on us. The rest are all game. We should be winning more than 1 game at CW every year or every other year.
A lot of the disappointment with KZN isn’t necessarily the result, it’s the poor play we delivered on the day. We lose 2 out of 3 each year but keep following the same routine. We should be the ones working our butts off to close the gap, yet the Bulls and WP always seem to have one up on us in preparations as well. In the absence of better players, we need better COHESION to perform well not necessarily better tougher or more inter-schools fixtures.
I think somewhere along the line it became convenient for the High Schools Committee to make excuses for losing rather than take on the challenge of improving the performances.
@RBugger: In the GW vs College game, Palvie played with a lot more finesse than usual, you will usually find him crashing through tackles and dominating physically – a very tough player.
Qoma is another tough nut when in the right mood while Xaba has got stronger in every match I’ve seen him play. Prinsloo another who won’t shy away from the physical game – he’s only 17 so one can only imagine how he’s going to be in 2016.
What we’re lacking are the Stassen’s and van Heerden’s of the U18 rugby world – the freaks of nature that get you go forward in the lineouts, scrums and loose.
@RBugger: That is precisely what I have been saying. In KZN we honestly do not have enough rugby schools like the rest of SA. Imagine MHS playing the likes of the top 20 regularly? Their rugger will improve throughout the age groups and with that so will KZN’s rugby.
The argument on CW selections will run year on year. We will always have differing oponions on who we feel should be in the squad.
The other fact, is that SA has so much natural talent, you can often find 3/4 players in the same position who could all do a job at CW, such is the richness of talent in this Country.
At the end of the day, the Coaches want the best side for CW and they will choose what they feel to be the best side, they are not going to play someone that they feel will be out of their depth – what would be the point.
The reason that KZN do not dominate or even do well at CW is simply, they simply do not have the strength of players over schools teams across the Country. Until you have, say 3 sides who are comfortably within the top 10 to 15 schools in SA within the KZN region, do not expect to win come CW.
It is like expecting Hilton to beat Grey Bloem week in and week out, it jsut will not happen.
In my knowledge, and I amy be wrong here, I think Dixon is the only out and out real hard man of this 2015 bunch – he has the lot, size, speed, skill – I also think Palvie is great, but that was against a MC team who to me, looked incredibly weak.
in 2013 KC had some real talent – but look what happened when they played Paarl Gim – they got well and truly pumped – why? Because 3 or 4 strong players can not take on 15 strong players. Likewise, KZN got pumped by the Bulls that same year – they simply do not have enough firepower to compete.
Harsh as it may sound, it is sadly true – you would need the likes of KC in 2013 combined with M House from 2012 and Glenwood 2011, ie – all of them being at the top of their game in the same year, to stand any chance at CW
@Rugger fan: I think it was Lood Muller’s lightie that played at #9 for College on Saturday. Had a pretty good game too – first time up for the 1st Fifteen.
@umbiloburger:
I suppose it comes down to the definition of a “great” school?
We have had 22 Springboks from KZN schools since 92 which isn’t too bad.
Muller Lood Sharks Voortrekker, Pietermaritzburg
Atherton Steve Sharks Pinetown Boys High
Honiball Henry Sharks Estcourt High School
Stransky Joel Sharks Maritzburg College
Allan John Sharks Glenwood, Durban
Teichman Gary Sharks Hilton College
Snyman André Blue Bulls Dundee
Fyvie Wayne Sharks Hilton College
Aitken Andrew Western Province Durban High School
Skinstad Bobby Western Province Hilton College
Fynn Ettiené Sharks Kearsney College
James Butch Sharks Maritzburg College
Halstead Trevor Sharks Kearsney College
Januarie Enrico Lions Weston Senior Secondary
Botha BJ Sharks Durban High School
Murray Waylon Sharks Westville Boy’s High
Grant Peter Western Province Maritzburg College
Hargreaves Alistair Sharks Durban High School
Lambie Patrick Sharks Michaelhouse
Coetzee Marcell Sharks Port Natal, Durban
Cilliers Pat Lions Michaelhouse
Whiteley Warren Lions Glenwood, Durban
@beet: Don’t think for one second that anyone who enjoys the prestige and benefits of sitting on the KZNRU would give up his position without a fight. It is scary when one thinks that the same people who are unsuccessfully running SBR have a major say in the running of the KZNRU.
@Pedantic: like I say most people are looking for a fair process, not a handout. Moving trials forward is an experimental option. But KZN needs to think outside the box. That’s why I feel it’s time for Ingle to hand over the reigns and let someone with hands on rugby player development skills run with it now.
With the HP the Campbell player’s involvement is a case in point that the process has a lot of work ahead. If I was running the show, something like that would not happen. Pick the right players and leave the door open to those that up their game. I would identify a player like Cameron Badenhorst of Hilton who has much potential and do my best to get him involved, so that he develops an understanding of what’s required of him and with players who might be his teammates next year.
For me here are some of the key deciders involving Glenwood players. Lets see what the selectors do.
For example
Maduna vs Ndabandaba vs Munangi – I hope the latter 2 get a run at centre coz Sean looked a little hesitant as a defender last week. Ndabandaba could be useful as an openside flank as well. In the wet conditions of Stellenbosch in July, an opensider might come in handy.
Holtzhausen vs Loftus – Loftus had a good trial last week showing allround skills, while Holtzhausen is a useful utility player apart from being a good 12.
Klopper vs Peverelle – only worry about Klopper is that a lot of the scrums he’s involved in tend to go buckle. He is valuable in the loose tho. Peverelle was amongst the best players at trials last week, very mobile.
Xaba vs Sadiki – Both are really no.7’s and Sadiki can jol 8. A real worry that Xaba listed as the fetcher and it’s not a role he is anything close to a specialist at.
du Randt vs Furniss. Du Randt has X and knows how to score tries. Furniss has better distribution skills and is probably a better defender + has a positive attitude that will add to the team dynamic
Morgan vs Bossr – I really think Bossr needs to be tested at 15. He has skills and a rangy boot which in wet conditions might come in handy. He looked a little iffy on defence vs Midlands the other day and CW will pose greater challenges. Morgan is good counter attacker, good positional player useful skills but needs to improve his tackling D. The advantage of Bossr over Morgan is as back up 10.
I also hope there is better communication with the ref on the day. More simulation is required. Testing players in defensive positions is important. So are 5m scrums, lineouts, restarts etc.
I think Swanepoel being left out is a missed opportunity. H20 is right that there is more than just lineout work to the hookers play but based on past CW experience this is the one area that can lose a game in a hurry – a hooker that can’t find his jumpers esp the guy at the back of the lineout, so for me it’s the no.1 priority.
Backup Scrumhalf is also an open race. The candidates must pitch like they want the jersey. I’m very happy for the Pionier player vd Westhuizen. It’s very difficult for CD players to get rewarded. Case in point is the lock Jacobs, who also offers a lot but will find it hard to crack the nod.
@beet: I think the intentions of the CW High Performance program were good, unfortunately it never really got of the ground properly. Not sure if it was due to the schools, poor communication from the administrators or the fact that on a Sunday the players are recovering from matches less than 24 hours before.
As you say, the core of the team pretty much select themselves and those players should be working together long before trials – the challenge is that the team is then perceived to be pre-selected.
How does KZN work around that?
Would love to hear some objective ideas for our provincial teams going forward – perhaps the powers that be would implement them if they made sense.
@LineBreak: I think this is the common feeling not just here on the blog but throughout KZN at the moment. There seems to be a mistrust of the system.
No one should be asking for special favours, just fairness in selections.
I don’t understand why 2 schools have 2 selectors while a few others have none, especially when a perception exists right around SA that selectors generally favour their own school players. And there are competent rugby coaches at these other schools.
The core and probable players – well you don’t need an experienced coach to select those in KZN, they pick themselves. The real compo is amongst the fringe players and here is where you expect the selectors to step up and make the right calls.
With regards to performances at CW, winning 2 out of 3 would be nice but if KZN goes about preparations in the same old manner each year while our proactive rivals with bigger pools of talented players challenge themselves to prepare better every year.
@LineBreak: I have no doubt that the main factor any selector has to contend with is the PD factor and the juggling act that has to be performed to arrive at the right combinations. That can’t be an easy task.
Palvie, Mchunu, Mukendi & Bossr CW and Klopper, Holtzhauzen, du Randt & Morgan Academy…
@LineBreak: well, proof will be the pudding. Glenwood should get around 8 reps in on merit…
@Grasshopper: My point is not a lack of rugby or coaching knowledge but rather being involved in the selection processes and the challenges that go with it.
Glenwood have more players at trials because they nominated more players initially, possibly to give their younger players a feel of what it’s like to play at trials. Other schools like Michaelhouse, Kearsney and College probably didn’t nominate all their players at the early stages. (Regional)
Do we all honestly think it’s a selection bias towards Glenwood ? Possible, but I’m sure there are other factors at play.
@LineBreak: Well, I did coach an Under21 side in the UK for 10 years but what do I know. My gripe is not with the final product but the filter system. Why have 29 boys from one school at trials? Only if that school is sweeping every local side aside is that defensible. Grey Bloem having 30 at Free State trials maybe defensible as the Cherries could beat most 1st tier 1st teams. I wouldn’t mind a couple of top Under16 boys at a CW trial but not 2nd team, sorry…
@umbiloburger: I do t think Linebreak agrees about the set pieces. Not the lineouts anyway.
@LineBreak: Sanity at last. Thank you.
@Gungets Tuft: To criticize a referee without knowledge of the laws is stupidity. Strategy whether players are big or small is not normally changed. Tackle ball, set pieces and defense are always priority. Attack is simple.
I have to agree with LB. Let’s look at the final product and then see how wrong the selectors have got it.
@Rugger fan: KZN have great traditional rivalry….great rugby schools, I don’t agree with that. I mentioned previously that our problem is the lack of competitiveness at the Top 20 level. The response was about numbers. MHS, KC, HC and SCC are too small. How many boys are at EG Jansen?
Our schools are all fantastic all round academic, sport & cultural institutions. Rugby schools….I don’t think so.
@LineBreak: Just so I understand you, lack of knowledge of the laws of rugby doesn’t mean you can’t criticize a ref, but unless you’ve coached a provincial side you are not allowed to criticize a coach. Any irony jump out at you there??
One wonders how many of the “blogger coaches” have ever coached a youth provincial team.
There are far bigger challenges than winning your lineout ball with shorter players than the opposition.
It reminds me of how Greenblooded kaks on anyone who has an opinion on refs, because they don’t know law 12.3.stroke5.stroke.myself by heart.
Just like 2014, let the selectors do their job (no amount of your whining will change that) and then let’s see if you can pick a better player in each position.
Same thing happened in 2014 and not one of the selections could be challenged by wannabe coaches or wannabe selectors alike.
It’s irrelevant what socks the player has on, is he the best (or close to the best) man for the job?
@Stripes: If coaches / selectors took your point of view, the team would be pre-selected, no trials necessary. Can you imagine how many wet panty aunties we would have then ?
I agree with McCulleys Workshop on this one. KZN have great rugby playing schools. The number of KZN players that go on to higher levels of rugby is pretty good.
So this then leaves the question – the selection process (whatever one is decided upon) and coaching/playing style should be where the emphasis is.
@Stripes: Hi Stripes, I’m not sure I agree with you. You have to have a look at the talent available to you first. If you decide upfront on a Bulls style of play, without locks to secure line out ball or the size of forwards to bash it up, what’s the point. It also doesn’t make sense to select a team based on a game plan, when your game plan could migrate from game to game. Surely they are looking for physically gifted and talented players that they can mould into a team in as short a space of time as possible.
@Stripes: Or it’s a case of we don’t have the same talent & depth as other provinces. We are probably on par with Eastern Province and Lions…
@Grasshopper: I agree 100% with you. The question for me is that with the correct selection process and coaching the KZN side should do well at CW. The whole process and system is broken. Not only the number of boys sent to trials from Glenwood but also the way the trail sides are put together will naturally favour certain boys. I also think the wrong things are being looked at, certain players look like stars because they run through weak defenses and then when they play against stronger opposition they can’t do that and it causes a problem. Exactly like a player who looks good in the Currie Cup is found wanting in the stronger Super Rugby competition! Surely the KZN side selection process should be guided by the type of rugby the coach is looking to play and then the selectors select players that fit that style of play. Defense and distribution have become as important if not more important in the modern game. I have watched some of the players this season that are being mentioned as potential CW candidates this year and whilst they stood out because they ran through a weak defense the same player often didn’t distribute or defend well. When a player comes up against the stronger defenses that you will inevitably find at the CW then these attributes become critical. I hope I am wrong but I think until certain changes are made the KZN CW side will continue to struggle.
@umbiloburger: Point is if Glenwood deserved 29 players in the trials teams then both the 1st and 2nd team would have smacked all opposition by huge margins, but they have already lost to Kearsney and Michaelhouse…….so there is absolutely no way they deserve 29 players there even if everyone of them was PD….it’s a disgrace!
@umbiloburger: Anytime, always keen for a chat, ensure the Webber(RW)Braai is with you. My apologies,there were reports of more purchases going on from Grasies, thought it maybe you. Seen you operate and you not even a doctor. Media know how to make kuk.
@Anti Green: spent most of the trials chatting to a DHS parent. That U16 team of theirs is talented. When I next see you, which could be sooner than later, I will come and chat with you. Me a bus driver….never.
@McCulleys Workshop: Whahahahaha I know him and he knows me. You its one of those I will be nice “Mr Nice Guy” kind of things
@Anti Green: Burger is the bus driver for the GK side, so he has his ear to the ground.
@Grasshopper: true, but the aren’t losing by those margins either.
@umbiloburger: How is the coffee this early? He has been the stand out of the team this year. If he’s meant to be a flank, then he’s extremely talented. As he’s a poo hot centre.
@Anti Green: I was there….sorry, good morning young man. I spoke with Kershaws coach and he was started at flank and was moved at Paarl. I have always rated him, but he hasn’t had a great 2015 yet. Perhaps not playing in a strong team has affected his game.
@umbiloburger: Whahahahaha how does it taste?????????
@umbiloburger: Please, Kershaw is bloody talented. Not once this year has he played flank. He gives everything, way above average. Heard you were not at the trials
@umbiloburger: It helps when your 10,12 are bigger than all opposition locks
GW U13 side are impressive, especially the 8,10,12
@umbiloburger: who are the primary school selectors and what schools are they from?
@umbiloburger: if only that was the case for Glenwood 1st’s but they are not winning by those margins…
Glenwood Prep 46 vs DPHS 3. Let’s hope sanity prevails in the primary school selections
@McCulleys Workshop: hahah, all I want is fairness and that if a Glenwood boy makes it he is there on merit. I also think it’s crazy that 3rd team players are going to trials…..come on that is just not on. Glenwood should send 10 of their best to trials, that’s it.
@umbiloburger: independent- not associated to the schools in any way. As they do at Club level.
Durban region to include all schools in that region. DHS.GWD NORTHWOOD.CLIFTON.PORT NATAL. and any other school I have left out. Don’t split it down the middle using Berea Rd as the dividing line.
Pinheiro – of course he is not biased. Why is he involved in the selection process . As far as Combrink and co are concerned, yes they have and still do coach their 1ST XV’s in some cases.
@Grasshopper: Hopper we should let you loose more often, point and shoot.
@umbiloburger: Everything that is being discussed on this thread is in a quest for better CW results based on a more robust selection process, that seems flawed. We had the exact same discussion last year, and the banter before the trials this year was again (because we had the same banter last year) “let’s hope we don’t have another 30 GW players”. It seemed funny at the time as it wasn’t possible, with GW having a poor season (by their standards) at 1st and 2nd level. And then the reality – they get 29 players into trials. It is not probable by any stretch of the imagination. And then they line up at trials as a side with all their combos in tact, and according to Pedantic don’t really feature against a combo of the two softy schools. You have to take your green glasses off and recognize that it looks odd and improbably and rightly we should be questioning the process. Don’t make us out to be the misguided paranoids by citing democracy.
@umbiloburger: boet, Pinheiro coached the 1st in the the late 90’s for about 2 years after they let Gerry Goedeke go. He was mentored by Toppy too. The oak might be a nice guy but it doesn’t justify three Glenwood selectors, sorry. I would like the democratic evidence he was voted in by ALL the top schools….then I’ll be happy with the process…
@Gungets Tuft: Hahaha we may need wiki leeks for that, or Snowden.
@umbiloburger: Ok, since it’s a confirmed democratic process I assume you have access to the documentation about that, outlined in the schools constitution. You will also have the minutes of the meeting that voted in the coaching and selection panel. That’s perfect, all anyone needs in fact. I’m sure Beet would be happy to publish those. Thanks.
@Grasshopper: Do Combrink, Rigter and the rest all coach 1st team? No they don’t…. but all have coached 1st, as has Pinheiro. Because you don’t like him doesn’t give you the right to condemn the poor guy. He knows rugby and is there through a democratic process. Hammer the process all you want, but leave Pinheiro out of it.
@beet: agreed, it’s a farce that Tony Pinheiro is a selector, why? He doesn’t even coach 1st team level!
@beet: There are enough ex-players that would love to put their hand up to be considered as selectors at the regional level. There must be transparency so that you don’t have a Kearsney Old Boy being part of the Highway selection panel as an example.
I for one would love to be considered and I am sure many more would put in their time so that there is no more finger pointing when the sides are announced.
In the end- what the rugby fraternity want is a side that chosen fairly and squarely so that the best players play and that includes the PDA’s. No more positions for mates. So if there are 12 GWD and 11 MHS boys chosen to represent KZN ,they are there on Merit. That is a very unlikely scenario but if it is so, we know that it is a transparently selected side.
@Buffel: Independent selectors would be 1st prize I reckon. They would just need to be brought up to speed on the CW / AW / GK criteria which requires a bit of understanding.
If we can’t have independent selectors – balance in the selection panel. No school with more than one vote. Preferably seats for the schools that play a major role in KZN as well.
Whether anyone wants to admit or not, having one representative from your own school versus having none makes a difference to that particular school’s players fortunes. It shouldn’t be that way but it is.
@Buffel: The regional teams are selected by the regional selectors…..the Selectors teams are selected by the KZN Selectors and will normally include players that the KZN selectors deem to have been left out by the Regional guys.
I would like to put my hat in the ring and say the following.
The zones need to change. South coast has a representation, Durban, highway, north coast , PMB , Midlands and 2 country district teams .
The most hotly contested region is Durban and that includes the likes of DHS,GWD,PORTIES,NORTHWOOD,CLIFTON and others . That will ensure that the strongest team will be on show. At the regional trials you have independent selectors and they put the best 23 forward to a trail at Woodburne. At those trails you whittle it down 4 teams for selection of 2 sides .
The only difference in my model is that you have independent selectors and the Durban area is inclusive of all Durban schools, which I have broken down above. This will prevent a school like Glenwood having 29 players at final trials .
As you can see I have not taken colour into account . That would be left up to the selectors at regional level to sort out. I don’t see it as an issue as the boys of colour would be there on merit. We are now in 2015
@umbiloburger: Balanced feedback, thanks. But not having representation exacerbates the situation so I believe the point is still valid. I still can’t believe House have no kids good enough for a second look.
I agree with whoever shares Pedantic’s opinion on placing the blame squarely on the selectors for KZN’s Craven Week failures. Their decisions do however play a part in putting a good team together and they need to be held accountable for this part. This isn’t like SBR referees where there is a shortage of officials either. Rugby officials are queuing up to become selectors. Those that have the positions and can’t handle the scrutiny, move aside and let someone who feels he’s up to the task and understands that Craven Week selections fall outside the boundaries of inhouse school decision-making and the beyond reproach protection that goes with that.
KZN also has to look carefully at structures and CW preparation. Under Ingle’s leadership, it’s mainly the same old same old every year with the occasion upgrade often years after our more successful big union rivals have implemented. We have some good rugbymen in KZN. We need to appoint one of them to see if they can reshape our fortunes using their hands on experience and some innovation that will turn us into the standard setters instead of being the distant followers.
@Gungets Tuft: I was lucky enough to watch most of the u16 trials and I must say that they form players got through, barring the U15 players left out deliberately.
Kershaw is an average player at the moment with great potential. But he is unfortunately playing catchup since the start of the season. He was focussing on his cricket and tennis and he had an average tour to Paarl. He has also been shunted between flank and centre by his coach. The trust factor between coach and player has a huge confidence factor which impacts on field performance.
@GreenBlooded: I would love to see the polling results by school of a vote on whether or not to adopt a DRSU type selection structure.
@Pedantic: the individual selectors become less of an issue if you have the right boys and combinations at trials. That’s where the issue starts. Too many teams, probably, goes to my point that we should not see 30 boys from one school. Nominations should not be seen as a banner page on the school web site but rather as a contribution to the quest for the best CW team. And being on the selection committee should not be seen as a stepping stone to a successful SARU career.
@Pedantic:
No system will ever be perfect. I think the selectors at that level of the game should understand the issue of combinations in key areas (9-10-12-13, 2-4-5, 1-2-3, 8-9 etc) and should be able to spot a hooker who throws consistently, props who individually can scrum effectively, backs with the correct vision and ball skills etc as individual players. They will be coached into the combinations later. As for the 30 minute chukka – like most things in life it comes down to a main exam. Matric exams determine your matric symbol – not what you achieved for the previous 11.8 years of your life, and when you go for your drivers test all that matters is how well you do in that short session (of course slipping the examiner a pink note in your ID book could also be of consequence
). Such is life. Agree – the online player management system is top class. We now have a similar referee management system – I wonder if the same oke wrote it? 
@Gungets Tuft: You make some valid points – the one that stands out for me is getting players to trials with genuine ability to represent the province as the players making up numbers certainly have an adverse affect on the realistic chance players. The question then is shouldn’t we have less teams at the main trial?
Every tier 1 school needs a rep – that’s a given – said rep should also be involved with top tier coaching at their respective school, it makes no sense to have a rep that relies on other coaches to give them feedback on their own players.
@GreenBlooded: While the DRSU system seems to be a better solution to trials, it also has a few downfalls – the independent selectors have zero knowledge on the players so it ALL comes down to that 30 minute chukka, again, if a decent player is in a poor team / combination he could get overlooked and slip through the cracks.
Must admit, their administration is top class, especially their online player management system
@Grasshopper:
As has been alluded to on this forum before, I think we need to look to the DRSU Youth Club Rugby structure (that outfit of rugby cowboys that most school coaches and some high ranking referee officials love to hate) that are leading the way in terms of administration, player safety, Boksmart compliance and the like.
The way they run their trials to my mind is far better and far fairer than what is happening in the schools structure. Trials teams are made up on the day of trials so no-one is at an advantage due to tried combinations. Critically – the selectors are all independent of the various clubs so there can be no allegations of bias and the team coaches have little to no say in selections. The players are not allowed to wear club or school colors to trials and are identified be a serial number – not their name. The teams which end up getting selected are more or less correct in most people’s eyes but there are always the surprise inclusions and exclusions.
My advice: get hold of Andre Beetge and Malcolm Kennedy – the 2 key gentlemen responsible for building the DRSUYCA from nothing to a formidable club rugby structure that now enjoys KZN Duiker colors and representation on the full DRSU Council. Let them show the powers that be how it is done.
@Grasshopper: Run the trials differently. Representation from each tier 1 school. Look at the U16 selections leaving out House completely and the issue of representation becomes obvious. Then genuine nomination to trials of boys likely to be in the frame, not 2nd and 3rd team locks for instance, unless, as was the case a few years ago with Glenwood where their seconds were immense and could quite possibly have been good enough for AW.
Then structured trials, where key positions such as (dare I say it) that rely on other players to perform to make plays representative, like hooker, #8,9, 10, get swapped in packs to make sure that poor locks (hookers rely on them and vice versa), poor pack in general (a #9 and 10 going backwards all day puts them at a disadvantage). You’re a coach and a player, you know what I’m talking about.
My case in point, there’s not a school coach in tier 1 that believes Swanepoel is not in the top 7 in KZN, yet somehow he’s been left out. At GK trials the same thing has happened to Nic Kershaw, and there are other examples like Stoltz. Surely sanity prevails when they’re writing down the teams and someone just sorts it out. It’s almost as if picking the best team is not a priority, or they already have their teams in mind and anything from that down is just making up the numbers, so they’re acting subjectively anyway.
The fact that there are undercurrents of personal ambition in the hierarchy doesn’t help. It’s poisoning the well, the selectors all know what’s going on.
If there’s anyone here that has access to the Schools Rugby Constitution, that would be interesting, to see how the hierarchy are appointed. One assumes it’s a vote but it would be nice to see who’s eligible to vote and to stand.
@Gungets Tuft: it is broken, but realistically what can any of us do? What could be a good idea is appointing a KZN coach from outside the province with no allegiances or bias. He should have the final say. It needs to be as fair as possible. Greg Manning is a friend of mine and he certainly deserved to be in KZN schools, especially in his std 9 year…..best fullback in KZN by miles.
@Grasshopper: And it never occurred to either of you that those incidents, Manning and Dixon, were an indication of a problem in selection process, just to be sucked up and dealt with. The fact that it’s been broken since the 90’s and we’ve reached a kind of dumb acceptance that it’s just the way it is, Eeisch. The fact that it suits you this year doesn’t make it right, just convenient. Imagine Dixon being overshadowed at CW (and out of the SA Schools frame) because his team has been given a hooker that can’t find his jumpers. Will the unlucky selection process still be ok, because you’ve got a hooker that looks good stealing ruck ball and going on a few good runs. Just unlucky?
@Pedantic: Totally agree with all your comments above, there are always winners and losers when it comes to CW selection. I remember in the 90’s Glenwood having some seriously talented individuals but generally weak teams so these guys never made it, their hard luck. A guy like Greg Manning, probably Glenwood’s best back of the 90’s with over 50 caps never made KZN BUT out of the blue we had props like Lee Fernandes and Sean Erasmus (not the coach) be picked at prop because they had great trials. Again, you are right there is a perception that College are disheartened by trials and the process. If they are, then they need to make more noise about it. I for one think they should have more picks in 2013 & 2014 but this year, we have to be honest here their team is average at best. The Glenwood side isn’t a great one either, very inconsistent with a few good individuals like Palvie, Mchunu, Bossr & Mukendi. I think you will find the final team will be our best considering the PD requirements. In terms of tall locks there are a few coming through, van der Mescht is already about 2m….huge kid…
@Pedantic: How many boys from Glenwood didn’t make it from first trials to the second lot, I couldn’t be bothered to do the numbers. If Glenwood 2nd team players can make it I think he would have. No matter.
College boys are far from blasé when it comes to trials, they’re not blasé about anything when it comes to performance. 152 years of competing is evidence. They can do nothing about the perception, that’s in the mind of the observer. Perhaps you can explain where you got that perception from, because that sort of sentiment, repeated enough, gets to be reality. It’s crap, they are there to represent College, suggesting lack of passion is nonsense.
@Gungets Tuft: From what I can see, there is one school in KZN that is trying to evolve our rugby – just happens they are also the target of most bloggers frustration (mine included).
@Gungets Tuft: I honestly think that is a subjective view – how can we be sure he would have gone further at trials if he was at GW? Likely yes, but not guaranteed.
I understand Schramm was the Sharks U19 CC captain last year. He was also in the final Baby Bok trials earlier this year where he lost out – some say he was unlucky – once again it illustrates that even Bok selectors can’t make everyone happy.
I’m one of those that feel SS was unlucky not to go through, I just don’t think his exclusion is something as sinister as some suggest.
Correct me if I’m wrong … there seems to be a perception that the College players are very blasé when it comes to KZN trials – this does them no favours.
@Pedantic: Goodsen is doing a business course in Stellenbosch. On that note then, where is Schramm. Daryn never made any bones about being a pro rugby player, but he was good enough for Glenwood to try to poach him in grade 11, and no doubt would have been one of the 21 to make it to final trials that year too.
@Pedantic: When something is not working you look to fix it. It’s called evolution.
@Pedantic: I agree – unfortunately we just don’t have the bulk up front on a regular basis. If we do all too often that is all the player brings to the field which may be good enough to stand out at a KZN inter schools level, especially when playing in a dominant pack, but is cruelly exposed when up against big guys at Craven Week. The only two 2m odd locks I can recall in the last decade or so were Hargreaves and Cameron Lindsay. Mike Rhodes played lock at CW and had the bulk but is definitely a bit under 2m. Beet mentioned the pounding we took from the Lions pack in 2012 somewhere above. I remember a Lions CW pack in around 2009 that included Paul Willemse, Ruan Venter and Ruan Botha – all over 2m and in Venter and Willemse’s case around 120kg+.
Just to add .. KZN’s historically weak showing at CW can’t all be shoved on the shoulders of the selectors – look at where our top schools are in the rankings – we simply don’t have the depth of talent like the Bulls, WP and EP. I can’t remember when last we had a 2 metre lock, never mind 2 of the buggers.
This is like deja vu – didn’t we have this same discussion last year about the highly vaunted Goodsen?
Does anyone know if he is playing rugby and at what level ? Somehow I doubt he will be the next “Marcel Coetzee”.
One player from a low key school slips through the cracks 10 years ago and all of a sudden the entire selection process is a shambles?
There will ALWAYS be unlucky players – luck plays a big part of trials, one needs to be lucky enough to be in a good trial team, one needs the rub of the green to go your way, one needs the selectors to be looking down at their notepads when you knock on and looking up when you pull off an amazing play.
Under 16 GK has been unkind to two of Kearsney’s recent CW players – Schramm was overlooked in 2012 and Dixon in 2013 – they worked hard and set the record straight – you win some, you lose some, what you gonna do ?
@Gungets Tuft: point noted but unfortunately none of that was produced at the trials….. sad but he or his locks did not gel at the trials so if you base selection on the basic he did not tick any of the boxes when it counted on the day. If you read my previous entry at no stage did i say it is just based on that. My argument is hooker has become more than just scrum and lineout function and it was not directed at him it was a statement made in general.
@Beet: Certainly good competition at Lock, but I would back Dixon in say, a EG Jansen pack – for instance, i rate Stassen, but play him in the KC side, no offence, but the reality is the pack is weaker and makes it incredibly tough to shine – as you really have to put in extra yards everywhere. But look, CW will tell.
@Grasshopper: From the game i watched, Palvie was in no way an Alberts – he looked for gaps and ran off players, linking very nicely between forwards and backs. Alberts is a what you see what you get type of player, he takes up up the guts of the opposition, Palvie is not like that at all, unless his game against MC was a one off?
You can’t compare Noord Kaap to what he will face at CW – as Beet has rightly said, loose forward is the most difficult position to make a mark in this Country
@h2o: Yet as a ball carrier is where Sam has impressed this year. Ask Westville and the 4 or 5 players he stepped and bounced to score the winning try. He also set up the one try against KES.
And to base selection on fetcher and carrier is a crock anyway – you’re not carrying anything if you can’t win your primary ball. If that’s what they are looking at then I’m more worried than I was this morning.
I am sure his season will not be influenced, his loyalty will be to the Red, Black and White anyway, but that doesn’t make the selection process right, and definitely doesn’t make it good for the KZN Craven Week side. And we can expect more Marcel Coetzee’s in the future as the selectors miss them.
It’s done and dusted for CW anyway, there is no way the selectors will swallow their pride, Ingle has the votes he needs to carry on, so no further input from him, and expect no dissent from those he put in place to ensure the votes. Nothing is ever straight forward.
Pretorius, Dahl, Dixon, Palvie, Mukendi and Guma all have decent shots. It will come down to how they perform there??
@Grasshopper: My personal view on Glenwood influence at a selection level has always been that it was nonsense. If anyone thinks that the Glenwood selectors on the panel were going to sway men like Steyn and Combrinck they are seriously misguided.
What is clearly odd however is the number of players that Glenwood send to trials – perhaps it is written into their “contracts” when they are recruited from around the country that they will go to CW trials?
I think we are missing a integral part of trials and that is individual performance. Players from Westville have not featured so much in the season because of a lack of game plan and structure. Come trials they played to their ability as individuals and were seen. It is unfortunate that Swanepoel did not make it but in all honesty he plays in a well coached/structured team during the season. I am sure he would have been in the frame based on the season games but unfortunately did not have a great trials game where Wiseman, Prinsloo, Lee and Van vuuren did enough to enhance a further trial. The selection of hookers imho is not just based on lineouts but more on fetcher and ball carrier. His season should not be influenced in whether he made CW or not but rather on the influence he had on a good College side.
@Gungets Tuft: let’s make it very clear as GOB I hate this scenario too. I would prefer if it was just the 7 or 8 Glenwood probables made it, otherwise we will always have whining and questions about all Glenwood picks even though they are the best in a position. Nothing worse than people saying you got picked because you from Glenwood. I would actually like no Glenwood involvement in selection & coaching, that way when 7 are picked Glenwood can put their hands up and say we not involved….
@Redblack White: I have no issue with 1/2 your first team making it. But Westville with 16 and Glenwood 21 .. 21!!! … They have 6 second team players better than other Tier 1 schools first team players, when their second team has been beaten by those same schools. What is that, Maths Lit??
@RBugger: Palvie played well against Noord Kaap who have a massive pack. He does well against any sized pack. He might end up as a Alberts type abrasive flank later on. The go forward guy. I think Mukendi & Guma have a really good shot at SA schools, Mchunu an outside chance…
@RBugger: Dixon has to use the next trial match to play himself back into favour as a 7 as opposed to a 4. With all the tall timber we have in SBR level this year, he will be hard pressed to make an impression at lock.
Stassen, Ruben de Villiers, Moerat, Ruben van Heerden, Notnagel, Vermaak, the 2 Oakdale locks to count some of the leading contenders.
7 won’t be easy either, just easier.
@PEDANTIC @THUMPER: Thanks, will look out for them, have not seen much KZN school rugby this year, so far more familiar with the Cape Stars.
Palvie, from the one game I watched, looked great. But as Pedantic said, greatness is tested when the best of the best play against each other.
I will tell you this, do not be surprised to see Dixon make the SA Schools side. The boy made a massive impression on me last year at CW, he has BMT – but as someone has said on this site, he will play flank after school.
I expect him to put his hand up at CW when it really matters. As for Palvie, will be watching with keen interest when he comes up against the big packs, but thus far, he looks very good
@Thumper: Yeah but remember Palvie plays in one of the most traditionally competitive positions in SBR. A player like Dahl finds himself competing in a possie where there isn’t that much depth nationally this year
@Grasshopper: Grassie – sorry – missed your query earlier:
2015 SARU Youth Week dates and venues:
•Coca-Cola Under-13 Craven Week – 29 June to 3 July – Mpumalanga RU at Hoërskool Rob Ferreira, White River
•Coca-Cola Under-16 Grant Khomo Week – July 6 to 9 – South Western Districts RU at Bridgton Sports Grounds, Oudtshoorn
•Coca-Cola Under-18 Academy Week – July 6 to 10 – Valke RU at Isak Steyl Stadium in Vanderbijlpark
•Coca-Cola Under-18 Craven Week – July 13 to 18 – Western Province RFU at Paul Roos Gymnasium, Stellenbosch
•LSEN Week – 29 June to 2 July – Boland RU at HTS Drostdy, Worcester
@Gungets Tuft: Just a correction, van Vuuren played at the main trials.
@Thumper: Agreed, but the real test is in July – at this stage we can’t judge how good the opposition is.
@Gungets Tuft: To add to your conspiracy theory and on a totally different angle – how marketable is your school (at any grade of entry) if you can boast this kind of stage for your kid to get a selectors look-see? As opposed to the best team in KZN this year who unfortunately reside in Balgowan and half the top team gets a go?
Looking at Beet’s list of representation, the privates have 31% representation but I will put money on a composite privates team working over a composite publics team.
As Chop Suey (or was it Confucious) once said: Sum Ping Wong!!!
@RBugger: Palvie IMHO is the only one who has put his hand up for SA Schools selection!
@meadows: And against College it was worse. Other than the firsts …
1st A 12 57
2nd A 13 8
3rd A 29 13
4th A 5 7
5th A 15 19
6th A 26 7
7th A 26 0
8th A 19 0
9th A 55 0
10th A 43 0
Glenwood won 3, the other two losses were by 4 and 2 points.
Unless all the schools stand together and get the representation at selector level changed, it’s groundhog day.
@beet: What blows my mind is that the selectors aren’t mugs, the names are to conjure with, so why has this happened unless there are other strings being pulled. I’n no conspiracy theorist, but the results that come out of this exercise are so mind boggling that you are left with no option. Other than one, who doesn’t coach, is a double up from his school, and his presence is often debated. And he’s a forward selector.
Beet – you’re right, there needs to be an overhaul, and put right.
Just a little research done by someone else on the hookers at trials.
Lee had a Westville lock in his game, Botha had a Pioneer lock in his team, Wiseman had 2 Michaelhouse locks, Voster had 2 Glenwood locks, and Van Vuuren didn’t play in trials. The only hookers to have a real trial, not throwing to their own locks were Swanepoel, Prinsloo and Keeve.
Another little stat. Out of 2013 GK side 7 out of 22 not in final trials for CW this year. Ferbana not in KZN, Staples overseas, Rattray injured. So 4 out of 22 didn’t make final trials.
Of the selectors, how many have even watched College play. They haven’t played House or KC, not George Campbell, so their only time would have been a TV match against Glenwood and I wonder if they bothered. So throw some kids into trials, split up key combinations (for some boys) that make or break a major aspect of their game, then make a decision to exclude them based on 30 minutes in a dominated pack.
And we wonder why KZN sucks the hind t#t at Craven Week every year. My last word on it, it’s pointless.
@RBugger: Mchunu, Prinsloo (maybe only next year) and both wings on their day .. Mukendi and Guma. I haven’t seen enough of Foster, but what I have seen has been impressive!
Besides Dixon, Palvie (who i think is really exciting!) and perhaps Pretorius, does this side boast any real talent at the top level? SA Schools potential?
@beet: Dominance is obviously a part of the problem. Clearly a wing who doesn’t touch the ball is going to struggle to make an impression and with composite sides defensive organisation is sure to suffer. The other factor affecting performance at trials is combinations. 9 & 10, 12 & 13, and 2, 4 & 5. It is far easier to play with someone that you are used to.
Finally, on the make up of the final group, it is absolutely laughable that Glenwood have 21 players in the mix. I had a glance at their results against MHS a moment ago. Glenwood 1st XV lost 13 – 18, 2nd XV won 20 -18 and 3rd XV lost 10 – 17 so it’s fair to say that house had the better of the open age group. I believe that their 2nds have lost a few other games to local opposition as well. I’m not suggesting that MHS should have more players in the mix but I cannot believe that Glenwood have over 20 players of CW standard based on their results.
I know that Ryno Combrinck, for example, has taken the view in the past that MHS boys that do not have a realistic chance of making either the CW or Academy Week sides would not go to trials.
In any event, i am quite sure that as in the past the selectors have a pretty clear idea of the core makeup of the squad and the trials are simply an opportunity for the odd player in the frame to play himself out of contention ( a big but technically weak scrummager to be exposed for eg) or for the rare unknown to catch the eye.
First game up against the Lions will be tough. I’m sure that as usual Monnas will dominate the selections and they are sure to have a massive pack.
@beet: “reshuffled the teams after the halftime break”
Agree. The KZN Clubs trial matches seem to work a little better where the players are only put into teams for their chukkas on the day – and there are constant changes and mix ups throughout the games.
Does give players a different opportunity – but this too has some issues.
@Gungets Tuft: Yeah for me that was the let down of the trials at Woodburn this week. Too many one sided games. The players in the dominant teams always look better under those circumstances. The only real benefit is seeing how well players on the losing side defend in situations.
I would much prefer it if selectors identified this disparity and reshuffled the teams after the halftime break.
@beet: Sam is 100% fit. The selectors have no way of measuring a player as part of a pack being dominated. They should look at mixing and matching players to see how they perform with better support players. Imagine evaluation Bossr outside a poor scrum half. It’s a joke. The selectors have the credentials, but they have messed up. Time for us to see if they have the balls to admit it or whether they’re going to keep their heads where they have been.
@BiasedDHSDad: A good article on Coetzee yes….
@Gungets Tuft: I must say I’m disappointed if Swanepoel is fit and has been omitted. He should have been a player being considered for CW.
I said before that the Glenwood hooker Q. Vorster has time on his side but his lineout work is still in need of improvement. He really struggles in that department and is the reason why he lost his 1st XV place to Botha and had to play 2nd XV. In the loose he is not as effective as Swanepoel is either.
@Gungets Tuft: Felt sorry for Swanepoel at his trial … he may have been made the scapegoat for his locks being dominated by the opposing locks. Every single one of his throws was stolen or at least disrupted and it was not a problem with his throws. He is better than he looked at the trial which adds weight to your argument that selectors need to go on season form … but then there is also a danger of a good player from a weak team losing out — as The Mercury said yesterday about the selections, the Marcell Coetzee problem. I don’t know if there is a perfect system.
@beet: Even worse!
@beet: I saw that they were playing Else at loose and tight head which makes sense. I remember they played him at both positions during trials last year. However I saw that they were playing Lee at Hooker and Tight head and that’s why i raised the question. I just find it hard to believe that Stoltz wasn’t selected.
@beet: Sorry LM Mazibuko’s name is on the list
@Tarpeys: Ideally selectors would be totally objective and rely on their skills and experience to pick the best possible plaeyrs within the Youth Weeks criteria. At initial trials invited players should be offered a fair opportunity. If they progress to Woodburn trials, they should be given a fair and equal opportunity.
If it’s done on this basis it really doesn’t matter what the composition of the team is.
Personally I have limited faith in the process.
I’m hoping that the schools will move to remove Noel Ingle from his position as Chairman and reform the system/s.
@supportclub: On the initial list a few of players were listed on the same line. I have merely separated all onto different lines. Wherever there is a duplicated position number means that players will share game time. eg ELS will play half of two games.
@Thumper: Some of those Glenwood players are 3rd team players. Cele and Hunt.
@vlei: Only players from the Country Districts registered schools can play for the CD team, so yes all but one of those players is eligible for CD selections. That’s essentially what that game is, a final trial match for CD selection
I’m surprised to see both Shawn Stoltz and Lee-Marvin Mazibuko missing.
I’m happy for Andrew Pervelle. I think he had a strong trial and he’s had a good season to date.
Glenwood prop Cele is a huge surprise. He normally hovers between 3rds and 5ths for his school. He looks quite small as well but at trials he was dynamite and earned his place at final trials based on performance. My concern is that the harsh lesson that was learned at the hands of the Lions at CW a few years ago has already been forgotten. If your prop gets scrummed into the ground by a 120kg monster, it makes winning that much more difficult.
BTW the Lions are first game up for KZN this year.
@McCulleys Workshop: Glenwood 2nds have lost to College and Kearsney and yet their boys still make final trials, something seriously wrong with our system.
Would the Nkosi and Fraser teams be eligible for CD?
Vowles could be the majority of the team until colour comes into play. Which is a real shame
@Grasshopper: Not sure it can be with PD requirements
Stoltz is missing at 3, but 2 other Westville Boys names have been put down twice each. Could that be an error?
Where is CW & Academy weeks this year?
@GreenBlooded: I agree with that selection, him and Sisink-Clee could form a formidable partnership. He will play flank at senior level, but we need him at lock for KZN
The Vowles Xv looks a probables side
Dixon at lock?
Exactly why the selectors need to get out more, watch more games. Sam Swanepoel not in the top 7 in the province after being top 2 at GK????
Obvious omissions like that just call the selectors and the process into question. There are players that have been picked on reputation having played little or no role in trials, but someone that gives it horns, perhaps has a bad 30 minutes in poor company, gets left out. The mind boggles.
@Tarpeys: I don’t see how the “Big Weeks” have any bearing on the selectors, they seem to have an interesting agenda of their own. Lubbe and Vowles are good looking sides.
@ Beet: Do you think taking a lot of Glenwood okes to the weeks because they play the bg schools ( if that is a factor at all in selection) can actually be KZN’s Achilles Heel in most years because they take a lot of scars into the weeks from the losses they suffer against the schools from these bigger unions?
I’m not saying don’t take these boys if they are the best in their position in the province, but their big game experience should be considered from all sides and not be a decisive factor in selection if it is at all.
I see Josh van Vuuren has been included at hooker for the middle game. Good call. Where is Stoltz at tight head? For me a shoe in. For the rest, they have got it right.