| U18 Craven Week 2014 | U18 KZN Academy 2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kenny Van Niekerk | Glenwood | 1 | Tijde Visser | Kearsney |
| 2 | Bradley Roberts | Michaehouse | 2 | Masikani Mazwi | Maritzburg College |
| 3 | Koos Tredoux | Glenwood | 3 | Kabelo Motloung | Northwood |
| 4 | Tristan Dixon | Kearsney | 4 | Sibabalo Qoma | Westville |
| 5 | Kevin Du Randt | Glenwood | 5 | Jayson Gouws | Hilton |
| 6 | James Venter | Glenwood | 6 | Hayden Tharratt | Maritzburg College |
| 7 | McMillan Muller | Glenwood | 7 | Teigan Erasmus | Westville |
| 8 | Jaco Coetzee | Glenwood | 8 | Marco Palvie | Glenwood |
| 9 | James Hall | Kearsney | 9 | Thomas Walker | Michaelhouse |
| 10 | Tristan Tedder | Kearsney | 10 | Bader Pretorius | Michaelhouse |
| 11 | Ilunga Mukendi | Glenwood | 11 | Sam Matiwane | Glenwood |
| 12 | Wayne Smith | Westville | 12 | Donovan Du Randt | Glenwood |
| 13 | Tristan Blewett | Hilton | 13 | Kudzai Munangi | Maritzburg College |
| 14 | Xolisa Guma | Maritzburg College | 14 | Lindo Buthelezi | Westville |
| 15 | Morné Joubert | Glenwood | 15 | Jaydon Morgan | Glenwood |
| 16 | Percy Mngadi | Glenwood | 16 | Renier Pieterse | Westville |
| 17 | Ngoni Chidoma | Northwood | 17 | Greg Jackson | Michaelhouse |
| 18 | Cody Thomas | Westville | 18 | Disi Dlamini | Maritzburg College |
| 19 | Bandisa Ndlovu | Voortrekker | 19 | Nama Xaba | Glenwood |
| 20 | Kwazi Khanyile | Glenwood | 20 | Kuziva Kazembe | Northwood |
| 21 | Curtis Jonas | Glenwood | 21 | Brandon Tattam | Michaelhouse |
| 22 | Philani Ngcobo | Glenwood | 22 | Mbhutana Peter | DHS |
| U18 KZN Country Districts 2014 | U16 Grant Khomo Week 2014 | ||||
| 1 | T. Pickering | Treverton | 1 | S. Hlope | Glenwood |
| 2 | P. Keeve | Vryheid | 2 | H. Prinsloo | Westville |
| 3 | K. Mchunu | Greytown | 3 | B. Van Rooyen | Glenwood |
| 4 | C. Jacobs | Pionier | 4 | P. Buthelezi | DHS |
| 5 | M. Malimela | Wartburg | 5 | J.J. Van Der Mescht | Glenwood |
| 6 | M. Du Plessis | Ashton | 6 | M. King | Maritzburg College |
| 7 | Dlamini | Greytown | 7 | D. Atembe | Maritzburg College |
| 8 | C. Swanepoel | Pionier | 8 | C. Glover | Maritzburg College |
| 9 | A. Du Toit | Port Shepstone | 9 | L. Muller | Maritzburg College |
| 10 | D, Aspden | Vryheid | 10 | G. Coetzee | DHS |
| 11 | K. Rhode | Ladysmith | 11 | T. Mahlangu | Westville |
| 12 | K. Ngema | Greytown | 12 | A. Duma | Maritzburg College |
| 13 | S. Mpontshane | Dundee | 13 | D. Kruger | Glenwood |
| 14 | P. Zondi | Greytown | 14 | W. Mthethwa | Maritzburg College |
| 15 | S. Mthembu | Glencoe | 15 | L. Moletshe | DHS |
| 16 | L. Moloi | Sarel Cilliers | 16 | C. Botha | Glenwood |
| 17 | F. Hendricks | Ferrum | 17 | L. Cele | Glenwood |
| 18 | A. Pretorius | Port Shepstone | 18 | A. Reintges | Maritzburg College |
| 19 | K. Ngwenya | Newcastle | 19 | A. Brummer | Glenwood |
| 20 | R. Elliott | Port Shepstone | 20 | S. Dubazane | Glenwood |
| 21 | X. Kriel | Sarel Cilliers | 21 | F. Botha | Glenwood |
| 22 | S. Mabuza | SUN | 22 | L. Mngadi | DHS |
i would love some kind of stats book. something containing most games played… most points… yearly results etc etc, would make fascinating reading. I actually dont know who has played the most games for the Green Machine (my guess would be Petros Methula) I seem to remember the DHS Head Boy from 1997 i think it was playing his 75th game, with Boksmart and HM agreements in place now surely those kinds of records will never be broken.
i know DHS released a book recently… has anyone read it?
@GreenBlooded: Bargain. Find any of Hearth or Jimeloyo and I will take them off your hands.
@Gungets Tuft: Found “For Hearth and Home” in a second hand book shop at Gowrie Village – Nottingham Road. Needless to say it was snapped up at the bargain price of 80 Ess Aye Ront!!
@Dixon’s: Out of print, unfortunately. I tried to buy another recently. I can’t remember who is spoke to, probably an old blogger here called Madevu, apparent there was a thought to update it past 1980 when the last one ended, I will follow up. That and a great history of the school called “For Hearth and Home” – the English for Pro Aris Et Focis, the school motto. Also out of print… Required reading for College Old Boys.
@Gungets Tuft: I would love to get my hands on a copy….
@Vleis: You only know 1/2 of it. The book is evidence of how generous he was as a coach and a competitor. No ego, pride for sure, but never at anyones expense. The book is a superb look at College rugby during his tenure, every season documented, certain matches highlighed. I have shortened the story of the year (obviously) and even the match – that try was described in even more detail.
I consider myself very lucky to have been at College for my years with him, and other really good men. I had many direct interactions with Skonk, not as a player (wasn’t good enough), I carry those lessons till today. Giant man, College has echo’s that sound just like him …..
@Gungets Tuft: I think that many of the current match report writers around the country could take a leaf out of Skonk’s book…no pun intended.
@star: From “the book”
“The 1979 team was inexperienced at the beginning of the season, with just Jaimeson, Kempe and Mitchell returning. After a severe defeat by Glenwood in the 2nd match of the season, pundits were openly talking about a string of defeat in the matches which lay ahead. Under the inspiring leadership of Jaimeson and deputy Kempe the players set about redeeming themselves, and how well they did it …….
Supporters and players alike looked forward to the return against Glenwood. In a very fast and tense match, played before a large crowd, College turned the tables on Glenwood. There was little between the two sides and at 1/2 time the score was 3-3. In the second 1/2 the College pack started to get slightly the better of the exchanges but the Glenwood forwards were never subdued. Glenwood were forced to touch down in their in-goal area and from the resulting 22m drop out …….. Tyrer was n support to take Mingay’s inside pass and he drove for the line. This great try gave College a winning 7-3 lead. Rugby was the ultimate winner in this game. Over the years there have been many splendid games between Glenwood and College and this was no exception. Glenwood had an exceptional side and it was highly praised for the spirit in which it played the game and the manner in which it accepted defeat.”
Taken from “Jimeloyo-Ji!!” – written by Skonk Nicholson and Tony Wiblin, sadly out of print. I guard my copy jealously. All the history I bore you with, and the stats I spout, come from Tony who still keeps the records for College.
@Gungets Tuft: the point about Skonk is precisely my view. Have to pass begin to get in the game, not just buy the first hotel in Nicholson road, in monopoly speak.
@star: Frolich had played lock for CW the year before (78) while at DHS and did a post matric at MHS in 79 and broke a leg, so missed out on CW. Very strong CW side that year.
@star: Ja, I don’t know how Glenwood did against the rest of KZN, it might be an interesting exercise to do. I (and you I imagine) knew a lot of those guys. Adrian Mitchell, to this day the silkiest, most deceptive running fullback I have ever seen. He had a Andre Joubert-like turn of Rolls Royce pace that left many players looking silly. Elkingon was a big wide strong bugger, Mike Kempe was a junkyard dog of note. I stand under correction but I think Skonk might have named him at hooker in his “team of the century”. Craig speaks for himself. I will dig out and reproduce Skonks notes for the year, I remember him commenting on the teams performance and close mathes – especially Linpark – and I see they got a KZN rep.
Just a side note – Skonk was a selector back then, but he was also known to go to as many school matches as he could, even the primary schools, and was an astute judge of talent. I would not be surprised to see that he picked KZN reps out of position because he had a knack for seeing where a boy might fit with a little coaching. He was, simply, a meneer.
@ Gungets- the 22 as follows:
House 3 ( Moon, Tingle, Van Heerden)
)
Alexandria 1 (Petersen)
GW 4 (Tyack, Hardie, Armitage, La Marque(v/c))
Westville 1 (Pastorino- fancied the sister
Northlands 2 ( Shaw, Reece-Edwards(c))
Kearsney 1 (Hopkins)
Pinetown 1 (Cummings)
Hilton 1 (Hawthorn)
Linpark 1 (Muller)
College 6 ( as per your post)
In all fairness to the newspaper the selections would have been made before the return match against GW and the big wins against Hilton and DHS. I am just posted a sentiment at the time. Actually the team looks a lot more representative than today with 10 schools having representation.
@star: Results from 1979 (Derek La Marques year at Glenwood??)
Estcourt 50 -3
Glenwood (A) 6 – 33
Umtali 28 – 8
Alexandra 12 – 9
Michaelhouse 27 – 12
Northwood (Hugh Reece??) 9 – 9
Voortrekker 21 – 12
Linpark 9 – 7
DHS 25 – 10
Kearsney 7 – 3
Glenwood (H) 7 – 3
Hilton 32 – 3
DHS 34 – 15
1979 representatives for KZN -JP Barnes, TIN Elkington, CM Jamieson, MA Kempe, AL Mitchell, PM Phillips (6 in total – for a team that lost just one match in the season – and if I remember there were some serious injuries for the Glenwood match which might tell a story, but I will post that later when I have my “bible” at hand)
SA Schools that year – CM Jamieson (Craig – you might remember him)
The stats don’t back up your post, and not it’s unlike newspapers to look for sensation (I suppose the more things change the more they stay the same. It does not make it right though ..
). Let us know how many reps Glenwood, Northwood, DHS had, all strong sides that year. I will tonight pull out the reports from those matches.
Glenwood dominates rugby in KZN full stop. On and of the field. I was a spectator at the Glenwood/DHS under 15 match where DHS were leading 9-6 at halftime. All the parents, myself included saw how the Glenwood coach argued with the ref at halftime about the amount of penalties against Glenwood. Second halve Glenwood got 24 penalties for them against the 8 for DHS and DHS lost the match. The referees made a spectacle of the match in the second halve and the he was intimidated by the Glenwood coach and definitely influenced the outcome of the match. I agree that we need a strong rugby school in KZN, but why not three or four good rugby playing schools. If the KZN rugby union do scouting why don’t they place those players at a few schools so that KZN school rugby improves?
@star: In 1979 College won the return game against Glenwood. In 1984, College were unbeaten in Natal and got 1 representative. Roundabouts.
Talking about perceived bias I was going through an old scrap book and there was a newspaper article in 1979 that read ” Craven Week Surprises”.
And I quote ” .. a question mark must still hang over the shortage of Glenwood players among the forwards. They have all proved themselves as a unit and as individuals. The proof is in their results.”
Further- ” A quick look at the records shows that Natal’s most famous rugby school (College) lost 6-33 to Glenwood while several of their other matches have been won by narrow margins.” College had the highest representation in the 1979 CW side. I suppose the more things change the more they stay the same. It does not make it right though.
@Grasshopper: Hey Hopper hate to say this I’m on your side with this. I just can’t see how GW 2nd team players crack the nod. 8 and 15 from College should be in either one of those sides.
@Westers: exactly you can support your school and not have to agree with some decisions that you believe are wrong. Otherwise it’s big brother/1984 mentality. The school needs to teach freedom of speech. I don’t agree with poaching, full stop! I’m not blinded in my support like some….
@umbiloburger: The only thing Westville have altered of late is their approach to poaching. They now do it. And I do NOT support it.
In support of Grassy, he is one of the most staunch GW supporters you will find on this blog. Being a supporter does not mean you should be biased towards your school. I think he is being objective on this topic.
@umbiloburger: Boet, I do support the school, always have done. I have been on these blogs for years and ask any of the old timers who I support? However, if success comes with dodgy deals, underhanded tactics, poaching, over age issues etc then this is ‘buying’ success not developing it. Kind of like Man City & Chelsea bought their success. Instead of gaining friends over the years there are many who do not trust the leadership there. Mike Maher before TK was a solid headmaster with ethics, he never did any of this stuff. Yes results in sport were not great but at least we knew we were Glenwood boys who had been together for 5 years playing for the pride of the school. These days the team looks like a Baa Baa’s side……. Recruit at grade 8 level fine, later no!
The selectors have a mine field to cross before naming the side to represent KZN. In the very distant future ,when they are satisfied that RSA is now free of the racial taints of the past, will you get a side that can be selected on merit alone. It is a fact that Glenwood have the best of the PDA’s and that counts for a number of boys in the 22- 6 in all. Then you select the rest. So would the public be happy with 6 from Glenwood and possibly another 2 of colour to make up 8 instead of 12 and this is from the strongest side in the province in 2014. IMHO -yes. They recruit boys (sometimes a little questionably ) to make sure that they are one of the strongest teams in RSA and that rubs up against the likes of Westville who have the same recruitment policy but just don’t get it quite right, so as it seems. Once again- IMHO.
The selectors won’t satisfy everyone and there are some shock omissions have got it right in most cases. So, let’s get behind this team and be unified against the threat from the other unions. Go KZN.
@Grasshopper: The challenge was to select a team with those restrictions in mind and not to compare results as they mean nothing. The week before House GW had an emphatic win over WV. Does that win mean nothing because they had a bad game against MHS!!!
A reality is that GW are running a winning formula at the moment that it is working in all the age groups. Their conditioning, skills and technical application are above average and their overall results speak for themselves.
I respectfully ask that you please stop this continuous onslaught on your school. You are giving GW & those of us that hold GW in high regard as old boys, a bad name. It is obvious that something or someone wronged you whilst you were at GW and now you seem be using this forum for payback.
Currently GW are the only school that are reasonably successful against the top tier schools outside of KZN. Figure out why and then you will have answered your question. IMO WV will be up there soon too. They have altered their approach towards conditioning and skills and it is only a matter of time before they begin to enjoy the results of their hard work.
@Grasshopper: The challenge was to select a team with those restrictions in mind and not to compare results as they mean nothing. The week before House GW had an emphatic win over WV. Does that win mean nothing because they had a bad game against MHS!!!
A reality is that GW are running a winning formula at the moment that it is working in all the age groups. Their conditioning, skills and technicaloverall results speak for themselves.
I respectfully ask that you please stop this continuous onslaught on your school. You are giving GW & those of us that hold GW in high regard as old boys, a bad name. It is obvious that something or someone wronged you whilst you were at GW and now you seem be using this forum for payback.
Currently GW are the only school that are reasonably successful against the top tier schools outside of KZN. Figure out why and then you will have answered your question. IMO WV will be up there soon too. They have altered their approach towards conditioning and skills and it is only a matter of time before they begin to enjoy the results of their hard work.
@umbiloburger: yes, I’m aware of all of the constraints but still it’s hard to believe a school who beat Michaelhouse by a point gets 17 and House get 5….
@umbiloburger: Ja – very difficult constraints to work around. Must be a mare.
I have yet to hear a plausible theory on how Glenwood manage to hold such influence over a selection committee made up of solid rugby men from different schools and from the Sharks. Many accuse Glenwood of undue influence but no-one can say how this occurs.
@GreenBlooded: Each head coach is a selector, hence Dames being there. Pinheiro is there as a selector voted by the exec.
Here is a challenge to all…..especially ‘Hopper: select a KZN CW team and take cognizance of this:
1. You have to have the correct black white split(beet please confirm requirements)
2. You must select a day 1 & day 2 team including the required number of black players as per SARU rules (beet please confirm these requirements)
3. Please also remember that at the end of day 2 all players have to have played 1 full match and had to have started a match (beet again please confirm this)@Grasshopper:
This is what the selectors have to deal with
@Grasshopper: We had pretty comprehensive trials as far back as the 70’s. in fact not much different to today in terms of regional groups and and an eventual “final” trial between probables and possibles. There was as much debate about omissions and selections then as now – just not on a public forum.
@All Black: It wasn’t a dig at Skonk or College, it was just a statement that many boys were overlooked in the past due to lack of communication etc. There was no democracy really, the coach picked his team….like or leave it…
@meadows:
Never doubted that. Good luck tomorrow.
@All Black: The Skonk comment was tongue in cheek. i don’t think that anyone would question his integrity or rugby acumen.
@meadows: In 1984 Maritzburg College were unbeaten in Kzn and lost 1 game to Queens College 15-13. Craven Week team had 1 College boy. Joel Stransky.
@Grasshopper: Well in 1994 you couldn’t exactly switch on your pentium 1, connect via dial-up, browse using Netscape and find out what the disgruntled parents / schools were saying about selections but unhappiness has always been something that follows CW selections around. Access to information was limited. To follow results one had to read the Sunday newspaper and occasionally there would be a newspaper write up on a game on the Monday. Today in KZN we still have it better than many other parts of SA. The current chairman Noel Ingle has actually improved on the KZN system since he took charge. He’s provided kids from the smallest most out of the way schools in KZN with the opportunity to make it to main trials. I can well imagine that far more players were simply overlooked in the past. And you probably find that there were schools back then that tried to control the process and work it to their best advantage. Because things always existed doesn’t mean we should give up on trying to find best possible solutions.
@Grasshopper: For most of that time Skonk just picked the side
@beet: I support the notion that the selection process should be seen to be fair and have no problem with ensuring that the selectors are current and the best team for the job. Inevitably in a process like this their will be disgruntled parents, boys and supporters who, when marginal selections go against them, look for a reason other than rugby merit.
The “elephant in the room” in this debate is the effect of quotas which has to a greater or lesser extent over the years affected the composition of the squad and resulted in the odd travesty. in balancing the numbers it has sometimes been necessary to jettison a player who should have been a certainty.
The point that i will continue to emphasise is that IMO the individuals (certainly those that i know) primary motivation is to ensure that KZN put out the best team that they can within the constraints that they have to manage. I am also aware that the opinions of Ryno Combrinck and Barend Steyn carry substantial weight especially insofar as the forwards are concerned and, just by way of example, I can’t recall a CW side selection being critisised for having too many MHS or Kearsney forwards.
The test for me is always the number of our CW squad that secure pro contracts after CW from a Super rugby franchise (assuming that they aspire to them). That is the objective measure of how the individuals perform at thee CW level.
Funny now in the modern day we all question selectors etc, when from 1920 to about 1995 no one did, no one even knew who the selectors were. The Natal Schools team was just announced! Imagine the sorts of bias etc they had back then, no one asking questions and no transparency…….maybe one would say the ‘good ol days’, no interference from ‘couch coaches’…….I know of many a Glenwood Boy and other lesser rugby school boys missing out over the years….
@beet: Why would he not qualify as a selector.
I am out of here – weekend in the bush beckons. Have a damn fine weekend all, good luck Glenwood up in the Big Smoke.
Have a lekker Reunion all those College boys. Out.
@star: @Gungets Tuft: It seems like after the 9th u18 selector post was created last year, many applied including Bell and Strudwick but Pinheiro was deemed to be the right man for the job. It’s also not clear whether Strudwick qualifies to be a selector or not – but times have changed and perhaps the criteria has to as well if this is the case.
@Pedantic: Perhaps check with the hierarchy about College participation on the selection committee. I think you will find it is not just a matter of applying – well, not in the case of College anyway. Ask the committee why Ryan Strudwick was declined and College objections were ignored.
As far as the monthly sessions were concerned, some College reps were there, others were injured and did not attend. I do hope that injury is not going to be used as a criteria because it wasn’t at final trials.
@ Pedantic- then formalise his input by making him a selector.( as is the case with Dames). I agree 100% about not getting involved when the opportunity avails itself and then crying foul when the required outcomes are not achieved.
@star: As assistant coach, do you honestly think Bell had no input ?
My point is that some schools / individuals seem to have distanced themselves from the entire process for some reason or another and in doing so have done themselves an injustice, but then it’s everyone else’s fault?
So we have Pinherio who has been out of the loop for several years taking precedence over someone like Bell who is a current Ist team coach. He was also the GK coach and so knows the development and abilities of most of the players better than most. He would also be privy to ” strategy” being the current assistant coach and would enhance the perception of balance that is currently lacking. The simple question is how did that logical outcome not be achieved. Were Westville deficient in not nominating as Pedantic says” not doing what they should be”. But then as Gungets intimates why should they have to if all is above board. I think the use of lobby was unfortunate as it implies a partisan position. Horse trading comes to mind as was explained to me first hand by a prominent commentator a few years back. The reality is that there is a fierce battle on at the moment for our kids and an important weapon is to be able to prove provincial representation. We would be extremely naïve to think otherwise. So we will keep on asking the simple logical questions in the hope that some equity and balance is achieved.
@ AT- Maccie is a great player but he still needs the ball to play with.
@Gungets Tuft: I agree that by the time trials come around the selectors have a preconceived idea as to what the bulk of the team will look like based on years of competing against each other and historic performances at GK week and the Academy Weeks.
The Country Districts team used to be used as an U17 team which I thought was a good idea from a development point of view. i can recall a few players who probably played themselves out of contention for CW by not stepping up at either Grant Khomo or an Academy Week, notwithstanding performances at a school level.
The trials IMO are a useful tool to allow a player from left field (perhaps from a smaller school) to show how they can perform and possibly force their way into contention or for a fancied player to be exposed when he is taken out of his support structure in, for eg, a dominant pack. it is far easier to shine at scrumhalf when you are playing behind a dominant pack. How you perform under pressure is far more important for CW.
Another challenge is assessing how a players strengths will transfer to CW. i remember a big tighthead years ago who had been dominant at school level being badly exposed at CW (I think he lasted 30mins) when his size alone was no advantage and poor technique was exposed by equally big opposition.
A side also needs to be picked to play to a strategy. It is no good going to CW with a pack picked for bulk in the hope of dominating upfront. It is simply not going to happen
@pongola: very nice facility
@Grasshopper: played in that game… we went 3 nil up and I nailed Brink into touch on the corner flag and pushed his face into the ground while getting up, telling him he had a long day ahead of him
he scored 4 tries that day and I felt like a doos 
@Pedantic: The monthly session, can’t say. Where were they held. I know it sounds like a cop out but often they are held in Durban and also on weekends when the guys have other sporting commitments. Were the sessions open or on invite only.
As for players changing, sure they do, but all the players in contention have been playing every year, against each other and in some cases with each other. Much has been said about how the selectors get around, I can’t believe there is too much they don’t know about the regular 1st Fifteen squads of the big 6 schools, certainly those that have been competing through the age groups.
I am not saying they have it wrong on selection (well, actually I believe they have missed a trick or two, but that’s also just my opinion), just that the theory of having someone there to vouch for you is a flawed one. The “picking for strategy” argument is much more sound.
No matter, I actually don’t want to be in the discussion. I am no coach, no selector, and I don’t watch many of the teams other than College. I have no skin in the game being a hockey dad, so don’t mind me.
@Gungets Tuft: A couple points there, and I could be totally wrong but it’s my opinion (which admittedly could be subjective at this stage):
1. Players change a lot in 5 years as illustrated by how many of the selected guys were not in GK 2012 – many of them have had to put in the extra work to catch up. What about other qualities? A quick example: 2 players end up with identical scores – if someone on the panel can vouch for additional qualities then that player gets the nod (No-one was there to vouch for the special qualities of the individual you are referring to). It’s not necessarily favouritism but rather in depth knowledge.
2. The monthly sessions were setup for the panel to gain a deeper knowledge of the players, their abilities and additional qualities. Did the College boys attend these sessions, and if not, why not ?
@Gungets Tuft: Tony Pinheiro is the Glenwood Deputy HM – coached the 1st XV for a few years before the Sean Erasmus era. He also has some involvement with the KZN Coaches association I think. I do agree that no school should have 2 selectors on the panel though – preferably they should be independent but I think there is also a lot of benefit in having the top school coaches having some input.
Pumas kzn warm up
9:00 – KZN Akademie vs PUMAS Akademie
10:00 – KZN Plattelande vs PUMAS Plattelande
11:00 – KZN Grant Como 0/16 vs Pumas Grant Como 0/16
12:00 – KZN Cravenweek 0/18 A vs PUMAS Cravenweek 0/18 A
Datum: 16 Junie 2014
Plek: Hoërskool Pionier
@Pedantic: And having read your post again. I jumped the gun and left it to late to edit it. I see where you are coming from. I still don’t like it, I prefer to believe that experienced selectors that have seen all the boys play can make informed judgements without the “home coach” having to point it out. The selectors have been watching these guys for 5 (sometimes more) years – surely they have an idea by now?
Still begs the question – why Tony Pinherio. Don’t know him, it’s not personal, but why?
@Pedantic: I was trying to stay out of this, but this has jogged me into action.
Are you saying that it is NOT just the standard of the boys play that decides whether they get picked for CW or not, but rather a person on the panel that has to lobby for them. It would seem to be the only way to explain the “it would seem they have let their own boys down” phrase.
The comment doesn’t make me feel comfortable at all. It makes me feel that representation on the selector panel is to influence selection based on something other than pure talent. That’s not right, surely?
Take this from someone who has had very little to say about selections, other than one particular individual whom I believe deserved more.
@beet: There are two trains of thought here and it depends on what the panel’s brief was:
1. Select the best player in each position.
2. Select a team around a strategic plan.
In my experience at DRSU club trials it is the player with the highest score achieved (scored by independent selectors) that gets the starting jersey, the coaching team can then have input on the remaining 7 positions although scores will be checked on that too.
I don’t believe that a selector with more experience or who is up to date on latest trends can improve the quality of the players at trials – he watches the players in his allocated positions and scores them accordingly. The panel will then discuss the balance of the team from there.
Having said that, having a representative on the panel that actually knows the player/s is most certainly an advantage when it comes down to the wire – it’s not unfair, simply a case of knowing what that player can deliver – this is where College need to step up and represent their boys, at this stage it would seem they have let their own boys down. Do you honestly think that a request for representation on the panel would be turned down for a school that is historically the best rugby school in KZN ?
Maybe it’s time to stop blaming everyone who is doing what they’re doing and shift the blame to those who are not doing what they should be ?
@LineBreak: Today I communicated with St Andrews about their decision to withdraw players from CW, which I can see was unavoidable and bad luck of the worst kind for their talented rugby players. Also pointed out to me was that they had a strategy in place for several years now to increase their CW representation, further emphasising their commitment to the CW process.
At some point Maritzburg College has to make their same St Andrews like assessment. Ask themselves in terms of rugby if their structures, coaches and actions giving their top rugby boys the best possible chance of gaining CW selection.
@meadows: I’m not running Tony Richter down or dismissing the value of his CW and other experience especially when compared to an inexperienced coach. But this is where I’m going: for a start Hilton are not playing the calibre of opponents that College, Westville and obviously Glenwood are. On top of this Tony has relegated himself to u15B coach (I think). As Head of Rugby I assume he had the option to travel to the Jozi Easter fest with the HC 1st XV this year. Instead he went on tour with the HC u15As. School rugby is a constantly changing game and coaches have to keep pace. So now you have 2 schools who have experienced coaches, who are up to speed on the requirements to compete successfully against high quality opposition. By restructuring the selection panel, you get the benefit of equal representation (which goes a long way to making a lot more people happy) as well as the added up to date knowledge of 1st XV rugby at a high level. BTW both College + Westville coaches also coach outside of school rugby.
A couple of years back the MHS coaches went on the Investec course and I believe they learnt quite a bit, must have because a year or so late Combrinck also attended the course. These are all men who are currently involved at 1st XV level. I don’t think you reach a point where you can safely say I know it all, I can fall back on my experience of coaching at that level 5 years ago.
Not so long ago an objective parent told me he wished a certain coach from his son’s school had been a selector a while back because he felt that it might have improved his son’s chances of being selected. True or not, and I’m seeing in the polarised correspondence I’m getting away from the blog relating to the topic, a lot of people measure fairness of selections by two things 1) who of the selectors are 2) the progress their son/son’s mate/school representatives made at trials. And with exceptions of people like Far Meadows who I admire for his comment re: MHS players being fairly assessed, most folks’ feelings about the selection can be clear-cut divided by point 1) and 2).
So I say restructure the panel, giving it that added perception of fairness to all as well as improving the quality. The exact same players should be chosen if the happy, pro the system as it is side is to be believed and the unhappy, no the system is unfair side will have to keep quiet and can’t use that “if only our school coach was one of the selectors” excuse anymore.
@Grasshopper: Try was 3 points up to and including 1970, 4 points up to and including 1991 and 5 points since 1992.
@GreenBlooded: 1991 – Grey Bloem 84 – Westville 3. I think it was when tries were only 4 points too. In 1981 Grey put two centuries up, 100 – 0 vs Dr Viljoen & 100-3 vs Tweespruit. In fact poor Dr Viljoen had a few hidings over the years…
@GreenBlooded: yep, I think it’s our worst loss ever! Westville took 80 to in a game vs Grey, not that year though….
@meadows: Wow – 81 points against Glenwood, 83 points against College and 15 points against DHS. Times have certainly changed.
@Anti Green: Here are Grey’s 2007 results – a remarkable side. They beat Glenwood 81-0. Interestingly their closest result was against DHS at one of the Easter festivals 21-6.
2007 Grey College 40 vs Paul Roos Gymnasium 14
2007 Grey College 57 vs Hoërskool Duineveld 6
2007 Grey College 66 vs Hoërskool Marais Viljoen 0
2007 Grey College 21 vs Durban High School 6
2007 Grey College 52 vs HTS Daniel Pienaar 7
2007 Grey College 50 vs Hoërskool Jim Fouché 6
2007 Grey College 66 vs Harmony Sport Academy 10
2007 Grey College 64 vs Hoërskool Sentraal 9
2007 Grey College 86 vs Maritzburg College 3
2007 Grey College 68 vs Selborne College 0
2007 Grey College 48 vs Paarl Boys’ High 24
2007 Grey College 47 vs Affies 10
2007 Grey College 44 vs Grey High School (PE) 26
2007 Grey College 38 vs Pretoria Boys’ High 20
2007 Grey College 81 vs Glenwood High 0
The Grey side in 2007 were arguably the best schoolboy rugby side in memory. They literally thrashed everyone including a very strong WP side (playing as OFS) in the final game at Craven Week. They were definitely unbeaten that year.
@Anti Green: of course he did
I’m sure he would be chuffed at the error.
Maybe a clear out of KZN schools hierarchy is needed, get Jake involved when he is not involved with Super rugby. Also, John Smit & Butch James need to look at schools rugby seriously now, it’s where the future lies…..
Didn’t the GW side in 2007 beat Grey that year to go through to the SANIX tournament, then went on to win that as well? I think Toppey was the GW coach then, maybe he did something to pi$$ GG off.
@meadows: interesting team that. Dean Muir was coaching at Glenwood maybe still, not sure. He is still playing high level Club rugby, maybe even Varsity Cup. Kurt Mavrodaris is my mates brother, played for KZN Varsity in the Varsity Shield. Some of the others I’ve never heard of….
@meadows: Sorry Meadows GG played scrum half.
@meadows: To make a point on selectors – the 2007 side was coached by Tony Richter (Hilton) and Barend Steyn (Kearsney) who were both selectors along with Ryno Combrinck (MHS). Garth Giles (Hilton OB) and former Natal wing chaired the selection committee. There were no Hilton boys chosen and only one from Kearsney. MHS and Westville supplied the bulk of the side with 6 each. the rest were spread over 7 schools. I don’t recall if Westville had a selector then.
Pretty much the same panel of selectors chose a side in 2008 that had a strong Glenwood contingent – about 6 reps if memory serves.
@kcob: Your last question is an interesting one, I could be wrong but I don’t think College supported the monthly sessions at all ?
@LineBreak: Would be good if Strudwick took up a seat. I think its fair that the strongest side in the province (GW)gets the bulk of players. They have played together therefore your combinations are already there. What doesn’t go down well is that 2nd team players are making it ahead of the remaining 1st players. College had an awesome pack and played very well against GW. There was very little in it. The fact that the College Nr15 didn’t crack the nod is weird. Not to mention he was replaced by the GW Nr 15 in the Academy side. I agree with Hopper about it looking bias can understand why DHS don’t get at look at, agree that Pinherio shouldn’t be on the panel.
@Grasshopper: I think that is becoming increasingly difficult for the likes of Cooper and Coetzee to come through without having been at Craven Week. If you are not contracted by one of the Super rugby provinces from CW it is virtually impossible to get into the system.
Kyle Cooper was still a loose forward in ’07 when he missed out on CW. I suspect that he was prejudiced by not being in a particularly strong Glenwood side. Of the loose forwards picked only Stander is playing senior pro rugby. Ntsolo Setlaba played WP U19/21 and captained the UCT VC side. The only Glenwood CW player that year was Dean Muir, the hooker, who had also played in 2006. Of that side there are 6 players playing senior professional rugby which is probably a decent conversion rate. 10 were contracted and played u19-21 Currie Cup. The controversial omissions that year were the two MHS wings Mark Richards and Ruan Combrinck who went to the Academy Week. Chadwick, Okafor and Lambie were picked for SA Schools and Ross Cronje for the B side. The side is below for interest;
KwaZulu Natal 1-22: Dale Chadwick (Westville), Dean Muir (Glenwood), Zabentungwa Zwane (Ladysmith), François Robertse (George Campbell), Kene Okafor (Kearsney), Grenville Easthorpe (Maritzburg Rugby Academy), Brynard Stander (Westville), Carl Marks (St Charles), Ross Cronje (Michaelhouse), Guy Cronje (Michaelhouse), Cebu Masuku (Vryheid Landbou), Murray de Bruyn (Michaelhouse), Xillen van Rooyen (Michaelhouse), Njabulo Mkhize (Northwood), Patrick Lambie (Michaelhouse), Monde Hadebe (Westville), Andile Sithebe (Sarel Cilliers), N Little (Westville), Ntsolo Setlaba (Michaelhouse), Nhlakanipo Mabaso (Westville), Kurt Mavrodaris (Westville), Kwenzakonke Ngema (George Campbell)
@LineBreak: I agree with you and you will see my picks were very close to the final pick. However, as a Glenwood supporter other bloggers would see my picks as biased. However, I do try to remain unbiased when watching games. To be honest the boys picked now are our best and the difference between making it and not these days is a very very fine line. All schools have upped their games and the players are all fit, quick, big and skillful. There will be disappointment every year but the boys must remember this is not the end, look at Marcell Coetzee & Kyle Cooper both playing for our strongest Super15 franchise and both didn’t play CW, I think. I have a good feeling about this side and I think they will do us banana boys proud!
Having been through the list; there seems to be lots of close friends in the mix ; which will tighten their resolve. I think at least 14 of the blokes are close mates, having been of tours here or there, Craven Week u12, u13, u16, u18 (last year) and have still remained good buddy’s. I think we will see a very unified squad this year. As Linebreak says, “Get behind the boys”; which I think all us are or will…
@Meadows: Could not agree with you more
@beet: I suspect that the perceived value the the Hilton selector (Tony Richter) adds is that he (along with Combrinck and Steyn) has coached CW sides so I am sure that these 3 at least know exactly how big a step up CW is from inter schools games.
Every year players who have stood out at 1st XV level do not make the step up at CW while others, perhaps less fancied initially, do.
If there are any disputes regarding the 7 flank then I am now completely convinced that KXN supporters have absolutely no rugby knowledge.
@beet: With regards to your point # 3, the question is, would he accept the appointment ? I have my doubts.
@kcob: College Flank vs Glenwood Flank – agreed, very close but I think the GW boy stepped it up a gear while the College boy (possibly through injury) took his foot off the gas when it mattered.
Kearsney Lock vs Hilton Lock – if you were at trials, there was absolutely no “same / same” – Hilton lock lacked the hunger of the Kearsney boy by a long shot.
@Grasshopper: I still say that having selectors that have watched or coached the boys during the season devalues the trials. If you have trials you should reward boys who perform well at trials. the unfortunate byproduct of that is that if boys are injured or have an off day they lose out. i know that the DRSU teams are selected by totally independent selectors…. maybe thats the way the Craven Week side should be picked!
Can someone please give me T. Pinherio’s rugby CV? I know the likes of Combrink,Strydom and Richter are seasoned rugby men? Also what is the average height of the GW back row. I know all of them are direct physical players with Mac at one stage being considered for the hookers position and Jaco for no7. The back of the lineout could become a target area for any opposition teams and could in turn put pressure on our locking options. Has Dixon been the go to man for Kearsney in the lineouts this season due to the fact that he is a very versatile player and his role definition might have changed.
Sometimes it’s easier if you step back and look at the players without their school socks on, look at how they perform at trials and judge objectively from that.
I refer to two blog posts:
1. KZN Craven Week 2014 candidates – 20 April 2014 – Before Zonal trials.
http://blog.schoolboyrugby.co.za/?p=7699
2. KZN Trials: the forwards & backs – 20 May 2014 – After Main Trials.
http://blog.schoolboyrugby.co.za/?p=8160
In Blog post # 1, beet gave us a list of candidates and invited all to discuss possibilities before zonal trials even commenced.
I invite you to go and read through it yourself and see that every single Craven Week Player selected was mentioned barring Ndlovu who was a revelation at trials.
In Blog post # 2, beet gave us his opinion of the serious contenders and how they performed at the main KZN trials, several of us that were at trials added our 2c worth.
I invite you to go back and read that blog, you will notice that certain boys had played themselves into serious contention, namely:
Ndlovu (Voortrekker), Thomas (Westville), Dixon (Kearsney), Guma (College), Mukendi (Glenwood) and Venter (Glenwood).
Add to the list above, the injured / non-available players who we all regarded would be certainties:
Coetzee (Glenwood), Tedder (Kearsney), Joubert (Glenwood)
As mentioned before, these three did nothing special at trials but have built the pedigree to earn their spots.
The final Craven Week team is named, almost exactly as all of us grandstand experts had discussed for weeks, yet now we have people shouting foul? I’m sorry, I don’t get it.
The two contentious ommisions:
1. Goodson
While many rate him as a superstar, I have only seen him offer solid performances, could he step up enough during trials to demote Jaco Coetzee? IMHO No.
2. Heystek
Excellent performer all season but was solid at main trials, no fireworks. Could the surprise package of the trials Ndlovu have shaded him (also considering the quota)? IMHO Yes.
Could the coaches have a different plan with the more physical Mac Muller? Yes, I think so.
Forget the school socks, these boys will be wearing black and white socks, so lets get behind them and support, they didn’t select themselves!
@beet: Totally agree with you Beet, they need to ensure the panel has absolutely no bias towards any school even if there isn’t any now. From afar a balanced panel calms people down. The one thing I can say is that Glenwood certainly has the toughest fixture list in KZN therefore the Glenwood boys certainly know what to expect from the other provinces top players and they have actually beaten some of these top schools like Affies, Monnas, Waterkloof, Outeniqua, Grey Bloem, Paul Roos, Paarl Boys and others. Maybe their mindsets are better in that they actually believe they can beat them. Westville, College and Kearsney are certainly starting to test themselves more against the best schools in the country but not yet to the extend of Glenwood. I also believe Glenwood attract many rugby boys due to the fact that they have all these fixtures vs the best…….it’s a hard balance because I think Glenwood play too many of the best schools. Most seasons they play between 8 and 10 of the Top 20 schools……very tough! So when it comes down to a Michaelhouse player vs a Glenwood player of similar standards the selectors will most probably pick the Glenwood player……just a theory….
@kcob: Earlier in the year I wanted to publish the list of players attending the monthly sessions and was told it would be unfair to those not invited to attend, who still stood a chance of being picked.
Just like the speculation around the Ellse issue of non-selection last year – the policy should be to tell the boy/s/school up front right at the beginning of the season or process: IF YOU DON’T DO THIS OR DON’T CHANGE THAT, YOU WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR SELECTION! Don’t wait quietly until the trials to punish the boys or the school or make an example out of one or the other.
Well done Maccie. I knew he would be in. What a player.
@kcob: For me with regards to the selection panel it’s simple a step forward to improve the appearance of fairness.
1. Ask Tony Pinherio (Glenwood) to resign – the basis for this should be fairly straight forward a) he does not coach 1st XV at GW b) he is not the head of rugby at GW.
2. Appoint Grant Bell (Westville) as a selector who has one vote
3. Appoint Ryan Strudwick (College) as a selector who has one vote.
That equals 9 selectors with the 6 top schools represented by only one selector each + selectors from George Campbell, St Charles & the Sharks
Then going forward if 17 Glenwood players still get picked for u18 there will be no issues because of the balance in the panel.
The other reason to have Westville and College coaches / heads of rugby on board is these are 2 of the schools that are really pushing themselves to play the top teams from around SA. For example Westville and College both want to play Grey College. By exposing themselves they gain intel on what it takes to succeed at that high level, which in my opinion places them in a better position to make calls on what type of players we need to select to beat strong teams. Right now from the George Campbell, St Charles, Hilton and Sharks (development coaching) selectors you can’t get that same input because they just don’t come up against those kinds of strong schools annually
@Grasshopper: Don’t shoot me; but if some of those players in question were to immediately move to College, Kearsney or Westville; the question would be; “Could or would they displace that player from that 1st XV; regardless if he is 1st or 2nd XV at GW, MHS or Kearsney etc.” If he were to get the nod; then sure, he’s likely deserving of his place in the CW side; however if not; then one would wonder how is it he succeeded before the other bloke is getting the selection to CW. How many of these could be no’s?
Take the college flank and the GW flank..hammer and tong; head to head a tough call; either way? Perhaps the college bloke’s injury has impacted on his selection? I rate him, but when I saw last Sat’s game, geez the GW flank was good. Consistant, not sure – can’t comment?
Take the Kearsney lock vs the Hilton lock…same same maybe?
Perhaps this is how the selections were looked at?
I mentioned the other day; I do still find it tough that an omnipresent SBR powerhouse like College still don’t have a seat?
Another thing; did the college invitees attend to the monthly training sessions established last year? I know the Hilton and MHS blokes were coming.
@Grasshopper: Perhaps certain players under-perform come trials, it happens.
This is not yet professional whereby the selectors can watch each and every school boy rugby game – therefore, a big part of the selection process happens at the trials themselves.
It would be much easier if all the games were televised and we could watch a player week in and week out, but the reality is, the boys performances are largely judged at the trial games. Sometimes you underperform and do not get picked, it is sad but just the way it is.
I do not believe for one second their is a GW bias, no way. Unless there is a plater who is out and out better, which no one seems to be mentioning, besides maybe Goodsen, then perhaps it makes sense to pick the GW player ahead as he will have more cohesion with the fellow team mates in the squad..? What do you think?
@beet: Agreed! If Glenwood were trouncing College, Westville, Michaelhouse, Kearsney etc by 60 points then I’ll understand them getting 26 picks, but they are not. We are probably 2 tries better than most of the sides. Michaelhouse was a close win. It just doesn’t add up to me. There are 6 standout players in the Glenwood side, they should have made it but the others are not better than the best at other schools….something fishy is going on…
@Beet: Bulls 2014 Craven Week, Academy and Noordvaal sides, from Bulls Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/BlueBullsHighSchoolsRugby/photos/a.412069115533123.96638.404468312959870/678774202195945/?type=1&theater
https://www.facebook.com/BlueBullsHighSchoolsRugby/photos/a.412069115533123.96638.404468312959870/678774068862625/?type=1&theater
https://www.facebook.com/BlueBullsHighSchoolsRugby/photos/a.412069115533123.96638.404468312959870/678773948862637/?type=1&theater
Well done and best of luck to all selected.
@kosie: I can’t see it there
@RBugger: Tomorrow apparently
@Beet: Any idea when the Province side will be named?
@beet: The Blue Bulls teams are available on the Bulls face book page.
@Grasshopper: i understand your point about head to head school results but if those are taken into account what is the point of having trials? if those Glenwood boys where the best at trials they should be in the side regardless of how their school team is doing against other schools.
@CRC: thanks
@beet: The seven GK non-travelling reserves are:
U16 NON-TRAVELLING RESERVES
TO BE PRESENT AT ALL
PRACTICES UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE
N. SMITH (HILT)
M. FELTON (GW)
J. MEYER (K)
J.P. PELSER (W)
S. BUTHELEZI (W)
J. GENGAN (MC)
A. VAN DER MERWE (GW)
@Grasshopper: Most of us want to see the best players rewarded for their efforts but at the end of the day when a healthy strength vs strength system like we have in KZN starts being undermined by all the rugby players from one school being picked, it spells trouble down the line. Gradually prospective gr8 parents and kids come to the realisation that if they want to play CW their chances are vastly improved by enrolling at a particular school, resulting in a concentration of talent at just that school. From there it’s bye-bye strength vs strength and hello Durbanfontein, where the 2nd team can beat all the neighbouring first teams convincingly.
@CRC: Coincidentally there are exactly 7 lines of HTML space left for use below the team lists. Do you perhaps have all 7 names + their schools?
Let me state now even as Glenwood supporter having 26 reps across 3 teams is too much. I won’t mention names but about 5 or 6 of the Glenwood boys were very lucky to make it. I do really feel for Goodsen & Heysteck they should be there. I’m not sure why there are so many as there is no way Glenwood have sway over the selectors and coaches. Maybe they went with settled combos, not sure. It’s almost embarrassing to say Glenwood got 26 out if 66 positions, more than a third! Our 2nd team lost to Westville and beat College by a point, so those 2nd team boys should not be there. At under16a level they drew with Westville & College so the split should be a third each……
@beet: Seven non-travelling reserves were announced for the Grant Khomo side.
@beet: Have you heard anything on the Border teams yet.
@beet: Meyer is a non-travelling reserve.
@Gungets Tuft: I have sung his praises for years now and am with you on the subject .
@Grasshopper: Funny thing Hopper is that is actually a common DHS warcry and they have had plenty of opportunity to shout it ” Le Roux Le Roux Le Roux is on fire!”
This is his fourth year of playing 1st XV rugger so I think he must have 50 caps by now.
@sharkie: Yes I also heard on Tuesday after trials that Meyer, our no.8 had made it as a lock, so not sure why no Kearsney names reflected?
Are we to make the assumption Goodison would only play GW 3rds? Hard to believe. At the same time Glenwood appear to have No1 team in the province, however to more than double the number of representatives seems a bit skewed. I sometimes get the feeling selectors more select on what(who) they know. Which I suppose is human nature. Just seems unfair on some players who should possibly be at least in the academy side.
Beet did no kearsney boys make the Grant khomo u16 team as the kearsney websute shows that one made it?
@Grasshopper: u19
@HORSEFLY NO.1: just a general question, what happened to Leroux Van Zyl in the trials? Last year he was on fire…
@Gungets Tuft: great College representation in the U16’s….
@beet: And the #13 is U15 also.
@beet: Is it possible to note against the names who the U17’s are in the CW and AW teams are?
@HORSEFLY NO.1: Wow so both KZN u16 locks are u15 still.
Well done to all those selected. As usual I think one or two were lucky to make the A side just as much as a couple were unlucky not to.
Regardless of ths strength of Glenwood, I still believe 17 players in total is too much but without Sean to point fingers to, what do we attribute it to?
Don’t know much about the U16’S but I do believe that the no.4 lock from DHS is only U15 this year so a special congrats to him!
@Grasshopper: Ya, but not even going to go there any more. Silent on the subject.
@rbw1863: what’s a disgrace exactly?
@Gungets Tuft: Absolute disgrace. He will march on though. I hope the selectors will be watching on live tv come Saturday.
@beet: looks a pretty good conversion rate. Thobejane is concentrating on his athletics now, too small for open level…
@Sir Pius:
Grant Khomo 2012
1. P. Mngadi (Glenwood) – CW 2014
2. M. Mazwi (Maritzburg College) – AW 2014
3. M. Dlamini (Maritzburg College) – AW 2014
4. K. Du Randt (Glenwood) – CW2014
5. J. Martin (Westville) – out for the season
6. K. Webster (DHS) – finished school, played Craven Week 2013
7. H. Tharratt (Maritzburg College) – AW2014
8. D. Goodson (Maritzburg College) – not selected after final trials
9. K. Khanyile (Glenwood) – CW2014
10. C. Jonas (Glenwood) – CW2014
11. L. Buthelezi (Westville) – AW2014
12. T. Blewett (Hilton) – CW2014
13. M. Joubert (Glenwood) – CW2014
14. S. Pahla (Westville) – cut after zonal trials. Westville 1sts/2nds
15. C. Bredell (Glenwood) – cut after main trials, Glenwood 2nds
16. T. Zincume (Westville) – not considered, Westville 4th team
17. T. Steyn (Maritzburg College) – Cut after main trials
18. Y. Thambiran (Westville) – not selected after final trials, Westville 2nds
19. T. Erasmus (Westville) – AW 2014
20. J. Koekemoer (Maritzburg College) – injured during trials
21. R. Fouche (Glenwood) – injured during trials
22. K. Thobejane (Glenwood) – ???, picked for Academy Week 2013
@GreenBlooded: I think Goodsen was just unlucky he had an amazing player in Coetzee to compete with. He should have made Academy though ahead of Palvie. Although Palvie is quite versatile and could play lock if required.
Super happy for Dixon and Thomas – 2 lads who started their careers at Hillcrest Villagers Junior Rugby Club way back in the early 2000’s.
Dixon was always a star – Thomas was the ‘fat kid’ who ambled around the field and had a 30 sec burst of energy every 10 minutes. At some point he decided that he really wanted to make it as a rugby player – set himself a goal and put in the hard yards to make it. He transformed his body over the course of 5 years from the incredible bulk to the incredible hulk (with his mother’s permission I will try to post a before/after photo) – taking on sports such as MMA fighting for cross training / conditioning purposes. Today he is a supreme athlete – the hours in the gym and on the training field have paid off. Today is the day he reaps the rewards for all that hard work, focused determination and sacrifice to achieve his goal. An inspiring story to any youngster who thinks he will never make it – with the focus, determination, discipline, courage and hard work anything is possible.
Dixon – from not making Grant Khomo last year to making the CW starting XV a year later – clearly the lad had a point to prove and certainly proved it. Not many 2 year CW players around anymore, he will be one of a rare breed.
At the same time, very disappointed for Daryn Goodson. Thought he would make it last year but didn’t and ditto for this year. Just don’t know how this guy gets overlooked all the time. Tharrat – thought he would be a shoe-in for the A team but the B team is good enough.
WELL DONE TO ALL THESE PLAYERS!!!
You will all do KZN proud !!!
I see speed , mobility , skills and strength !!!
These players just need to be hungry for the wins and play for one another !!!
Good luck and God speed to all on their travels.
No players from the private schools in the GK team. It will be interesting to see the CW team in two years time and see if this changes.
Begs the question, why so many selectors from the privates and so few from the public?
@Beet, out of the 22 Craven Week players only 6 made Grant Khomo in 2012. What has happened to the rest?
The Academy side should play the CW side as a warm up that would show if they made the right choices…..good prep for both sides. Also, I reckon they should play some Varsity Cup or Club Under21 sides for prep….
I think with KZN in the past it’s been quite simple, a Barbarians type team flung together a week before and we hoped individuals would win it for us. Now, hopefully with some proper prep and good school combo’s we can do this thing. We won the Grogper at a canter and this weekend’s game vs Monnas will give us a barometer. I have a good feeling about this years group, it looks well balanced with some seriously X factor players. Only slight weakness is at 13 but Smith has done well there since the Glenwood game where he was easily Westville’s man of the match. I think College might be a little unlucky, but genuinely on Sat only Goodsen outplayed Palvie, so he is genuinely unlucky. I would like to see Pinheiro replaced by a College rep….
@beet: A greed Beet , the MHS team is a good one , but without being too ‘deep’ I think that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.
I don’t think that there will be too many complaints that they only got one into the ‘A” team ( from the games I have watched , Roberts has been their best player ) .
Bader is a good player , and has been rightly selected for higher honours, if the selectors had their eyes on the development for the future they should probably have picked Dahl as his No.9.
Jackson and Tattam being selected for the academy week is fair , maybe the Porter is a bit unlucky , and I think that Furniss will be in the mix next year.
It will be nice to see how House do in their upcoming clashes against College & Kearsney, if they win those ( and obviously the return fixture against Hilton ) it can be considered a pretty decent season.
@beet: don’t disagree but within the current framework ( not sure it will change ) combinations ( eg. hall / tedder ) and a core of wood players ( that play at consistently at the tier 1 level ) will give us our most competitive CW team. As you say, historically, this has not been enough. Maybe, consistently producing average results at CW, will bring about a change in strategy…also need to breed with some stock from north of the jukskei
@Roger: Coetzee did – the 13
@Beet: Agree with you, the testing ground is CW – that is where we see how good the team is.
Last year, we also went into CW without a geniune fetcher and it cost us, funnily enough, especially against the Pumas.
It will always be tough, but hopefully the 2014 crop can up the anti and win their first two games – fingers crossed!
@beet: ah – they are both bladdy good players – did they make it last year?
@beet: heh Beet – do you regard the Lions as a big Union
Perennial KZN stumbling block at Craven Week 
@meadows: This isn’t beyond reasonable doubt decisions. I think if the vote is tied at 4-4, the Chairman has to vote. A player can be selected or lose out by a single vote.
@Roger: He is u19 by a few days and so is the standout College no.7 too old by a few days. They would have made great additions to the Academy team
jokes!
@beet: Unlike many of the bloggers on this site who have questioned the selectors motivation over the years I have never doubted the integrity of the individuals involved in the selection process. The bulk of this group have been in place for some time now.
Sure they get some wrong and many choices are difficult and marginal and the quota requirements play a role, but if anyone believes that Sean Erasmus (for example) would be able to unduly influence Ryno Combrinck, Barend Steyn or Tony Richter (all of whom have coached the CW side at some point) they don’t know the individuals.
@seabass: Ja but this is where you and I might differ. You say core, I say take the best and prep them so they are good enough to gel. You can see that the Bulls, WP and Lions are already ahead of us in prep, due to having HP since u16 and having played matches to gain a better understanding amongst each other. That also helps ID form players, lineout throwers, jumpers, scrummers, tacklers, non-tacklers, turnover specialists etc etc.
Maybe that’s our biggest obstacle in the way of success – we move forward too slowly.
where’s the College number 13? Hell – surely he is good enough for the Academy side at least!
This is the reality check:
KZN typically wins 1 out of 3 games at Craven Week. We only tend to beat the big unions when they have a weak year but it has been a long time since we won 2 in a row or beat a big union when they had a “strong team”.
It’s fair comment to say good selections but the measure of whether this team is strong or not will come at Craven Week itself and not on paper. With Academy Week not being shown on telly, it is impossible for most to say whether the CW selections could have been better in the event of the team not doing well, simple because we can’t make the comparison. However in the past there has been opportunities to criticise the selection of certain players based on their poor performances coupled with the knowledge that form players were left at home.
For me personally is not whether the KZN team wins or loses their games at Craven Week but how well they play during those games and to be honest in the past few years for various reasons a number of us that follow closely have seen our teams play rather poorly at times where the coaching and level of preparation has been called into question.
For this 2014 team, I like the fact that we have big props, that we have chosen hookers who can throw reasonably accurately, that we have 4 x-factor players, at least 2 contact ball-carriers. The concerns for me off the top of my head are lineout jumpers, genuine contesters of ball on the deck (if we want our no.8 to play like a proper 8), reliable place kicker on Day 2, absence of a utility back slash no proper cover at 13.
I think it’s important to say it before CW coz it’s easy to criticise after the matches – that whole hindsight thing.
Well done to all of the boys who made it, I think those are strong teams. Especially great to see Dixon make the CW side.
@beet:
not eligible… take your point but add in the Kearsney and Westville players ( who would make the Wood side ) and there really isn’t anyone else you can replace. Retaining the core of a team with a winning culture is vital when taking on the powerhouse unions at CW.
Good to see our Paul Roos boy in the Academy side! And NO he was not bought by Michaelhouse his parents relocated to KZN.
@beet: A 17-14 win for Glenwood on Dixons in MHS’s first game of the season would suggest that the gap between the sides is not that vast.
@seabass: Geez Seabass. What are you campaigning to become the next selector or coach in the setup
Without running down any of these kids coz all have played well and they have all worked hard for rewards, I would say plenty of College and House boys are good enough to play in the Glenwood 1st XV.
@Tarpeys: You might have phased it the right way. It reflects the strength of Glenwood as opposed to the weakness of the likes of Maritzburg College or Michaelhouse
@Tarpeys:
Convenor : Quintin Reynolds : The Sharks (KZNRU)
Coach/Selector : Barend Steyn : Kearsney
Selector : Rudi Dames : Glenwood
Coach/Selector : Deon Gericke : St Charles
Selector : Gerald Pyoos : George Campbell
Selector : Tony Richter : Hilton
Selector : Ryno Combrinck : Michaelhouse
Selector : Rudi Dames : Glenwood
Selector :Tony Pinherio : Glenwood
The fate of some was settled by an unanswered cell phone message and home visit on a lazy Sunday afternoon in Durban North. Sabbatical time …
@beet: I think its a good team and shows the strength of Glenwood this year. Do you mind publishing the list of selectors please.
@beet: fair comment but how many of those players would make the Wood 1st team? Think the starting CW team is very strong and well represented, maybe, a few contentious selections on the bench but that is to be expected remembering that the Head coach will have some personal selections based on his planning for games 1,2 and 3. Never going to please everyone but this team will please most schoolboy rugga fans
I’m not sure if anyone remembers this article:
http://www.herald.co.zw/munangi-in-kwazulu-natal-sharks-under-16-squad/
Interestingly 2 players picked for our Academy Team
Huge congrats to all the boys and a special mention to Dixon – to my knowledge, he did not make the GK team last year but has made the CW side, hard work pays off.
Surprises – Visser, Tharrat (big surprise) and then judging by previous comments, surprised that Goodsen has not even made the Academy side.
GW can’t be drilled for selection this year, their side is the best in KZN and to me, all those players are top notch.
Good luck for CW
@GreenBlooded:
Michaelhouse also have a good team by KZN standards this year but just one rep for Craven Week.
If College did not import Guma this might have been the first year since Craven Week started that they had no Natal / KZN reps.
To further complicate things they actually have a good team this season. I guess their coaching staff can ask for a raise now.
@Sir Pius: I think the powers that b got it pretty much spot on! Well done to all the selected players now go represent us at CW with top notch performances.
@Grasshopper: Well one thing we know for certain – it wasn’t Sean Erasmus in previous years. Or Reichsfuhrer Streuli.
Great side. Good luck to all the players!!
Well done to all the boys! BUT just wait for the backlash!!!! It’s coming in heaps……eish!
Two Glenwood no 8’s as well as 2 15’s. How do you explain to the other GW first team boys why they did not make these groups. They must be very sheet.
Well done to all the boys – awesome to see so many players that I have known for years through the various schools and club rugby games.
KZN u18 Players by school:
Glenwood: 12 + 5 = 17
Westville: 2 + 4 = 6
Michaelhouse: 1 + 4 = 5
College : 1 + 4 = 5
Kearsney: 3 + 1 = 4
Northwood 1 + 2 = 3
Hilton: 1 + 1 = 2
DHS: 0 + 1 = 1
Voortrekker = 1+ 0 = 1
Well done to all the players selected.