NZ Schools Rugby 2025
-
@ACT-Crusader said in NZ Schools Rugby 2025:
Plus the age level super competition has more coverage, so I expect more juniors to remain.
At the end of the day they're are still only so many pro contracts in Rugby union here.
I'd love to think that NSW U16 and U19 thrashing everyone bodes well for the Tahs but it simply isn't the case
-
@slammer said in NZ Schools Rugby 2025:
How many players who have finished school would be eligible for the NZ U18s?
An u18 tournament is a good idea. Would be similar to Craven Week in SA following which SA Schools and SA Schools A and then SA U18 and SA U18 A teams are selected
Seven players in the Babas U18s plus the unavailable Mika Muliaina. Not sure how much of a difference that cohort would make.
-
In the Barbarians, Josh Findlay was one of the NZS hookers last year. Brayden Neilson was in the Chiefs U20 squad this year but wouldn't be any better than the wingers in the NZS squad. Drew Berg-McLean is a good openside. Corban King would probably be better than the TH props with a year of club rugby behind him.
There are a couple of front rowers in the Māori U18s too that might be better options.
I would argue that some of the Barbarian and Māori U18 players still at school are better too. Elijah Solomona would have been one of my NZS opensides.
-
Gregor Paul: How a massive NZ schoolboys defeat reveals deep cracks in rugby
New Zealand Schools conceded 81 points in a heavy loss to Australia U18.
-
Worst NZ Schools side I've ever seen.
-
The 1st half was more of the same shit. The backs looked like they had never met while the forwards were outmuscled for most of the match. Poor skills, passive tackling and a lack of structure.
Paul Tito (Blues)
Willie Rickhards (Auckland Grammar School)
Kieran Coll (St Thomas of Canterbury)Remember their names. They should never coach a NZ rep team again.
-
@Bovidae said in NZ Schools Rugby 2025:
The 1st half was more of the same shit. The backs looked like they had never met while the forwards were outmuscled for most of the match. Poor skills, passive tackling and a lack of structure.
Paul Tito (Blues)
Willie Rickhards (Auckland Grammar School)
Kieran Coll (St Thomas of Canterbury)Remember their names. They should never coach a NZ rep team again.
That explains the outrageous Auckland representation. What a joke.
-
-
While I think there are a whole lot of issues plaguing this year’s NZ Schools program – substandard coaching, lack of basic skill execution from the players, a lack of talent in certain key areas across First XV rugby – what stood out the most to me was the difference in cohesion and communication between the two teams.
A lack of heads up rugby
Every facet of play which benefits from familiarity and connection – set piece, breakdown, turnover attack, all of which require shared connection and timing – was comfortably won by the Australian U18s. Whereas NZ Schools looked lost in transition play and stuck, almost robotically, to their pre-set structures, Australia U18s were able to direct play as it unfolded. If the NZS defence had overcommitted to the open, the Australian U18s were able to quickly realign play to the blind and attack with numbers. While the Australian U18s played heads up rugby and played to the space, NZS followed the playbook (and a poor one at that), even when the situation called for something completely different.The best example of this is probably Viljoen’s disastrous chip kick in the 18th minute. After a NZS kick return, the NZ Schoolboys go wide, with Pahulu chewing up some metres out wide. The ball is recycled and Qaranivalu puts in a good carry through the middle, pushing the Aussie defensive line backwards. Crucially, the ref waves the Australian U18 defenders back onside, leaving them on the backfoot. This is an ideal opportunity for a set of backs to aggressively attack the line together, with multiple forward defenders on their backheels.
Instead, Viljoen plays as if the line speed is still coming and does the following (if Barrett chip kicks already do your head in, it’s best to look away now):
A comedy of errors
There is neither line speed to chip over nor any space to kick into, yet Viljoen persists with the pre-set call. Fakava’s and Katoa’s unconvincing attempt at presenting a running threat in order to draw and block defenders and Su’a’s tackle in the air only further exacerbate the comedy of errors.
While this is certainly a coaching issue as well, this inability to play off each other in critical phases also points towards a team that has close to zero understanding of what their teammates are either going to do or want to achieve.
A lack of cohesion
If we take a closer look at the two teams, it starts to become more apparent why there was such a cohesion gap between the two sides. At first glance, looking at the schools and club backgrounds, both teams originate from a whole host of different teams.
Schools’ and club backgrounds of the two teamsWhile the NZS players originate from 17 different team environments, the Australia U18s come from 15 different schools and clubs, only a marginal advantage. Furthermore, no typical combinations (halfback pairing, loosehead-hooker, midfield, 10-15) are recreated from a previous school or club teams, for either side.
When the SRP U18 background is included, however, a very different picture appears.
SR U18 backgrounds of both teamsAn entire Reds U18 front-row, and nearly entire Reds tight five. A Waratahs U18 loose forward trio, and 8/9-combination. A Reds U18 10/12/15-combination, with Mackay, Pritchard and Conway all comfortable slipping into first receiver, offering a potent combination of a running and distribution threat.
Add to this the fact that Australian rugby has invested heavily into regular U16 , U18, U19 and U20 SR games, and you have a recipe for consistent Australian domination of this fixture in coming years. The New Zealand Schools’ team was something of a rabble, and their diverse backgrounds and lack of combinations further confirms this, in my view.
The potential of an NZ U18 team
So would the results have been any different if, instead of a New Zealand Schools’ team, the Australian U18s had faced an NZ U18 team? According to NZR’s original plan for the U18 side, the Schools’, NZ Barbarians and Māori U18 teams would’ve faced each other, and on this basis would’ve been selected for the NZ U18 team after the high-performance camp.
https://www.allblacks.com/news/new-zealand-u18-team-introduced-to-high-performance-pathwayFrom this perspective, it makes sense that all three rep teams are competitive with each other, so that on the basis of these competitive matches players can be selected for the U18 team. Based on the inter-camp games, the NZ U18 pack could’ve looked rather different, with players like Johan Schaumkell, Alex Arnold and Kaiva Tulimanu all making strong cases to be included.
Then again, it’s hard to imagine these players making that much of a difference in the fixtures against Australia U18, as (1) it doesn’t fix the cohesion issue, nor does it (2) add increased club rugby experience. The concept of an NZ U18 pack might’ve been useful in 2024, when club rugby forwards like Palmer, Ahloo, Brown, Woodley and Fale were all available. No such standouts missed out on selection in 2025.
Potential 2024 NZ U18 pack, with up to 7 club rugby players, which might have proved more competitive in their fixture against AU U18. The 2025 variant would, in all likelihood, contain no more than two club rugby players (Wharehinga and King)So, in other words, so long as the structural issues aren’t addressed – having more regular competition at U16 and U18 SR academy level, which can create cohesive combinations – it’s unlikely to see things changing all that quickly. Having an NZ U18 team might make things more competitive but wouldn't, in my opinion, drastically shift the development trajectory of NZ Rugby at the moment. Some more drastic shifts to the program are required, and, at the moment, Rugby Australia, with its centralized development program, is showing the way forward, at least at U18 level.
-
Last year the NZS did select some 1st XV combinations, not that it helped much either. We had the Tauranga BC and Nelson College 8-9-10. The TBC players started the test against the Aust U18s. You would think that Viljoen and Su'a would have a better understanding given they are teammates at PNBHS. We didn't really see it.
Bang on about the lack of development pathways. Those advocating for the SR franchises to be in control of age-group rugby and academy player development only need to look at the current situation. The Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders U18s only played a single game in the last few days. The Chiefs U18s played a 2nd XV against the Māori U18s after one practice, and the Blues U18s didn't play at all AFAIK. The Blues and Chiefs U18s have always played their A and B teams against each other in recent years. Nothing this year. At the same time we've had the Northern Region PU teams in competitions for U18 and U19 with a U16 tournament too.
-
@Tim said in NZ Schools Rugby 2025:
Kind of odd that Westlake won the Blues region again, but didn't get a player in the squad?
Two players in the Barbarians U18s. But yeah, there are always strange selections and it is not reflective of the performance of the team. I've read and heard first-hand from Rotorua BHS supporters who believe they they should have had many more players in the NZS squad. They got more than Hamilton BHS did the year before. The general consensus is too many 1A players.
-
@Bovidae There are definitely too many players going straight into coaching at reasonably high levels instead of doing their time in the clubs. There'd be some great club /school coaches getting leap frogged by ex-players. Tito clearly isn't the right man for that job. Two years in a row has confirmed that
New Zealand Rugby announces squads for National Under 18 Pathway Programme
