The NZ Secondary Schools team before facing Australia U-18s in 2024. Photo / SmartFrame
The NZ Secondary Schools team before facing Australia U-18s in 2024. Photo / SmartFrame
Having been told earlier this year that they were effectively being demoted to a trial team, the New Zealand Secondary Schools XV have been restored to their previous place as the pinnacle of the Under-18 age-grade category.
In a move that principals say blindsided them, they learned in March –via a press release – that New Zealand Rugby (NZR) was launching an Under-18 team this year.
The side would play international fixtures and usurp the national Secondary Schools team as the standard bearer for the age grade.
But after weeks of negotiations, NZR has agreed to axe the plan for a U18 team and, instead, the NZSS side will play two tests this year against Australia U18s.
New Zealand Secondary Schools rugby team captain Charlie Sinton in action last year.
The NZSS side has agreed to amend their eligibility criteria to enable selection for anyone still at a school but unable to play for it due to the absence of a First XV programme.
Both the schools and NZR have also agreed that they will continue to discuss ways in which they can amend their current governance arrangements so they can work more collaboratively and effectively together.
NZR’s main argument for wanting an age-grade team was inclusivity. It argued that such a team would open the door to players who were under 18 but not in education to play for a national team and be part of the high-performance system.
NZR’s general manager of professional rugby and performance, Chris Lendrum, said that, on last year’s figures, 30 per cent of players eligible for a national U18 team were registered at clubs and either not attending or not playing for a school.
A consortium of 40-plus heavyweight schools, including Auckland Grammar, St Kentigern College, King’s College, St Peter’s College and Kelston Boys’, as well as Hamilton Boys’, Hastings Boys’, Otago Boys’, Christchurch Boys’ and Wellington College, pushed back, saying they believed a national U18 team would see their elite pupils move into the national body’s high-performance system and potentially compromise their education.
Kelston Boys' High School 1st XV celebrate winning last year's Auckland 1A final. Photo / Photosport
They also argued that it would inevitably lead to the collapse of the volunteer support on which school rugby is built. Of equal concern was the belief that NZR, having failed to communicate its intentions to the schools before putting out a media release, was trying to fulfil a long-held ambition of controlling the development of elite schoolboy players.
While the restoration of the NZSS side to premium status may seem like a compromise deal, the schools believe they have won a significant victory, as they considered the surprise proposal to be, effectively, a hostile takeover bid for school rugby by the national union.
Richard Hall, rector of Otago Boys’ High School, who is serving as spokesman for the secondary school principals, said the decision was a commonsense victory that recognised schools were the best places to provide young people with all their needs. He said the NZSS team remained the best pathway for coaches who were heavily invested in the First XV circuit.
He also acknowledged that, while the circumstances bringing the schools to negotiate with NZR were not ideal, the agreement to rebuild the relationship and establish a partnership with the national body was being viewed as a major positive.
“We are hoping that the principals will now have a strong voice at NZR, and we don’t want a repeat of what happened in March when we read about changes in a press release.
“It’s a good win for us, and we will continue to have these conversations to see what unfolds.”
Lendrum, who was the public face of the move to create a national U-18 team, said he still felt that widening the net to capture those players not at school remained a sound proposition, but that the execution of the strategy was “sub-optimal”.
He admitted that the lack of communication with schools before the March announcement “was not our best work”.
But like Hall, he was positive about the chance to build a stronger relationship with secondary schools.
“We listened to the schools and I think we are in a much better place now to build trust, and I think a better relationship between us is a prerequisite for success.”
