We are told the sporting system is crumbling, experts on speaking circuits predicting sporting apocalypse, and that we urgently we need to change. All scary stuff, we just need to be careful we don't all jump completely on the bandwagon too quickly – perhaps just sit on the edge.
Harbour have stated they want to maximise engagement and grow participation through good-quality experience. All great stuff, but does having a rep team necessarily need to detract from that?
Can we have the best of both worlds? Is it conceivable, is it possible, that you could have junior rep teams, and still achieve those stated goals to inspire participation? If the answer is no, which it clearly is for North Harbour, then yes, remove the rep teams.
But what is the real problem here? Is it the rep teams themselves? Or is it an issue in our community, and our lack of collective understanding around all things related to the rep teams?
Do we just throw out rep teams, and all the great experiences and learnings that can come from them? Or do we work harder to upskill ourselves and alleviate the negative spinoffs that come from such teams?
Junior rep teams can foster early specialisation, which we don't want. Rep teams can lead to early burnout, training too hard too young, and can promote too much focus on winning – rather than positive development.
Also, rep tournaments and travel can waste a lot of money and exclude certain kids from participating.
But, like everything, there are pros and cons.
In isolation there is nothing wrong with these teams. They are fantastic. A great bunch of like-minded kids get to play together, push each other, and have a great time, perhaps travelling away for a few days, and build life-long friendships and memories.
They can be inspired to a life-long journey in the sport, inspired to an extent they might not get any other way.
What is wrong with recognising achievements in the here and now? It isn't only about our achievements at the adult age.
There is nothing like competition to bring the best out of people. As a young man, I distinctly remember moving from a small rural school, to a large Auckland boys' school, and vividly remember thinking "wow, now I know what that old cliché means – competition for my spot".
Can the challenge of match-play, and all those nerves really be replicated in a development experience? that will be part of the challenge under the new system.
The argument for no rep teams because some players end up being All Blacks without ever making a junior rep team – isn't this thinking a kind of oxymoron? Those very statements are inferring that becoming an All Black is the only focus.
The counter argument is let the kid enjoy the great rep team experience, as it might end up being the most memorable sporting experience of his life, the likelihood of him ever making the All Blacks is next to zero – so enjoy the here and now, enjoy the moment while you can.
Yes to fun, winning isn't the focus.
Yes to specialising later in life, not too early.
Yes to spreading the coaching across all the participating kids, rather than a select few in a rep team. We can't end up with "the haves and the have nots".
But do we need to remove junior rep teams to achieve those outcomes?
If removing rep teams does help people wake up, and listen to the positive development messages that Sport NZ and others are driving then great. Perhaps, once those messages are taken on board, then the likes of North Harbour can safely reinstate their junior rep programmes.
Either way, as a community we need to improve our youth sport system, so North Harbour's stand and all the discussion will surely help with that.
• Marcus Agnew is the health and sport development manager at Hawke's Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust and is also a lecturer in sports science at EIT.
