GENEROUS PRAISE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 40, 27 November 1945, Page 4

GENEROUS PRAISE

KIWI RUGBY TEAM MATCH AGAINST ENGLAND I FORWARDS WON THE DAY (Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 1.30 p.m.) LONDON, ffov. 26. There is a certain amount of ruefulness in English sporting circles at the moment. First the Russian Dynamos beat them at Soccer, and then the Kiwis trounce them at Rugger. But all the critics, generous in their praise of the New Zealanders, and more discerning while tributing the Kiwis’ strength and fitness, describe the game at Twickenham as grand rather than great. “A real sporting occasion,” says “The Times,” “which rather failed to reach old standards.” It adds: “England’s supporters had little to cheer apart from the rousing counter-rushes of the forwards, while the New Zealand scheme of things did not defy criticism and invite unstinted praise.” The paper expresses the opinion that their greatest success was Cook, whose clearing kicks to touch were magnificent, and one at least contributed toward the scoring of a try. Admittedly Cook seldom if ever had to operate under sustained intense pressure. As for the Kiwi attack, much of it was little more impressive than that of their second and less-experi-enced opponents. This was all the move surprising because this time their forwards heeled out fairly generously both from the scrummages and mauls. Somehow, however, most of the opening gambits from the scrummage were obvious and uninspired. Even Allen was content to be largely a mere handon for passes up to half-time. When he elected to seize or create openings, Allen instantly stood out as the most polished player in the side, being a beautiful kicker as well as a nicelybalanced runner. Smith, of course, took a lot of holding, but he generally was held by Heaton, and it was only in the exploiting of English mistakes that Smith really sustained his reputation. Mistakes of various kinds, in fact — technical, tactical, temperamental and legal —paved the way to most of the New Zealand successes.”

Hectic Game j. P. Jordan, in the “Daily Telegraph,” refers to a hectic game distinguished more by physical energy than polished football. “Had the Kiwis not blundered more than once, and had it not been for Marriott’s brilliant turn of speed in overhauling op ponents who had got clear away, the margin must have been greater.' No excuses need be offered for England s defeat. It is true they faced a heavier and ‘beefier’ team, but that did not entirely explain it away. In driving power and skill England met then masters, who were aiso a magnificently fit side. The Kiwi forwards, with Finlay, Arnold, Rhind and Simpson outstanding, were terrific. They beat England in the tight scrums by getting the hall 28 times to 12. They beat them in lineouts 36 times to 21. and their crashing tactics in the loose combined with the straight and determined running of their backs kept England on the defensive nearly all afternoon. The Kiwis also, had a splendid scrum-half in their captain Saxton, who exploited the inexperience of England’s blindside forward frequently.” Jordon adds: “England’s forwards deserve a meed of praise for the gallant way they not only stuck it out' but counter-attacked with loose rushes, and by wheeling the scrums. Every man of them put in his ounce.” Thoroughly Deserved Win

Dr. Gent, in the “Sunday Times,” said the New Zealanders thoroughly deserved their win. Their physique, fitness and skill combining to give them superiority. Against these qualities, magnificently used, England had little but pluck and persistency to offer, and yet from the beginning to the end not one of the large crowd present could have been anything but proud to see how this rather scratch England side fought their very hardest against tremendous odds. Slowly but surely the brilliant captain Saxton and his fine side wore down the defence.

Dr. Gent expresses the opinion that it was the New Zealand forwards who laid the foundations of success. He remarks that he was not going to say the New Zealanders are a great side, but they are a very good one, and it is splendid football that they play. The “Manchester Guardian” says: ‘The match —keen, vigorous and'fast —was not a great one, but in tackling, much of the kicking and occasionally In forward rushes it challenged comparison with some of the best meetings between countries. Beyond cavil the New Zealanders were the better team, even if some of their tries had an element of luck.”’ Vivian Jenkins, a former Wales fullback, writing in. the “News of the World,” says: “Rarely has there been such a shining example of superb physical fitness triumphing over a team ; of good hard triers, who gave of their ; all, but were obviously not at the ; same peak of condition as their op- j ponents. From the beginning it was I a case of furious forward play, with plenty of hard knocks, and ‘the devil take the hindmost,’ with the Kiwi pack gradually taking the upper hand and dominating the game.V Never Looked Like Scoring Bob Crisp, in the “Daily Express,” says: “The Kiwis are by no means a great Rugby side, but they are well blended, are very fit, and they are playing a game which every New Zealander plays almost 'instinctively well. The England fifteen was one of 1 lie weakest representative teams this country has ever got together. It can truly be said that at no time did they look like scoring except through the medium of penalty kicks. Their chief attributes were pluck and really good low tackling—an art which appears to have gone from most club Rugby to-day. It was a fast and exciting game, but I think the electric Twickenham atmosphere had more to do with the excitement than any quality of play. On a club ground on a Wednesday afternoon this would have been [put down as a very scrappy game in[deed.” Geoffrey Simpson, in the “Daily

Mail,” seems upset that “the best Rugby team this country has seen for many years, the Kiwis from New Zealand, arrived in an Army truck to play England at Twickenham, while l thousands of spectators came comfortI ably in their motor-cars.” He adds: j“I saw plenty of staff cars bringing ' Service high-ups. But ihe men who provided the show and packed _ the stands with 40,000 people came in a truck, which was not big enough to seat all the party. This included the j team manager, trainer and masseur. ; Some of them had to stand. None of the Kiwis breathed a word of complaint about this. Nor do they grumble about Hie third-class rail travel provided them for their journeyings I about the country raising money for (Army welfare. Saturday’s match must [have produced another £SOOO. They ' are soldiers of the Mediterranean campaign drawn from New Zealand’s fighting troops. They are here to do a job, but that is no reason why they should not be given a little comfort. I cannot imagine an England team , touring New Zealand going to a big match in a truck. 1 cannot think they would receive anything less than the ‘best of everything. It is time we shook up our ideas on this question of hospitality to sports teams from abroad. We appear to make a poor job of it—not intentionally, I am sure, but because we are too casual.”