BETTER TEAM WINS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 142, 15 June 1908, Page 6

BETTER TEAM WINS.

SUPERIOR IN OPEN PLAY.

(By Telegraph.—Special to "Star.") I

CHRISTCHURCH, Saturday. There are those who say that Canterbury's reps, were lucky to win, and their opinion is by no means an unreasonable one. It is based largely on the nature of the play in the last ten minutes of the game, When the Canterbury forwards were tiring, and the visitors were showing their very best form. In that ten minutes the Britishers scored once, and missed two chances that looked extremely likely to give them a drawn game. Once Willie Morgan got possession almost on the line, but jumped instead of driving, arid was held up. The second chance was that secured by a brilliant dribble in, which Ritson, Down, and Dibble were the. responsible parties. They followed the ball over the line, but two of them were apparently oilside, and while all three hesitated, Fuller slipped in among their feet and forced. There is no question but that Canterbury was extremely hard pressed, and itheir opponents were unfortunate in failing to score, but the last ten minutes was by no means the whole game, and I feel that I am not doing the visitors any injustice when I say that on the day's play the better team won. Throughout the first spell the game was fast and open, unusually fast for so important a match, in which teams that had never before seen each other were meeting. The visitors set a fast pace, and at the start they were going undeniably well when Dibble was pushed into touch in goal four minutes after the kick-off. Howewl, ttye Canterbury forwards quickly found their feet, and, though it was apparent thus early in the game that the visitors were more than a match for their lighter opopnents in the scrums, the local men made amends by their strenuous work in the loose. They were not brilliant, but they kept pegging away at the ball, and when necessary they tackled with some determination. Misfielding was the chief fault of the British backs. Throughout the first spell, and, though the two Jones' and Morgan often did valuable work in the way of kicking, the other fault cost the visitors a lot of ground. The score of three all at the end of the first spell exactly represented the merits of the play, and while the opinion of some of the British "Breathers" at half-time that their side would just about win, was by no means an extravagant notion. The thousands of Canterbury people, who were whispering of the fact that Canterbury always saw it out to the finish, were fully entitled to the hopes that their comments suggested. Probably the play of the home forwards for three quarters of the second spell was something of a surprise to their opponents, and it was undoubtedly more dashing than many of the keen critics of the team had anticipated. With the forwards beating their opponents handsomely in the open, and especially in the line play (when Britain had not the option of taking a scrum), the Canterbury backs found work to do, and did it for the most part uncommonly well. It was then that it became more than ever plain that the Canterbury backs were more nippy than the British. When the visitors did start a passing run, all their efforts seem to be concentrated on betting the ball out to the wing, who is left more often than not to do the major share of the work. Each one of the Canterbury backs, on the other hand, is running all the time for his opponent's goal with the rest to help if he cannot get through, and he is all the time looking for the opening that will enable him to make the task all the easier for those who are to follow him ! with the ball. I The Canterbury backs played high ■ grade football, and their failure to get ; through any number of times in the second spell was due to the fact that they I had to meet some of the soundest tacklinjr that has been seen at Lancaster Park. Few of the visitors failed to get a man when the pinch came, and J. L. Williams' consistent tackling (and he had a great deal to do) was one of the best features of the game. The visitors seemed never afraid of taking the risks inseparable from keeping the game open, and in the last ten minutes, especially when the play was going their way, they threw the ball about at times almost recklessly. It was certainly to be said to their credit that they realised to the full that their business when the points were against them was to keep the ball in the paddock. The game was never uninteresting, and much of it was as fast as anything that has been seen at Lancaster Park in the past half-dozen years, not forgetting the great North v. South Island game last year. There were occasions when the Canterbury side were playing towards the touchline too much, but taken all round , it was a game in advance of the usual one when unknown sides meet. As usual, the Britishers were not beaten in the pack, and their backs did a lot of useful work which, however, did not come to a successful finish. In the open play, except towards the end of the game, the home team's forwards were much superior, and their fast following-up on many occasions spoilt the British back play. At the end of the game the Britishers were playing all over the Canterbury. In the front the local men no doubt were feeling the strain of being up against a heavier pack. As far as possession of the ball went, the Britishers secured it practically all the time; only on eight occasions—four in each spell— did Canterbury secure possession, while Britain had it 13 times in the first spell and 16 in the second. That suggests at once the greater cleverness of the home backs in finding opportunities. The ball was not as well handled by the British backs as by the home team. McPhail's try was the outcome of fast following on to a back who failed to field the ball. The British forwards, although outclassed in the open play, tackled well all through, and so did their backs; but the play of the home team's backs when in possession was brighter and more profitable. W. Morgan, behind the British pack, played an excellent game, and was very clever in getting the ball away to the outside half, Tuan Jones, when he himself was hard pressed. Tuan Jones was in great form, kicking and running strongly, and he gave Gibbs considerable assisti'mee in harrassing the Canterbury half-hack. Ponty Jones kicked splendidly in the first spell, but was not much in evidence in the second half. For all round Work behind the pack, Dr. McEvedy was always conspicuous, and Williams, who was kept very busy iv the second half, gave a fine display of

defensive work, especially-in the tackling department. None of the other backs were particularly noticeable for anything out of the ordinary, except Chapman, who .executed,a few "feinting" runs... Dyke, at fuU-ißa.k, was distihctly disappointing, his fielding being very poor. Dibble played a grand game among the forwards, leading in much of the loose work. E. Morgan, Ritson, and Archer were also conspicuous in the dribbling rushes, aha Gibbs threatens to learn the rover game very quickly.indeed. What few chances the Canterbury backs had were put to most use, but, unfortunately, the ball usually went Fuller's way, and he found Williams impossible. Doell did all that was asked of. him, and fielded and kicked well, and Fryer was noticeable for a lot of good work, several dodgy runs gaining a lot of ground. He has quite recovered his form, and the New Zealand selectors will find it hard to pass him over. His pace astonished the opposition once or twice. Gray played one of his most resourceful games, defending very cleverly; and Burns did good work all through, but would have been seen to more advantage •had he had the ball oftener. Deans was hardly at his best. Bain played a fine game in the forwards, and his selection in the South Island team may be taken as fully justified.

THE REFEREE'S COMPLAINT.

(By Telegraph—-Special to the "Star.") CHRISTCHURCH, Saturday. Chatting after the game, the referee, Mr. F. Laws, of Wellington, expressed the opinion that on the play the better team won, and the points scored was about the indication of the difference between the teams. He stated that he was far from satisfied with the manner in which many of his decisions were accepted by the British team during the game, and statements made by several of the players after the game in the dressing room in his presence were in bad taste, and should not have been made by the defeated side. Mr. Laws is of opinion that the ball was placed in the scrummage fairly by the British team on most occasions, and that the manner in which it is screwed by the front rankers is totally foreign to the manner adopted by the New Zealand players. It is thrown in quickly, and bumping against the foot or leg of the Britisher in front is shot out again, either on the side of the pack or straight behind. The British team throughout the game took exception to most of the rulings, especially when their side were penalised,, and Mr. Laws stated that his work was far from pleasant. He further stated that he had no occasion to take exception to any of the Canterbury players, and thought they accepted his rulings in the manner that New Zealand players always do.

RESULTS OF TOUR. The British team's record to date is as follows: — May 23—Won from Wairarapa and Bush by 17 points to 3. May 27 —Lost to Wellington by 19 points to 13. May 30—Lost to Otago by 9 points to 0. June 3—Won from Southland by 14 point, to 8. ' June 6—Lost to New Zealand by 32 points to 5. June 10—Won from South Canterbury by 12 to 6. June 13—Lost to Canterbury by 13 to 8. Summary of matches—Played 7, won 3, lost 4. Points—For 75, against 90. ...