ARE NEW ZEALANDERS SPORTS ?

Bush Advocate, Volume XXI, Issue 131, 2 December 1908, Page 6

ARE NEW ZEALANDERS SPORTS ?

FOOTBALL IN BAD ODOUR. ENGLIST-I CRITICS' COMMENTS. LONDON, October 16. In English football circles to-day tho name of New Zealand is mud. Practically every paper in London, including the sporting organs, has published charges of roughness, brutality, and "pointing" on tho. poat of the New Zealand players. Not a single voice has been raised in defence. A New Zealander in London, who is generally to the fore where the honour of his country is affected, tells mo that ho. has endeavoured to say a word in defence of his countrymen,; but not a single paper will "give him a hearing. Ho is Tather. disappointed with this evidence of British fairplay. ' Most of those, too, who have; been interviewed on tlio results of tho tour, represent that the AngloWelsh scored a majority of triumphs,; whereas it is notorious that they did not win a single first-class match in New Zealand. MR HARTNETT SILENT. Mr Hartnett has said little in the strain Mj which he is reported to have *:pokVn before leaving the colonies, lie told a Sporting Life reporter that the quality of the play generally was good, both on the part of the British team and their opponents. The keonest interest had been displayed in the lhatches both by the players and the public. Indeed, the enthusiasm at the- Anti-. podes was remarkable. Absolutely nothing like it was known in this country. While, of course, the colonials desired their side to win, they, were not slow to appreciate the performance of tho visitors when the British side secured a victory. Ho referred to. tho capital matches played in New Zealand and Australia. Minor injuries were sustained •by a few players, = but nothing serious, while the health of the team had been good throughout the tour. ROUGH IN SELF-DEFENCE. - To the Morning Post, Mr Hartnett opened out, and said : "On the fields of New Zealand the men found the football hard in a sense that is unknown, at Home. He quite agreed Avith what members of the side had to say about the severity of the football, and there was no desire among many of them to visit New, Zealand again for tho purpose of indulging in 'Rugger' as it is played out there. In England, he said, all good unionists thoroughly enjoyed hard football, but thero was a limit to severity, and the game ceased to be a sport when rough-, ness set in. Tho British team naturally had to play extra hard as a matter of self-preservation, and the result of it all was they had much the worst of the luck in the matter of injuries. Four losses instead of nine would havo more equitably represented the football of the tour, but fortune was abnormally unkind in the way of accidents." To the Daily Express he said the representative' New Zealand sides were just as good as the "All Blacks," but the wing-forward was even more aggressive in his own country." He added pregnantly: "Whatever is done, wo should keep in very close touch with the South African players, who, besides being amateurs to tho core, are genuine sportsmen, who play clean and honest Rugby." That is the general tone of the English press just now. W. L. Oldham, who said something damaging in a recent letter Home,

told an interviewer that personally he would not care to play .football regularly in New : Zealand. The scrum formation by the Britishers was very effective, as proved by the fact that they got the ball nineteen times. out of twenty. The tour was likely to be productive of much good, so far as tho development of the game was concerned. . FOOTBALL A RELIGION. . J. C. M. Dyke 'boa re 'testimony- to the cordial hospitality tho tearri received in New Zealand, and he tells a rathor exaggerated story of colonial earnestness. Football in New Zealamd: was a- religion pure and simple. Tho country was mad on it, working men being ablo to spare a fortnight, and oven three weoks, to play in the game. In conclusion, Dyke -stated that ho could, not. say that he was favourably impressed with New Zealand ; football, taking it through a-nd through. It was magnificent foothall, certainly,, yet, at the same time, , there was too much of the idea that a man was a good footballer because he might beat the referee.' It seemed to be their idea to win at any cost, whereas in Australia, . the game was played in a much more sporting style. Tf they lost in Australia they admitted they wero beaten, whereas' in New Zealand they always had an ex-, cuse. Not a single rdayor has admitted on paper that the Anglo-Welsh lost their games because they enjoyed their holiday thoroughly-, and did not take the trouble to get into form. A QUIET TIP. Of course, there Avill be differences of opinion in New Zealand as to? tho . justice of the attacks that have been made. ' The old idea that the English are the embodiment of the spirit of chivalry and sportsmanship was unfortunately destroyed by a series of incidents which occurred even before the All Blacks set foot in England. But it is impossible to deny 'that thero is some ground for the attacks. How much,, every honest footballer knows. It is indisputable that all the good that was done by the All Blacks has now been undone, and New Zealand is highly unpopular in England. If the effect of this ended with football itywoidd riot matter a great deal, but it dees not. . The Rugby Union knows how things are, and if it. fails to do its duty and clean up New Zealand football, then it furnishes the best possible reason why a professional body should step in and take control.