1947 ALL BLACKS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25227, 4 July 1947, Page 4

1947 ALL BLACKS

AUSTRALIAN OPINION

BETTER TEAM NEEDED FOR SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR [From a Special Correspondent.] SYDNEY, June 30. Australians rank the 1947 All Blacks as about equal to the 1932 or 1934 All Blacks, but not as good as the 1938 Ail Blacks. The 1932 All Blacks won nine games and lost one and the 1934 All Blacks won six games, lost one, and drew one. The 1938 All Blacks won all nine, scoring 279 points to 73. The best judges are probably the men who toured South Africa with the 1933 Wallabies and New Zealand with the 1931 and 1936 Wallabies, because they have had experience of first-class football in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Most of them seem to think New Zealand will need a stronger team next year for South Africa.

Particularly, they think the defence will have to be strengthened. They point out that the All Blacks had an average of 11 points a game scored against them in Australia. The 1928 All Blacks in South Africa averaged a little over six and the 1937 Springboks in New Zealand and Australia just over six. The 1947 All Blacks arrived in Australia declaring that they intended to play “bright, open football that will be pleasant for players and enjoyable for spectators.” Pursuing this policy, they took risks and conceded points. Seventeen tries were scored against the All Blacks in nine games. The selectors of the team which visits South Africa will have to decide whether they intend to pick a team to keep up appearances and perhaps go bankrupt, or one which will Lusband its resources and remain solvent. Forwards Not as Strong

An Australian impression is that, well as they played, particularly in the last four games of the tour, the All Black forwards were not as big or as. strong as past packs from New Zealand. This is notable, since the official measurements made them out to be one of the biggest packs that ever left New Zealand. Nearly all were listed as 6ft or more and 14st or over. Australians doubt the reliability of the figures. The All Blacks did not look their official size on the field.

New Zealand’s line-out play and rucking impressed Australians. One or two of the forwards also won personal reputations. “Killer” Arnold was the name soon applied to the star breakaway, whom many Australians think ranked in skill and vigour with any breakaway they have seen from New Zealand.

They also admired the back-row play of N. Thornton, particularly his ability to join in or finish off passing movements by the backs. Most Australians consider him a great forward. They think most of the others were good, but not stars. Of the backs, Australians most admired R. W. H. Scott, partly for his capable full-back play, but mostly for his phenomenal goal-kicking. As they favour a running full-back, they also applauded his practice of occasionally running up to join in passing rushes. Many Australians consider Scott the best full-back sent from New Zealand since George Nepia. Some even class him as better than the great Maori. They rightly place T. R. D. Webster in almost the same category as Scott and only wish they had a full-back as good as either of them in Australia. Australians also think highly of J. C. Kearney. He conforms to the Australian idea of a five-eighths who does not try to beat the defence but sets his backs moving by accurate taking and giving of passes. Kearney’s handling in Australia certainly vfes marvellous. They did not esteem B. Couch so highly, but then a five-eighths who attempts the unorthodox is not popular in Australia. M. P. Goddard Admired

They admired the speedy and tricky running of M. P. Goddard, considering him a better centre than J. B. Smith. It must be remembered, though, that Australia did not see Smith in the form that won him such a high reputation in Britain and New Zealand. He was handicapped by injury all through the tour. Nevertheless, it must be said for Goddard that he showed quick capacity to take advantage of any defensive weakness. He scored tries in three of the six games he played. It is a striking fact that in any discussion of the merits of the All Blacks, Australians hardly mention any of the wings. This may be because they like to see a wing speeding along the touchline at the end of an orthodox passing movement. They seldom saw this, because of the style of back play by the All Blacks.

In consequence, they consider tfyeir own C. C. Eastes and J. W. T. MacBride better than any of the New Zea-; land wings, which is understandable but an injustice to W. G. Argus, at least. He proved a fine wing, scoring 12 tries in eight games, often from not easy positions. Nor did either half-back impress Australians as did F. D. Kilby, M. M. N. Corner and particularly C. K. Saxton. P. Tetzlaff and V. Bevan were admired for competence and gameness but neither was ranked as great. Like Johnny Smith, F. R. Allen played under difficulties in Australia. Nevertheless, Australians regard him as the brains of the backs and consider he would make an excellent captain for South Africa. The All Blacks owed much to their coach, Mr Norman McKenzie. He helped hide their weaknesses and capitalise their strength. Australians who have toured South Africa say someone like him must go with the 1948 All Blacks.

In one respect at least, the All Blacks equalled any team that has ever left New Zealand: no better-liked side has ever visited Australia. Their conduct off the field was _ exemplary and they were fine ambassadors for New Zealand.