REPRESENTATIVE MATCH

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25274, 28 August 1947, Page 8

REPRESENTATIVE MATCH

RUGBY ROOTBALL

AUCKLAND BEATS CANTERBURY

VISITING BACKS SUPERIOR

With a feast of the ball from scrum and line-out, the Auckland representatives beat Canterbury at Lancaster Park yesterday by 21 points to 15 in a game that provided few of the highlights of Rugby football. There were any number of passing rushes by both sides, the game was fast and open, and the backs on both sides had every chance to display any talent they possessed. A bad feature of the game was the great number of good scoring chances that were ruined because of dropped passes. The Auckland players were bad offenders and the three wing-three-quarters tried in the game all dropped simple passes when tries should have been scored. On the run of play and with the chances offered, Auckland should have put up a big score. Good chances were thrown away because wing-three-quarters could not take even a simple pass—a deadly, sin tr. the game of football

A greatly weakened Canterbury team did not inspire confidence. Tire display given by the Auckland men showed them capable of playing bright, open football so long as the opposing forwards allowed them to play it Lack of Hard Rucking Forwards The reason iui Auckland’s defeat by both Otago and South Canterbury is not hard to rind. Auckland has not included in its team manv hard-rucking forwards, no matter bow clever they might be in uanaling and joining in back movements. Witn the exception of A.’Hughes, a master in the art of hooking. P. Crowley, a forward who was always on the ball, and M. McHugh, who did his best in the linecut, the Auckland forwards taught the Canterbury men nothing. They did not like the neavy rucking and there was little "devil” in their forward rushes. Both sides opened up the play at every chance. As a match-winning factor this was very good policy for Auckland, whose half-back and five-eighths fairly outclassed the Canterbury men. The Canterbury forwards on the other hand would have done better had they not placed such confidence in their backs and had they concentrated mere on .the loose dribbling rushes which caused'the Auckland team so much worry.

The difference ot only six points ip the final score does no*, do the Auckland team justice. While there was plenty of mover.:enl the exhibition of football was not so good as might have been expected. Canterbury might have been unlucky Ln playing with the wind behind it in the first spell, for the backs took a time to settle down and used the line much too often, gaining >gro.uqd> but n °t getting results. The hign up-and-under Ricks would have given the Canterbury forwards at least a sporting chance. Auckland had a good margin of points in its favour at the finish. It did not deserve to lose, yet different tactics by Canterbury might have made the scores more

Superiority in Set Scrums The superiority of Auckland in the set scrums gave a clever half-back, in G. Kearney, many chances to set his backs going. His passes were crisp and easy for his first five-eighths, ESvert, to take, and when he elected to go on his own he showed very sound judgment. Kearney is not what is known as" a running halfback. but, unmarked, he took full liberty with a weak defence The try he scored showed the weakness in Canterbury’s positional play. D. Ewert, the first fiveeighths, in his first year of representative football, showed the makings of an £ll Black. With good hands and very sound defence he is the type to make the highest grade. His line-kicking was exceptionally good, and like F. Allen, at second five-eighths, he tore big holes in the defence when he elected to go on his own. Several times Allen broke through with solo runs that made him look a champion and generally he played a captain’s game. The centre-three-quarters, R. L. Dobson, a member of the Kiwi team, did hot impress as a solid back. Any fending and strong running that Fox. Dunn, and later Boggs, wing-three-quar-ters, did, was nullified by the scoring chances they threw away when they dropper passes R O’Callaghan, at full-back, gave a polished display, especially in the first spell against a tricky wind O’Callaghan is still the fine player Christchurch knew when he played for Wigram several years ago. The best of the Auckland forwards was P. Crowley, who showed himself honest and hard-working in line-out and scrum and still had enough speed to upset the Canterbury backs A hard, rugged type, Crowley is a fine tackler. Hughes in the front row was worth his place as a hooker in the team. He secured the ball regularly and generally played good solid football. McDonald did some fine work in the line-out , and gave his backs chances to open up the play. Canterbury Forwards on Top Full credit must be given the Canterbury forwards for a good performance against a heavier pack, and had the been up to standard the scores would have been closer. B. Chandler showed a return to his best form, and in line-out arid loose forward work he used his weight to the greatest advantage. F. Hobbs and G. Bond were too busy in the heavy forward work to be seen much in the open, ana in good honest toil they excelled. Mitchell, until he was injured, and R. Stuart were right up to the best Canterbury standard Hobbs and Chandler were outstanding line-out forwards. While Auckland secured the ball in the scrums more often than their opponents, the Canterbury backs should have had plenty of chances to show their worth. On occasions there was merit in individual effort, and P. Kearney, second fiveeighths, made several spirited runs. The greatest weakness in the whole display was. the bad service from the scrum. J. Roach, the first five-eighths, and now, well past his best, took the slow, floating ball flat-footed, and by the time he sent on to P. Kearney the ball was usually accompanied by at least two Auckland backs and a stray breakaway forward. Kearney’s cover defence was sound, although at times both Ewert and Allen broke through between him and Roach. R. Clarke, centre three-quarters, showed a woeful lack of experience, and with poor service from the inside backs he was not given the best of chances Rowlands, at wing three-quarters, failed badly on defence. He was not given a single chance to show his scoring ability. W. McHugh had a duel with the opposing wing, Dunn, and honours were even. Dunn had chances which McHugh countered by sound tackling. At full-back Jackson handled well and gained long stretches of ground with his kicks. He showed hesitancy in going for the ball on the full, a fault he may get over with experience. For Auckland, Fox. Ewert, and Kearney scored tries, Ewert kicked a field goal, and O’Callaghan converted a try and kicked two penalty goals. For Canterbury, Couling and P Kearney scored tries and Jackson kicked three penalty goals. Following were the teams:— Auckland. —Backs: R. O’Callaghan, J. B. Dunn, R. L. Dobson, R. Fox, F. R. Allen. D. Ewert, G. Kearney. Forwards: W S. Edwards, A. Hughes, D. Christian, P. Crowley, M. McHugh, L. Tregoweth, A. West, G. McDonald. McDonald and Dunn were injured, ana were replaced bv C. Don and E. C. Boggs. Canterbury.—Backs: T. Jackson. C. Rowlands, R. Clarke, W. McHugh, P. Kearney, J Roach, R. Bennett. Forwards: G. Bond. D. Gibson, I. Mitchell. A. Couling. F Hobbs. B. Chandler, M. Henderson, R. Stuart. Mr W. J. Brown was referee.