ALL BLACKS’ TOUR

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25935, 15 October 1949, Page 6

ALL BLACKS’ TOUR

PROGRESS MADE IN SCRUMMAGING METHODS ALTERED [From CLAUDE KING, New Zealand Press Association correspondent with the All Blacks] WELLINGTON, October 14. One achievement by the All Blacks in South Africa should have a big influence on New Zealand Rugby, and possibly help to soften the blow of lour narrow test defeats. This was their success in winning the scrums in three of the four tests. This feat was accomplished after the forwards had had to alter completely their packing methods alter five matches. It was all the more remarkable in that the new style of scrummaging was not mastered until half way through the tour. Never before in Test clashes between the two countries had the All Blacks won the scrums. For the first time the Springboks could not fall back on the traditional cry of “scrum, scrum, scrum.” New Zealand Rugby officials and referees naturally will not be able to voice an opinion on this type of scrummage until it is seen in action. However, apart from the knowledge that will be conveyed to clubs by the players, the educational Rugby film taken during the tour should be of great value in demonstrating the new technique. South Africans are undoubtedly advanced students in the three-four-one scrum. The secret of the fast heeling evolved lies in the ability of the forwards in that country to obtain a grip on the hard grounds. South Africans claim that with this ability to grip firmly, a pack cannot be pushed back. Everything lay therefore in the initial shove to give the front row control of the ball. Whether this would still apply on the softer New Zealand grounds remains to be seen. The fact remained that in the early stages the All Blacks pushing in the recognised New Zealand manner, made no impression on much lighter packs. The new scrummaging methods, if approved, should pave the way for brighter Rugby in the coming fixtures against the British side, in view of one vital factor, faster possession of the ball. The tour is likely to be remembered long for its string of records—gate receipts, the Springboks’ grand slam in

the Tests, Geffin’s 32 points from goal kicking, and the number of penalty goals kicked. Public interest was enormous. The All Blacks quickly won their way into favour because of their attractive football and excellent demeanour on and off the field.

South African Back Play The tour may prove more beneficial to South Africa than New Zealand. The All Blacks, for reasons that will be explained, were not able to develop their normal game. South African Rugby, on the- other hand, which needed a tour, made definite progress. With the exceptions of Combined Western Province Universities. Rhodesia in the first match. Northern Transvaal and the Springboks in the fourth test, the All Blacks in the early stages found attacking Rugby of a very average standard. The spirit of adventure which makes Rugby one of the most attractive of'games was absent; kicking was a fetish, and the emphasis was on safety-first tactics. In 18 matches out of the 24 the All Blacks’ line was not crossed, and in all games opposing teams scored eight tries only; an average of one in every three games. In the first test not one South African passing rush went out to the wings. Two tests were won by penalty goals alone by South Africa. By the fourth test, however. South Africa had built up an efficient back line. At that stage it was probably superior to the All Blacks, who operated with the signal disadvantage throughout the tour of slow service. Conversely, the South African scrummaging fell off, largely because of the presence of too many loose forwards. The All Blacks beat South Africa in the scrums in three of the four'tests. Many able footballers were seen in other games. South African Rugby was well on the up grade when the tour ended. . The two major results were the building up of back play among the home sides, while the All Blacks learned the inevitable lesson, and learned it well, namely, how to scrummage. Both countries have big engagements ahead. There is plenty of talent in South Africa, and the’ side to tour Great Britain in 1951 should have all the essentials to greatness. New Zealand should also be better prepared for the British team’s visit next year. It would be unwise to conclude from the disappointing results of the tour that all is not well with New Zealand Rugby. Had R. W. H. Scott and J. W. Goddard been in their norma} kicking form, it is likely that the All Blacks would at least have squared the test rubber, and lost no more than two games. Apart from this, the side, though giving some rousing displays, found difficulty in settling down to typical New Zealand Rugby, for two reasons—the harassing tactics of the opposing loose forwards and baffling interpretations bv the referees. With faster service, the back line might have been able to off-set the deadline -i of this loose forward game. As it was. they did remarkably well under constant pressure. Variations in tactics, such as a running half, might have been exploited with advantage. An interesting sidelight of the deadliness of the opposing 1 loose forward game is shown in the I fact that in 10 games in which the All i Blacks won possession of the ball I from the scrums and line-outs com- ' bined. they won four, lost five, and drew one. “ In 11 games in which opI posing sides gained more ball, the All 1 Blacks won nine, lost- one, and drew one. In three matches in which posI session was even, the All Blacks won , one, drew one, and lost one. Referees’ Interpretations

Criticism of referees is never a pleasing practice. Every country has different interpretations, and all touring sides experience some difficulties. The All Blacks found South African referees thoroughly well versed in the laws, but their interpretations varied and nonplussed our players, and had a big influence on their play. Consisting of footballers who had already had experience in international Rugby under English, Scottish, Welsh. Irish, French and Australian referees, they toured South Africa only to find that they ranked as very bad infringers. Rucking and loose scrummaging, which is a vital part of New Zealand Rugby, was at a discount, also, as home referees invariably blew these up quickly into set scrums. The tour is long likely to be remembered as a tour of penalties. No fewer than 49 goals were kicked in 24 games, an average of a game. South African teams kicked 34 goals, the All Blacks 15, and this latter figure might have been as much as 10 greater. South African teams had 54 shots at goal from penalties within 35 yards of thd posts and landed 23 goals. The All Blacks had 28 and landed nind goals. It might prove beneficial to Rugby in all countries if a leading referee were to accompany each touring side, not necessarily to control games, but to act as an observer, to confer with home referees, and report back to his own country. This might lead to greater uniformity in the interpretation of the laws of the game. One of the greatest lessons of the tour was the need for any touring side to have match practice. It is suggested that in the event of a touring party being selected on the previous season's form, and it is difficult to imagine any other method which would be fair to all players, then provision must be made for matches before the tour begins. This might be achieved by an early short tour of Australia, provided air travel was available to and across Australia, and by reducing the number of matches in South Africa unless air travel also facilitated matters in that country. The 1949 All Blacks travelled more than 13.000 miles in South Africa, compared with 9000 miles by the 1928 side. In spite of its attractive nature, and South Africa is a most fascinating country, the tour was most arduous. It is difficult to picture any team emerging unbeaten, no matter how strong, in a country where the Rugby is consistently good and the travelling involved amounts to encompassing more than half the earth’s surface.