RUGBY FOOTBALL REPORTS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27426, 12 August 1954, Page 7

RUGBY FOOTBALL REPORTS

Sir.—To even the strongest supporter of Vincent it is quite obvious that a blatant campaign is being carried out by your correspondents in an endeavour to excuse the falling away in standard of his play and discredit the superiority of Creedy’s. On three occasions this year the two players have opposed each other, with Creedy each time displaying marked superiority. Surely “Be» Fair,” “RhJ.nbow,” and every keen Rugby follower who saw these displays will agree that they were reported by “The Press” in a true perspective. To say that each weakness of Vincent’s play has been exaggerated is in itself a gross exaggeration. Dges ' not “Rainbow” remember “The Press’s” comments on Vincent’s selection for the Coast tour and his omission from the South Island team —hardly an anti-Vincent campaign. Might I suggest that one of the main factors in a successful defence of the shield will lie in the selection of the right half-back— Creedy.—Yours, etc., NOT COLOUR BLIND. August 11, 1954.

Sir, —It is regrettable that the names of the two best half-backs seen in Canterbury since Dailey and Mullan should be made the subjects of controversy. The writer was a club-mate of Mullan, and whenever Dailey wa§ chosen for Canterbury, Tommy Mullan always remarked to me, “Bill is a better half than I am.” Canterbury is fortunate in having two such men as Creedy and Vincent to choose from. It must not be forgotten that they were both All Black trialists and were considered by competent judges to be unlucky. Knowing both men to be firstclass sportsmen, I am convinced that whichever one is chosen, the other man will take it in the spirit of Tommy Mullan and give Messrs Rankin and White credit for choosing the one best suited for the job.—Yours, etc., FAIR PLAY. August 11, 1954.