LIONS TAUGHT N.Z. MANY LESSONS ON RUGBY TOUR

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29008, 24 September 1959, Page 17

LIONS TAUGHT N.Z. MANY LESSONS ON RUGBY TOUR

Strange as it may seem, New Zealand is apparently reluctant to foster back play or to improve it, but the same cannot be said of forward play, be it good or bad for the game. When the 1949 team to South Africa returned to New Zealand, there were meetings all round the Dominion at which the South African scrumaging technique was demonstrated. In 1953 in England the backs were given the minor role. In 1956 the South Africans demonstrated the efficiency with which a competent No. 8 line-out forward could disrupt the backs, and New Zealand provincial and club teams were quick to add it to their defensive tactics. Last year the Australians taught the value of the loose forward getting to the ball quickly in’broken play and beginning play again, and that lesson was also learnt. Coaching School But from none of the tours in recent years have any sustained efforts been made towards the furtherance of back play, particularly three-quarter play. At the beginning of this Rugby season the New Zealand union sponsored a coaching school at Wellington, but this was restricted to halfbacks and first five-eijAths. Nothing whatever has been done to encourage three-quarter play.

In this and other newspapers in the last three seasons, the New Zealand union has been urged repeatedly to raise the standard of the game from the shocking depths into which it has sunk. Not only the newspapers, but also some administrators who are not adherents of the win-at-all costs creed, have raised their voices in favour of a-return to all that was best in the game. It is hardly credible that the New Zealand union, which should give a lead in these matters, is unaware of the manner in which the game is being played in this country, especially at an international level. Even allowing that they are ignorant of this, they cannot remain so after learning of the views of Mr A. W.

Wilson, manager of this year’s British Isles team.

In an article published in “The Press” this week, Mr W’ilson, who ordinarily has been most reluctant to have his views published, expressed his and his team’s amazement at the neglect of attacking Rugby in New Zealand and of the lack of play for the outside backs. Views Supported

Mr Wilson’s very sincere views will be echoed by the many thousands who have compared the style of play of the two teams this tour. Because New Zealand places such trust in the power of its forwards, it has in recent years adopted a defensive attitude towards the game. “Keep the ball close to the forwards” has been the watchword, and this has been religiously pursued to the detriment of the game as a whole. It is fully realised that the object of any game is to win and that while Rugby has become a spectator sport with a tremendous following, the game is primarily a means of recreation for players. But it ceases to become a recreation when the play is confined to a small section of the team. It becomes to many of the players, as it does to the spectators, a bore. Confirmation of this was contained in the view expressed by the Canterbury threequarters, C. A. McDonald, when he announced his retirement from first-class Rugby this week. Rugby, he said, no longer held any enjoyment for the three-quarters. This is not difficult to believe. Breath of Life The Lions have ended their tour bf New Zealand, but in these days of kick-and-clap Rugby, they will long be remembered as a group of young players who instilled into the Rugby season a breath of life. They leave behind them many broken records and lessons which New Zealand would be well advised to learn and learn thoroughly. They did not go through the New Zealand tour undefeated,

A MONG the well-worn cliches freely dispensed at official functions 1 v during the tour of an overseas Rugby team, is that relating to “the jessons taught and the lessons learnt.” At times, the lessons learnt by New Zealand teams are taken to heart—as in 1956 when the South Africans taught the lesson of the destructive Lochner style of No. 8 play and the need for a long pass from a half-back.

But too often the cliche falls on deaf and complacent ears for New Zealand and unwilling ears for overseas teams, which see in much of New Zealand’s Rugby the death-knell of the game in their own countries.

During the recently-concluded tour of the British Isles team, this cliche was probably handed out much more than the ball was to the New Zealand three-quarters last Saturday. Those speakers who said of the Lions that “you have taught us something of back play” were quite correct. The British Isles certainly did teach New Zealand a lot about attacking back play. But the question remains: have the New Zealand coaches, administrators and players learnt the lessons and are they prepared to put them into practice?

but they still won countless thousand devotees to the open style of Rugby which they favoured. They taught New Zealand its greatest lesson of Rugby, that the game, if it is to be enjoyed by player and public alike, must be played wijh 15 men, and if it is to be won, can still be won through attacking and positive Rugby.