Auckland Won Battle Of Tactics At Eden Park

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29931, 19 September 1962, Page 13

Auckland Won Battle Of Tactics At Eden Park

TF Canteroury Rugby was shaken to its core by events at Eden Park on Saturday, there is not perhaps as much cause for pessimism as Auckland's marked superiority might suggest. Canterbury. by recent standards, has not had a good season., but it should be remembered that Auckland is a particularly well-drilled side, and one which the Canterbury captain, D J Graham, ranked as the best in New Zealand since the war. In the last 10 years, Canterbury has enjoyed a tremendous run of success, mainly through the strength of its forwards and the ability of its backs to seize the chances made for them. During the Ranfurly Shield years from 1953 to 1956, the Canterbury pack always dominated, sooner or later, and it was then that the backs were able to score their ample number of tries.

It has become almost traditional for Canterbury to keep the ball as close as possible to the forwards; for the forwards to drive, if only for a few yards, to insist on opposition loose forwards coming in to stem the tide, and for another short burst, or perhaps a kick for the box or for the line, to keep the team moving forward.

But on Saturday Auckland enjoyed considerable success in its policy of refusing. so far as possible, to allow the ball to be buried When there was a breakdown. Auckland’s forwards, extraordinarily quick and agile, very often got there m time to pick up the ball and send it on to a supporting player. Perhaps he did not get very far. But as soon as he was stopped the process was repeated. These swift switches tested Canterbury's defence repeatedly, so that instead of the forwards being

locked in a fierce, tight battle, the Canterbury men had to pack and follow. They spent much more time running across field after Auckland than in driving through. A good many Auckland supporters thought their team gave a disappointing display. But the enterprise of the shield holders, not in cutting extravagant figures among the backs, but in keeping the ball moving, in switching and probing, was most entertaining. The Auckland pack was probably a match for Canterbury m the hurlyburly of tight play, but was able to fight the duel on its own ground, with weapons of its own devising. Canterbury may have to have a very good look at the pattern of Auckland’s Rugby. Quick-thinking, agile forwards are needed, but they would still have to

be men able to withstand the stresses of a hard match against big and determined opponents. It is felt that Canterbury at present does not have the backs to support a pack playing Auckland’s type of football. But not so long ago B. A. Watt, as an example, won friends with his enterprising play at first five-eighths. Now Watt, like R. C. Moreton. seems to have had more than enough football for this season. But is there any real reason to suspect that Watt and others of his kind have completely forgotten all the joys of running? The probability is that the backs today are victims of the pattern, the policy of taking no risks, of keeping play close to the forwards. Too much significance should not be placed on their present inability to attack successfully.