RUGBY AUCKLAND SHOWS ITS SUPERIORITY

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30213, 19 August 1963, Page 14

RUGBY AUCKLAND SHOWS ITS SUPERIORITY

Determined Struggle By Canterbury

Auckland’s ambition to set a new record in successful Ranfurly Shield defences is likely to be realised, if the team can maintain the fine blend of enterprise and efficiency it showed against Canterbury at Lancaster Park on Saturday. Scoring four tries to Canterbury’s one, Auckland won, most deservedly, by 16 points to 8.

Auckland, with speed of foot and thought supported by sound handling and persistent backing up, provided most of the game's many spectacular moments. But whatever Canterbury’s deficiencies were, courage and perseverance were not among them. After conceding two tries in the first six minutes, Canterbury held determinedly to the heels of a team clearly swifter and more skilled and Auckland’s fourth try, which finally clinched the game for the visitors, was scored only in the last seconds of the match.

But when Canterbury was attacking strongly during the second part of the first spell, and for considerable periods in the second half, there was always the feeling that Auckland's backs might flit away, without notice, for another try. In many respects, the match was similar to Canterbury's shield challenge last season. Saturday’s ground, firm and fast, was not as dry as Eden Park a year ago, but it obviously suited Auckland far more than those on which the touring team played Otago and Southland. In the shield match. Auckland won because it was quicker to the bait This speed meant that Auckland usually won the rucks before they tied developed far, and so the team, with swift switches of attack had Canterbury scurrying about on desperate defence. Vse of Backs On Saturday, Auckland again enjoyed much success In the rucks, but this time fuller and earlier use was made of the back-line. Inehead a few yards to make possible another switch from a ruck, the ball was spun beautifully along the line and nearly always the pace of the Aucklanders produced the makings of an overlap. This pattern was not so apparent in the second half, when there were many more line-outs than In the first ■pell. But Auckland has tremendous speed in its backs, with Patterson and Tataurangi outstanding whenever they were able to slip the leash of the efficient Canterbury defence. Auckland's ability to vary its attacking play was based largely on the use of the captain, R H. Graham, at No. 7 In the line-out. The long throw, and Graham’s many clean takes, enabled Connor to exploit the blind side, or Whineray to double round for a pass from Graham before driving forward, or Connor to move, perhaps in the other direction for Graham's pass. Auckland started many strong attacks from line-out play, with Graham usually the pivot. Expectations that Canterbury would dominate the line-outs were unfulfilled. In the first half Stewart, under strong pressure from Maniapoto and Jakich, was largely responsible for Canterbury winning clean possession 13 times to Auckland's 15. But in the second spell Canterbury won only 12 to Auckland's 24, because Stewart was often dragged into the Auckland side of the ruck and dispossesed. Bumbling Incompetence Canterbury can attribute its defeat largely to its bumbling incompetence in the first 15 minutes. In that period, Auckland looked as if it might win by 30 points. Canterbury missed tackles, accepted dummies, dropped passes, miskicked, lost position and possession and in general looked rather like

butterflies tossed about by the gale of Auckland's initial attack. Auckland's two tries in the first two minutes came from calm exploitation of Canterbury's muddle. After that Canterbury fought strongly, with solid, sensible forward play thrusting -Auckland back, and the Canterbury line sometimes looking dangerous from broken play. Canterbury’s biggest handicap. apart from its appalling s'art, was the lack of an efficient first five-eighths. McCormick. a great and gallant full-back, was quite unfitted for a task made extremely difficult by the eager Auckland loose forwards. His courage was outstanding. for he was hammered unmercifully. But his hesitation did not help him, or those outside him. And his tactical kicking was of poor quality Whatrta’s service was generally good, although McCormick sometimes had to stretch or stoop for the ball, but the Canterbury line was never given the quick start which was essential. Backs Too Close

Canterbury was also at fault in persisting throughout the first spell with backs ste'tioned unusually near each other. Perhaps it was intended to force the Auckland backs to look for an outside break, instead of turning back to the fast and eager forwards. It merely emphasised, however, that Auckland had the pace in most positions, to run outside their men, and there were several instances of overlaps being created simply with speed. Auckland’s performance, in nearly every respect, was admirable. The team-work and polished mechanical efficiency which have developed with its long tenure of the Ranfurly Shield were often evident, and the fine passing and running, the sudden switches of direction often stretched Canterbury's defence to the limit. , Patterson's pace was often a threat, but he was, unfortunately. injured early in the second spell. R. Rangi, who replaced him was also fast and strong-running. All the Auckland backs were good, with Herewini giving an astonishing display. Canterbury's loose forwards made tremendous efforts to take him with the ball, but if he was unable t» flit away, he always managed, with his extraordinary agility, to get his kick in. Connor, always worth watching, if only for the unstudied grace of his punting, served Herewini well, and the All Black five-eighths, beside surviving everything Canterbury could set against him. sparked off some thrilling movements, and again showed mastery of the tactical kick. Jakich Impressive One of the most impressive in the strong Auckland pack was Jakich. who came into the side as a replacement for D G. Harker. Big. strong and active, he was prominent in line-outs, tight play, and often in the open. Maniapoto also gave a fine performance, and

Nethan. always a danger, was as full of running at the finish as at the start. Col'hurst suffered a fairly common fate and conceded two tight heads to Young and Fell, apart from being largely responsible for pinning McCormick down, bobbed up in the backs on occasion, and it was his overhead pass which let Rangi in for his try. Fell, however, should be instructed by his coach that it is not part of his portfolio to leap art or on the opposing first five-eighths seconds after he has parted with the ball. This practice was the one real blot on Auckland's display. In other res pen's, it was a very fair game; Whmeray. for example, was the first to indicate that Patterson had lost the ball when going in to score. This was good, for it has become almost standard practice for players near the line to fling their arms and legs about in an ecstacy of abandon if there is the meeresrt suggestion their team might have scored. Auckland’s forwards were largely responsible for Canterbury receiving 11 penalties. Auckland only five Canterbury’s hamstrung backs did the best they could with the material ait hand. Leary kicked well, although he sometimes failed to put the ball out when trying to make ground against the strong north-easter. Birtwhistle had only one chance, and he very nearly scored. His prodigious sidestep carried him past several defenders, including the fullback, and it seemed his speed would take him clear until a desperate dive by Patterson tipped him off balance. Clarke, too, had only one run. Looking For Work Arnold, one suspects, is looking a little too often for the interception, but again on Saturday he was full of business—one of the few able to foot it with the Aucklanders. He was always looking for work, darting here, there and everywhere. Moreton tried desperately hard to straighten up back attacks which started too slowly and his determination almost took him through the Auckland defence several times. The forwards had a hard battle containing Auckland, and came through the game with credit. D. J. Graham pulled his team together well after its deplorable start, and he set a fine personal example, on attack as well as defence. Cornelius Showed he was making further progress. and Stewart was again a dominant figure in all phases of the forward play. Canterbury seldom looked like scoring tries, but the de-