Will Auckland's Rugby Lessons Be Lost?

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30215, 21 August 1963, Page 13

Will Auckland's Rugby Lessons Be Lost?

H'HE Rugby lesson taught 1 to Canterbury by Auckland in the Ranfurly Shield match at Eden Park last year was re-stated just as clearly at Lancaster Park on Saturday. Last year. Auckland’s speed and handling ability in the forwards confounded the driving play of toe Canterbury eight and the combination between the Auckland backs and forwards in switching play was a far more dangerous method of attack than Canterbury’s conventional passing. Almost the same happened last Saturday. With four All Blacks in its pack, Canterbury should have been able to achieve

«ome small measure of dominance in the forwards, but that never really happened. True, on occasions Canterbury did look dangerous as its forwards swarmed through in driving rushes, but Auckland could always stop the movement, and often start a counter-attack from the resulting ruck. In every phase of forward play except the scrums. Auckland was superior.

What the Canterbury pack lacked, and what Auckland had in abundance, was speed. T. H. Moynihan and N. G. Cornelius played quite well but they could not match the pace and intelligent use of possession which characterised the Auckland loose forwards. The same applied almost

throughout the Canterbury pack. Also, Canterbury lacked forwards capable of making those short, shattering bursts from the tightloose which Auckland used to start so many of its attacking movements.

It was from these bursts by M. I. J. Jakich, H. J. Maniapoto, W. J. Nathan and L W. Fell, that Auckland often was able to gain the impetus necessary to get quick possession from the ruck that developed and start its dangerous back movements.

Although Auckland looked far more dangerous in the backs than Canterbury, that was due as much to the in. ability of W. F. McCormick to spark off his line as the individual ability of the Aucklanders. McCormick played courageously, but the selectors must realise now that if B. A. Watt is still injured then another

specialist first five-eighths must be found—or made. It is. not fair to McCormick for him to be played out -of position, and just as unfair for R. C. Moreton and D. A. Arnold, both of whom are playing well to have their chances limited by slowness inside them. If the selectors are not at present prepared to play D. Johnston, the other fiveeighths in the squad then they must look elsewhere—even if they have to return to the University pair, A. F. Orme and Q. T. Tapsell, who at least have the virtue of quickness in passing. The Canterbury back-line has considerable potential as an attacking unit; with its limited chances against Auckland it demonstrated that, but if its potential is to be used to the full there must be a closer liaison with the forwards. A note could be taken from Auckland’s book and

greater use made of the forwards to start attacking movements, from the dummy half position in the line-outs or near the rucks. The break by W. J. Whineray which led to Jakich's try was a fine example of this type of play. Canterbury's sole variation in back play on Saturday was for the blind side wing to come in to try and create a diversionary ruck. That move was used profitably by Canterbury in the 1950’s —now it is almost stereotyped.

From now on Canterbury has rather an insipid representative programme. Matches against Marlborough. West Coast and Buller could well be used by the selectors to instil into the Canterbury team some of the well-drilled techniques used by Auckland. It is obvious that some departure must be made from the pure driving and rucking game if Canterbury is to contend with the major North Island unions, particularly on dry grounds.