Hawkes Bay Observed Rugby Fundamentals

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30541, 9 September 1964, Page 15

Hawkes Bay Observed Rugby Fundamentals

rpo use the vernacular, 1 Canterbury just was not with it when it played Hawke’s Bay at Lancaster Park on Saturday. Not only was it the heaviest defeat that Canterbury had suffered on Lancaster Park for 12 years; it was also one of the most salutary lessons read to Canterbury Rugby in the same period. The defeat, and its enormity, should not be minimised. Faced by a welldrilled team which had forward strength and capable attacking backs, Canterbury made a poor showing. In a microcosm, it was the third test between the All Blacks and Australia. And it was Hawke’s Bay that assumed the Australian mantle. Hawke's Bay was quicker to the loose ball by yards. What possession it gained was won quickly and clean-

ly and it was used efficiently by the backs. It was not a matter of Hawke’s Bay suddenly producing something different in Rugby lore or perhaps having a better appreciation of the new rules. Hawke’s Bay simply carried out the fundamentals of Rugby so expertly that it made Canterbury look ponderous, sluggish, inept. The question may well be asked: where does Canterbury Rugby go from here? First it can be answered that the Rugby virtues that Hawke’s Bay displayed were those that for many years have been the hallmark of Canterbury teams. There was no magic in the Rugby played by Hawke’s Bay. It

was merely a question of Rugby bases—forward speed and strength, and good handling and passing. The present Canterbury team has the same attributes. It showed against Auckland that it has forwards who can drive and backs who can run hard and pass crisply. Against Taranaki it showed that the forwards can indulge in a battle of strength and not be overcome. There is no lack of talent in the Canterbury team. The pack, including as it does, D. J. Graham, J. M. Le Lievre, J. N. Creighton, J. Francis and C. R. Hockley, lacks nothing in experience. M. J. Millar, A. E. Hopkinson and A. Wyllie are

tyros, but highly promising. In the backs it is the same. Most provinces would welcome players of the calibre of B. A. Watt, D. A. Arnold, W. F. McCormick and W. M. Birtwistle. And L. J. Davis and W. D. Cottrell would compare favourably with most young players.

What is needed is a return to fundamentals. Hawke’s Bay showed Canterbury what can be done by an" integral effort. Taranaki, on a more limited scale, demonstrated the same thing. Canterbury has four more important matches to play —against Thames Valley, Otago, Southland and Wellington. It is expected, even more than it is hoped, that in the matches at Lancaster Park, Canterbury supporters will see the team play to its potential.