Canterbury Rugby Team Had Mixed Fortunes

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30559, 30 September 1964, Page 14

Canterbury Rugby Team Had Mixed Fortunes

CANTERBURY’S Rugby record this season—nine games won, one drawn and -five lost—on figures alone seems a reasonably satisfactory one. However, among the nine wins are those over Buller, West Coast, South Canterbury twice and Wanganui, unions which do not rate very highly in provincial Rugby. ■ Canterbury has been an enigma this season. On paper it is a tremendously strong side. A team containing nine South Island players, of whom six have also represented the All Blacks, should be capable not only of achieving a better record but also of consistently playing Rugby of a higher standard than was shown. At times and in the Auckland and Taranaki matches particularly the forwards played splendidly. They drove fiercely, hunted in the loose and were unyielding in- the tight Yet in other matches there often was a slackness and lack of application.

The backs were similar. On occasions they moved smoothly and purposefully, and then in other matches there seemed an absence of combination or understanding between the players. And unfortunately it was rarely that the backs and forwards complemented each other. Too often they seemed to be playing as separate parts. The greatest Weakness in the forwards was the lack of expert jumpers in the line-outs. J. Francis was the best jumper but Hopkinson, although having some good moments, could not be relied on to consistently gain . possession. , At the important positions, six and seven, N. G. Cornelius was the most effective but he, too, cannot be described as a true jumper. Traditionally the Canterbury line-out technique has been to shun tapping as a means of gaining possession. But in the absence of really high jumpers it seems that Canterbury will have to adopt controlled tapping even if only as a variation.

For Canterbury’s greatest attribute in recent years has been the forward power it has generated from driving from the line-outs. But if a team cannot gain possession it cannot do this. One suspects that a reason why the Canterbury forwards have not looked quite as effective as in past years is not because of any lessening in ability or any great change of tactics, but rather that the situations have not been created so the forwards could start moving forward en masse.

Another fault, and it was one that did have some

serious consequences, was a tendency for the backs to be hesitant on defence. Often the line never came up quickly enough, thus presenting gaps for the opposing outside backs. Also the need to tackle the opponent carrying the ball was not realised by some players who preferred to shadow their, opposite. That happened three times in the matches against Wellington and each time a try was scored When the unmarked Wellington man turned infield and linked with supporting players. Those happenings were symptomatic of another fault—a lack of decisiveness. Too often players were hesitant, both the backs and the forwards, and it was not only, hesitation on defence, but also on attack that cost Canterbury tries.

However, these faults are ones that can be remedied and there is no reason to suppose that Canterbury will not be a strong and successful team next year.

There is a nucleus of experienced players in the team and if their provincial performances occasionally were below the expected standard, they showed enough to suggest that mental staleness could be the cause for their lapses of form.

D. J. Graham, for example, returned to all his former glory against Thames Valley. B. A. Watt was running with zest and skill towards the end of the season, and J. M. Le Lievre showed against Taranaki that he is unmatched in New Zealand for ruggedness and power in the front row. Players such as C. R. Hockley, D. C. Leary,- Ji N. Creighton, E. Veal, and J. Francis played soundly. A. Wyllie, N. G. Cornelius, and A. E. Hopkinson showed considerable promise and they should be a force in Canterbury Rugby for some years. Other young players such as D. S. Pirie, J. S. Baird, M. J. Millar also did well. However, it was noticeable that there was an absence of real speed in the forwards —something that will have to be attained. The most encouraging aspect in the play of the backs was the improvement shown by the half-back, L. J. Davis. As he gained confidence his general play either when he was acting as a loose forward around the scrums or as a cover defender reached a high standard but, most important, his passing sharpened and gained more length. W. Cottrell looked a likely prospect until he had a disappointing game against

Hawke’s Bay, but he has considerable potential. Watt, R. C; Moreton, and W. F. McCormick all played well. Moreton’s return to form strengthened the midfield attack and his ability to send a long and well directed pass was one of Canterbury’s main attacking weapons.

McCormick played satisfactorily at centre, but his talents probably could be Used better at full-back. If D. A. Arnold can recapture his 1963 form then McCormick should be returned to full-back.

W. M. Birtwistle, a dangerous attacking player, had a highly successful season, scoring 15 tries. But at times his defence was shaky.

R. Morris and W. J. Thompson vied for the left wing position, with Thompson gaining it for most of the later matches. Neither Thompson nor Morris appeared to be quite fast enough, but both had some good matches, and Thompson’s sounder defence made him the better prospect.