Canterbury Sparkles In Great Rugby Victory

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32323, 15 June 1970, Page 14

Canterbury Sparkles In Great Rugby Victory

(From

J. K. BROOKS)

WELLINGTON.

“How can we fit the All Blacks into this team?” asked jubilant Canterbury supporters at Athletic Park on Saturday after their side had run Wellington ragged to win, 24-6, in the first of its representative commitments for the season.

In spite of the loss of ij half the players who , wrested the Ranfurly i Shield from Hawke’s; Bay last September, i Canterbury’s new-look i side—with only three ) training runs behind it i —demolished one of the ■ seven teams which will]; attempt to win New Zea-; land’s premier Rugby J trophy in Christchurch ; later this season.

The extent of Canterbury’s); victory vividly illustrated the ; depth of talent in the pro-!, vince and enhanced the re-ji putations of Dr J. D. Stewart and Mr .M. J. Dixon as selec-tor-coaches. It also served to reveal the 21-year-old Shirley flanker, C. Read, as a player to take over where I. A. Kirkpatrick left off. - The 15st 71b Read, who won a place in the side when S. E. Cron's nagging knee injury ruled him out of consideration, had a dream debut for! Canterbury A, scoring three 1 of his side's four tries. Only last season, the chunky Read was playing for Canterbury Colts, but he has made the transition to senior status with ease. One of eight splendid forwards who brought Wellington to its knees, Read was all dash and determination, and his backing up and positional sense made him a leading prospect for the New Zealand Junior! team to play Fiji later this season. “Every time you passed in-) field, Chris was there,” the Canterbury left wing, R. J.! Woodhouse, said admiringly) of Read after the game. Canterbury was inspired by! the outstanding play of its captain, I. H. Penrose, and vice ! captain. L. J. Davis, both of whom produced performances; comparable with their A grade; displays against Hawkes Bay* last season. Stood Out K. J. Tanner, the tight head! prop, and S. C. M. Murray, the; full-back, were other Canterbury players whose efforts stood out in bold relief against the background of a match full of movement. But there was not one Canterbury player who failed to' heed the coaches’ call for a wholehearted team effort. It was. in effect, Napier. 1969. all over again. The players might have been different, but the shattering effect on the opposition was the same. In its big win, Canterbury was flattered to a certain extent by unexpected weaknesses in the Wellington team. The experi- ! ments of playing a five-eighths at full-back and a prop and a flanker at lock failed lamentably, while I. N. Stevens and T. N. M eCash in, in the key positions of half-back and hooker, respectively, danced to the tune; played merrily by their markers' Davis and R. W. Norton. ; Canterbury’s tries were scored; by Read (3) and Tanner, with, Murray kicking two penalty} goals and three conversions. Fori Wellington, M. 0. Knight scored! a try and G. C. Williams kicked; a penalty goal. Canterbury led. 13-0, at half-' time on a clear, crisp Wellington day, and had virtually made certain of success when Read scored two tries, both converted by Murray, in the thirty-third and thirty-fifth minutes. Wellington fought back in the second half, as it so often does, but the increasingly firm grip on the game gained by the Canterbury forwards put the issue beyond doubt. .Wellington's comprehensive defeat was in no way the fault of the captain, Williams, who was not available for the South African tour because of family and business ties. Agile Forward An amazingly agile forward. Williams was a spirited attacker, always full of optimism, and a cover defender who achieved the work of two men. After Stevens and B. R. Niven had made goalkicking attempts that would have made a primary school boy blush. Williams once again emphasised his value to his team by landing a 50yd penalty goal.

But apart from two brilliant breaks by the 18-year-old centre. G. D. Batty, and a copybook try-scoring move in which R. L. Gray came in from the blind side wing to beat K. J.

iGimblett and lay the foundations for Knight s try. Wellington had little to offer. i Canterbury held the whip hand I in the forwards, with Penrose —unbelievably, a former Wellingtonian—directing operations superbly. His was a performance of the highest quality, and his fellbw players took their cue from him, particularly in the role of lending support to the man with the ball. His New Brighton club-mate, i Tanner, revelled in the tight., applying his weight expertly and i tearing the ball aw’ay from 1 grasping Wellington hands in the mauls. A. McLellan offered istalwart support in these exercises, while in set play, H. H. I McDonald and R. Lockwood surIvived a first half buffeting to

give Canterbury a 20-10 advantage in decisive line-outs, while (Norton took six tight heads to none against McCashin, who, two (years ago. was good enough to (play for New Zealand.

Read and A. Matheson hardly looked like newcomers to the team, so well did they blend into movements and stifle Wellington’s attempted replies. Read, with his three tries, was the glamour player, but Matheson played an important role with his ability to assess the position quickly. The most impressive feature of the Canterbury pack as a whole was its ability to take control of the tight exchanges. Twice when Wellington forwards had caught the ball from a kickoff, the Canterbury forwards smothered the feed to the halfback, and drove the opposition downfield, with the weight superbly applied. Outstanding Supplementing the work of the pack was Davis, perhaps the outstanding man of the match. In the tenth minute he robbed Stevens of the ball and made a grand break which led to Tan-

ner’s try. From then on, everything Davis touched turned to gold. His passing was crisp and accurate and he made a mockery of Wellington’s first line of defence with his acceleration and deceptive style of running. If this was not his finest game for Canterbury, it was certainly equal to his best. Canterbury gave Wellington an object lesson in dispatching the ball, with Tanner and McLellan controlling and feeding the tapped ball in the line-out, and Davis clearing it smartly. 0. D. Bruce, always beautifully balanced, was an admirable first five-eighths, and although Gimblett and H. T. Joseph in midfield were subjected to close marking in set play, they, with Bruce made some telling runs in second phase attacks. R. J. Woolhouse had little to do. but was always sound, while R. F. Cocks, who won the right wing position in the face of strong competition, justified the selectors’ faith in him with a confident all-round display, Any fears about the calibre of Canterbury’s defence without W. F. McCormick were quickly dispelled by Murray. His fielding of the ball along the ground and in the air was excellent and his long, accurate punting and good goal-kicking—he succeeded with two conversions from the sideline—brought despair to the hearts of the Wellington players. Canterbury’s kicking, while not overdone, was a feature of the match. Bruce’s discreet use of the grubber and the lobbed kick over the opposing backs had Wellington scrambling, while Murray and Gimblett. as well as Bruce, all bounced the ball out over the side-line as if the kick-into-touch rule had been made for them. Wellington looked a forlorn side, in spite of the efforts of Williams and some good work in the rucks by G. A. Head and A. E. Keown. W. J. Nicholls, an outstanding flanker in the All Black trials, was wasted at lock, and unless Wellington can produce two specialist tight forwards it cannot hope for much success in its shield challenge in September. The Wellington backs made a few brave runs in the second half, and once Batty beat five Canterbury defenders in a sole burst, which ended with a tackle by the alert Davis. But. in general, Wellington’s troubles in the forwards were transmitted to the backs, and the side was fortunate not to lose by an even bigger margin. The referee. Mr G. Harrison awarded 17 penalties to Welling ton and 12 to Canterbury.