Patchwork Canterbury Team Defeated

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32383, 24 August 1970, Page 10

Patchwork Canterbury Team Defeated

(From

J. K. BROOKS)

AUCKLAND. “Win this one for me, boys,” pleaded S. M. C. Murray from his bed, and his fellow members of the Canterbury Rugby team came tantalisingly close to fulfilling the injured full-back’s wishes in losing, 8-14, to Auckland in the last game of the North Island tour, at Eden Park on Saturday.

The Canterbury team might have been expected to be disorganised and disillusioned when it learnt that Murray, who had wakened in agony in the early hours of Saturday morning, was out of the game because of a bad back injury.

But the captain and 1 No. 8 forward, I. H. Pen-1 rose, whose last game at' full-back was for Petone i in 1961, filled Murray's] position with distinction. ] He was soundness per- 1 sonified in fielding high punts and in sending! Auckland back with rak- 1 ing kicks to the side-line. < i L. W. Jones made * brave j attempt to kick the goals; K. I J. Tanner took over from j Penrose as a durable leader i

of the pack; and C. J. Read joined the loose forwards and, with A. C. Matheson and S. E. Cron, harried the Auckland inside backs unmercifully. All these stout efforts, however, could not produce a win, for the simple reason that Canterbury did not have enough ball at its command. Auckland’s dominance of line-out possession paved the way for its win and the good goal-kicking of M. A. Herewini supplied the finishing touches. Auckland also had fullback troubles when R. D. Whatman retired from the field because of an injured shoulder in the twenty-second minute of the game. But Herewini, who had been playing at first five-eighths, was a tailor-made substitute for the position. Herewini kicked two penalty goals and converted a f ry scored by J. P. Posa, while Whatman also kicked a penalty goal for Auckland. Canterbury’s points came 'rotn a penalty goal by lones and a try by K. J. Gimblett, which was converted by Penrose. Chiefly because of the polished technique of its captain, K. A. Nelson, Auckland won the decisive line-outs, 13-13, but on a field made sticky by frequent showers, ’he home side’s five-eighths, A. M. Watkins and A. N. Tingle, failed to develop the ittack with any great confidence. Real Effort In sharp contrast Canterbury made a tremendous effort for 20 minutes in the middle of the second half. During this period, Auckland crossed its own 25yd line only three times and was swiftly driven back by the determined Canterbury players. Auckland looked a very ordinary side in this part of the game, and the pressure exerted by Canterbury brought it close to victory. But the wet ball escaped the eager grasp of the players with the goal-line in sight. First Matheson charged down a kick and led the Canterbury forwards into a ruck, but Gimblett dropped L. J. Davit’s pass. Then Gimblett

broke through to within 13 yards of the line, but Matheson failed to hold the ball. Then when H. F. Cocks was checked. Read snapped up the ball and dived across the line, but the referee ruled that the ball had gone forward from Cocks. Canterbury was not to be denied, however,. and Gimblett, who played an outstanding game at second fiveeighths, eventually breached the Auckland defence, He handled twice In an enterprising 55yd movement started by Davis after « ruck, and in which Cocks and A. McLellan also played a part. Penrose’s conversion reduced Auckland's lead to one point, but the home side increased its margin when its powerful peck—which had, a weight advantage of 12lb a man over Canterburypushed the opposing eight across its goal-line and Posa, the No. 8, pounced on the ball for a try. Strict Referee The six-point winning margin flattered Auckland, but Canterbury was left with food for thought from the penalty count—l B-10 against it The referee (Mr R. E. Courtney) w« severe on breeches of toe off-side law and was also very strict in dealing with knock-

ons, forward passes, and other blemishes. On one occasion he ruled out a kick at goal by Herewini because P. J. Whiting bad edged ahead of the kicker. But Mr Courtney was unsighted- when the Auckland left wing, T. W. M. Tataurangi, was obstructed by Cocks while the Auckland backs were making their one good move of the match. Tataurangi dispensed his own justice by flailing at Cocks with his flits. Earlier, Canterbury was denied a certain try when Cocks, with a clear run to the line, was seized from an offside position by the Auckland prop, K. G. Male. There was some niggling between players because of jersey pulling, and Davis was cunningly obstructed by Nelson several times when he tried to follow the ball. But the worst incident occurred when B. M. Gemmell, the Auckland half-back, was trapped in * ruck. When the players parted, L, G. Knight, an Auckland flanker, was sitting on McLellan, pummelling him. H. H. McDonald knocked Knight to the ground and warned him; then Mr Courtney called the captains before him and issued an official warning. It was a hard game. In other respects, for the Canterbury forwards, but they all gained In stature from the experience. Matheson played a-game of considerable quality, harrying the Auckland inside backs and pouncing on the loose ball avidly. Read was good value at the

end of the line-out and Cron, a stalwart cover defender, tackled solidly. R. J. Locgwood was the best of Canterbury's beleagurpd line-out forwards, and R. W. Norton, the hooker, won two tight heads to none—a tribute to a strongly-knit scrum. Tanner. McLellan and McDonald helped Canterbury achieve parity in the rucks, and McLellan was again noticeable for his dependability in eatening or passing the ball under pressure,

Gimblett was sharp and aggressive in middeld. running extremely well, tackling Tingle uncompromisingly, and kicking the loose ball into the gaps. On defence. Penrose was cure in his handling, and extracted hie side from several desperate Situations. Hie display at full, back was exceptional for a man who has played most of his Rugby In the forwards. The soundest three-quarter was the Canterbury left wing. M. S, Moore, who eaught high kicks and tackled opposing backs with ruthless efficiency.

Davis and 0. D. Bruce had mcmepts of uncertainty in handling the wet hall, but their high punts contributed to Auckland's discomfort in the second half. Cocks was sound, but his chances were limited. At least he had more play than Janes. As a goal.kicker, Jones scored 440 points in the under IS grade, but has not kicke.d since. His tally of one goal In four attempts was a good effort, considering that his only practice was in the dressing room beNelson and Hergwini showed the value of experience in piloting Auckland to victory. They had an ardent follower in the 19-year-cld Gemmell, who without trying to be spectacular, served his side well in his debut at half-back. whiting and p. A. Llndesay helped Nelson to establish Auckland's marked superiority in the line-outs, and Rosa showed a keen tactical appreciation of the back row forward's role. The weather was kind to Auckland. The home aide had the rain and wind at Its back in the Rrst half, but the second spell was played in fair, and at times sunny weather. Compared with the lota of Murray, however. this was of .little consequence to Canterbury.