Canterbury tried hard in face of adversity

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32385, 26 August 1970, Page 11

Canterbury tried hard in face of adversity

(By

J. K. BROOKS)

TTAS any holder of the Ranfurly Shield suffered more from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune than the 1970 Canterbury side? The loss of two men to the North Island and five to the All Blacks in South Africa was bad enough. But worse was to follow. D. A. Arnold retired, H. T. Joseph broke a leg, and L. A. Scherp withdrew from consideration because of business commitments.

On the recent North Island tour, R. J. Woolhouse and R. J. Knight were put out of action for a few weeks in the first match. Now S. M. C. Murray is confined to a hospital bed in Auckland. It is little wonder that the team emerged from the tour with a record of three losses and only one win.

The bare figures, however, do not do justice to a team of triers which consciously

strove to improve its standard of performance. A handsome win against Wellington in June and the scoring of more than 50 points against both West Coast and Mid-Canterbury might have lulled the side into a false sense of security

The teams encountered on the North Island tour quickly brought Canterbury down to earth. The relatively inexperienced side was buffetted by opposing loose forwards, beaten in the lineouts, and was guilty of too many infringements inside its own half.

On the credit side, there was a flowering of team spirit and resolve, a thoughtful approach to attacking play, and consistent solidity on defence. It is significant that Canterbury conceded only three tries in the four games. S. E. Cron and K. J. Gimblett accomplished much good work with their

copybook tackling, while LW. Jones improved greatly at centre.

The backs, generally, held their own on tour, although it was only in the King Country • match that they showed the extent of their capabilities on attack. Gimblett became a great asset with his thrustfulness at second five-eighths, and his form improved with every game. 0. D. Bruce, a well-balanced runner and an intelligent kicker, gave splendid service at first fiveeighths. But there was a risk in the two players standing too close together. When the situation called for a right-foot kick, Bruce —who is a left-footer—-moved three paces to the rear and the pass went directly to Gimblett Fortunately, opposing sides did not make capital out of this arrangement

Jones benefited from playing in all the games and is now a much better centre than he was in the club competitions. Murray ran with zest when he joined the backline from full-back, and R. F. Cocks and M. S. Moore, apart from running and tackling well on the wings, covered well when Murray moved up.

Cocks took his responsibilities as senior wing seriously after Woolhouse’s services had been lost and his strong running and stout defence were constantly in evidence. However, both he and Moore were penalised four times each for being off-side in following high kicks by the inside backs.

This was unfortunate, for at times it appeared that their rate of advancement in comparison to that of the other players, had made them conspicuous even though they had started their runs behind the kicker.

The best back—and the fittest—was the half-back and vice-captain, L. J. Davis. His passing was consistently good—even when' the Hawke’s Bay forwards were on top of him—and his breaks from scrums and rucks and his backing-up were first class.

His understudy, B. F. Elder, had little chance to display his wares, as he spent almost half the game at full-back in his one appearance. R. J. Knight had only 14 minutes on the field and did not touch the ball, and his replacement, M. R. McEwan, was not called on to take the field.

The Canterbury forwards started poorly agains.t Manawatu, but improved steadily in determination and application. The scrummaging was the best aspect of their play; R. W. Norton, a swift striker, had the better of every hooker he met, but he had the assistance of

three fine props, K. J. Tanner, A. McLellan, and L. D. Adam. McLellan drove himself hard in training, and his fitness enabled him to make a considerable contribution to the team’s efforts in broken play. Adam and Tanner applied themselves with purposefulness in the rucks, and H. H. McDonald and R. J. Lockwood also did their work well in this phase of play.

However, McDonald, Lockwood and the third lock, T. L. C. Johnstone, had only meagre success in the lineouts; their North Island counterparts were far more assertive in their methods. The loose forwards had an interesting tussle for the three places in the Ranfurly Shield side. A. C. Matheson made the greatest advance, and his speed to the loose ball and his strong breaks won him selection in all four matches But C. J. Read lacked the sparkle in his running that distinguished his earlier performances for Canterbury. He improved in the Auckland game, but is still probably behind Cron for all-round effectiveness.

‘ I. H. Penrose was a capable captain, and his ex-

perience was invaluable to a team with an average age of 23. His ability at initiating attacks and his sound cover defence were his strong points, but he amazed Aucklanders with his unruffled performance at fullback.

Canterbury gave away more penalties than it gained in every match on tour, almost half the number coming from off-side play. The side had only nine shots at goal from 37 penalties, while opposing teams had 21 attempts from S 3 penalties.

Canterbury was often forced back because of its inability to break even in the line-outs, and the infringements the side made in its own territory enabled opposing sides to score match - winning penalty goals. The touring side scored seven tries to three, but the penalty goal count was 3-9 against it

Out of all the toils and tribulations the team learnt to develop its strengths, and tried to patch up its weaknesses. The question now is whether one week is a long enough period for the lessons of the tour to be assimilated.