RUGBY COACH REFLECTS Canterbury did well in spite of difficulties

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33654, 2 October 1974, Page 14

RUGBY COACH REFLECTS Canterbury did well in spite of difficulties

(By

J. K. BROOKS)

Although its task had been made harder by a marked improvement by other provincial teams, especially in forward play, the Canterbury Rugby side had still enjoyed a good season and played first class football. This is the view of Mr P. D. Clark, the coach and, with Dr D. S. Hart, selector of the Canterbury team during the season just ended. “We started with the label of invincible, and, conssquently, every side we met was keen to beat us,” he said. “Our ultimate aim was to play good, winning Rugby — but not at all costs. We were not prepared to bend the laws or play 10-man Rugby just for the sake of winning. “Yet we came through the season with a record just as good as that of 1973.

“But the public expects more than the players can produce. No-one likes losing, but the human element in the game cannot be disregarded. The mental attitude can fall away from players, and to reach the apex of perfection in game after game is tremendously hard.

‘‘The players had a poor game against Hawke’s Bay, but we could have drawn, or even won, with a bit of luck. At Eden Park we were robbed of many good players and had to bring in six new ones, but it still took Auckland all its time to beat us.

“After the North Island tour I did not believe the bubble had burst, and neither did the players. The will to win was still there, and a handsome victory against Taranaki was the result.

“It was hard, however, for us to recapture this form against Wellington a few days later. Wellington had been virtually humili-

ated by us earlier In the season, but had subsequently become the Ranfurly Shield holder and lifted its game. “Still, two mistakes made the difference between us winning and losing. “We were held to a draw by Southland because the backs were not allowed to produce moves within the rules of the game—they were being knocked over as they got the ball. But it was

satisfying to end the season with I a win, because we look ' on Otago as a great side.! “Joj? Hart and I did our best j to maintain Canterbury’s. record. What failings ‘we had were purely and simply personal.” Mri Clark said the forwards did not achieve the over-a 11 dominance in scrummaging that they had enjoys d in 1973. The pack had Control, but not dominance. “Oljher coaches have observed! us and applied our techniques to their teams, so the. scrummaging almost came 1 back to stalemate. In genera d, provincial forward play improved tremendously this year from the last two seasons, and this raiade our task a little harder. “Bui!: I am satisfied, because I the players gave their guts and adopted a positive attitude. They showed a willingness to respond to the (methods demanded of them. “We> may not have a Batty i or a Williams in the side, but we have very efficie|.it footballers, and becausejz>f this the side maintained!! a first class record.” Mr [Clark said he was “fascinated” by W. F. McCormick’s ability to maintain p ressure Rugby. The side had again depended heavily on L. J. Davis, and he ha d met requirements splendidly. “Stewart Cron played up to his best—he reached a high (Standard—but I was disappointed that John Phillips did not receive a New Zealand trial. “Vafcice Stewart was up to Neu; Zealand standard as a locks and Hamish Macdonald, who was late in finding form, | will be a worthy membhr of the All Blacks in

Ireland. They will get a lot of hard work and good judgment from him.” The front row combination of K. J. Tanner, R. W. Norton and W. K. Bush had produced some great displays, and some of lesser quality, Mr Clark said. I. A. Hurst and O. D. Bruce were first-class fiveeighths, and B. J. Hedge had displayed both ability and determination. T. W. Mitchell, “a distinctive personality,” always looked likely to score tries. And K. R. Jennings proved that he had a bright future in the game. “The team was most fortunate in having Alex Wyllie as captain,” Mr Clark said. “He was a hard taskmaster, but he made big demands of himself as well. His leadership was strong and positive.”