Springboks Can Beat the All Blacks

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 174, 20 April 1937, Page 14

Springboks Can Beat the All Blacks

“Wild Bill” Cerutti’s Opinions

fTHAT the Springboks can beat the All X Blacks is the opinion expressed by W H. (“Wild Bill”) Cerutti, the wellknown Wallaby front row forward, who toured New Zealand with the Australian team last season, and who was a member of the Wallaby team which visited South Africa recently, in a special article in “The Outspan,” the popular South African weekly journal. „ , , Now that our tour of New Zealand has finished and I have had time to sit and meditate on the relative merits ot the football of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, I have penned in these lines for South African readers the reasons why, in my considered opinion, the Springbok team of 1937 will overthrow the All Blacks in the test series of games in New Zealand (he writes). The Wallabies pent a splendid team to New Zealand, and, though the results of the tour were rather disastrous from a purely mathematical or statistical point of view, an analysis of the record and a first-hand knowledge of the play of the team and its opponents enables me to form a comparison of the strength of the Springbok test team of 1933 with those which represented New Zealand in the two recent games against Australia. First, let me say that the 1936 Wallabies were not as good as the 1933 team which toured South Africa. The forwards were almost equal to the 1933 pack, but the backs were much below the standard of players like Malcolm, Bennett, Biilman, Steggall, Sturtridge, McLean, Kelaher and Ross. There was not an old campaigner in the 1936 back division —the only _ one with any previous big match experience of any consequence being the captain, E. S. (“Dooney”) Hayes, a centre threequarter, who was injured in the first match and only played once subsequently. Excepting the two wingers, Kelaher and McLean, not one of the backs had previously toured New Zealand or been out of Australia, so that they were really lacking in both tactical and technical equipment and experience. Nevertheless, in the tests engagements the _ Wallabies more than held the All Blacks in the first game—which was a moral though not an actual victory for Australia —and in the second outplayed New Zealand for the first sixty minutes of the eighty playing moments, then to be overwhelmed. Even then this defeat was not actually attributable to superior play by New Zealand, but rather to the capitalisation by New Zealand of errors made by the Australian I backs, who became demoralised when disasters overtook their adventurous sorties in the All Blacks' territory.

The Wiallaby test team of 1933 would have beaten both the New Zealand and Australian test teams of 1936, and by the same token the 1933 Springboks would also have triumphed rather easily. The Australian pack won in set scrums, rucks and line-outs, but did not (as usual) cover the backs in defence and attack, and here the New Zealand forwards—with Rankin the solo man of the back row playing deliberately as a spoiling specialist—enjoyed most of their success. Without attempting to discredit New

Zealand's victories, it is only fair to state some of the misfortunes of the touring team. Australia's Misfortunes. The first game was played in the worst football conditions 1 have ever experieneer and we had wet, greasy grounds in the three following games. This was the first wet weather football for Australians in a very dry 1936 winter. The full-back and captain (centre three-quar-ter) were put out of action, and I myself received a fractured jaw in the first half of the opening game, which' precluded my appearance until the tenth and last contest. Thus the Wallabies, except ip the first contest, were unable to field what would have been the test side. The leader and key men were always absent, and patchedup teams took the field in every game, including both tests. Again, the team manager, Mr. Gordon Shaw, who took the Waratahs through Great Britain and France in 1927-28, was confined to bed with pneumonia, and was absent from six of the ten games. Thus the team was deprived of the services of such a famous football guide, philosopher and friend. Despite all this misfortune rhe team remained the same happy band of warriors South Africans found the Wallabies to be in 1933, and the team won unstinted praise from New Zealand press, public and officials for their courageous and cheerful acceptance of the almost overwhelming bad luck which dogged their steps. “How good are the Australians?” was a question asked by the keen football critics, but none found himself able to give an accurate answer because of the foregoing circumstances. On the other hand, it was possible for the visitors, and myself in particular —for I was officially appointed acting-manager in the absence of Gordon Shaw—to determine how good were the All Blacks. We knew our own valuation accurately, and from our contests with the cream of New Zealand's footballers we were able to assess the actual strength of the All. Blacks. Two-thirds of the New Zealand team had toured Great Britain, and, though perhaps a bit jaded after three football seasons on end, it was expected that combination, tactics, etc., would be of a high order. Not so. As a matter of cold fact the Wallabies actually called the tune in the tests, and the All Blacks danced accordingly. Australia dominated the forward play, and won set scrums, 'rucks and line-outs, and had the back play been of corresponding excellence in execution the All Blacks would have lost the tests. These facts are admitted by New Zealand pressmen—who are generally sound on football criticism —and by officials, including selectors and the team manager, Mr. Mark Nicholls. Let me quote the statement of Mr. W. J. (“Billy”) Wallace, probably the greatest Rugby tactician in New Zealand, namely, “Give me the Wallabies for a week, and they’d wipe the floor with New Zealand.” I think, therefore, that my ease for prophesying that the .Springboks (if equal to their 1933 teams) will win the rubber

in New Zealand is built up on reasonably 1 sound premises. Australia Will be There. 1 believe that Australia will afford serious opposition to the South Africans, as the tour of New Zealand will have done Australian Rugby an incalculable benefit if the lessons taught are learned and corrective methods adopted before our famous visitors arrive in 1937. Let me state again that there is little wrong with Australian forward play, the standard of which was quite as good as that demonstrated on our South African tour. The back play, however, was extremely disappointing, but I have great hopes that those who went through New Zealand will profit by their experiences, so that with friendly sympathetic coaching in tactics and technique by one or other of the experts qualified to impart the necessary education they will become a much more efficient force than in New Zealand. Material of quality is there, but it needs moulding and fashioning into a brilliant finished product. Unless marked improvement is made, I cannot visualise Australian successes against the Springboks. So much for generalities. Now let me discuss the problem from an individual basis as far as New Zealand players are concerned. Beginning at full-back, New Zealand will not have a full-back equal to “Gerry” Brand, although Gilbert, who went to Great Britain, is Highly regarded. As the games between New Zealand and Australia were played under the restricted touchfinding laws, H. R. Pollock, a running full-back, was preferred to Gilbert, who is more a “safety first” custodian. “Bunk” Pollock was somewhat like Jaek Steggall in style. The wing three-quarters will be highclass even with the announced retirement of George F. Hart, the “even jime” performer.

T. H. C. (“Pat”) Caughey played splendidly against us in Auckland, but at Wellington in the first test did not receive many chances. J. M. Watt, of Otago, a university student, is another speedster on the wing. He, like Hart, is a track athlete, and holds the 440 yards title. He is almost an even time runner over 100 yards, and certainly paces it with the football in hand. The inside back play of the All Blacks was not greatly superior to that of the Wallabies, which is not very flattering comment.

Half-back B. S. (“Joey”) Sadler is just a good orthodox scrum base worker. J. L. (Jack) Griffiths failed as first fiveeighth (or fly-half), and was thereupon transferred to the inside centre position. B. A. (Brian) Killeen, of Auckland, played as second five-eighth (or inside centre) in the first game, and was made the scapegoat for the lack of imagination and slowness of Griffiths and Sadldr. Mitchell the Best Back.

In the second test, with Caughey unavailable, N. A. (“Brushy”) Mitchell, of Southland, was tried as outer centre three-quarter. He proved a great success, and it is tolerably certain that he will be there against the Springboks. He is over 13J stone in weight, and is ex-

tremely fast, also a good defender. I think, as do many of the Wallabies, that he was the best back we saw in action in New Zealand. In the second test Gillies, of Otago, was the first fiveeighth, and Griffiths went one place further out with Mitchell next the wingers, Watt and Hart, while Pollock was again full-back.

Once again the back play was unimpressive, and the Wallabies did not compare unfavourably, except when they had had handling lapses in the concluding stages. . . No, the All Blacks were much inferior in ability to both Wallaby and Springbok back divisions of 1933, and so I cannot see them victorious unless they make some wonderful discoveries in the interim.

Danie Craven ie 100 per cent, greater than Sadler, and this will be the initial point of vantage. In attack the All Blacks were very ordinary but their defence was infinitely better than their attack. When I tell you that we had little fear of the All Black backs, despite our disorganised side, then you can draw your own conclusions as to their skill. As to the forwards, there is much the same story. The Wallabies, though not so hot as in 1933, held the All Black vanguard, and had they been adequately supported by the backs then Australia would not have left the magnificent Lord Bledisloe trophy in New Zealand. Dreadnoughts or Cruisers?

There is considerable discussion in New Zealand whether to play dreadnoughts or cruisers in the forwards against the Springboks. They do not seem to have any champion 15 or 16 stoners nowadays, and so the thought is gaining ground that the lighter, faster, more virile type will win out. Our pack in New Zealand averaged 14 stone 81b., a very hefty scrummage, and yet with two loose flankers we gained more than 50 per cent, possession in scrums, despite Bill Hadley, their prince of hookers. The All Blacks thought they had mastered the 3—4—l scrummage in Great Britain, but wait till Fanie and “Boy” Louw, Ferdie Bergh and Co. show them how. Tori Reid, the Maori, was the best forward we met.

Rankin was played as loose forward, although he packed down on the back row on the open end of the scrum. He was virtually a wing-forward, and did much damage to our slow-moving inside backs.

It is quite on the cards that New Zealand will revert to the 2—3—2 formation and will revive the “dinky-die” wing-forward again. They have been most unhappy in their general tactics and style ever since that gentleman was legislated out of the game. It is certain that the All Blacks will be chosen early, put into training quarters under an expert team manager or coach, and thoroughly prepared physically and in tactics to meet the Springboks. Despite this, I predict that South Africa will triumph. How I’d love to be there, for, believe me, the visit of the Springboks is all that New Zealand folk are thinking about and talking of these days.