AFTER THE TEST

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 41, 17 August 1921, Page 5

AFTER THE TEST

A FEW OBSERVATIONS

ON STYLES AND METHODS WITH REFERENCE TO THE NEXT GAME. ; ,

(Bj " Drop-kick. l*)

It all depends whether you take the game of Rugby seriously or not. If the first Test had been played in England, where football without a descriptive index would certainly mean the round-ball game, and Rugby ranks as the sport of a minority, the match at Dunedin between New Zealand and South Africa would have been pronounced a jolly fine game, clean and hard, in which the winners had the better of the luck. That's about as far as they would go in England, but in Wales they would, go further, and discuss general principles. In New Zealand we go much further still, and dig into absolute details. / Wellington people, remember the atmosphere in the city when 1 Roberts was relegated to the emergency list, and later, when-the Springboks arrived and defeated the'province at Athletic Park in a manner which failed to satisfy. Concentrate that atmosphere tenfold and gather it in, Willis-street, and you wilr have some idea what it was like in Princes-street, Dunedin, for days before and days after the first Test.' Venerable elders of the church were overheard talking football as the congregations dispersed on Sunday morning, and matrons with sons playing football were drawn into conversation on the match, which all Dunedin saw, either from the inside o^ the outside of the ground:, From every group of. lads or lafaies.in the-street could be heard the magic keywords of their discourse— Springboks and All Blacks. Arguments I were both exhaustive and exhausting. Was Ne# Zealand's first try a real try, or did Meyer' force first? Did Townsend Infringe the rules by picking the ball out of the scrum? And so forth outfit questions that never will be settled while ' .there are as many opinions in the world as men. • SPRINGBOKS NOT INFALLIBLE. Clearly, then, .New Zealand takes the game of Rugby seriously—one of the South Africans has said we are clean <jaft' about it, "But, then they 105t,., and we! certainly believe in making a job\of anything we take up. All the same, New ' Zealand had the luck of the game. Not j. that pur team was lucky to win. _ The margin was. too great for that.' B"elKi's try given in, New Zealand was still ahead, and, though South Africa had undoubtedly more of the game—practically all the first spell and a quarter of j an hour in ■ the second—they could not 1 score, and that must imply either a weakness in attack or a strength, in defence. The truth about the Springboks is that they ars no more infallible than we are, that they are not all supermen, and that weaknesses creep into their teams'as they do into ours. The fifteen , that met New Zealand in''the first Test was not the best i South Africa could put in the field from its touring pajty, as both New Zealand and Sonth African critics will agree. They, have the'material with them that,, properly selected, trained, and led, would, in the opinion of this writer, have beaten the fifteen New Zealand representatives who actually played in the match. .Whether they would have beaten or could beat New Zealand's best fifteen is another matter. As it was, 'the selectors on both, sides.'made .mistakes, so "the issue still remains unsettled. But the New Zealand have passed a vote of confidence in their own choice by picking practically the identical first Test team to met South Africa in the second Test, whereas the Springboks have at least an opportunity to make good their deficiencies for the game at Auckland. Should the - visitors t . pick their, very best men, back and forward, "without fear or favour," as the saying goes, then under the more fav.ourable conditions likely to rule at Auckland they will have a very good chance of turning the tables on New. Zealand in the second Test. All untoward influences, whatever they may be, should be checked in the meantime

* 'selecting a test team. °As an outsider who has.- seen practically all the Springboks in action, one might take the liberty of suggesting the following \ team: —Full-back,, De Villiers; three-quarters, Zeller, Strauss, Clarkspn, Meyer; halves, Miehau, de Kock; forwards, Mostert, Ellis, Mellish, Kruger, Walker, Dv Plessis, \ Van Rooyen, Olivier, or Scholtz. Gerhard Morkel is a most beautiful full-back; but.he is rather slow, and if hustled is inclined to fail, through lack of pace and agility. He is past his prime as a Test player, though an artist at the game when it is not too strenuous. Van Heerden should not be played in Test football. He is a gay, picturesque figure, always smiling, but he does not seem to take football seriously and he is not a good finisher on the line. If Zeller had been playing in his stead last Saturday the scores might have been different. Similarly, on~ the other wing, 'Henry Morkel lacks pace, which is essential to the South African back game. Meyer^ one of the best all-ronnd backs on the side, could well play out on the wing. He is exceedingly fast and a clever footballer. Strauss would then go inside three-quarter. He is the one _ South African back who seems to cut in successfully, and his performance against Wairarapa in that respect was worthy of note. He scored two tries by cutting out the wing man. De Kock will probably be able to play in the second Test, and with young Miehau riiould make a foririidable ocmbination behind the scrum. It is hard to understand why Baby Miehau was played at Dunediri; 'and his getting the medal for the best forward on the field was a joke. The 17-stone forward is definitely outed in New Zealand. Harry Morkel and Boy Morkel might well give place to younger men. This, in my opinion, would make a far stronger team than that which ran New Zealand pretty hard at Dunedin. If the Springboks want to win, they will have to make gome changes like that. THE NEW ZEALAND DISPLAY.

. New Zealand won, but they are not a really great team, though they have in them some great players. The best of the backs, from the point of view of all the qualities that make a great footballer is undoubtedly Steel. Even if he had not scored a memorable and decisive try, ho would have l-anked as the beat on the rest of his performance, fen' his lucking was extraordinarily good, quite abnormally good, even for himT.and his tackling and general defence magnificent. His display quite eclipsed the others. Kingston was good and sound with a ball bouncing very awkwardly for him, very different from tho ball which usually reached Gerhard Morkel at the other end, on the full, fith amplo time U> puss Hi back with judprnsat, Kingston' could never; he «uper4ed«i, Th« rest of

the tacks were patchy, and Badeley, the only realiy_ fit»t-rate man among them, was slow in coming to light. Possibly he suffered greatly* from nervousness. How H. E. Nicholls came to get ,th« medal for. the best back in comparison with Steel, Kingston, Gerhard Morkel, I and Townsend, is another mystery.. Ho was best in defence, \ever plucky and tenacious, but he was too slow in getting' the ball aw*y from the scrum, and not over clean in hie passing at that. He . worked the blind side in fine Patone style, but t his kicks over the heads x of the opposing forwards were not good practice with Gerhard Morkel waiting behind. H» is not; in the line of New Zealand's great half-backs—Fred. Roberts, Teddy Roberts, and Olem Green. Mark Nicholls, while playing better than he did for Wellington against the Springboks, was still not quite up to the mark. He is inclined to be rather slow on. his feet—not nippy enough to \ get. away with it. A year or two s development might make all the differ- ( enoe with him. Aitken at centre had a. heavy task as' captain, and one of tho main hingfcs in attack. His defence was very good indeed, better than his attack, where he showed momentary hesitation —a sort of doubt as to what to do next. In test football this is fatal. Hill kicking and tackling were, however, fine. Badeley did not shine, as he may ba eaxpected to do in Auckland, until late in the game. Over eagerness led to dax>pped passes with him as with tha others, until Steel's try gave New Zealand the lead. Storey was practically incapacitated throughout the game,; but did Ills work at the end in scoring the final try. . UNEQUAL FORWARDS. :, The forwards wore unequal. Bellia was injured ea-rly in the game, and', did not 1 seem to contribute Bis weight to the scrum, but he' was able to follow Stand score the first try. Moffitt com- „ ained of a stvained sinew, and\ also failed to give full support in the fir* spell, when the Spriftboks pushed our pack badly. Hughes, under 12 stone in weight, is considered worth his place, by some critics merely for his hooking, but it is doubtful -whether New Zealand can afford to have a man playing in that single' capacity alone ■ against such heavy opponents. He is, also, rather small for line-out work. Duncan was out of. the picture altogether to . the present writer. Fogarty was the best of the New Zealand forwards in the loose, with Whyte (Southland), noSy relegated to the >B Test team againsi • New South Wales, a good second. Richardson worked hard and did his bit. There are differences of opinion about Donald'-at wing-forward. In my opinion,he is too nervous in temperament to make an ideal winger, and his habit of swaying on his toe 3 this way and that is a waste of energy. In *he loose work he is distinctly good. From the'point of-view of picking the. best side to represent New Zealand, many changes could be made in the team with benefit, but the selectors ' have some ground for renewed confidence yrhea the team they pick wins. NOT SPECTACULAR. It was not a spectacular game, taken, as a. whole. Great international matches seldom are, for. the "stakes are too great . to give much free play to the backs on either side. There was nothing of that quality which made the Possible-Pro-bables' match at Athletic Park~a month or so ago the finest game to watch, the' most beautiful exposition of spectacular Rugby seen in these later years in New Zealand, A great part of the first spell was taken'up in sheer forward "mushes" —the South Africans usually pushing our pack to the gtound through some inherent weakness, and the referee waiting — with his whistle for unconscionably long periods, it seemed to the crowd .Ho blow it. The crowd called on him to blow* several times. The South Africans complain that our wing- forward play spoils the game, but the. retort can easily, be made that their style of forward play makes it still worse. Had. they elected in the first spell to make the game open, to get the ball quickly out of the, scrum, they might have won the game. Butthey seem to be so desperately afraid of our forwards in the loose that they will not let it out, and Townsend had frequently to pick it out. Their pack is like a big hen sitting on a nest to lay, and the ball comes out about as slowly as .the egg. In nine cases out of ten at the sWrfc the .Green pack had the ball somewhere concealed among their bulky \ forms, hatching a Iplot as it were, but it never came to anything. It's a pity to spoil such fine backs by this sort of thing, and it's a weariness to watch. This is not the English style of forward "play. Thee were no better forwards in the'loose dribbling at toe than those with Bedell-Sivwrig-ht's and Harding's teams.. The tour is now more than half over, and it is up to the South Africans to put away their fears, and get the ball out and chance it. Old^yeterans after the match . \ ,were heard saying of the Springboks: "I wish I had that team to train and coach; I would beat the world with them." The visitors do leave an irritating impression that with them good ma- J terial is wasted; that they can do better if they^ only approach football with an open mind. ASPECTS OF TRAINING. , There is one final point which affects both teams, the New Zealanders, per-' haps, more than the Springboks. This is the method, of training. An experience of some days in Duhedin before and after the match in pretty close connection with both teams leads nic io believe' that hotel" life is not the best sort o! preparation for stern, solid Rugby. Neither side in the Test match was as fit as it shoul4 have been. There was little following up of the ball by either the Greens or.the Blacks. The day was doubtless uncomfortably warm and the scrumming was* heavy enough, yet the eagerness with which players went to the-iwater-bottle indicated a lack of condition. It is a question whether either y side could have lasted another ten mm- . utes all round. The exigencies of touring . may necessitate staying at hotels, ' but it is a pity that they were not farther out of town than they were at Dunedin. The team which defeated-,. Bedell-Sivwright's combination at Athletic Park in 1904 was probably the best trained football team that ever took the field in Rugby history. But - they were out at Day's Bay all the time in close training under supervision. They were • something like soldiers in camp. They were allowed their ale in moderation as a tonic to keep them fit—something that nearly all trainers agree is beneficial. But they did not take it, ad lib, throughout the day in any measure. They kept regular hours, and were not allowed to run-loose. It is practically impossible for manager and coaches to .maintain such a regime under £he conditions ruling in Dunedin. It is to be hoped that in Auckland better arrangements will be made for pre- •' paring* the* team for the Test. This is no reflection on the coaching down South; • under Messrs. Alec M'Donald and J. Vf. ;Stead it was Till the team could desire; but it is unfair both to coaches and team to have to do their work under such conditions. Tho South Africans may have observed stricter rules, but even in their case it imposes a great deaFof ' / worry on the management. Fortunately, f both sides had had a fairly hard season s ■ football to build on, pr the results might have been more apparent, still. The thing is really to get out of tho city for a, few days before the. Tests into the Jresh air, away from the heated atmosphere of enthusiastic friends, ban-ackers and supporters .with their endless ■ arguments., ...... °