REPLY TO CRITICISiM

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 25, 29 July 1924, Page 9

REPLY TO CRITICISiM

A correspondent ("C. S. Jenkins"), priding himself on being a fair judse of the game, writes in reply to the criticism of the AH' Black team by G. Tyler, a member of the original All Blacks. "I certainly consider." says the correspondent, "that the 1924 backs are inferior to the 1905 backs, but the forwards are infinitely better, and the team generally compares very favouiablv \vith the-,1905-team. Certainly there are less 'passengers' in the present team. I saw the Auckland-All Black match, and it was a case of a good provincial team out to' win against an untried combination just off a steamer after a'heavy trip, and whose members were indifferent to the result. In speaking of an untried combination, I refer more particularly to the backs. There is no doubt that the All Blacks were beaten through the failure of their five-eighths" line. One might almost go further, and say through Badeley's failure. Mr. Tyler's criticism boiled down is a criticism of an Aucklander against Hawkes Bay i laking his individual criticisms: Paewai has not played since the Tests Ho was brilliant last year, and is young and will improve out of sight. Mill lo*t Wright in the tests, and in the last game in-Auckland, in spite of Auckland's criticisms. M'Gregar was a failure in Auckland and in the Tests but we in Wellington know his worth as a player (how unfortunate is Johnston, though?) Kirwan and Matson are good players, and may ,or may not be unlucky, but Olsen and Gooda"cre were tho two..outstanding players in the Auckland match. Irvine is a good front-ranker. Lomas may be a better hooker, but I think it is sufficient cri-ticism-.of-^Mr. Tyler's .article to point out that Irvine. (Hawkes Bay) and Lcmas (Auckland) were only half tho number of the hookers--in "the game. ;»lso, m- spite of anything to the contrary, the All Blacks had a fair share of the scrums, and Irvine was prominent in the open. Wright on the Tests and the last game is not the first half in New Zealand. .Dallcy, Mill, and -Yicholls.all .are better. Nevertheless Wright is a good half, and is, 1 think, physically better equipped than.Nicholls,. although-ho cannot compare- with Nicholls .aa .a player. I. think very few Wellingtonians will disagree with Mr. Tyler about J. Mofiitt. "Ho should have been in the team, but ho. like a score of other All Black forwards, was unlucky. On the question of pacesurely Mr. Tyler does not consider Paewai, Nicholls, Cooke, Lucas, Brown Hart, and Steele slow? I think if Mr.' Tyler had seen a few of the Test games he would be satisfied that.the 1924 All j Blacks were the making of a good team, even as the 1905 team were in the beginning, and let it go at that. Certainly 1 grant him the right to criticise, but it should be. fair criticism, and not a 'one-eyed' Auckland v. Hawkes Bay criticism." :