A GOOD START

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 77, 27 September 1924, Page 8

A GOOD START

TEAM SOUND AND CLEVER.

(Special to "The Post" by Colonel Philip Trevor, C.8.E.)

•I LONDON, 19th September. I take a special and a personal interest in the Rugby Football played by New Zealanders. . Towards the close of the Boer War in 1902 there was an armistice.'- ■'- I was -serving at the time in the Army operating in Natal, and headquarters then were in the little township of Newcastle. There were gathered there some 20,000 mounted infantry, all from New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. It was discovered that in the New Zealand and Australian contingents- there were roughly about two dozen men who were what we call internationals. So a kind of impromptu miniature international match was arranged, and I refereed it. The Australians did well enough, but the New Zealanders, playing superbly, gained a great victory. Their performance was an eye-opener to me, and their speed (which, by the way, is not the same thing as pace) showed me a kind of play I had. never seen. I pondered these things. I stayed oh in the Army two years. Then I retired, returned home, and resumed my journalistic work. ■ '

When, in the summer of 1905, the great tour of the All Blacks was announced, I wrote in the Press : "The Neiv Zealanders are coming, and we shall never see the way they go." My immediate fate was, of course, the usual fate of:; the prophet in his own country. I was dubbed visionary. Even that terrible word, optimist (which, by the way, will never have any terrors for me) was gravely fastened on me. "Why this guessing?" people asked. ■ But was I guessing? Was I not merely drawing deductions from first-hand evidence? It is true that I said nothing in print about that match in Natal which I had refereed But why should I? Well, he laughs longest (or is it loudest ?) who laughs last, and thence onwards I had plenty of cause for laughter had L felt so inclined. But I did not laugh. I merely desired to learn, and I bogged others in this country to learn too. In my articles in the "Daily Telegraph" for nineteen years- 6ince then I have begged our British Rugby Unionists to profit by the lessons, which the New Zealanders of 1905.taught us, and to a great extent they have done so—though, I would add, progress, even though it ias been sure, has been slow. At the moment of writing I havo eeen tho New Zealanders of 1924 play three -matches, those against . Devon, Cornwall, and Somerset, and, of course, from ail quarters I am asked the question : "How do they compare with the famous All. Blacks of 1905?" In making a comparison context is everything, and at the moment; even assuming there was no difficulty of context, 1 have not sufficient evidence at my disposal, to attempt any such comparison. I-havo no intention of sitting on the fence, and in the short articles in which I am tov have the privilege of addressing the public oE New Zoaland 1 shall not sit on the fence. I shall offer opinions which are frank, which 1 know are unprejudiced, which I promise shall be expressed without venom, and which, I hope, will be quite without offence.

Team work in our best sides, county as well as. club, has improved out of all knowledge- in Great Britain since the famous All Blacks come here in 1905., Consequently, in their gams at Devonport the present tourist 3 were up against a very much etiffer propoaition

in their initial fixture than were their predecessors nineteen years ago.

FAULTS IN THE FORWARDS.

A rather extreme view was taken at the conclusion of that match,, namely, that the .New Zealanders, especially their forwards, were anything but a great lot. I would add that a good ■ many of their countrymen resident in or visiting this land also took that view. Ido not concur. Their forward game is not yet right—right, that i s to say, for the requirements of this country. In later articles I shall hope to speak in some detail of this technical matter. There was hesitation and a lack of clean heeling, but of that more anon. I think I detected the cause. A good many writers, who—may I say without offence, ought to have known better?—forecasted the possibility, if not the probability, of the New Zealand forwards playing unfairly. Stormy petrels ever hunt for storms. The New Zealand players themselves were determined to give no cause for these unnecessary, and as I think, unfair, anticipations. The result was that for such irregularities in forward (and half-back) play as there were, the home team were mainly responsible. That was also the case in the second match—more pronouncedly so, in fact—in which Cornwall was met and beaten. The third match, that against Somerset at Weston-super-Mare, was played in a quagmire,' and during the first forty minutes of it the New Zealand pack was held—a little more than held. Nor was that all. The front row men of the New Zealand pack failed to get the ball when it was put into the tight scrummages. Obviously, therefore, the Somerset back division got many chances of attack. They did nothing with them incidentally, but some back divisions against which the tourists are to play will take advantage of such chances. So it is imperative that this rather grave defect be remedied at once, and, to speak frankly, it is the only defect of importance I have observed in anything this team does. NEPIA A GREAT FULL-BACK.

The first match was only a few minutes old when I definitely made up my mind in. regard to the potentiality of the New Zealand back division.' I was in no doubt whatever about it, and I said so in the columns of the "Daily Telegraph" in simple and direct terms. The necessity of giving all members of the team match' practice caused the New Zealand back division to be drastically amended in the second match. Yet what 1 then said only made me more confident than ever of the attacking strength of New Zealand. For the moment Ido not propose to speak of the individual merits and _ capacities of any member of the touring side —with the single exception, that ot the full-back Nepia. 1 do not need to wait for further evidence in regard to him. His tackling powers have not yet been really tested, but, so far as every other department of full-back play is concerned, 1 say without reservation of any kind that (unless the form he showed at Devonport and Camborne, and to a lesser extent at Weston-super-Mare, was much above his normal form— and I am authoritatively informed' that it was not) he is superior to any English, Scotch, Welsh, or Irish full-back I saw last season. I may have reason to go beyond that statement—l hope so at any rate. But I shaD not take it back.

Of other individuals, as individuals, I hope to speak later on. The team has started very well in all respects. It is .sound without being dramatic; it is clever without being showy. Following the precedent of the lady's postcript I have kept to the last what I particularly want to say. The method of play of the New Zealanders in the three matches I have seen has been strictly—indeed scrupulously—fair, despite what may be regarded as a certain amount of provocation. Some off-side play by the home forwards went unpenalised in all three games. 1 was particularly glad to note that the New Zealand forwards showed no tendency to retaliate in this way. The refereeing in all three games was, on the whole, distinctly good, but even the best referees have admitted that it is only human nature to keep the especially keen eye for the more famous side. There is no intentional unfairness in doing so. It is just a case of the human tendency. Those who have some experience of refereeing will, I hope, endorse this remark.

[Details of the Cumberland match and English Press comments on the Devon match appear on page 2.]