INTERNATIONAL HONOURS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1925, Page 18

INTERNATIONAL HONOURS

- LATEST NEW ZEALAND TEAM • ■/■■•■-,'■." HAVE THE SELECTORS ACTED CORRECTLY?

Nejir;.Zealand representative honours &re .'being handed out fairly freely nowadays/: XTo. the list of those who have a,treaHyi"3ydrh.V.tha '.. silver fern another twenty-"names'* at' least' aro being added this season"." arid " this comes about ihroKSh tie action of the New Zealand selectors in making their choice of players' to make- the trip to New South .Wales thiii season. When the question vi sendinf; a team across the Tasman was discussed at the annual meeting of the New Zeland Eugby Union the Management Committee, through its annual xeport, informed delegates that players who had 'recently returned from the English totir would not participate in the tour to New South Wales. To this objection was raised by delegates, though some were with the committee in its decision, to exclude the 1924 representatives. However, when the anatter was pub to the vote the majority decided against the committee's idea.. Last year's- 'representatives, therefore, were entitled to consideration for places in the team. About the tour itself there was not a. little ad verse, criticism, opinions being expressed that touring should not be overdone. The arrangement existing between. New South Wales and New Zealand provided for a visit from New South Wales this season, and that, it was considered, was quite enough in the way of international football for one "season. . Since the committee had committed New Zealand the tour to New South Wales," as a preliminary to the visit from New SouthV Wales, was allowed to stand. When tlie matter was* finally disposed of there appeared to be some doubt about the decision regarding the inclusion of members of. the .1924 team, a few delegates suggesting that the motion when put was not perfectly clear f'o all present. There should have been no doubt whatever, as the' matter was made quite clear. A Wanganui delegate moved that the portion of the report which stated that—players who have recently returned from the English tour will not participate;m,this;tour" be'struck out. -Inanswer to delegates the president explained that the question was that the portion of the report referred to be struck out. The vote was then taken, and resulted as indicated. Twenty New Internationals. Reverting to the point that honours are being freely distributed, it is worthy of note that the twenty-three players selected to go to Australia, only three have previously represented New Zealand—J. Donald (Wairarapa) hi 1820----21-22, and E. Bell (Southland) and L. Bighton (Auckland) in 1923. On numerous occasions in the past it has been suggested that representative honours should not be made too cheap, and attention to this aspect of selections was i a gran drawn at the recent annual meeting of New Zealand delegates, Mr. J. N. "Millard"' (Wellington) being one to urge -Unit every care should be taken to guard against an e.is^ avenue to international status. .It does appear from the selection of this latest ]New Zealand team that the highest honours in Eugby are becoming too easy of attainment. Whereover this Dominion's international record is concerned representation shuuld be of the strongest. It is not o;i this occasion, and the reason for this lies to some extent in the fact that the selectors (Messrs. E. M'Kenzie, N. M'Keuzic, W. A.Cuy, H. Davis, and A. J. Gedtles) disregarded the instruction of the iiniiuul meeting of delegates. Selection of the strongest team was also made impossible on account of some of the leading \players being unable, to make the trip. Quite a number of last year's representatives were available, and all things considered, they, or tho;ie showing the right form, should have bean chosen. By their action the selectors L have not improved the outlook for the success of the tour. After the great record of last year's team the reappearance of members in New South Wales this season would- have been a great attraction, but now .that the team is going forward without ..any of those players who beat all records, interest is bound to be affected. Porter, for instance, was a very prominent figure in the games in Sydney last year, and it will come as a bij; disappointment to the crowdr. to find this player out of this year's team.. Oj; present form Porter was worthy of inclusion, as also was Syenso* Steel, and others of the 1924; team who were available Their presence in the team lor New South Wales' would have been not only a big draw, but also a great help, through experience, to the other members of the team, most of whom are internationals for the first time. Select the Best. In stating that the strongest team available has not been chosen, " Dropkick " has no desire to discredit those 'players who have been honoured. Taking them all in all, they are a good lot,' and in parts they compare very' favourably with the 1924 New Zealand team. One or two at least should, in the writer's opinori, have been included in last year's team, and quite a number of them were just about on a par with some of the elect lust year. Apart from the fact that the team is a good one, it is also to be said that trial of these players in international football should serve a good purpose for the future., but. it is just a question whether so many players new to international football (should have been brought out at the ons lime. -Aiit other thing to ho said in favour of the •selectors is that the players in New Zealand good enough at .the present t-iruo to

represent the Dominion number far more than could be placed in one team, and in this team for Australia there are players who were as good as, it not. better than, some of those who went to England last year. Another point is that the sending of players on tour is likely to be overdone. Too much touring inclines towards making football a business, but since this tour to New .South Wales was sanctioned, and since there were members of last year's team quite eager to make the trip, there would have beeu no harm in choosing a few at least of the 1924 representatives.. New Zealand's standing in international football must be considered, and this writer is for the best available team every time. Some Good Backs. D. Wright ,tho Auckland half-back, was one of the very unlucky players in last year's trials, and is well deserving of the honour now conferred upon him. Two players in particular who have shown brilliant form since the selection of the 1924 team are AY. Elvy (Canterbury) and J. Blake .(Hawkes Bay). They with G. D. Wise (Otago), should ' make up a classy three-quarter line. They will have quite a good man in A. Law (Manawatu) to assist them. It lias been stated in Palmerston North that Law's selection marks the first occasion since 1905 that Manawatu has had a representative in a New Zealand team. This is incorrect, as A. Carroll, of Manawatu, was a New Zealand representative in 1920 and 1921. Of the candidates for the full-back position in the team for Now South Wales, J. Harris (Canterbury) appealed most to the selectors, and in view of the fact that he was called to Wellington for the final trial last season his selection was. expected. OE the five-eighths Bell (Southland) was one of the unfortunates last season. He was ah emergency for the South Island, and played in the final trial. L. Johnson (Wellington) was looked upon as a " moral " for this year's team. He would not have been-out oi his class among the five-eighths of the 1924 team. Matson (Auckland) and Lawson ('South Canterbury) are the other two five-eighths for New South Wales. Both are reported to be playing well this season, although they were not among those in the final trials last season. The half-back to accompany. Wright is Corkhili (Hawkes Bay),, who is credited in his own district as an excellent second to Mill. Two who were counted out in the final selection last year were half-backs—H. E. Nicholls (Wellington) and St. George (Otago). They were not available ' this season, while Perry, the Otago fiveeighth and South Island captain, who had particularly bad luck in not being able to show his true form at tha right time last year, is at present in London. Gilmour (Southland) and Bailey (Manawatu) were other backs in the final running for honours last year, but neither was nominated this season. D. Fairbrother (South Canterbury), who was full-back for the South Island last year, was also missing from this seasons nominees. It will be seen, therefore, that all available, backs who did not succeed in the final trials for honours last season have been included in the latest team. The Forwards. In the choice of forwards for this year's New Zealand team the selectors have picked • out a dozen from whom a very fine pack should be obtained. New Zealand_ is rich in good forwards, but, even with those of last year's team out of the running, it cannot be said' that all those forwards most worthy of consideration on last year's form have been given their dues. Turpin (Canterbury) went right through to the final trial last year and represented the South Island. He was again available, but has been passed over, as also have O'Regan (West Coast) and Tunnicliffo (Buller), who were emergencies for the South Island team last year and Who played in the final trial. Then Blick (Southland), who was picked as an emergency for South last year but could not take the position, has also failed to gain a place. Others who took part in trials last season and who were candidates for this year's team for New South Wales included Goodall (now playing in Wellington), and this player is one who was entitled to better recognition by the New Zealand selectors. J. Donald (Wairarapa) is in as wing-forward and captain. He has represented. New Zealand in three previous seasons. Lomas (Auckland) is one of the hookers, and should have been in the 1924 team. Kirkpatrick . (Hawkes Bay) and M'Cormack (Canterbury) ar 0 tho other hookers, and they are good, but room should have been found for Tunnicliffe. Highton (Auckland) is to lock tho scrum, and he has the advantage of previous experience as a New Zealand representative. Knight (Auckland) should have worn the silver fern hist year, and everybody will be pleased to see this .player now getting his international. M'Nab (Hawkes Bay) was the only member of the North Island team last year, except Pringle (Wellington), who did riot get into the New Zealand team. Ho was in the final trial, but was unlucky. He has now obtained the honour due to him. The others in the latest selection —Walters (Taranaki), Thomas (Wellington), Dickson (Otago),. Archer (Southland), and Finlayson (North Auckland) —are a likely lot, although they were not in- tho NorthSouth of final trial games Inst season. No.player is more unlucky than "Nugget" Pringle' (Wellington). He went right through the trials last year, but missed the. big trip. For this year's team he was a certainty, but just before the nominations were made lie had tho bad luck to break v small bone in one of his legs while taking part in a dub game. Williams (Otago) and Snow (Nelson) were also among the unlucUy set last year, but were not among this year's nominees. (Since the above notes were written a change has ■ taken place in the ' team. Johnson (Taranaki) rcpkciii? Bell (Southland). This mc&ua tiaat the

team now contains twenty-one new internationals.] The Unions' Portions. The twenty-nine players who went on I- the big tour last year and the twentythree chosen for the trip to New South Wales make a, total of fifty-two New j Zealand representatives for two seasons, selected mostly on one season's form. It i is interesting to note how the different I unions have fared inp utting forward players for international honours. Some unions may have been affected by nominating last year's players for this year's team, but it is doubtful whether the selection -would have been much different in the event of names of other players having been nominated in place of those 1924 representatives who were among the nominees. The position, however, was not satisfactory. Of the 52 [ players to get international honours in ! 1924 and 1925 ten hail from Hawke* [ Bay, nine from Canterbury, and eight from Auckland.' Those three unions, therefore, have supplied more than half of the representatives for two New Zealand teams. It does not say much for Wellington when this union can only get five players among the fifty-two regarded as the Dominion's best. Otago has only three out of fifty-two, but that small number is no doubt due to tins fact that a number of Otago players were not available. Taranalri's contribution is five, Southland's three, Wairarapa's three, and South Canterbury's two, while the Bay of Plenty, tho West Coast, Manawatu, and North Auckland are each represented by one player. The selection committee this year does.not include a. Wellington representative, nor are Auckland ami Otago represented on it; in fact, Auckland and Otago were not represented among the seven selectors last year. That, however, should carry no weight, as the selectors should act as New Zealand officials. That they appear to have done so on this occa-' sion. is indicated in the fact that all. five nominees from Auckland were chosen, and two players put 'forward by Otago were included in the team. Canterbury considered that thirteen of its players were worthy of inclusion : three were chosen. Wellington nominated eight, but only two of the local players appealed to the New Zealand selectors. Wanganui, Nelson, Marlborough, Buller, and other minor unions are faring badly.

onfor Championship, Points Ch. ■ T.W.X. D. For Ag»t: Pa. TJnivorslfcy—";.'r;:v ""i "4 0 0 83 27 S 1'e't0ne—....;:....." i. 3 1' •I) 72 33 G Nerhumpore .;iv.;•-■*■ 3 .1 0 CO'22 a Poneke '. 3 2 0 1 71 25 5 .Miirist 'a 1 0 2 10. IS 4 Athletic-- .-•;• I 2 2 0 40 35 4 Old Boj-5.. 3 1 2 0 22 34 2 Oriental .' 4 1 3 0 45 80 2 Wellington .... 4 1 8 0 29 40 2 lliit'f".:..".. 4 0 3 1 10 46 3 Selwyn--. S 0 3 0 6 102 0