WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ALL BLACKS ?

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 97, 21 October 1935, Page 8

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ALL BLACKS ?

The New Zealand Rugby learn in Britain is not repeating the "triumphant tours" of its predecessors. Nobody quite expected that it would and nobody with the welfare of the game at heart even desired such a repetition of victories. But this is not to say that any follower of Rugby in this country is at all satisfied with the performance of the All Blacks to date. It is not that they were beaten in Wales by Swansea; the original AH Blacks in 1904-05 had several close calls in Wales, and there incurred their sole defeat in the international match. Swansea beat the present side on merit after an exhilarating exhibition of Rugby. That might happen 'to any team. What disappoints the Rugby enthusiast here—and his name is legion—is the form displayed by the New Zealand representatives in matches described in the cabled accounts as "dull and most uninteresting," as on Saturday, with "play generally ragged and loose" and; the winners "lucky" to escape defeat. The impression created by the team in Britain seems far from favourable.

What is wrong with ihe All Blacks? No team was picked with greater care, after many exhaustive trials, than the 1935 side, and, apart from one or two minor criticisms, it was admitted to be the best team that could be sent. Why has it failed to come up to expectations? While possibly a certain amount of blame will attach to a policy of change and experiment in the position qf players on'the field, detrimental to the team spirit, we agree with those critics who think that the trouble must be sought further back and deeper down i in the sacrifice of New Zealand's old original scrum formation at the- instigation of the English authorities who disliked the wing-forward. This impression is confirmed by one of New Zealand's greatest footballers, Cliff Porter, who captained the 1924----25 All Blacks. His opinion, expressed before the team left and quoted in an English paper just to hand, is in these words:

Another very important factor which will put the present New Zealand team at a decided disadvantage compared with other New Zealand teams which have toured overseas is the abolition of our traditional scrum formation and the adoption of the three-front scrum. I will go sci far as to say that in some international matches in which I have played New Zealand's success has been due entirely to her formation and not to her superiority as players. Since New Zealand adopted the three-front scrummage (that was in 1932) the standard of play, both back arid forward, has steadily declined, and for no other reason. However, we .still have men with the physique and ability and, were we to go back (and I feel sure we will go'back) to our old formation, the game would be just as bright and attractive to watch as ever before.

We fancy most old players will endorse tliis view, wholeheartedly. It was perfectly clear in the trial matches in Wellington. Furthermore the injuries to players which are undoubtedly more frequent today than they used to be, and which have added to the 'difficulties of tjie All Blacks in Britain, are largely due to the slow heeling of the ball and' the lack of protection to the backs characteristic of the three-front scrum. It will be some consolation for the comparative failure of the All Blacks in Britain if the result is jthe restoration of the good old New Zealand game here.