CANTERBURY'S GOOD FORM

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 112, 13 May 1937, Page 24

CANTERBURY'S GOOD FORM

Can Canterbury? Nippy backs, fleet of foot, and a mobile set of forwards supplied another answer in the affirmative to the oftrepeated question, as applied to Rugby football, in stepping lively against a Wellington representative side at Athletic Park yesterday • afternoon. The Canterbury Wellington match is one that usually takes place late in the season, but a convenient date could not be found for later on, and the event was- arranged as a Coronation Day attraction. As such it made a strong appeal, as it did also in the light of a preliminary to the main search for players to meet the Springbok invasion. As a match it had entertaining features, and its concluding stages provided the 14,000 spectators with excitement in plenty. Canterbury won, and there was no question about the visitors being the better side. His Excellency the Governor-General, Viscount Galway, was present. Canterbury's form in the early stages of the match was surprisingly good. The visitors set a lively pace, and looked like running the home team off its feet. Quick-footed; the southern backs always had a keen eye to an opening, and their sure handling carried them much further than the local backs. This applied for a tonsiderable part of the game, as', also did the advantage gained by the Canterbury pack in all-round play, with cohesion between forwards and backs showing up one of the defects in the play of the Wellington team. On paper the Wellington side looked a good one, but in performance it was disappointing. Not until the second spell did the side show anything like the strength and smoothness in attack expected of it, and even then there were faults—in handling, in directional play, and in the seizing of opportunities. Kicking, too, was rather overdone; much of it meant that possession, so valuable in striving; for points, was given to the opposition. For all that, Wellington had chances of winning. They could not take them. Had they done so, they Avould have been fortunate ! to win, for Canterbury were decidedly the better team.

Generally speaking, Canterbury's'pack let the ball away more cleanly,; and the visiting backs were able to operate without being hustled to the same extent as were the Wellingtonl backs. In the concluding stages, however, • Wellington gained much of the ball, but could not turn it to account. Time after time efforts were made to break, through, but-the defence held good or something went wrong... The All Black half, Sadler, did not have one of his) best days; it is rare, indeed, to see so many passes coming poorly from him as was the case yesterday. He was; not nearly so, fortunate, however, as his opposite, McAuliffe, in the ease with which .the ball was permitted to be sent to the backs. Brooks, Hooper, and Pawson were really smart insides for Canterbury, very quick on. their feet and handling well, Hooper in particular. Griffiths and'Le Quesne made mistakes in handling; ; some of them excusable, but Le Quesne'gave some excellent samples of, his penetrativei.ability. Baldwin, too, at times made good openings for Wellington in the centre. The Wellington 7 wings, however, were not at their best, even if their opportunities were limited. Watt Was better than Edwards, and scored one good try,, while .his; pace was of value also in Stopping Canterbury from getting what looked like being one certain try. Cobden gave an impressive display on'the wing'for Canterbury,. whose forwards were a good lot, with Rankin showing up well in^the. loose, and Brown^ McPhail, and' Hattersley perhaps a' shade\better tjiarl the others. There -war;not"'.much- to pick and choose between,the' Welling? ton forwards, though „ Pringle'7 ■, .went well all the way,'and others; were7;con-: spicuous in spasms. A lack of; Kadert ship seemed apparent. '?/■ *7'■*'■,//■