OUR RUGBY SYSTEM.

Evening Star, Issue 19891, 13 June 1928, Page 5

OUR RUGBY SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOR-

Sir,—lt scorns useless I'or me to enter into a lengthy controversy with “ Anti-Hysterical ” concerning our Rugby system. Evidently we hold dificrent opinions regarding the majority of the points under discussion, and J don’t think either of us is likely to change. On one matter, however, 1 will admit 1 was a trifle hard on the tactics of our hacks. New Zealand rearguards can certainly show others a few points when it comes to reverse passing and backing up, but, by the same token, this particular lesson rs not being wasted overseas. Still, this matter has little to do with the scrums, which constituted the predominating theme of my letter. Your correspondent agrees that wo must have good scnnnmagers, but ho sots forth no decided reasons why our forwards in South Africa appear to ho weak in this department. Now, it seems to mo that only three reasons can be submitted for the inleriority (so far) of our forwards in the tight work. These arc; (1) The wrong forwards have been chosen for the tour; (2) the All Blacks haven’t the stomach for the job; (3) our New Zealand system lias bred a type of forward who finds himself all "at sea when up against the solid, massed attacks of the Afrikanders.

Well, with very few exceptions, New Zealanders, metaphorically speaking, patted our “huskies” on the hack and sent them away encouraged by declarations that they were the finest forwards who ever loft this country. To have to turn round now and say that we were mistaken would show us up in the ludicrous light of woefully bad judgment. As regards the second reason—if anyone holds that opinion lot him ventilate it loudly in Princes street. Ho will wake up in hospital. The third reason, that of “system,” seems to be the only one that fits in. Hence my last letter. “Anti-Hysterical” pleads for our forwards on the grounds that they were picked as representatives of a 2-3-2 scrum, and that they know nothing of the 3-2-3 and the 3-1-1 formations. Exactly. But why do wo persist in clinging to a formation that, judging from present indications, has produced forwards who cannot prevail against the packmen of onr most important rivals? When wo met flic Spiinghnks in New Zealand we certainly fared better in this department of the game than now, but there arc such things ns referees’ interpretations to he observed, and the sooner one set of Rugby rules is universally adopted the hotter, fn flic meantime wo are alone in being out of step with the rest, and if wo wore not so foolishly rocksure of ourselves wo would change it for once and for all,—l am, etc., Scrum. June 13.

TO TUE EDITORSir, —i am disappointed in not .scemoro correspondents .subscribing to the 3-2-3 formation. Anybody would think there was some hidden virtue in the 2-3-2 scrum 1 urination, because Uic IUUS team made a success oi it against weak English fifteens. The average Now Zealander sets it up as a divine rule of Itugby that the 2-3-2 scrum formation is the host, whereas look at the facts. In the majority of eases in England the 19-1 team was badly beaten for the ball. Mr Harris states that the Maori team got at least 5U per cent, of the hall—a poor percentage for an international side to have, and in Franco we were badly beaten for the bail—even worse than in England.

After all. it is just a common sense argument that throe men should beat two for the ball. They have a weightier wedge by packing 3-2-3 than by packing 2-3-2. Nobody wants a wing forward at all He is useless unless the other side adopts the same senseless idea and play 2-3-2 also. No. Take it for granted, wo have not a monopoly of football brains. South Africa taught us as far back as 1921 that the 3-2-3 scrum formation is superior to the 2-3-2, and yet in our insane pride wo still persisted in sending the 1921 team Homo with the old absurd 2-3-2 scrum formation. We arc just reaping what we have sown, and l think Maurice Brownlie and the Selection Committee quite justified in discarding the old worn-out theory ot the 2-3-2 scrum.—l am, etc., Live and Learn. June 13