RUGBY FOOTBALL.

Evening Star, Issue 22682, 23 June 1937, Page 16

RUGBY FOOTBALL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The two letters in your issue of lust evening from writers wlio blandly assume that “ Kaikorai can do no wrong ” are glaring examples of the mental astigmatism produced by watching a game through spectacles of a particular colour. By this ingenious method one secs exactly what one wants to see, and nothing else. But it is a method that has its 'drawbacks, the chief of which is that it prevents a reasoned judgment of the merits of the players lam not concerned to defend your reporter: his own obvious knowledge of the game and unbiased outlook—as opposed to the equally obvious partisanship of _ your correspondentsshould enable him to do so quite effectively. But I would merely remark, in passing, that there are many followers of the game who will be able to assess the relative value of the _ views expressed in the ‘ Sports Special ’ and in your correspondence columns and decide which are “ arrant nonsense ’’ and which arc not. Another point overlooked by your correspondents is that their views are entirely ruled out by the selectors, and also by the final court of appeal in all sporting issues—the result. I "have no wish to depreciate Kaikorai players. The team undoubtedly contains several forwards and one or two backs who should gain representative honours within the near future; but few sound judges will dispute the statement that D. Trevathan, McDonald, and Quaid are three of the finest footballers in New Zealand to-day, and if they, together with Taylor and Parkhill, do not gain places in an All Black side this yearj well, “the game’s not fair.” —I am, etc., Grand Stand. Juno 23.

to THE EDITOR. • Sir, —I would like to endorse the remarks of “ Terraco ” and “ An Even Break ” with regard to your report on last Saturday’s match. Contrary to your reporter’s idea or version of the match, it was the consensus of opinion in and around the Press box (from which sporting writers view games) that the better team lost. But Unfortunately for other clubs, the opinions of the reporters, even though they may be wrong, help to back up the opinions of the selectors. We shall assume they are correct in their choice of nominations for the All Blacks. It may then be said that Kaikorai put up a very creditable performance in preventing a team comprised ,of six probable internationals from crossing its line. But no credit was given to Kaikorai in tin's respect. It may be assumed that it might have been bad taste to decry the possible Otago team’s attacking ability. But the public would have appreciated a fairer report. If the selectors hope _to see many of the Southern nominations included in the trials they are superoptimists. But if they are included, well they cannot go past Kaikorai to make up the balance of the team, with forwards like Duncan Gibson, and Barnes, and Murray and R. Kean to help them _ in the back division. It is a recognised fact that all followers have their likes and dislikes and teams which they lean towards, and even a reporter can be excused for showing his likes or dislikes, but not in print. In this respect he failed badly to comment on the play of Duncan, who was regarded by most onlookers as the best forward on the ground. It will be readily admitted that as the defence on both sides was of the highest order, neither set' of backs was functioning as well as it might have done. But ns the game went, vour writer sorts D. Trevatban as the'best back «n the ground. That idea is only your writer’s, and I consider very much open to criticism. I will give Trevathan credit for a clover pot and general place-kicking, but as far as attack was concerned, ho fell short of Murray, who incidentally received little or no credit. It would have beeiii nearer correct to say .that for onqe Southern were unable to follow out their usual tactics, as Simon and Trevathan, and in fact all the back line, were bottled up for the most part by an equally balanced team. Apart from my own opinion the foregoing remarks were also the opinions of several onlookers and also old footballers, fair-minded and competent judges.—l am, etc., June 23. Critic,

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It seems to me that the Dunedin public are always “ agin the Government.” When used to bo on top, all sorts of criticism were levelled at them, but not with the spleen that is shown in the abuse hurled at the’ Southern fifteen, that great little combination from the south end. In my opinion the club and players have taken this abuse in a manner worthy of the patient Job. It was not until Southern built up their team that Otago were able to

field a team of Shield holders, and the finest team in Now Zealand, and always that team had a preponderance of “ Black-and-Whito men. Bravo, Southern! Ju repaid to how pood Tr<> vathan is, 1 will just suppose for a moment that football in Dunedin was professional. Who would bring the highest transfer fee—Murray or Trevathan? It hurts mo to smile. Performances talk loudest,_ and Trevathan as a match winner, points scorer, allround player, and gentleman on and off tho paddock, ranks with the best we know to-day. Kaikorai doubtless played a great game, and at times were unlucky, but Southern played a brainv game", and fed tho man who is their" “ star,” and thereby won out in a sterling struggle.—l am, etc., June 22. Keen Sight,

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I write to support the statements made by “ Terrace ” and “ An Even Break.” As far as D. Trevathan being, tho_ best back on the ground, in my opinion he never once during the game shaped like a good fiveeighth. Kean and Murray, of Kaikorai, were easily the two best backs on the ground. I would suggest that vour reporter should tackle the job of cleaning out of Rugby the dirty, illegal practice that is so common in Dunedin Rugby just at present. I allude to obstruction play. In the Dunedin-Southern match I counted 26 _ instances of this foul play. In addition to obstruction, there is also the common practice of playing the man when the ball is yards away, and also the foul practice of tripping. I saw one instance last Saturday that would shame the rough wrestlers, and it was not noticed by the referee—the player took care of that.—l am, etc., Fair Sport. June 23. [No object whatever would be served by continuing this correspondence. While opinions which differ from those of reports are in order and published, it is absurd to impute unfairness to reporters.—Ed. E.S.]