THE FIRST TEST

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 202, 9 August 1928, Page 3

THE FIRST TEST

HOW THE SPRINGBOKS WON FORWARDS HELD STRONG GRIP COMMENTS OF AFRICAN CRITICS New Zealanders will not have forgotten the shock they sustained when the result of the first test between the All Blacks and the Springboks was announced. The score was 17 —nil against our touring team. The why and wherefore of this susprising defeat may be gleaned from the following extracts from four prominent South African papers. One wonders what views the writers held after the second test when the New Zealand forwards turned the tables.

“One felt genuinely sorry for the New Zealanders in- their hour of disappointment. The game was such a clean-fought affair that when it was over there was no disposition to gloat over the discomfiture of the vanquished,” writes the critic in the ‘‘Natal Advertiser.” “The New Zealand players and manager may take credit for this. In man v respects it was an extremely curious game. South Africa on the play deserved to win by the large margin she did win by. After the first quarter of an hour there could not have been a doubt in the minds of the spectators who watched the game intelligently as to which was the better side. It was Bennis Osier’s play that quenched the fire in the iiearts of the New Zealanders. Fourteen points down and their line not crossed! No team can stand up to that sort of thing. “The subject of penalty goals and drop goals has been widely discussed since the match. South Africa had notched 14 points before the line had been crossed, and the crossing only occurred eight minutes before the end. It would have teen victory without the salt had no try been scored, and yet wo have to remember that goals are the object of football. In the ’eighties one goal counted more than anv number of tries, because tries did not count at ail. Lindsay a Star. “Three men stood out on Saturday. I place them Bennis Osler, Lindsay, Tindall. Osley’s kicking did not actually win the match, but it went a long way towards doing so. Lindsay put up an exhibition of full-back plav which has rarely been seen in an international or any other kind of match. In some respects he was the most outstanding man on the field because he was called upon to do so much work. His fielding was perfect, his kicking superb, and his tackling without flaw.

“As for the Springbok forwards, who really wnn the game, I do not think one pack of forwards has ever dominated another in an international match as the South Africans dominated the New Zealanders. The physique and weight of the South Africans was better balanced than that of the New Zealanders; but that alone was not the secret of their success. After Saturday the New Zealanders must definitely consider the advisabiljtv of abandoning their diamond-scrum formation.”

The Scrum Formation, “If the terrific lesson administered to them on Kingsmead still fails to convince the New Zealanders and all New Zealanders of the inferiority of their scrum formation and of the fallacy upon which their forward play generally is based, then nothing ever will,” writes Mr. F. H. Howard in the “Cape Times.” “Their men were as heavy, and it is reasonable to suppose, as powerful as the Springboks. There is no reason to suppose they are less intelligent man for man. And yet with numbers equal in the scrummage all through the second half, and with Pretorious not infrequently out of the scrum during the first half, they were more and more completely mastered the longer the game proceeded. Of what use are clever backs, or forwards who can run and handle in the open, if they

never get the chance to put their special abilities into actual practice? “Sound forward play is the basis of all good Rugby football, and the New Zealand forward play is. to my mind, built up on unsound foundation. . . . Such a stranglehold did the Springbok forwards obtain on their immediate opponents that four-fifths of the play took place in New Zealand territory. Other packs have managed to subdue a representative All Blacks’ pack. But never have 1 seen one or heard of one that maintained its grip without a break and never relaxed for even five minutes of the eighty. Strive as they might, the All Blacks’ forwards could never shake themselves free from that death grip . . . With anyone in their last line of defence in a less inspired mood than Lindsay’s, New Zealand must have given away at least another couple of tries.” •■ Springboks’ Great Pack, “The match enhanced the wide reputation of South African forward play, and served to cast further doubts on the New Zealand diamondscrum forwation,” states the “Star” of Johannesburg. “As in the match at Capetown, Phil Mostert discarded the Springbok traditional 3—3—2, and, even when he had only seven men packing 3—4, his forwards were too strong for the New Zealanders, despite their stern efforts to hold the Springboks. The South African pack was better balanced physically and all seven men were much the same build and made a great scrummaging machine. There was a big variation in the constituents of the touring pack, which, despite its well conceived principles, lacked power and not infrequently crumbled un under the tremendous force of the South Africans’ shove. The skilled work of the homo pack, together with rhe heart-breaking kicking of the backs, simplv wore down the great New Zealand forwards, who were unahle to shine in the loose as they had done in some of their best displays.” A Stone-wall Proposition.

“The tactics of the Springbok forwards. when analysed, reveal no weak point upon which the New Zealanders might have seized to open out their brilliant attacks," comments the Natal “Mercury,” “They were magnificent in their own work, but where they shone was the way in which they protected their backs by wheeling the scrum, against which the New Zealand forwards had no defence. . . . When the ball was let out the defenders were not able to come up as quickly as they would otherwise have done. Using what has already been proved an inferior formation ,and one about which thev themselves have doubts, the All Blacks battled grimly for the eighty minutes ,and never for a moment could South Africa afford to relax their efforts. “Little mistakes were seized on and turned to advantage, and all the t’me these gallant forwards, who must have realised they were up against a stonewall proposition, fought to break clear. They could not do it, but thev gave a magnificent demonstration of grit and determination, and stood up bravely against the crushing blows dealt them.”