ALL BLACKS’ TOUR

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 11, 14 January 1936, Page 5

ALL BLACKS’ TOUR

WHAT OF THE FUTURE ?

WESSONS IN RUGBY TACTICS.

GOOD INSHDE BACKS NEEDED.

(By “Cross-Bar.”)

It lias teen truly said tliat in stead of thinking bitterly of the past it should he the aim of New Zealand to think constructively about the future of its Rugby football .The tour which the 1935 All Blacks have just concluded has stressed, again the need for serious thought in regard to the game as a whole. .Other countries have im proved where New Zealand has fallen away.

The tour itself, outside the magnitude of the hiding England inflicted in the last match, has produced little teat was unexpected. Weak scrummaging has been a feature of New Zealand s play during the past two or three sons. We were unhappy about scrums away back in 1938, when it took con siderable concentration to mould hard playing forwards into a unit sufficient to account for South Africa in e ‘o test When the British team toured Netf Zealand in 1930 <"* “Xi'Ao.d wards did much to resurrect their good name, but back play was on he down grade Then came the change in scrum S£g laws which abolished the two&&0 formation, and with a steadily downward trend in back play forwards of the tall, six-foot yp were sought to outplay oppositions >n the loose rather than in the tight Not onlv did honest scrummaging itself tall into disuse, but several “roving” forwards,” released from their pusbmg duties, hurled themselves against those who were endeavouring to re-establish tee good name of New Zealand’s backs. The hearts of scores of would-be five eights were broken in the first year ot ho°pe at the stiff hurdle of trying to cope with five or six, instead of one ‘ ‘winging ’ ’ forward. And that was the state New Zealand was in the 1935 All Blacks were selected. Inev contained a representative mixture of tall, loose forwards, a set of backs which lacked the speed ot th l?- 1 co ™ bination and had been trained te Rugby in an era of quickly breaking scrums. . The first task on landing in En o lan was to get down to honest scrummaging It was not long before it was apparent that that had to be done. But it also became clear that it was not possible in the time available to train two teams sufficiently to withstand the improved opposition which had been moulded in the Old Country since 19-4. Injuries took toll, and towards the end of the tour the selectorial power found himself with a row of unfit players on the one hand and a row of untrained almost untried, players- on the other, in consequence, the task of carr) mg 3N ew Zealand’s good name through Britain fell to the few. And what a task it must have been for the likes of Sadler, Griffiths, Caughey, Oliver, Hart, Mitcn©ll Gilbert, Hadley, Manchester, Reid and King. Mr. Meredith dare not play his second fifteen, because, ten days after the first match, it was pappably plain that New Zealand’s best side was not equal to the best the British Unions could field against it. What happened to Brown, Solomon, Best, Wynyard, Pepper? In time the full story will be told. In the meantime, we must look ahead to the prospect of beating South Africa next year. Solid scrummaging, rather than fast loose forwards will be needed. England fielded a heavy pack, but never over-looked the fact that defence in the centre of the field was of paramount importance. Sped to burn on the wings, yes, but every inside man, from half to centre, had to be able to tackle. With a team of that calibre to work with the Englishmen concentrated on surprise movements with speed as the finishing factor. They were content to let Hadley hook the ball. That may be a little harsh on Hadley from a New Zealand viewpoint, and nobody seeks to disparage him, for if there was any member of the team who lived up to true All Black form that man was Hadley. So we will put it this way: Knowing Hadley’s ability, the Engishmen did not seek to beat the New Zealanders there, but concentrated on nipping attacks in the bud in the five-eight line. Corner’s slow delivery from the base of the scrum was the first factor which played into their hands, and the ball kept going out across the field through the New Zealand chain of backs with regular monotony. Each English tackier performed his task well. Quite the reverse took place when England attacked. Neither Tindall nor Caughey were inclined to tackle, and a swift chain of passing played, the real attacking medium of the English team into action—Obolensky. Weak defence on the part of “Kelly” Ball did the rest. Gilbert was then an easy victim to the Prince’s phenomenal speed.

What is the lesson New Zealand can learn from the two moves which won Obolensky his tries—the need for concentration on pace on the wings and sure handling, and ,a combination of rigidity and life in the inside machinery.. New Zealand sought to win the match by thrust in the five-eight line. England definitely won .the match by pace on the wings Co-operation with the running pack will help Rugby unions in this country to find the speed merchants the wing positions demand. Filling the inside berths will be a harder task, but it might be lightened if it is seen to that there is less "spoiling” from the serum and a tendency towards more honest work in the pack. It is probable that if this country went back to its old diamond scrum formation it would overtake the ground it has so sadly lost. But there may be a danger there, in that after this tour we should be nearer the true goal of scrummaging as adopted by England. If England can produce effective scrummaging forwards with the traditional English scrum formation, and, at the sanie time, find backs capable of playing soundly 1 on both attack and defence 1 in the five-eight line, then surely this country can do the same. The full story "of the tour from a management point of view has not. yet been told, and we should postpone judgment until it is. Much of what has been written may have been inspired by preconceived thought, or to justify a judgment based on the choice

of the manager rather than on the performance of that manager. It may be found, for instance, that Jack Manchester preferred Tindall to Griffiths, or Corner to Sadler. What then, will the Rugby critics do? It is better to await the team’s return before passing adverse comment on the system of “sole selector-management. ”