RUGBY AT CROSSROADS

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 74, 28 March 1936, Page 9

RUGBY AT CROSSROADS

RIVAL SCRUM FORMATIONS .. .. p WILL THE WING-FORWARD BE RESURRECTED? INTERNATIONAL MATCHES MAY HAVE TO GO Opinion seems fairly general that New Zealand is definitely in favour of the two-three-two scrummage and from some quarters it is believed that the retrograde tendency in five-eighth play is due in large measure to the type of forward which the amended form of Rugby adopted in recent years has brought to the playing fields. In this article it is proposed to examine the position in a perfectly neutral frame of mind, and compare Rugby of 11 years ago with Rugby of to-day. It is not necessary to go farther back than 11 years. One could, of course, delve right back to the days of Dave Gallaher; or beyond, hut ninety per cent, of the following Rugby has to-day is conversant with such players as Mark Nicholls, A. E. Cooke, M. Brownlie, and the rest of them, but when the mind travels back to 1905 a much smaller per centage can claim first-hand knowledge with the play of such stalwarts as J. W. Stead, J. Hunter, D, Gallaher and W. J. Wallace. They are names which will always be remembered, but actual knowledge of their play is known to a much lesser public than that which, is conversant with the genius of Cooke and his associates of 1924-25.

Two factors must not be overlooked in an approach to the question at issue—(l) The standard of play .ia the British Isles had improved considerably since 1924, and (2) New Zealand had made a bad job of perfecting the three-fronted scrum formation. Few will dispute the accuracy of those two statements. Btitain had learned a great deal from South Africa, Australia and New Zealand and had turned that knowledge to good account. New Zealand, altering the form cf scrummage, looked for tall, six foot chaps, with plenty of toe as a great asset, and got them at the sacrifice of men who would put their heads down in the scrum and push. Whether tiio change to more loose play among the forwards was an intentional outcome of a selcctorial mind seeking brighter play, or whether it

was just the natural result of fast forwards shirking the tight to seek the open splices will never be definitely decided. It is better to accept the facts —we did seek and we did field forwards who were fast, very useful in open movements, but were poor scrummagers in the honest sense of the word. H. McLean was a great example. So, too, was Manchester. If either of those two players could get his head up, he would do so. In fact there were very few in the 1935 selection who were not imbued with the same idea. Yet nobody would say they were not good forwards. Either of the two mentioned, playing in a two-three-two formation in his proper position,. Manchester on the side and McLean in the back row, would perform well. But he would bo part and parcel of a formation which would be held together by an effective lock. The two front row. men in 1930 were J. Horo and A. I. Cottrell, and they got from the scrum that effective locking and pushing so essential to get the ball. Back Play of 1930. But what happened then? New Zealand’s back play in the final Test was lacking. Why? It was up against a defence which could only be pierced by one method —the stab kick and the genius of Cooke. Strang and Liiburne were the two five-eighths and hue genius of Mark Nickolls w r as absent. Mark Nickolls was then regarded as a player approaching the veteran stage, but his ability over the rising talent was proved beyond doubt in the earlier stages. We may take it for granted then that, notwithstanding the scrum formation New Zealand liked best, there was a downward trend in back play even in 1930.. There is no use us blinking our eyes to the fact. We have Nickolls and Cooke associated or there was a lapse in form. The Wing Forward. New Zealand’s test line in 392-1 was Mill, Nickolls, McGregor, Cooke, with btcel and Svcnson on the wings. It also had a wonderful pack to get the ball. But what a great deal of help those five-eighths of 1924 and 1930 received from the player Mr. Baxter called a cheat—the wing forward. Some day, perhaps, Mark Nickolls will tell the world just how much he owed, both on attack and defence, to a man like Cliff Porter or J. Parker (of 1934). Wo may argue our scrum formation till wo aro black in the face, but the part played by the New Zealand wing forward in winning victories overseas should never be forgotten. If we were cheating with him, then we have got, to take the gruel, but we must neve overlook the part he played. Lit'..

Corner, playing bis first big football in 193 U, must have regarded big Cliff Porter as a sort of guardian angel. If Sadler and Corner had had protection from another Porter in 1936, if Griffiths, or Tindill, standing up to the deadly Welsh and English packs with all the guts at their command, had had stray Parker on hand, they, too, would certainly have come home with a brighter memory of what an international match means to a back close to the scrum. Wh-eu Murk Nicholls came back from South Africa he said quite definitely that the two-three-two serum was doomed. He may not have said it in so many words, but he made his meaning plain—it was up against something it could not beat in a three-fronfed pack with its specialised hooker. New Zealand wants to remember that view when about to make its decision on the scrummage, and ask itself whether tho fading form in the backs is not duo more to an absence of a specialised wing forward than to the jettisoning of the old diamond scrum formation.

There isn’t t'he slightest doubt that scrummaging in the way this country has known it during tho past two years, has been too much for first fiveeighths. There never will be another genius like Mark Nicholls in the role of first five-eighth, if the spreadeagled, loose scrummage holds sway. Soon there may be no half-backs. Yet we’ must recollect that England and Wales can perfect their backs and still play a three-fronted scrummage, a fact which prompts a belief that it has been New Zealand’s method of applying the three-fronted pack which has been at fault rather than the formation itself. Improvement in scrummaging on the tour of Britain, and a better showing from those same lanky, loose forwards in a three-fronted formation really confirms that belief—we can do better with the threefronted scrummage than we have done in tho past by making the players-co-operate to obtain the ball rather than sledge-hammer the other side into submission.

New Zealand is at tho crossroads again. We can be fairly safe in assuming that if the three-fronted scrummage is adopted, international Rugby, so far as this country is concerned, will be jettisoned. If we persist in playing loose forwards, like we have been doing for the past several seasons, tho play in the five-eighth line will not improve. And it is essential that play in that department should improve if New Zealand is to win back its former prestige. Is the sacrifice of international Rugby worth the making to re-

cover better back play, or would it be a better policy for New Zealand to carry on with the three-fronted scrummage and put to good effect the teachings of those who have come back from the tour of Great Britain?

There are opiuions for and against the two scrums, but the real issue New Zealand has to face is whether international Rugby is to go by the board. What we do ourselves is our own concern, but what we do when we meet other countries is as much their concern as ours and the rules should be ufiiform. It may be taken as quite definite that England will- never tolerate a wing forward, but whether New Zealand will ever master the ability of England to perfect backs without a wing forward and without a two-three-two scrum is in the lap of the gods and those often forgotten individuals, the ’-Mi coaches of this Dominion.—