ALL BLACKS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 8 February 1936, Page 2

ALL BLACKS

ENGLISH CRITICS’ VIEWS VISITORS GREAT IN DEFEAT New Zealanders in England who saw the great Rugby match at Twickenham last Saturday may have .been disappointed with the result, writes “The Post’s” London correspondent on 11th January, but they are very proud of the lads who have played so clean a game throughout their tour, and who have achieved greater credit as ambassadors of Empire even than their predecessors. The match will live long in the memory of all who saw it. ' . “Let us congratulate the two sides, says the “Morning Post ’ in a sub-lead-er, “and also the referee, on collaborating in as glorious a, display of Rugby football as was ever seen in an international match. There were very few penalty kicks, not too much use ot the whistle, and every player lived up to the exhilarating maxim that the best fonn of defence is attack.” “And what of our gallant visitors? ’ asks 11. 13. T. Wakelam, the Rugby correspondent of the same newspaper. “Shall we say that they looked a little jaded and leg-weary, or shall we say, as some of them most sportingly did at the end, that they were bang up against it? Perhaps a judicious mixture of both, for even when at their peak a few weeks ago, they would have been desperately hard put to it to have prevented any one of the scores against them.

“REAL MEN” “They might, however, have put on a. few points of their own, but that is only a matter for conjecture. In possession, especially in the second half, they were slightly on top, and every one of them played with might and main throughout, but even the inspiration of that fine sportsman, Jack Manchester, could not pull them together, and they were clearly out-plaved and out-manoeu-vred. McLean, Horc, Reid, and King were often prominent with Manchester in the open, Reid, perhaps, the most consistently, whilst the backs strove to the utmost to circumvent that grim English defence, but it was of no avail, for there were literally no holes in it, and no sudden chances from reckless or wild passing. “We have liked and admired tlpem tremendously during their stay with us, and, like the real men that they are, they have taken their defeat in good part. What an end to a tour to see the two teams leaving the field with arms round each other’s shoulders. A special tribute to V. R. J. Meredith, their most charming and courteous manager. A very large pat on the back for Wilfrid Fauil for his most happy refereeing.” FOUGHT DESPERATELY The “Sunday Observer” says:—“The All-Blacks went down fighting desperately, and ending with a sharp series of attacks. But" the English . tackling smothered them time and again. The darting black figures , were felled by flashes of white lightning. Those who said that Prince Obolensky was uncertain in defence can forget their words. It was a grand battle on which the favourites went down decisively because, they were not good enough. The English" won this game on merit, and owed very little to luck. “Allowing for the later and more considered thoughts which may result in ungilding the ginger-bread, it is safe to say that the open character of England’s play, particularly in the second half —in which straightforward thrust accompanied by tolerably good technique by all was preferred to safety tactics or attempted subtleties —-was given such point by the brilliance of one or two, as to make any alternative seem ridiculous. Yet there have been many sides of late who could have yielded just as good results by similar methods.”

THOROUGHLY BEATEN The “News-Chronicle” states: “Disappointed as they must feel over the breakdown of their form in their final game, the All Blacks will readily admit that England beat them thoroughly. They were the complete masters in the chief essentials of attack and defence. The tourists never gave up trying, hut every attempt by Tindill, Caughey, or Oliver to get- through the centre was checked and crushed by some of the finest tackling ever seen in an international game. In attack England surpassed herself. We have not seen such glorious running and clever back play on unorthodox lines from an English team for several seasons.” The “Daily Telegraph” remarks: “Again and again this great match will be discussed. As we talk of it, smoking our pipes, we shall see once more the white figure of Obolensky, running gloriously, and Pfiter Cruiuucr, smus».fng liis way through the centre, and the English forwards, solid as a wall against which tile black waves of New Zealand broke in vain. It does not greatly matter that this is the first time any combination of English players has beaten a New Zealand team. What does matter is the quality of the game itself, and this was higher than we had any reason to expect. They ran up against an England side at the top of its form, that was all, and one significant little scene remains in my mind. FINAL SCENE

“The very end of the game, a slight mist creeping across the ground, the little spurts of match flames pointing the fathering darkness in the stands the players forming their swirling patterns on the green turf, the shrill final whistle, the deafening roar of the crowd —and then the ISew Zealand.ers rushing across to shake tneir victorious opponents by the hand. 1“I saw Manchester congratulating Gadnev, and Ball slapping Obolensky on the back, and this spontaneous generosity in defeat, this natural friendliness, was merely another instance of the fine spirit which lias made the New Zealand tour so valuable to the cause of Rugby football.” FINE SPORTSMEN The “Manchester Guardian” had this to say: “The New Zealand footballers have finished their tour, and will take home with them the admiration ol everybody who lias seen them play. They have been perhaps less superhuman than tlieir predecessors,, but by common consent our team which bgat them yesterday played as no English team has played since the golden age of Davies and Kershaw. . “Those who have met the New Zealanders during Gio past four months agree that no pleasanter and more sportsmanlike team has ever visited us. The All BLicks might have been excused if they had fallen below this standard, for our hospitality lias not been all that it should have been. Some of their-Welsh opponents played the sort of football which nobody admires, and off the field the New Zealanders were discourteously treated at least twice—once in Wales and once in England. But they kept their tempers throughout, and were generous even in their last and most bitter defeat. At Twickenham, when England (with some as-

sistance from Imperial Russia) had won at last and 70,000 people were cheering themselves hoarse, our final glimpse of the vanquished showed us J. E. Manchester leaving the field with his arm round the English captain’s shoulders.” A NEW ZEALANDER’S VIEWS Dr. A. J. Harrap (editor “New Zealand News”), writing in the “Daily Mail,” says: “As I rather feared when the teams were announced, New Zealand had no effective counter for the speed of Obolensky, who clearly won the game for England- The New Zealand form was disappointing, being much below that shown at Edinburgh, Dublin, and Cardiff ; but even in thei; best vein the All Blacks would have found England very hard to beat. “Gilbert’s goal-kicking was - below his usual standard, and for only the second time in 88 games in the British Isles an All Black team failed to score. Towards the end tnev kept up a sustained attack, hut nothing went, right for them. Ft bought Oliver the best- New Zealand back, and Reid Manchester, and McLean perhaps the best of a pack which worked hard against superior weight, “New Zealanders will not begrudge England a great and clear-cut victory, which reflects the general improvement in tile standard of the game here. Wo can only be proud that the magnetism of the black jersey and silver fern attracted so vast an assemblage-—equal to one-twentieth of the population of the whole Dominion.”

A RUSSIAN ELEMENT The “Liverpool Echo” is among the few newspapers which make special reference to the nationality of Obolensky. “A Russian helped England to heat New Zealand by scoring two tries, which indicates,” remarks the paper, “that the Rugby Union has cosmopolitan views on the question of qualifications. The Russian in question was brought to this country at the age of two and has spent- seventeen years in our midst, hut he was still a Russian when he stepped on the field for England. The fact thata South, African helped at full-hack is of minor interest, for in that- particular case the Rugby Union managed to keep inside the Empire. The Russian proved a tartar, and was the hot spot of the game, which should cause friendly feeling in Moscow. . . . There is no foundation for the belief that the Rugby Union, who are great purists, ai-e swotting the Russian irregular verbs.”