THE LEAGUE CODE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20319, 29 July 1929, Page 14

THE LEAGUE CODE.

THE NORTHERN UNION CUP. AUCKLAND RETAINS TROPHY. VISITORS* GOOD FORWARDS. With hard, rugged forwards and clever halfback play, South Auckland went close to winning the Northern Union Cup from Auckland, which with one exception, 1923. has continually held the trophy. The cup was presented by the English Rugby League in IDI4. Saturday's match, while it lacked clever back play, was a great battle between South Auckland's powerful set of forwards and the Auckland backs, whose knowledge of positional play resulted in the 11 points boing scored. Each time the South Auckland forwards had possession the local team was outplayed and the backs were called upon to do a lot of hard tackling. The visitors were weak a? a combination in the rear division, and it was fatal to attempt passing bouts on such a heavy ground. Auckland was much more certain on attack, and had its forwards controlled the ball many more tries would have been scored.

The quick, rush tactics of the visiting forwards were a revelation to local pat-

rons. Several Auckland backs often delayed their attempts to get down to these rushes. Whether the challengers' forwards would have been so superior on a dry day is a matter for speculation, but their form was very impressive, and it is evident the code still possesses some fine forwards outside Auckland. The old rules were played and the conditions suited South Auckland, especially in playing-the-ball. The closely-packed formation of the visitors' scrum was an object lesson and lack of knowledge in open play was offset by the correct Rugby formation of the scrum. Each of the six forwards put in every ounce until the ball was cither won or lost. Auckland Disappoints. The form of the Auckland team was disappointing, and the result may cause the selectors to seriously consider replacing some of the players, should heavy grounds prevail for other representative matches. The backs got numerous oppor- | tunities, but without exception each player ! resorted to kicking. There was no combination and it was only from South Auckland's mistakes that the local backs scored tries. With so much apparent superiority it was surprising to see the inside backs kick each time Mcfntyre sent the ball out. Generally speaking, the Auckland rear division is not so brilliant as club form shows. In his first representative game Simons was indeed unlucky to have to retire with an injury ten minutes after the kick-off. The wing-threequarters received limited opportunities owing to their supports kicking so often. L. Scott scored a nice try, the result of speed Mincham, in his first representative game, was below the required standard. Ho made no attempt to open up play, being content to kick each time the ball was passed. List was not impressive at centre, throwing many wild passes to Scott and Mincham. Seagar Best Back. Seagai was perhaps the best of the Auckland backs. Ho defended ably and paved the way for two tries. But for uncertain handling Brisbane was an outstanding figure. He did some fine work on defence, but resorted to too much kicking on attack Mclntyre played below expectations at halfback. Outside giving a nice pass to his five-eighths he was seldom in the picture. Dcigrosso. who rapt,-tincd the Auckland team, started off at five-eighths, but soon replaced Simons at fullback. He made no mistakes in fielding and kicking, but missed many chances to run tho threcquarters into he'tor positions. Little can bo said for the Auckland forwards. Never at any stago did they equal the visitors. Most of the set waited for opportunities to shine in the open and failed to combat the penetrating thrusts of tho Waikato forwards. Pasroe and Moisley were perhaps the most prominent. Ruby did some foolish things, such as attempting to pick up the ball when leading forward rushes. Skclton and and A. Scott paid too much attention to open play Three Prominent Players.

For South Auckland it would he difficult to choose between Stevenson, Timms arid Trevettor as the best forward. The trio were always prominent and each Auckland player, when in possession, was soundly tackled. .Slevenson was a tireless worker. His hooking gave South Auckland a big advantage. Timms upheld his reputation gained when playing against the Englishmen last, season. Jones played a heady game as back row forward, lie gave more assistance to the backs than any other forward. Meri/ies was also prominent, while Hogan gave excellent support. Raynor gave a sound display at fullback without doing anything brilliant. Tittleton was the best of the threequarters. Ori a dry ground he may prove a good scoring back, i'aki had chances, but kicked too often. .lack way a was not a success at centre, being often caught r, hi of position The five-eighths, Whnrsky and Farroll, were overshadowed by the Auckland pair. At halfback Abbott gave a splendid display. ILe was quick to seize an opening and showed more pace than any hack on the ground. He must have impressed the selectors as a likely North Island representative.