RUGBY IN ENGLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 21029, 13 November 1931, Page 7

RUGBY IN ENGLAND.

ALL BLACKS AND SPRINGBOKS FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES. . , NEW ZEALAND'S FINE CAPTAIN. [from our own cob respondent.] LONDON, Sept. 54. Major R. V. Stanley, sometime Oxford - University representative on the English Rugby Union, also a member of the English selection committee, contributed an article to the Morning Post of September 19 prior to the arrival of the third South African Rugby football touring team. He cast his memory back to the New Zealanders of 1905 and to the Springboks of 1906, making the following comparisons Many of us remember the visit of the first All Blacks, New Zealand, in 1905; how they swept all before thern, and, as players and spectators alike said then, revolutionised the game and taught us how to play. We remember, too, that it was in the very next season that the Springboks, South Africans, came over and repeated the dose to the general carcase of the game, although administering the medicine in smaller quantities and by more skilful and polished methods. . . Now, there were two great fundamental differences between the Alt Blacks of 1905 and the Springboks of 1906. Ido not want to say, or even to imply, anything in the least unkind or harsh, but the former owed much of their success to astuteness and subtlety, while the latter attained their ends by real cleverness and sheer speed. It is true that the Ail Blacks, too, had great speed in their forwards, and they had a definite system of packing which was unheard of in this country. All our best club teams and public schools had learnt and improved their game on the axiom of "first up, first down," but the All Blacks altered all that, and the scrum could not be formed until their two front row men were up. Helped by Referees, The referees here helped them in this respect and allowed the game to be slowed up while this part of the business was got going. These forwards, too, were great watchers, and this new formation never gave the few good forward sides they met any chance of carrying out the plan or bringing off a wheel: It must be remembered also that their opponents were never in their class, or anywhere near them. A good forward side with really good defensive backs, would, I think, have worried them frightfully. AY e must remember also that the Rugby game at that time was in rather a somnolent condition. The Springboks showed how they could play their own game in our spirit really well. Their speed lay in their centres. They could all run round our centres, even run round plavers like Harry Vassall. | Both New Zealand and South Africa I send over players of iron constitution; I their natural surroundings and bringing j up from infancy produces the A 1 player i of iron and of weight, who can run very j fast. So again, 1 fear, we must be preI pared to see the scoreboard altered with lightning rapidity, owing, as I have said above, to our inability to put the best teams against them. But against this we may hope to obtain some direct gain j in cleverness, fitness and great speed. Tribute to Gallaher. j These remarks were followed a few days later by a letter from "Historicus," who maintains that in his enthusiasm for the gloriously straight Rugby of the South Africans, Major Stanley scarcely does justice to the side that roused English Rugby from its somnolence of a quarter of a century or more ago —1905, to be exact. "Historicus" proceeds:—lt was the New Zealand team—in popularity, the All Blacks—under Dave Gallaher, that brought English Rugby players to their senses. Wholesome medicine it was, the necessity of fitness as well as. skill, the importance of backing up, the imperative business of team-work. And the lessons were well learnt. Gallaher had visions in captainship; he was supreme as a wing-forward. His artistry in bis special position has never been surpassed. His methods were new to our sleepy players, who at that time wanted various breathers in the second of two "35's"; sometimes only "30's." There was bitter controversy over the position that- Gallaher took. But Percy Coles, the old Oxford captain, and secretary of the Rugby Union, was sent down specially by his committee to referee the first match of the tour at Exeter, and he gave his imprimatur to the strategy of Gallaher. The Devon County fifteen was overwhelmed. _ The heather was afire. It was the beginning of a new'era in Rugby. Sportsman to the Core. Why did Major Stanley not come with , his tribute to a great soldier? Gallaher left his farm in New Zealand to win the South African medal with clasps in the Boer War ; he returned to England for the Great- War and fell in Flanders. Is there none so poor as to do him reverence ? Gallaher was a sportsman to th» core. . . . Yes. it was this tour that- made. English Unionists shake off their lethargy. At. the time the game was all right, in Wales and in Scotland. It was only an error by Lewis Madeod at- a crisis of the match that prevented Scotland from beating New Zealand on the wind-swept and frozen heights of Inverleith. WingCommander Louis Greig will bear me oui/ in this. Paul Roos' South African side in 1905 showed us again how Rugby should bs played in spirit and in letter. _ Major Stanlev, during his Oxford regime, saw Oxford Rugby" on its highest plane, lavishly endowed with great captains and great players- -Ronnie Poulton and G. D. Roberts could not even get their Blues as Freshers. But it is welcome to find Major Stanlev lured from his tent like some modern' Achilles fighting again to keep Rugby on its right course.