INTERNATIONAL RUGBY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21783, 24 April 1934, Page 9

INTERNATIONAL RUGBY

ENGLAND BEATS SCOTLAND WINNER MAINTAINS RECORD The climax of the Rugby season ar- ! rived at Twickenham on Saturday when Scotland all but rose to the occasion in a brave attempt to drag England off its unbeaten pedestal, says a writer in the London Times of March 19. In I'jo end the luck of the game as much as anything settled the issue. Each side scored a try in the first half, but L. A. Booth, the English right wing, was the only man to seize a scoring chance in the second. In this way England won by six points to three and Scotland had to hand over the Calcutta Cup. The Boat race, not many miles away, did not prevent a crowd of 65,000 people from finding their way to the Rugby Union ground, and gs one quickly discovered when Scotland opened the scoring, it was a British rather than an English crowd. The going was distinctly soft, but there was the usual fine Twickenham weather, with a strong wind blowing from the southern end to add to the hazards of a thrilling match. The outstanding feature of the play was the magnificent ofFort of the Scottish forwards, who, on the form ahown in the previous international matches, stood rather a poor chance of holdiag the heavier English pack, let alone of beating them for the ball. Yet this to a great extent was what actually, occurred, not only in the scrummage, but in the line-out.On the other hand, it also was a fact that the Scottish forwards, like their, backs, were nearly always held or baffled at the critical moment by a lion-hearted and watchful defence.

.. The whole English team always had in reserve an opportunist mind and turn of speed slightly superior to its opponents. It could well be argued that Scotland had less luck than England in the matter of near things, though nothing could have been nearer to a score than Slow's drop at goal, which hit one of the posts. But in a match in which neither pack completely gained the upper hand and the backs showed little real cleverness in combined movements, it was not altogether surprising that England proved to bo the side to seize a small majority of the fleeting opportunities.

Some of the reasons for the ineffective back play demand a mention if only because—to paraphrase a well-known saying— to know something is to forgive a certain amount. Ih the first place, two well-matched packs were apt to heel out slowly, and, although this was less in evidence on the Scottish than the English side, the spoiling, marking, tackling, and covering were so keen that only the fastest and cleverest of back divisions! would have triumphed over circumstances, which included tbe soft turf.