FAILURE OF BACKS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22499, 17 August 1936, Page 12

FAILURE OF BACKS

A POOR EXHIBITION I ENGLAND'S FINE SUPPORT AN OUTSTANDING FORWARD From a New Zealand point of view the match was most disappointing and it must be some time since a Dominion rearguard has played so poorly as a combination. The forwards did their work well, but the backs foil below international standard. Even taking this into consideration, New Zealand had the visitors worried for a period in the second spell when Cootes went over to score the homo team s only try in the two test matches decided. At this stage New Zealand still had prospects of winning, but a bad mistake by Tittleton. who allowed Hudson to intercept, placed the result beyond doubt. It must have been disheartening for the home vanguard to see the backs making so many mistakes. Contrary to the first test match, the rearguard had a good share of tho ball, but their passing lacked precision. Players gave and received tho ball flat-footed, passed to supports in a worse position than themselves, and generally did things not expected in an international match. This allowed a quick covering defence to frustrate movements more 'easily, while the visitors were masters at turning mistakes to advantage. Several times New Zealand gave away possession through kicking, which was to no effect owing to tho ability and soundness of Belshaw, the English fullback. Superior Combination

An outstanding feature of the visitors' play was tho manner in which they supported a player in possession. There was always someone handy to accept a pass and the backs and forwards moved splendidly into action when an opening had been made. New' Zealand was outgeneralled and beaten by a more speedy and cleverer combination. Tho visiting players, too, covered on defence far more quickly than New Zealand. In spite of the sound defence, however, the home team lost some great opportunities and only lack of finish to the movements saved England's line. The English forwards were seen to more advantage than in the first test. Their accurate handling and close passing frequently nonplussed the home side, while their strong running made them hard to bring down. The New Zealand tackling, was often weak and it was Pickrang and Cootes who showed the correct way to tackle. Unlike some of the other players, they never attempted to go high, but made certain of bringing an opponent down with hard, low tackling. Players who attempted the high tackle were easily brushed aside by the fast and heavy visiting players.

Arkwright Excels

Arkwright, who stands 6ft. 3in., was seen in action for the first time in Auckland, and he played a great allround game. A heavy and speedy player he was always on hand to support his halves or any other player who broke through, and his two tries were tho reward of a fine display. Ho is a heady footballer and also did good work on defence. Field showed exceptional pace for a forward and made some strong runs. He was unlucky on one occasion to miss a try by inches after eluding several tacklers. Miller and Troup also stood cut in some clever play. Belshaw again played a fine game at fullback and cleverly got his team out of difficulties, while he kicked with judgment. He had to leave the field for five minutes early in the second spell owing to his receiving a knock on the head. The threequarters, Edwards and Hudson, showed speed-and dash, while two players who greatly impressed were Brogden and Risman. They are both speedy and seemed to make openings with ease. Risman proved a splendid place kick and landed some fine goals. Jenkins was again outstanding for a fine all-round display. He beat the defence in some strong and tricky runs and proved difficult to bring down. He received excellent support from Watkins at the base of the scrum. The pair changed their tactics well, their short and well-placed kicks worrying the dofence. Kay Of! Form Penrpsey, the New Zealand fullback, had a hard afternoon, but did not make many errors. For a period in the second spell he played well, his kicking to the gaps being good. Mincham did not have many opportunities, but he failed to impress. Tittleton did some good work on defence,i only-to spoil his play by holding on to the ball too much. Kay was right off form, being weak on defence, while his handling was poor. Trevathan received a knock in the back early in the game and this appeared to affect his play at' first five-eighths. Ho kicked too much in passing bouts. Powell was not up to his" usual form at halfback and the reaguard as a line lacked dash. The one exception was L. Brown, who did some clever work and made several bright runs. If Brown had been well supported New Zealand would have done better.

It was no fault of the New Zealand forwards that the team did not make a better showing. They held to their task against a virile and clever vanguard with credit. Their one mistake was in not keeping the ball at their feet when they broke away. Many times breaches occurred through players attempting to gather the ball. Pickrang was the outstanding forward and he was well supported by Cootes. Tho three South Island forwards, Calder, Glynn and McNeight, all played good games. All did fine work in the tight and were frequently conspicuous in the loose. The English team played eight matches on the New Zealand tour and won them all. It scored 210 points and had 56 registered against it. The team was given an enthusiastic farewell on leaving; by the Akaroa for Southampton on Saturday evening.