RUGBY FOOTBALL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22792, 28 July 1937, Page 20

RUGBY FOOTBALL

VISIT OF SPRINGBOKS

TOUR OPENS AUSPICIOUSLY AUCKLAND MATCH LESSONS Although the result of Inst Saturday's Rugby match was disappointing to supporters of the Auckland fifteen, the contest was bright, and interesting and some valuable lessons cotild be learned from it. As it was the first appearance of the Springboks in New Zealand there was widespread interest, with the consequence presenco at Eden Park of critics and officials of Rugby Unions from all parts of the Auckland Province and far heyond it. There was a little difference of opinion subsequently regarding the actual strength of the touring combination, but those who had the privilege of seeing the 1921 South African team in action were almost unanimously agreed that the present side is not the equal of its predecessor. Some critics, also appeared to think that the visitors were not fully extended on Saturday. Whv not? If one recollects what happened in the first epell, he would realise that, for about thirty minutes out of the forty, play was in Auckland's half, and very frequently about the twenty-five and even inside it. And were not the Springboks striving their very hardest to score as many tries as possible? Yet they succeeded in crossing their opponents' line on but one occasion, and that try would ijiever have been scored had the Auckland captain, Killeen, not run out of position and allowed Babrow a clear passage in between the posts.

/ TERRITORIAL ADVANTAGE '. SCORING ABILITY LACKING Any team which could claim such a marked territorial advantage and score but one try could not by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a strong attacking combination. . In the second spell the Springboks added four tries, one of which was a gift. There was merit in the other three —very much in the scissors movement executed by Harris and Babrow. On the other hand Auckland scored one try, and was a little unfortunate in not 'obtaining at least another. Thus, _in proportion to the amount of attacking the side did, Auckland looked the more likelv to score. This was almost entirely due to the sterling efforts of the forwards who held the mastery over their bigger and heavier opponents for some time in the second spell. With the score at 13 —5 ) . the Auckland forwards were going very strongly, but mistakes by the backs permitted the visitors to repulse repeated forward onslaughts and gradually remove play to home teraritory. \ *./; .

IMPRESSIVE FEATURE VERY SOLID TACKLING One of the most impressive features of the play of the whole South African team was its very solid tackling. Whenever a visiting back or forward was laid hands upon he was thrown to the earth in no half-hearted manner. If the touring side happens to have the ' good fortune to strike a hard ground during the tour, then the players in the opposing fifteen will know they have been tackled, and there will be bruises to attend to on the following day or so. A great deal had been written and heard about the famous dive pass of the halfbacks. Craven and de Villiers. The speed with which Craven sent the ball out and the remarkable distance and accuracv he maintained were a /revelation. This type of passing certainly gave the stand-off half plenty of room in which work. It is said that de Villiers is equally as expert as Craven, although lacing the latter s size and weight. , , . ' Other fine features of the play of the South African backs' were the celerity exhibited in making recoveries *>from mistakes in handling and passing. " In the second soell, when Auckland was "getting the ball from scrums, line-outs and loose rucks • the whole Springbok back line moved up as one man and "effectively smothered the five-eighths or 'centre. ' PLAY AMONG FORWARDS STRENGTH OF VISITORS Although undoubtedly forming a Compact scrum, the Springbok forwards did not impress as being the equal of those who visited the Dominion 16 years ago. It may be that they aro not properly fit, but the games in Australia should have got them into !' trim. Their line-out work' in the first J spell was excellent, while they had ' fine control over the ball in their ! dribbling rushes. However, a tendency was displayed to wait slightly offside after over-running the ball. Too much praise cannot be given to the' Auckland forwards for their gal- ' lanfc effort. F. Solomon played more ,or less a roving game, but the other? all worked valiantly in the tight and put their full weight into the scrums. The front row men, Pearce, Had ley // ? and Pepper, did excellent work. Pearrv and Pepper revelled in the solid rucking, while, apart from hooking, Had- , Joy was frequently seen in the loose 'rushes, especially in the second _ spell. Anderson, Hull, Lange and Lockington v a il played sound games, the last-named doing marvellously well considering that he had had but one game in 10 ' weeks . _ . Auckland's best backs were I<rank- „ ham, Dick and Byerley, with D. Solomon doing some good defensive work. The latter, however, did not reveal ' the form he had previously shown in • club and representative gaipes. What was most disappointing about Killeen's exhibition was that, in spite of the , fact that either himself or Prentice was persistently smothered, he failed to employ a stab kick over the heads of the opposing centres and wingers.

OPPORTUNITIES LOST NO VARIATION IN TACTICS , A well-directed stab or grubber kick . would have given the speedy Auckland wingers a flying start past their advancing opponents, and, with a favourable bounce of the ball, there is no telling what may have happened, as Prentice would have been in a position to follow up for an in-pass. Kicks down the centre of the field would have been no good as Brand would . . probably have proved too safe, but there was ample room, and the oppor- ' tunities were there for the placing of kicks advantageously.. Had tries not resulted from these tactics, at least valuable ground would have been gained, instead of lost* ' There is an old axiom in Rugby—and n very sound one, too —that a try cannot be scored without possession of the ball, but that docs not mean that attacking movements should not be varied to meet the circumstances. There waA some excuse for Prentice, who has yet to gain big football ex- ' perienee. His worst mistake was to • kick the ball when he had only Brand in front of him with Dick on the out- / side and an open field. This was just before the interval.