CRUSHING DEFEAT

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12037, 15 January 1925, Page 10

CRUSHING DEFEAT

LONDON COUNTICS CAME ALL BLACKS OUTCLASS AND OUTLAST OPPOSITION. STUDY IN TACTICS. The New Zealanders won yet another victory at Twickenham on Saturday, where they easily defeated London by five goals'and two tries to two tries—--31 points to 6 (wrote Colonel Philip Trevor in the “Daily Telegraph” after -the All Blacks’ first game with London Counties). The finish was a great and grievous disappointment to the" huge crowd who watched the majoh, for in the early stages of it there was no suggestion of such a rout. For' a rout it was. Ait half-time the New Zealanders led by two goals to two tries (10 points to 6), and as a matter of fact the London, team, but for their own carelessness, should then have held a one-point lead. But they -left Brownlie, of . all people, unmarked at a line-out, and so paid the obvious penalty for a gross sin of omission. USING THE LINE. . The tactics of the New Zealanders in the first half rather surprised me. On a dry day -.(and on Saturday no rain fell near town) they depend largely upontheir swift bouts of passing and. their straight running, .* Strangely enough, prior to half-time they did not attempt the kind -of thing in which-experience must haye taught them that Kiev excel, Instead, they essayed Slot of short, obliqtte punts. They .gained ground by them, but never at this period of the game were those 'who had, not seen them (play before given the least inkling of the ; sooring capacity of their back division. ' BRILLIANT MILLAR. For a doien mimites the fight was a level one,: and; nothing remarkable was done .by either tide. 'Ken, when in the London twenty-five and hear the touchline, one of fhe New -Zealanders made a mark and punted high. Brownlie, as is his wont, followed by, and, gathering the ball, he burst over, the goal-line. As this try produoed a goal, the New Zealanders established a lead of S points. Next canfe London’s two tries, both obtained by Millar, who was oh the left of, the three-quarter line. It had been announced that if the weather was fine Gibibs and not Millar would fill this position. No rain fell, but it was Millar and not Gibbs who took the field. MiUar certainly justified his selection. : . LULL BEFORE THE STORM. Both these tries needed accurate passtaking, and speed, and determination, for in each case a little too much was left to the try-getter. In both instances was the ball tossed to him a fraction \>f a second too soon, and so the credit due to him for succeeding was all the greater. There was, of course, tremendous enthusiasm when, , after thirty-one minutes’ play, London -actually established a lead. Then; however, came Bronwlie’s second' try, which again produoed a goal, of which mention has been,made, and shortly afterwards came, the intervaL. .. . . At once conversation bussed-and optimistic prophecy was rife. ‘'These All Blacks aren’t so rterrible after all,” seemed to' be the general opinion.. Somehow, I felt that we had only witnessed the lull before -the storm. Perhaps it was all sheer design on the part of the New Zealanders. They: hnd' kept things goihg at a rare pace. Was' their fame to run the London forwards to a standstill, knowing that they had little enough to fear from the London backs 3. Perhaps it was; anyhow that was what happened. DUE TO SHEER PACE. -Very early in the second half came the third New Zealand try, gained by Cooke.. after delightful preliminary manoeuvring by Nicholls and Svenson. This was the triumph of sheer pace, -it was a rare speed movement, and the Englishmen were leit standing still. After'that it was all over, and the re-mainder-was a mere matter of piling up the agony. - Later Cooke: scored again, Parker got a couple of tries,’ and Richardson one.’ Nicholls did all the try-converting, and “five dub of his seven attempts were successful. Nor was that surprising: The movements which succeeded,- were so manoeuvred .that the try-getter nearly always finished : in the neighbourhood of the goal-posts. The crowd had-got their eye-opener at last. Wesaw instant-initiation-pass-es given and taken at top speed and most especially-delightful dummy-sell-ing, in which foe, not friend, was sold. This- practice alone lain stress on the difference in the respective 'attacking strength - of the two back divisions. A BEATEN SIDE.' V - Hamilton-Wickes was the best of the English backs, but extremely good was Millar. Several times did one or other of dhese two wing men get away, •though heifer as the outcome of an ideal opening- .made for Mem. , But nearing the touch-line the . wing man invariably found himself unsupported. So' he' had either to cross-kick or to find; touch. That was not, the case when a. member of the New Zealand back division got away. He invariably h&4 support galore, find rarely did he' allow himself to be hampered by the totich-line. The New Zealander of 1924 knows that' stereotyped passing 'from l.ef, to right or right to left i-- merely useful to inspire confidence In the other side—for it nearly always fails. A practically certain defeat .for London became, a rout, and during the last 20 minutes of the match the majority of the Englishmen played like what they were—a beaten-side.-. THE THREE OUTS. • All honour to the winners; they won handsomely and brilliadtly; and they deserved it all. London were outpaced —outmanoeuvred—'-outlasted. The- lesson taught by Saturday’s match ia obvious/ Pace is what matters, and initial pace is of infinitely more consequence than subsequent pace. _ In a match of importance only once in the proverbial bine moon ia subsequent pace of any practical value. • Do it quickly?/ Yes, that is important. But to do it at once is essential. The London backs had lots Of chnnoes tc attack, especially in the early stages o' the battle; when their opponents were keening their powder dry. They made no use of them. They were always just beginning to get to work when the fleet and instant New Zealand forwards, with Brownlie leading, were, on top of them. ■ • : ■ • CANUTE ATTITUDE. Some old-fashioned folk insist that we do not want the game to be any faster. It is not, I submit, a question of ;what we want. In the words of the cofnic song, “We’ve got to have it. whether we like it or not.” The Canute attitude will not do, and the modern Canute, I suspect, knows that it will not—veTjr much as his predecessor did. It is westing time to indulge in the silly farce of sitting on the shore .and telling the flowing tide of pace to stop—much less to recede. la?t us be grateful to the New Zealanders

for rubbing in to us the pace stuff, even if nt the time the rubbing in hurts. We shall be all the better for it afterwards. ALL PLAYED WELL. I should certainly say that not one of the lo New Zealanders played anything but well. The dash and initial attacking power of their forwards allowed their backs to exploit their own particular game in their own way. Even so, Parkes, Mill. Nicholls, and McGregor were delightfully instructive, and in rear of them was Cooke (.the most brUiant of them all) at his best, Nepia in the first half did all that was required of him easily enough; in th* second he qualified for the dole. RUINS OF LONDON ALL BLACKS UPON THEM. The New Zealanders, who appeared at Twickenham yesterday, may not have been of the 'breed imagined in Macaulay’s prophecy, but they stood on the ruina of London all right (says another critic). The fifteen opposed to represent the old city held them right gallantly-during the find halt, but after the interval the All Blacks riddled and ridiculed London s defence out of existence, and won hy the gloat score of five goals and two tries to two tries. FULL OF THRILLS. It was as well that the Rugby Union had 666111. betimes to the extension of the accommodation at their fine ground, for 40,000 people rolled up u> obtain a first view of the tourists in town. And they'had' full value for their money from the moment of the famous “war cry” to the last kick of a thrilling game, even though, in the second half, most of tho thrills were supplied by the visitors. London now realises, as the provinces had already discovered, that the New Zealanders are a wonderful side. Their immense speed, their great physical strength, their uncanny accuracy in support, their quickness to spot a hole in the opposing defence —all these qualities appealed to the crowd and nonplussed the London team. ‘ ‘TEMPKRAM EIS lAL- ’ There were faults, of coarse, bob these were temperamental, and, one regrets to add, unnecessary. London, in the second half, were so obviously outclassed for weed, that no possible reason existed for certain obstrnctionistic methods. Extreme vigour In the scrummages was more understandable, with t)ie visitors outnumbered, and here it may be said that the eight London forwards did not get the ball from their seven opponents so often aa had been expected. - ' Still, London made a braWß show forward, with Wakefield working like a horse,' and Browne constantly conspicuous, but the outstanding frontranker in the field was the New Zealand giant, M. Brownlie, even though his vigour .occasionally overstepped the mark. London failed partly because boom of the forwards did not last the journey, hut chiefly through the inferiority or the backs.