PONEKE v. MELROSE.

NZ Truth, Issue 264, 16 July 1910, Page 3

PONEKE v. MELROSE.

| . Nobody ever expected that Melrose, I -who now hoM tne disianction of being nat the bottom of the list, would make n-much of a show against last year's -..dbampions, and they didn't. The game H'Was not Irad to look at, the Poneke men I gettiing m some fine passjtJg rushes. The ; .. return of Mitc4rinson to the team after ! -riM 53 Australian tour made a great differ-

ence to red and black combination, not oaly by reason of his own efforts, but because two or three of his team -appear to be at se a m his absence. The game was played at Kaorori, and consequently the attendance was not very large. " Tries were scored for Boneke m the first haM by Elliott, Mitchmson and Chapman, one being converted by Slater, the score at tJie end of ,the spell reading .: Poneke 11, Mclrose 0. MitcMnson, who played m fine •. form, scored his try by a run from half-way. Elliott's try was the result of a very fine passing rush, the ball changing hands neatly and cleanly and crossing the field twice before Elliott grounded it. In "the second spell play opened up more evenly, and Melrose; were more than once unlucky m not scoring— jost the finishing touch missing, piangke m turn shifted the scene of opera<tfions to Melrose line, and were once more driven back without increasing tbeir score. Melxose made > one last assault, but Ftoneke's defence (combined with a little luck) , saw them routed. • This was their last attempt, Poneke rattling up another nine points, three tries («osie each by Dennehy, Mrfcchinson, and Elliott), all the result of good, quick passing rushes. The winners, also made several more attacks m :tbe same mannef during the latter p&rt 1 of. the game, but the defence .was just- eqtaal to each occasion. The 'Poneke backs showed something a' little like their form in<this match. Even"! although they were up against a -weak, tteam, Melfose defence was, as it always . ■is, pretty fair. Possibly the presence of Mitchinson, who played a fine game himself, and was one of the maSn factors m most of jfche other scores, made all the difference to them. Tilyaxd, Walsh, and Elliott all did their work well, the sec-ond-named showing improved form. Theforwards all worked hard at times, Leahy and Hunter being particularly good. In fact, one is inclined to wonder why Hunter missed his cap tMs^eason. ; . Mr Neilsen refereed.