Close Call With Cambridge

NZ Truth, Issue 997, 3 January 1925, Page 11

Close Call With Cambridge

WONDERFUL BLUE FORWARDS.

Blacks' Deficient Form.

( By E..E. Booth— Special "N.Z.T.")

LONDON, November 12,

The match between Cambridge University and the All Blacks was played on the University ground under very adverse conditions. Continuous heavy rains had fallen overnight and even up to the time of starting a light but drizzling rain. fell. Fortunately this gradually subsided into a heavy mist which created a bad light. The playing field was mushy and sodden, making even walking laborious and heavy. There was a fine heavy turf of grass and no actual slush or slime.

Cambridge played m Blue and White Hoops. The interest locally m the match was enhanced by the remembrance of the tremendous struggle the Blues maintained on the preceding tour m 1905 and when we had to play our hardest to win. •' .;■..": r

The University naturally fielded their strongest side which included no less than ten Blues and six of these were m the pack. This may account m some measure for the general excellence shown m this department of play. Young, the English scrum half, lately m South Africa,, and W. Rowe Harding, a Welsh International; appeared on the left wing. The AIL Blacks did ijot field their strongest side. ■.■.■'■.,■ :

Judging from appearances, . Cambrige were considerably lighter than the visitors, although their height was quite as good, if not better m the forwards. The game that ensued was one of the greatest surprises and utterly confounded all the London critics, who had without exception all prognosticated a very comfortable win I6r the tourists. ,

The tremendous drubbing Leicester Tigers had administered the previous Saturday to the 'Varsity and the almost total taming these Tigers had received from New • Zealand made a mathematical difference , of over fifty points. Several factors that became most prominent during this hardfought game had- not been taken into consideration, however. The heavy weather conditions, the strange inaptitude of the New Zealanders to play on wet grounds, and the well-known proclivity of the 'Varsity to play well under these damp auspices, and their faculty to rise to big occasions were not allowed for. Also it appeWed to me that, they have some developed mutual understanding and acted cooperatively one with another, all through, actually vicing m team work With the All Blacks.

Under the conditions naturally most p]ay fell to the forwards of both sides and a fine, well contested, drawn out duel ensued between these well-match-ed sides. The Blues "eight" packed consistently tight ' and smartly, each having a set position and when down they invariably appeared slightly lower than the Blacks. They pushed each scrum with every ounce they possessed, wheeling very often with fine effect. In hooking they gained about sixty per cent, and more than held their own on the line-outs, where_they often broke away m well- controlled dribbling rushes, gaining lengthy stretches of territory.

The backs, well led by Young, and the fine opening 1 work of Francis, outside half, played m the first stages of the game carefully, mostly on the defensive, but gradually their confidence increased. They opened out m good style and would have possibly decided the game had both the wings been better ;fed. Harding was particularly fleet, whilst Devitt on the other wing made a lot of. work for himself.

The tackling of the New Zealand backs was their best trait during the game; they brought everything down. Whilst strong on this defensive point they were singularly weak and negligent m going . down to the frequent 'Varsity forward rushes m the approved manner. Altogether the back machinery of the visitors seemed to get out of gear and the effective match winning operations one expected to appear, especially m the 'second spell, did not materialise. The Blacks' backs seemed to become moire or less demoralised by the effective footwork of Cambridge. Their passing was very faulty, not so much on account of bad taking or acceptance "of passes,, as the over-running of, the ball. Thus three times m succession a rush was brought back by f forr r ward passing. ;

The 'Varsity eight had quite held the New Zealand pack up to halftime. The New Zealand scrum seemed to be wrong m the setting, poorly controlled. Whilst the 'Varsity wheeled repeatedly and broke away the Blacks worked m a disjointed manner, fine individual efforts, and single unit dashes. They eschewed actual screwing and wheeling and their heeling out was laboriously slow, so much so that Mill, scrum half, was frequently downed m possession. McGregor, too, was likewise often caught through indecjsidn. ■■'.•.-■-■

There was very little variety m the back.play either fore or aft. Amongst the backs when they found that their vis-a-vis was round on them and occasionally overlapping them they signally failed to use the very effective overhead punt or the diagonal grubber short kick. Robilliard was very lacking. ■ He was out of condition having been on the retired list since the Somerset match. Altogether the backs persistently "held off" getting up to the opposition m possession.

Thus the 'Varsity back's repeatedly swung off m good passing evolutions that but for the occasional weaknesses of their central pivots m transferring (most notably Young) might have ended m New Zealand walking (off the field a defeated side. •/'

As it was the whole issue of the game was decided* the other, way by this fault. A strong mis-pass of Young's flew astray. Douty, who played excellently at full, had to come up and attempt to check an ugly forward, ruck. From the ensuing; scramble near the line Mill, a clever opportunist at any time, snapped up the leather and wriggled his way over, under the post's. Nicholis converted. Thus the New Zealand score was off the mistake of their opponents and not the result of. their own conception and making. •

Many have not hesitated to state that the All Blacks were lucky to win at all. Still, for all that they were the better side. One forward got over but was not allowed. Pai'ker made one of his usual breaks, but on: coming right up to Douty he kicked much too far ahead, instead of centreing, where his confreres had fanned out. Also m the second spell a fine blind side working by Mill was nullified by Hart's non-acceptance of a very fast pass. Twice two splendid chances of marking m close striking distance were allowed to go^by. The expected collapse of the local' side did not happen, although at the end they were visibly distressed. Still they played on pluckily; They are one of the' very few teams who [have kept their end up. right through. They threw themselves m with a grim abandon and deserve all kudos, especially for their fine rush stopping. They exceeded the wildest sanguine hopes of either themselves or their friends. Their dash .more than compensated for; their lack m weight. In fact their lightness allied to general fitness accounted m large measure for their astonishing mobility. The heavier. Colonial sank deeper, requir-

ing rtiore effort, thereby diminishing strength.

Douty, Francis and Young sustained their forwards with good line-finding kicks. Francis was impressive with some of his opening runs. Harding on the wing is one of the fastest backs met with so far. The other wing figured on the programme as Sir T. G. Devitt, m reference to which one wag near by me remarked that if the Prince of Wales were playing his full title would fill one side of the programme.

All the: forwards worked hard, especially MacMyn, Scott, Tucker, and Jones. .

The game although very hard, close and keen was never too keen. Both sides played m the best of spirit and T. H. Vile, the old Welsh International officiating as referee, made full equitable observation of the advantage rule and kept the game going. He strictly cut out all heavy massed melees or mauls. The nature of play adopted by both sides helped him m this respect and there were fewer scrums than usual. Vile is one of the youngest controls met so far. What few penalties were recorded were mostly against the visitors as usual.

Nepia ' had not much to do. Brown ■ was not so dashing as usual. McGregor tackled well, but otherwise was not up to his usual. Nicholls was. consistent and. kicked well. Mill was quite himself m the second spell, although several of his passes were much too near the gr.ound. The faulty heeling hindered his effectiveness behind. Parker, although playing a consistently good game stood probably too deep m position for a wet weather game. In closer proximity he might have been more serviceable iio the pack which occasionally needed extra poundage. White, Richardson, C. >Brownlie and' Irvine shone out at intervals. Altogether the New Zealand forwards seemed to lack solidity. Good massed formation movements for breaking, away, especially from line-outs, loose dribbling such as was shown m Ireland, were not noticeable to any extent. Short high punting and centreing kicks were forgotten; Seemingly it was an off day for New Zealand. '