THE SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR

NZ Truth, Issue 1145, 10 November 1927, Page 14

THE SOUTH AFRICAN TOUR

Sidelights On Different Methods Of Two Countries

DEVELOPMENTS IN FORWARD PLAY

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special South African Correspondent.)

In common with England and New Zealand, forward play has been greatly developed m South Africa since the war. ■• '

IN the days far back the main, and nearly the sole, duty of the forwards was to secure the ball m the tight scrums and llne-outs. Having 1 done so they were content to leave the rest of the movement to the backs with the result that we were treated to spectacular three-quarter play. Before the war, however, there was evidence, that forwards were declining: to be merely "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for their backs and began to take a more lively interest m the play, mixing themselves up with tho players m the other divisions when they felt inclined to do so. All modern ideas of forward play now expect the forwards to break out of the scrum nearly as quick, as the ball, and, indeed, "if one of the back, row men has the knack of getting away a moment before the ball is out it is accounted a mark m his favor — always providing he does not attract the attention of the referee. / Whereas, m the old days m South Africa, the forwards stood upright for a breather as soon as the ball was m the hands of the half-backs and calmly watched them carry out a movement, what do we see to-day? One, of the back row men darts straight for the opposing stand off half, or first centre, while another breaks for the wing. The next rank cut each way, while the front rankers block the centre, all either following up an attacking movement or falling back to support the defence if the ball is In the possession of their opponents. Heading a New Zealand paper the other day I was struck by the statement that the obstructionist wingforward has disappeared . from New Zealand Rugby. As a practical Rugger man I can hardly believe it. Obstruction is the fine point m present day Rugby, be it wingers or rovers, call them what you will. When the British team was m South Africa we saw past masters m the art of "hipping" the half as he ran round the scrum m Voyee and Blakiston, and

I do not think the lessons were lost on the Springboks. Because obstruction and smothering tac&cs have come into the modern game we no longei\ see the old straight running centre three-quarter, and the talk about the decadence" of back play is born of a lack of appreciation of what the modern back has t.o cope with. * . • This was demonstrated m a Currie Cup match (the same as your Ranfurly Shield) between Natal and Transvaal this season. Natal have a grand lot of heavy forwards, who have been specializing m the "good, old-fash-ioned" scrimmaging i tactics, staking everything- on possession of the ball. Transvaal, on the other hand, have a good pack of moderns. When the Natal backs secured the ball and attempted to run straight, they were downed by the Transvaal forwards, who had spread out to receive them, while when the Transvaal backs were m possession they had a comparatively easy passage and piled up, a. hig score against a team which had a great pack of forwards trained m the old methods. It was a fine example of the old against the new. As I see it, there will be little between the All' Black, and Springbok forwards. Both countries breed men big and fast, to represent them m Rugby. In the qualities that go to make up great players of the game, the two countries are well matched. The . chief difference is m the matter of. tactics. As I see New Zealand Rugby, it owes its success to its policy of persistent attack. An All Black team goes on the field with j:he idea of penetrating their opponents' defences at all costs by means of crushing central thrusts. The All Blacks' record m international Rugby shows how successful they have been m ,achieving their ideals. They engage m lob passing, crosskicking and passing after being stopped m an effort to retrieve the movement, i % , i ' ' Their one notion is to keep possession of the ball and to turn it to account. These .methods often expose their side to serious danger — if their opponents are good enough to ayail themselves of chances. . South Africa, on the other hand, relies on whart may best be termed safety or conservative tactics. Their main idea is to win the ball and keep it

tight or give it to their backs, -nrho often enough are content to win ground with a kick to touch until a position has been gained, for a sharp, thrustful attack with their wings. While the forwards are ever- ready to fly to the point of danger or support m attack, they can handle, kick and dribble as well as their backs and are always ready to seize an opportunity offered by their opponents. With its solid scrummaging, bunched line-outs, touch-kicking and positional play generally, the _ Springboks' methods are the essence of orthodoxy compared with the All Blacks' play. I have no doubt that when the Springboks were m New Zealand their methods were a trifle disappointing, but I can assure you that South Africa learnt nothing m the Dominion. Good judges' in South Africa contend that our consei'vative methods are our chief source of strength, and one who holds thia view is J. S. Olivier, who was a member of the Springbok team which toured New Zealand m 1921. He contends that South Africa's strength lies- largely m the fact that a representative side ever makes a practical error. This would give opponents an advantage and the very soundness of the Springboks' play makes it less liable for them to be beaten by the unorthodox. The latter word must be taken m its' broadest sense. In discussing the prospects of the forward battle, which is likely to settle the issue of the tests, he states: The New Zealand sorum contains, as a rule, not more than five (out of seven) solid scrum-workers and specialists; the rest are carried for their skill m the loose, while an eighth, forward never enters the scrum, but manoeuvres from the side of it to squash the opposing scrum-half. But few captains can endure that the scrum-half should be harassed m this way, and m desperation, but very unwisely, pull

out an uninitiated forward to coun- . ter the activity of the specialist winger. By doing so the scrum is unnecessarily weakened, and the percentage of successful scrums appreciably" reduced. Moreover, experience has taught us both here and m New Zealand that It is futile to combat the activity of the troublesome, *but versatile' wing-for-ward m any other way than by quick hooking, to enable the half to get the ball away before the wing-fonVard can . get at him. Mannetjie Michau has repeatedly demonstrated that it can be done behind a capable pack. Successful hooking depends largely upon the ability of the hooker (who should be a specialist) and the general organization of the scrum. If it is remembered that the All Blacks, as a result ' of their scrum formation ■ 2-3.-2, hardly ever have the advantage of a "loose head," and still manage to win 50 per cent, or more of the scrums,, then we must ascribe their success to the skill of the hooker and to the more concentrated force exerted by their particular formation. Lately we have been playing specialist hookers, but ha,ve as yet not : paid much attention to scrum organization. Neither "fixed places" nor "first up, first down" has been our rule. Rather has our organization been a combination of the two. But against the All Blacks * so much will depend upon our success m fixed scrums that South Africa can no longer adhere to crude methods. "Fixed ' places" will have to be adopted, for then only will the fixed scrum work of the forward become specialized and efficient. It may be added that the refereeing m South Africa is particularly strict. In fact, there is often a tendency to regard the letter of the law before the spirit. Every effort will be made to meet the tourists with a view to mutual agreement on points of law. With this m view I understand that almost immediately on the . arrival of the All Blacks m Durban their repre-. sentatives will be invited to a "get together" with the South African Board for the purpose of a frank and free discussion which should remove any possibility of differences of opinion later m the tour.' [A further article by this writer will appear m an early issue of "N.Z. Truth."]