END OF THE NEW ZEALAND FOOTBALL TOUR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13519, 16 February 1906, Page 3

END OF THE NEW ZEALAND FOOTBALL TOUR.

A REVIEW OP THEIR RECORD. (Fhom Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, January 5. Almost without exception, every leading journal—sporting and otherwise—in the Kingdom came out on Monday, after the last fixture of the New Zealand tour, with an enormous amount of space devoted to a review of the late season, summarised descriptions of tho different leading matches, and many other points of interest to lovers of football. Four columns, for instance, were filled by tho Athletic News with various aspects of tho game as played by the New Zcalanders, contributed as special articles by various writers. The Times, too, contained a long article from a correspondent, who begins by making reference to the game in Wales. He says:—"The N«v Zealand team has fallen 011 troublous times since they invaded Wales. A cloud of controversy has veiled their doings since the international match at Cardiff. There .is tho question of tho disaltowcd try, which would have j*ivcn tho visitors a draw at least, and the further discussion as to whether Gallahcr's method of putting the ball into tbo scrummago is in accordance with the equity of the game. With these, matters devout lovers of Hug by football, such as I claim to be, ought not to concern themselves. Tho referee's decision mast be taken as final. It was a great mistake to reserve tho Welsh games until the close of tho tour, when a long sequence of matchcs, two each week with long spells of railway travelling between them, had impaired the dash <V»d 'instantaneous' of their liest players, more especially of th? much-bat-tercd forwards. The men who lost to Wales were not tho men who won with such easy brilliance against Blackhcath, and against an English fifteen, which could hold its own fairly well, I believe, in a contest with Wales and Scotland. Op the day's play the fateful victory at Cardiff was well earned ■ by the Welshmen, who owed their success to the incomparable excellence of Winfield's plav at full back. . . . It is a pity that New Zealand did not play Wallaeo at full hack 011 that occasion. He cannot kick as good a length as Winfield, but he is a sure field, and very accurate; not at. all the man to exhaust and demoralise his forwards by those easily caught punts up the centre of tho field, which are about the worst, sins of commission a full back can perpetrate. Overwork had already told on the New Zealand forwards before they went- to Wales, and the leg-weary movements of tho soven against Wales in the last half-hour at Cardiff were sufficient to awake the sympathy of a Welsh miner. The. five-eighths were also out of form, and slow, lobbing passes— never seen in the oarly days of t ho tourwere far too common among the threequarters. . . . Their defeat at Cardiff and their close games with the Welsh clubs have led many critics to believe that the New Zealand'style has been over-rated— that the old methods are the best after all. There could he no creator mistake. Indeed, the fact that tho Weish authorities abandoned the typical Welsh formation when choosing their repesontative fifteen is a convincing proof to the contrary. They admitted that it would be a fatal error in strategy to play only seven backs against the eight of the visitors—an admission which once for all disposes of tho theory of eight forwards. If, however, seven forwards are to do the work of eight, it is clear that they must bo organised in a 2-3-3 formation, and it is equally obvious that something will bo gained by choosing specialists for each position in tho nack. Indeed, an elementary knowledge of human dynamics shows one "that a 'lock' forward must b& used, or the littie phalnnx will be scattered the moment it is forced to give way a step. The 'wing' forward, or piratical half-back, is also a necessity, though it is a point worthy of discussion whether he should he allowed to obtain a true forward's immunity from the strict off-side rule by the mere act of resting his hand 011 the shoulders of a scrummager. This question must be decided eventually by the authorities who will, \t is to bo hoped, give due wcisrht to the wishes of New Zealand, where the taint of professionalism has never been countenanced. The suggestion that tho referee should placo tho ball in the scrummage—as if the poor man had not enough work already—need not be soriouslydiseusscd until the professional, with his small subterfuges, is admitted, which would be the ruin of so personal a game as Rugby football. "The advantages of the New Zealand disposition of backs,"continues this contributor to The Times, " arc 'not quite so obvious as these accruing from their organisation of the pack. But tlicv seem real enough, and the apparent success of the 'flyinsr back' compromise at Cardiff must not blind us to the reality of the gain. Against the success of Pritehard, who did his sDoiling work verv well, must be set tho failure of J. E. Raphael, E. D. Simson, and the lustj forward pulled out of the Irish pack to affect the course pf the game by equally brilliant displays of practical opportunism. Let us hope that these lessons will be learned before the New Zealand men visit us again. All average score of 27.1 against our best teams is a little too much. It- will be the result of British obstinacy if we cannot do as well as tho Welshmen next time." Writing in the Sporting Life, Captain the Hon. Southwell Fit/Geralcl remarks:— " There are several important points which the New Zealand tour has clearlv.demonstrated. It has been shown that to win at' the Rugby game it is necessary to Lxep fit. I do not for a moment mean to infer that players in Ixmdon clubs can bo exported 10 bo in the same state of fitness as tho colonials ahvavs were, but still, our London players could turn out a- "ood deal fitter than they do now. The Now Zealandcrs were also an obieet-lesson in the seeming Rugby paradox "of being individual I ■p}aj£rg jot gjeat wsduop, asd at. the^s®?

timet a loam of great combination, Their following up and Tracking up of eaoh other won them many a score.. They taught our backs the absolute necessity of running straight, There is not tho faintest doubt that tho New Zealand tour has created a new public for Rugby football and a great national interest in our game. tVhy liavo the colonials accomplished the former fact? Because they played bright, attractive football, and because they used their brains as well as their hands and feet. Tho New Zealand game is essentially an open one, in which there'is very little scrummage, but plenty of running, kicking, and sound, effective tackling." The Daily Telegraph has a- good deal to say on the subject, and it begins by describing the tour as a remarkable one—"one that will be memorable in the history of Rugby football. It is a. commonplace to observo that it altogether exceeded expectations, Even the New Zealandcrs themselves, justly confident as thoy havo been in their own prowess, could hardly have looked forward to such brilliant results as havo been achieved, and British players, though aware that strong opponents had to bo met. were not quit© prepared for an invasion of such a formidable nature. How greatly in somo quarters the quality of New Zealand football had been underestimated was best illustrated by the refusal of tho Lancashire Union to give a modest guarantee, and .the consent of the Scottish Union to a fixture on tho visitors undertaking to pay the expenses. . . . As all tho world knows, the New Zealanders literally walked over tile English counties and clubs, and that in, 110 match, except perhaps that with Cambridge University, did they havo the least cause for anxiety. The heavy scoring which marked their opening engagements became toned down as the season advanced and a.s our own men ran into their real form, but. no side in England— not even the international fifteen —could make more than a. decent fight of it. ... So far a,s England, Ireland, and Scotland weie concerned, there could he no cwestion as to the superiority of the Now Zealandors, and it is difficult to reconcile their general form with that which they displayed against the Welshmen. Prior to their visit to the Principality they had gained 27' victories, scoring 801 points as against 22, hut so astonishing a change occurred in their fortunes that in their last five games they only obtained 29 points as against 17. . . . A mistake no doubt was mado in- so frequently calling upon their best players for tho less important engagements, which might safoly have been left to tho less skilful and experienced members of the team, and it is more than likely that the heavy strain of (lie tour was telling upon the inon. Whatever the rau.so, it is certain they failed to do themselves justice." By the Standard the following remarks are mado: "That the New Zealandcrs actually scored the disallowed try, and that it was not seen by the referee, is as certain as that this fact in itself constitutes very hard luck indeed for the colonials, for it meant the loss of their unbeaten certificate. They took their defeat like the genuine good sportsmen they are. There was no need whatsoever in any case for tho torrent of accusations against, GaUaher' of putting the ball in the scrum with twist on, which followed the Welsh win by a try to nil, much less was there any call for it considering that had won. 11l the subsequent Cardiff match Ga I la he r completely refuted all theso accusations, lock, stock, and barrel." "Our satisfaction is only exceeded by our delight," replied Mr James Duncan, tho coach of tho Now Zealandors, to a Standard representative when asked for hi; impressions of tho tour. "In either back or forward play I have scon nothing throughout the tour by which we could improve tho standard of Rugby in New Zealand—not even in Wales. Our one defeat camo about, not that we met a superior team,' but because the majority of our backs were obviously out of form. For all-round efficiency nothing at Home can come near tho Welsh backs. Scotland's arc a poor second to them. But for the best forcing pack of forwards, give 1110 the Irishmen—they eclipse those of Wales or Scotland, although for 1111 example of a first-class front-ranker I should go to tho English pack, and point to Cartwright, their skipper. Of alt tho forwards wc have met there arc none that can claim as much efficiency in all departments of tho game as the New Zealanders. though, perhaps, England lias men, both in front and rear, possessed of individual excellence, but their combination is hopeless. Apart from the Welsh games, the best, football wc met in Britain was against Scotland, the Midland Counties, and Blackheath. I purposely include the latter, because their backs showed a marked disposition to play the proper game. Devonport Albion and Northumberland, though stronger opponents, depend far too much upon the bard, forcing tactics of their forwards, whose play at times was unnecessarily rough. Of Britain's teams, Scotland were the only side that showed tirst-claS3 Rugby. . . . The forwards at. Home, generally, are below the colonial standard in physique, and their particular weakness is in methods. I include thoso of Ireland. Wales, and Scotland in this remark. They go at the ball like a bull at a gate. They should learn to scrum and line-out, so that the opposing backs will get no chances to handle the ball, to pass more, with discretion and quickly, and to follow up faster. The forward game is much superior in quality to that, of the backs, except in Wales. For general purposes, the English, Scotch, and Irish backs could not do better than adopt either Welsh or colonial methods. There are two important faults with the former which should be avoided— not- running straight for tho line, nor passing at tho right, moment. The result- 01" this is that their wing three-quarter has to swerve in to avoid being forced into the outline before crossing tho touch-line. All their tries against us were got wide out, near the corner. . . . There is ono part of the colonial formation, however, I hope to sco obliterated before long. I refer to the wing forward. The innovation should be abolished, becauso it spoils tho game and is responsible for continual offside play. In the south of New Zealand we never play it. The referee always puts the ball into tho scrum. I favour the game of the English Northern Union, where 110 man can legally pass in front of his pack until the ball is out of tho scrum, . . . Our present team has several faults which would bo quickly condemned in Now Zealand. They are not, in my opinion, the strongest combination wo could got together, particularly in the forwards' ranks. I know of no fewer than 12 men in the colony at the present time who would bo an acquisition to our forccs. When Wales visits us, in 1907, I hope, they will have to bring out a stronger side than that which lowered the colours of tho present team, I fancy!" The Sportsman gives a. summarv of the various matchcs, and it .says that"in their opening game "tho colonials gave a superb exhibition of those methods by means of I which they at once jumped into.fame. The splendid vigour, great pace, and admirable all-round skill captivated the 8000 spectators present, and caused the sporting press to sound their praises in superlatives throughout the length and breadth of the country. It, may be said that the New Zealandcrs made a great reputation in ono match, and never lost it. Thoro was not a shadow of doubt that it was a remarkable side. Indeed, such an impression did the strangers make on one of the critics, who boasted 20 years' experiAice of international 'Rugger,' that lie expressed the opinion there and then that they would beat every club and county, and that international sides would have a tremendous task to defeat them. Subsequent results fully justified this prediction." ■ in tho Sportsman, Major Philip Trevor ("Dux") savs:—"Let us by all means do Wales the fullest possible justice, but, 011 the other hand, wo should avoid the. error of drawing wild and extravagant deductions. I have quoted in retail tho figure? which tell so strongly in favour of the Welshmen. Now let us look at tho other side of the picture, Presuming that one of these Welsh sides—oven tho international side—had undertaken the New Zealanders' tour in England. Scotland, and Ireland, does any unprejudiced judge of the same think that at the end of 27. matches they would not only have had an unbroken record of victory, but also that victory. would be expressed by a score of 801 points to 2?.? Docs anyone seriously tliiuk that, anything approaching that result would have been attained? Good as Wolah form is, we have known approximately for years how Rood it is, and wc haye no possible grounds for placing it on the level of New Zealand form as displayed in the months of October and November. Obviously then the question arises, 'How do w« account for the fact that five times running Welsh sides played the New Zealandcrs games in which, roughly speaking, there was nothing to choose between the two?' Stalcncss and the Wear and tear of a long tour are, of course, factors in the case, and very important factes, too, but they do not tell tie wholo story. There arc times when self-confidence, even if it he a little blatant, 13 a. more valuable asset to its possessor than excess of modesty. However much Wo may love the modest cricketer-or footballer as a friend, he is not always our best comrade in the fame. Personally, I believe if the New Zealiuiders had read nothing and heard nothing about Welsh footballers, but bad

taken the field 'cock-a-hoop,' the .Welsh tour would mot have ended as it has ended, a moral victory for Welsh football; though in saying so I, for one, admit tho' superiority of Welsh play over English, Scotch, or Irish play. But I also believe New Zealand play to be better than all four."