THE RUGBY GAME.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19373, 8 January 1925, Page 12

THE RUGBY GAME.

NEW ZEALAND TOUR. GREAT WIN OVER WALES. i THte AYEHGtN'G OF “1905.” Specially Written for the Otago Daily . ; Times. By- Colonel Philip Tbevoe, C.B.E. LONDON, December 3. Before commenting on the great international match ‘Wales v. New Zealand, I should like to say a few words about the two matches immediately preceding it— Oxford University v. New Zealand and Cardiff v. New Zealand. Both were—to me, at any rate—most instructive. Are our famous visitors becoming a little too Asquithian in their methods (as the outcome* of contamination, perhaps) in this country? Are they getting convinced of sagacity of the advice; “Wait and see”? Had the ex-Premier’s counsel been followed in the war we should have lost it; and-following it, I am convinced, will go far io lose 99 out of every 100 games of Rugby football which are played in this or in any other country. “Strike first” is a much better motto. And why should you 'not strike your opponents first and outlast them too? If a touring side fails to keep fit it deserves to lose. Its members have no business engagements and their time between matches can be devoted to training. I say iwithont reservation that the touring side ought always to outlast the teams It meets. Failure to do so means bad management or Sack ojf discipline, or both. If, then, you know yon will outlast your opponents, why not go “all out” to establish the moral, intellectual, psychological, and technical advantage of drawing first blood? At Oxford the ’Varsity lads were allowed to press an immediate attack at kick-off, and one of their most dangerous attackers, H. P- Jacob, came within an ace of scoring In the first 40 seconds. A few minutes later he actually did so. Yon can Imagine What this Initial success meant to Oxford. Their :pack is not credited with being and certainly so far this season the Oxford forwards have been distinctly disappointing. But when this game began they were showing surprisingly good form, and they have always known that in rear of them is great scoring capacity. Jacob’s try gave them the encouragement they needed, and when play had lasted about "an hour the score was 19 to 15 in favour of New Zealand. This is to say, but for thd first of the two goals dropped by NichoEs, there would have been nothing m it. Subsequently the New Zealanders rubbed it in,- and all present realised then why it was that they kept on winning. When the real struggle came they played their own unique game superbly. In my opinion, they should always concentrate on playing their own game (the game "of constant hand-to-hand passing) in all conditions and at all risks. After all, What are the risks? There is only one—the snapped pass. And when has the snapped pass hurt them? 1 have seen the majority of their matches played and I cannot recall a aingla case in which the pasa-snapper has scored against thorn. You cannot ignore the inexorable logic of' fact. At Cardiff once again the home team were allowed to do the initial attacking. It is true that New Zealand drew first blood, but still it waa a penalty goal which gave them their lead, and after it had been ticked the Welshmen attacked again. But at Cardiff the Now Zealanders disappointed me more than in any previous match. Having obtained a lead of 16 points to nothing, they sank their peculiar and particular characteristics and for the rest of the match they played like a moderate English club side that is old-fashioned in thought and action. They just hung on to their lead, and not really successfully either, for that lead was reduced and the second half was a sheer physical struggle in which the New Zealand pack got the worst of the physicalism. Indeed, had the Cardiff forwards made any intelligent use of the big advantage which their direct frontal attack continuously gave them. New Zealand might have been really up against it —which, as a matter of fact they were not. Still, why didn’t they give these Welshmen the “counter” of New Zealandism, as they had' done at Oxford at the critical stage of the match? The day was fine, the turf was firm, the ball was dry, and there was very little wind. They were content to be negative, and it is not a misuse of terms to say that negativism means retreat. If you don’t go on you go bade at Rugby football. ;• 'When these brilliant attack mg New Zealanders let their opponents call the tune they shear themselves of 80 per cent, of their strength. Technically, no doubt, (hey can ; defend their Cardiff tactics. They ’ knew that the Cardiff forwards were attacking at best as inspired individuals: they knew that' the Cardiff backs were negligible: jthey knew, in fact, that the result of the match would bo another New Zealand victory. Yet, by not retaliating, they put heart into thousands of Welshmen, and when all was over the fear of Welsh Bugby Unionists in regard to; the great match at Swansea had been supplanted by hope, and, indeed, by confidence. And .then came the great match itself, whiohyaa'an Irishman might say, was more than; half over before it was begun. Put in plaid English, the Welsh Selection Committee Anado what, in my opinion, was an incomprehensible blunder in policy. When they chose their team the Metereological Office {which has an altogether uncanny knack of correct prophesy) had told us that for some time to come it was to be “rain-rain-rain. ’ ’ Once again were those weather experts right, but the Welsh selectors either ignored them or refused to regard the weather as important—the most) important—factor in the problem before them. Scrummaging, as we understand scrummaging in the British Isles, is the . weakest link in the New Zealand armour. Never yet in the tour, either in England, Wales, or Ireland, have the all conquering New Zealanders been opposed by a back division which either in attack or defence could challenge comparison with theirs. Moreover, from the valleys of Wales, from the collieries alone, you can get a pack of forwards which for sheer scrummaging capacity can beat any pack that can bo brought against it. I do not say, nor do I think, that under any possible conditions Wales had a real technical chance of boating New Zealand. But I do say that the only way in which the thing could conceivably nave been done was to choose eight scrummaging forwards to oppose the Now Zealand seven, to concentrate upon sheer direct action and by so doing to prevent the New Zealand game behind tho scrummage front developing. That was not done. Instead of that, they chose six scrummagers {one or two of whom wore not generously equipped physically) and they added that once famous winger. Dal Hiddlostone, now 40 years of age, who was dropped from tho Welsh team last season And not invited to play in the trials this season. When the decision was made known Isold to a friend: “I thought Wales would bo beaten before I heard the composition of their side. Now, I know they will. Tho Now Zealanders can only lose by beating themselves. What an error of judgment surely to challenge the New Zealanders at their strongest point and not at their weakest? And’ to adopt what was for them the experiment of an extra half back in such conditions! For the last few seasons Welsh back divisions have been negligible in attack because their half backs and centre threequarter backs would not run straight. ConIsoquently, there was congestion before the touchline was reached. The adding of another back would, I know, only add to that congestion. And it did. I will .dismiss in a short sentence the combinedj attack of the Welsh backs at Swansea. ■ It was non-existent. And now for the match itself. It was not a« nice match, and there was unpleasant scrapping in it. I heard that there might be. j do not know who started it, but if the Welsh policy was to win by super physicalism it certainly failed. It was bound to fail. Putting aside all moral questions, , the New Zealand forwards were too big and too strong for that sort of thing, to. hurt them, and certainly they were no! to bo terrified by a display of force. I prefer not to dwell on that aspect of the match. Rugby football is a groat and glorious game. We don’t want it to be played in kid gloves, nor do we wish it adapted to tho requirements of the drawing room. But the hard knocks given and taken, in it should bo incidental and unavoidably , They should not be intended. It waa a great victory which Now Zealand ■won, but it was great chiefly because of the sentimental interest attaching to this particular match. From a technical point of view the winners were not at their best, splendid in tire loose os their forwards were. Their famous back division did not bring off li»y of those dawling movements which t

are still at once the despair and the delight of those who know them best. Still, they were not needed. Let it be noted, though, that Wales got tho encouragement of a good start. For half a dozen minutes their forwards “messed up” tho game of the New Zealand backs, though, incidentally, I think that this waa fatso success, and made the eventual undoing' of Wales more complete than it need have been. The Welshmen presumed on that bit of early promise and tried to do it again. Spoiling and spoiling alone is obsolete. In 1924 you have got to play your own game and to force it on your opponents if you are to boat a fine side. New Zealand won with superlative case (far more easily than a score of 19 points to nil would suggest), and after about 20 minutes Wales played like what they were —a beaten side. Nicholls was again magnificent both in generalship and in execution of his own plans; Nepia was a joy to watch as well as a very present help in time of trouble. The Brownlie brothers were always doing good “turns”—-at tho mbment I believe “M. J.” to bo the best forward in tho world—and so was Irvine. So tho New Zealanders of 1924 made history in Wales, and “1905” was avenged UNNECESSARY VIGOUR. In the 'Daily Telegraph Colonel Trevor says: “Once a New Zealand forward had one of the easiest chances of scoring. Nicholls on that occasion did about the cleverest thing seen all day. He feinted to drop a goal, cut inwards, sold a double dummy, and then gave the forward in question (who, unmarked, was only half a dozen yards from the line) an ideal chesthigh pass. That pass was fumbled. Once Cooke erred in a way I have never seen him err before, A great part of his welldeserved reputation he owes to his unselfishness. But in this particular case he had two comrades on Ins left (with, plenty of elbow room) when he approached the full-back. He attempted to bent him on his own, and failed. So, at any rate, the agony was not piled up. “It was not, I reluctantly admit, a nice game which we saw played, and there wore two periods in it—just prior to half-time and just alter half-time —when it was distinctly unpleasant. It is almost impossible to spot the original leper, but leprosy spreads fast. I saw a Welshman deliberately kick a New Zealander; I saw a Now Zealander give a Welshman the upper cut with his elbow. On both occasions the ball was some yards from these fighters, and in each case the scrummage screened the malefactors from the view of the referee. Always was the unnecessary vigour displayed, and the tone was not the tone of the matches played, say, at London and Oxford. 800-ING. “Par too large a section of the huge crowd (and many of these bad sportsmen were in the grand stand) ‘boo-ed’ the referee, Colonel Brunton —who, as a matter of fact, did his difficult job very well and with strict impartiality—whenever he penalised Wales. I do not know if any of these malcontents were at Cardiff when, by reason of A. L. Grade’s brilliant cieventh-hour exploits, Scotland beat Wales in 1923. If they were, they should have learnt how a great Welsh crowd could behave on a great occasion. Those Cardiff folk cheered Gracie to tho echo, and carried him off the field shoulder high. Perhaps bitter disappointment was tho cause of their bad behaviour (though there was no particle of excuse for it), for the Welshmen began in such promising style. The turf seemed to the eye to be in capital condition when play began,-but we afterwards noted that it was very soft. The New Zealanders then had the advantage of the wind; nevertheless, the Welsh forwards, coming through quickly, at once began to worry the New Zealand backs and to prevent them opening up the game. Loud, of course, was the cheering when this was observed, and hopes were raised which were soon to be dashed. Only for half a dozen minutes were these forwards excellent in thus way, and never afterwards did the Welshmen do anything which could legitimately encourage their friends. “ALL OVER LONG BEFORE THE END.” “Before Wetter was hurt I felt sure that New Zealand must win. Half a ( dozen minutes prior to the interval Irvine, from a line-out, got the first of his two tries. He was very smart in doing this bit oi scoring, and he caught the defence napping. Never in the second half did the Welshmen look like catching up. The reverse, in fact, was the case, and, as the Irishman said, it was al! over long before the end came. As a matter of fact, the exodus of the crowd began when 10 minutes remained for play. From a scrummage forward near the goal-lino Mill gathered the ball and tossed it to Svenson, who scored. The whole thing took only a fraction of a second—lightning work. It looked to be a soft try. It was not. The fourth and final try, converted by Nicholls, was obtained by Irvine after the best instance of play by rushing forwards we had seen all the afternoon. The ball was taken three-quarters the length of the field ere success rightly rewarded the movement. A BITTER DISAPPOINTMENT. “The whole match was, of course, a bitter disappointment to Wales. Their backs were entirely negligible in attack, and quite apart from any question of morality, scrapping spoils all forward play, and tight scrummaging la particular. The Welshmen did not get the boiler of the scrapping with the big New Zealanders, nor, if they had, would it have helped them one iota towards match-winning. In the loose the New Zealand forwards beat them for pace. It is but fair to the Welsh pack to say that their hooking and heeling was bettor than that of tluir opponents, but, alas, it availed them nothing. The brutal truth is, that not for two or three seasons past have Wales been able to get a set of backs who can threaten serious danger in combined attack. Saturday's experience merely adds another chapter to a new and rather dismal book. The fine old book seems to be out of print. Delahay showed rare pluck in sticking it out, and he did some smart things, while Eddie Williams • more than justified himself, and was never discouraged by the failure of the men in rear of him to do anything for their wing players. One especially sym pathised with Rowe Harding. Johnson, though he slipped once or twice on the treacherous ground, did admirably, and his judicious touch-finding was most helpful to'his tide. The wing of a three-quarter line is not the best training spot for a full-back. There you must “get into your stride in one”; at full-back it is a case of “safety first.” Johnson accommodated himself adroitly to the requirements of the new position. “It was a handsome victory which tho tourists won, and I imagine that the bonfires lighted to celebrate it thousands of miles away are still burning. By special decree of tho Dominion Government, I am told, the post offices were opened yesterdav (and they aro rather strict Sabbatarians) to spread through tho two islands the news of the happenings in this match—a match, by tho way, which was not won by what I will venture to call ‘New Zealandism.’ Not a single combined movement by tbo New Zealand backs had a practical result. There was the Mill-Svcn-son flash try; the other three (one by M. J. Brownlie and two by Irvine) were obtained by forwards. It was the play in the loose of the New Zealand forwards which was the feature of tho match. All seven wore admirable, and if I noticed tho two Brownlies and Irvine more than the others that is probably because I have only one pair of eyes. NICHOLLS AND NEPIA. “Nicholls is a great player; on Saturday last ho was again tho brains of the side. Nepia was superb. Once more he brought off his dive. He caught the ball when going at full pace and took his header. Ho severely injured two pairs of Welsh feet with his head, came up to the surface, got his kick in, and found touch. 'Ghastly clangorous fluke,’ said a Welshman to me. ‘l’ll bet v<v- if over }• ■ dares to try that again he’ll. . .*

I ventured to interrupt. I begged him to keep his money in his pocket. I assured him that Nepia made a hobby of it, and that ho had played in every match uj) to dale.” VICTORY AGAINST WALES. COMMENTS ON THE GAME. “A ROUGH HOUSE.” NOT A GOOD EXHIBITION OF BUGBY. (Feom Oue Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 3. Many columns of tho newspapers all over the country were devoted to a forecast of the New Zealanders’ match against tho Welsh Rugby team. On. the whole, English writers persuaded themselves, not without some effort, that Wales would just win. On the light of subsequent events these prophets were very wide of the mark. Now that New Zealand has won, there is no one who maintains that tho match was a great exhibition of football. “More rugged and virile than scientific or polished,” is one phrase applied to the game. "It was, indeed, a great triumph and well deserved,” says The Times, “but, equally so, the avenging of 1005, as it hag been called, was a sorrv affair in everything but its setting—and, perhaps, its vigour—as compared with the groat game of 19 years ago. Wales on this occasion waa endeavouring to neutralise the deterioration of her back play by the introduction o( an extra stand-off half-back Tho experiment failed, not because of the inability of a weakened pack to put up a great battle in front, but because of a fatal weakness at centre three-quarter back, aggravated by a general want of speed and old-time cunning. There was, too, the injury to the hapless Jack Wetter, but as Now Zealand had scored eight points before that occurred it serves little purpose to emphasise tho point. Perhaps tho unkindest cut of all, however, from tho Welsh viewpoint, was tho failure of tho men in red jerseys to score a single point, in spite of the undoubted fact that they had a full share of the game. Had they boon the men of 1905 they could have won as they had won before, but they were not, and that is tho end of the argument.” Evening Standard: Tho experiment of trying to play the Now Zealanders at their own game was a complete failure. Hiddlostono "winged” conscientiously with tho result that tho All Blacks’ seven shoved tho Welsn six all over tho [dace. After Wetter wag injured Hiddicstono dropped out of the scrum altogether, only to add further to the confusion behind. It was obviously absurd to play six forwards and, a winger against this New Zealand pack. Only an orthodox pack of eight solid scrummagers can hope to hold them; only a super pack can wear them down. Morning Post: As to tho manner of the Now Zealanders’ victory, there could bo no question whatever, there was no luck about it, they played better football, and they fully deserved their triumph, lore and aft they were the stronger side, and they showed all their well-known ability to seize chances, and to make the best use of their opportunities. It was by no means one of their finest displays, but it was much too good for Wales. To bo candid, tho Welsh team gave a show which was far inferior to that put up by both Newport and Cardiff against the same doughty opponents. NO ROAD THROUGH THE j-uGRISTS’ RANKS. Daily Express: New Zealand always impressed as the liveliei, more dangerous side. Their opportunism, their readiness to take oven unpromising chances, placed them well ahead of Wales. Cooke and Nicholls, both in brilliant form, and. in lessor degree, M'Gregor, set frequent problems to tho Welsh defence. Wares, on the other hand, could find no road through tho tourists’, ranks. Tho covering, the backing-up, were all but perfection, and though Nepia kicked bad(y at times, Jus fielding of a wot ball when going al lull speed was marvellous, and over and over again he dodged or bullocked through and gained ground for Ills side. A tremendous struggle rather than a display of Bugby football best describes the game. Some of the play was keen to the point of frenzy, and there was far too much 'playing tho man and not the ball. Colonel Brunton, the referee, had an unenviable task, which ho discharged with admirable firmness and tact though it was a reflection on tho players that so often ho found it necessary to talk to them amid tho booing of the crowd. The ma.tch was probably won and lost ton minutes after the skirt .when Wales wore penalised for offside, and Nicholls kicked a goal. ■ - ~ Sporting Life and Sportsman: Well, they succeeded convincingly and decisively, and while, perhaps, the actual margin m their favour is a litllo flattorng to them, tney never gave tho impression of losing. It was not a groat game, but on an occasion of such importance tho lack of artistry in movement and effectiveness in comomation may bo forgiven. What cannot to forgotten, however, ore many incidents of obstruction, {ho aotuul hitting of one player by another, threatening gestures, and deliberate backing that occurred for some 20 minutes in the second half. It was altogether regrettable, but one side was equally to blame with tho other. Fortunately, in Colonel J. Brunton we had a referee who, by the utmost firmness, brought I ho doliquents to their senses, and the game, that rapidly was developing into a free fight, became quite subdued. But it was tho worst exhibition of loss of temper I over have aeon. A WILD HURLY-BURLY. Daily Mail: It was from first to last a very hostile match. The players came on to the field with grim, set faces, no friendly banter ever passed between them.. No one ever smiled. And from first to last the crowd never ceased to cheer of hoot or to do both together. It was also a brute, strength match. A’igour counted above a’,l else on each side. Many strenuous, fiercely keen games have been soon at Swansea, tint surely never before had human bodies been picked up and thrown about with, such force as was the case on Saturday. The match differed as much from on ordinary hard Rugby game as a light with the “1-aw Tins” differs from a boxing contest with gloves. Fortunately, no serious damage was done to anyone, but it is certain that most of those who played will be black and blue all over for a week. The All Blacks ar; too strong, too hard too agile to lie afraid of a “rough house.” They accepted, with zest, the. challenge which the Welshmen had apparently thrown down. They won easily in a battle of strength, just as they won easily when it came to a battle of speed. Tho All Blacks, as usual, were an all-round, collective success. The speed of tho forwards, tho quickness and despatch of tbo tackling, were. most impressive. And standing out in this wild hurly-burly of a match were the huge forms of J. Richardson and the two Brownlies— terrible men to stop among the forwards or the . effective attacking manoeuvres of A. E. Cooke, the bracing resource of M. F. Nicholls. Daily Chronicle: It was not a pleasant, game to watch—in fact, there was a good deal one could take exception to. Tho two captains started with a petty quarrel over the ball, and that was the spirit all through the p‘ er <'. Often tho play waa too vigorous. Now, Rugby is not a parlour game, but it is not. supposed to include wild and dangerous kicking. As far a? this went it was “50-50” with both sides. I do not think tho Now Zealanders covered themselves with glory, in suite of their 19 points’ victory. Their sneed brought them through- that and an obvious determination to keep on going until someone stopped them Both M. Brownlie and Irvine scored tries in this way. Incidentally, tho Welsh tackling was like tho curate’s egg—it had its bad parts. Nicholls was again tbo mainspring of the New Zealand team, always doing something, and generally doing it very well. The back who won most of tho glory was Nepia. BOOTS AND FISTS. Athletic News: For 20 minutes or so of tho game it was a question whether this was a Rugby match or whether the lightweight, middle, and heavy-weight boxing championships (all-in) of tho British Empire were being decided. This tendency to make a “rough-house” affair of it was the most unsatisfying feature of a game that iri a good many respects was unsatisfactory generally. Wo saw New Zealand forwards and Welsh forwards mixing it badly—one was just ns ’bad as tho other—and we saw one of tho Welsh backs up to tricks that are only legislated for under tho powers possessed by the referee. Colonel Brunton would have been justified in sending more than one man off the. field, but perhaps ho took tho less provocative course of issuing cautions. The Newcastle official handled this, his first international, in an excellent manner; and it was anything but tho easiest, of tasks that he was set. The temptation to substitute boots and Gats for cloaa handling And hcadwork.

coupled with a set of backs miles below tho standard of that wonderful lot whoso victory of 1905 the blew Zealanders have now avenged, wore responsible, for another unsatisfactory aspect —namely, the failure of the Welshmen to produce that kind of football so generally associated with their play. They were not good enough to make an open game- of it themselves, but they w’ero just good enough to stop the New Zoalanders producing bright and entertaining play. Probably because we did not see the All Blacks scoring wonder tries we shall bo told that they are not a great side; my own view is that their strength lies in their adaptability that they can win just as well when the other team make an open game of it as when there is a sort of “muzzling” order given. And it is rather idle arguing that because one side can attack for long periods they do not deserve to lose. The fact remains—wo saw it at Swansea for 20 minutes at the opening of the second half—the New Zealanders do not let their opponents score. It really seemed as though Wales might have gone on attacking all night and half-way into Sunday and still they would not have crossed tho line. APPOINTMENT OF REFEREE. “ Bad temper, unfortunately, wont a long way to spoil tiro game,” says r lhe Athletic News in an editorial note, “and one of its pettiest phases came when the front rows of both packs had formed down within a couple of yards of each other and neither would budge and lock until tho referee interposed. It is to bo feared that the Now Zealanders will not have the happiest impressions of the later part of their stay in Wales. The full history of the incidents which led up to tho appointment of Colonel Brunton as tho referee, for instance, would make interesting reading/ “After the defeat of Wales,” says The South Wales Daily News, in a leading article, “wo do not expect that tho invincibililv of tho visitors will be broken. They have already been pitted against teams in which most of the crack English internationals wore included, and although on recent form England has been much superior to Wales, wo doubt whether this superiority will manifest itself against the visitors for the simple reason that no English forwards have thus far come so near as Cardiff and Newport to mastering the tactics and strategy of tho Now Zealand pack.” “THAT ALLEGED TRY.” REMINISCENCES OF THE 1905 BATTLE. STATEMENT BY PERCY BUSH. (From Onn Own Cop.nFSPONnrNT.) LONDON, December 3. Mr Percy Bush, who captained the Welsh team which defeated the All Blacks in 1905, contributes to the South Wales Evening Express a lengthy article on that match and gives “a whole truth, nothing but the truth,” statement concerning tho “alleged try” that Doans was said to have made that day. “I actually saw it stated in print the other day,” says Mr Bush, ‘that Deans had said, on his deathbed, that ho did, in fart, score for New Zealand, and that the ‘try’ was disallowed. I don’t believe it, although it is possible that through constantly hearing it said he had come actually to believe it, and I find it very difficult to think that, for Deans wgs not tho sort of man to make mistakes of that sort. And, ns I feel myself particularly qualified to speak on what happened on the occasion on which the claim is based for this try, I am going to write exactly what did take place, on tho hope that it will scotch for all time the ridiculous canard that M ales did not boat the Now Zealanders. M’HAT REALLY HAPPENED

“Void. There had boon a mad rush by the Fernlanders. which loft the referee arid the major portion of the players '.yell behind, and it culminated in Deans Rotting the ball and going for the line all out. Gabo, Harding, and I came across the field from the place where the Welsh rush, which preceded that of the Now Zealanders, had commenced (we had done our whack, and didn’t feel called upon to follow up—wisely, as it turned out). Winky was in front of Deans, and, seeing that ho might possibly be unable to stop him completely, ho headed him off so a.s to turn him towards Gabe and Harding, who were by this time quite close up. The manoeuvre succeeded; the eyes of Gabo and Harding lit up, and they hurled themselves upon the luckless Deans. Now, when either Gabo or Harding took the trouble to tackle a man. you may be sure that that man was tvell and truly tackled, and, on • this occasion Deans came down, tackled by both Gabo and Hard, with the ball benentn him, just, two inches outside the lino. “The referee was coming up at top speed, saw the tackle from about 25 yards away, and naturally blow his whistle. Gabo and Harding got off Doans, but ho, haying probably not heard the whistle, and thinking it the chance of a lifetime, at once placed the ball on the scoring side of tho goal lino. And now I came on tho scene myself, and I know what then transpired. Realising that the referee might, quite reasonably, consider on arrival that a try had been scored if be found the ball over tlie line. I immediately picked it up and replaced it noon the exact spot upon it had originally been placed, so that when the referee did arrive it was where it had been made dead, and, very properly, no tpy was allowed. So you will see that mv part was only a walking-on one. but highly important. all the same. “What I have just written is the truth, tho whole truth, and nothing but the rruth, s’welp me! So now, my dear friends from Far Away, do please quit talking about a defeat as not a defeat.” RUGBY TACTICS. FULL-BACK IN ATTACK. A LESSON TAUGHT BY NBPIA. (From Oob Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 3. To-day Colonel Philip Trevor devotes a column in tho Daily Telegraph to a consideration of the principle of using tho full-back in attack in a Rugby game. Ho admits the tendency of teams to play tho eight-back system, and now, ho says, the all-conquering Now Zealanders, by their continuous success, have made thousands of converts to the eight-back system. “I start on the assumption,” Colonel Trevor writes, “that you have definitely decided to attack with eight hades, and 1 presume at tho same time that, you do not prefer to have seven forwards it you can get eight. Surely hero you are provided with tho ideal chance of being able to have your cake and oat it too. Is the full-back tho only player who i s not to bo subjected to tho process of evolution ? Is it seriously contended that his duties and responsibilities are tho same as they were 40 years ago. “Choose for full-back a fast runner. Tho man who cannot get to the danger spot in time is of little use to you. Now, assuming that you havo chosen such a man, surely ho can be your eighth back in attack. Ho is often ideally placed to open up an attack, and especially so when he catches or gathers tho ball in his own half or oven in his own twenty-live, near the touch Hue, As ho gathers or catches it ho can survey tho entire situation as it exists. 110 sees exactly whor© tho other 29 players are, and obviously no one but, tho full-back can ever do that. And ho has tho added advantage of not being suspect. Almost automatically us his hands close on the ball do the other 29 players either hall or slow down. Here, they argue, is their chance for a ‘breather.’ 'they will wait till they can judge tho spot at which the full-back’s kick will find touch. TURNING DEFENCE INTO ATTACK. “This waiting provides tho full-back with his chance. Why shouldn’t ho dash away to the other .flank? He has got at least 10 yards’ grace, for any opposing forward who may bo near him at the time is offside. It is most probable that ho will get by running at least to a spot in midfield equal in distance to tho spot ho would have found by his kick into touch. Most important of all, ho has turned defence into attack. He puts tho men in his three-quarter line into motion and goes on with them. It goes without, saying that his wing three-quarter back (on the flank he has loft) automatically falls back and deputises for him till hi a return. That wing man in tho gets such generous and obvious warning that it is tho easiest thing imaginable for him to take up the duties of understudy. Why, I wonder, does not the, full-back do this sort of thing more often? I .s-uprtoso his captain won’t lot him. and will sack him if ho offends against the law of the Modes and Persians. ’Get in your kick at once.’ Rut tho Diodes and Persians lived some time ago, and where now are they or their laws? The established full-bac*. docs do what I am advocating. B. S. _ Oum-berlege used to do it. Tho New Zealander, Nopia, does 'it fairly often, I saw Harold Day get

a try himself by doing it a little while ago. He started tho bout of passing near bis own goal-line, and he was up to take a return pass from His right wing threequarter back. A FAIR TRIAL. “Even if Oumberloge, Nepia, Day, and others had not demonstrated for us, my proposition is demonstrated on its merits. Why in a football match which lasts less than an hour and a-half have a man partially unemployed? You say you want to attack with eight backs, and you also eay: ‘They can’t attack properly if their forwards don’t help them.’ Then whv weaken your pack if you can get tho result at which you aim without weakening it? It is unnecessary to go into further detail. Tho thing only wants a little practice. It will, of course, lose its surprise clement ns it becomes more common. But it will pay the well-trained side. No ‘breathers’ will bo taken if it is known that tho full-back is likely to start attacks. You may argue in the council chamber against the heresy of this innovation. lam not afraid of being a heretic. Obviously there is nothing against the suggestion morally. Therefore the only question that arises is, ‘Will it pay?’ Only a fair trial on the actual field of play will provide tho answer. 1 '