RUGBY REVIEWED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19503, 11 June 1925, Page 13

RUGBY REVIEWED.

MR GENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. REFERENCES TO THE RECENT TOUR. (Fr.ou Odb Own Correspondent.) LONDON, May 8. To The Nineteenth Century and After Mr D. R. Gent contributes an article on “ Ruby Football To-day,” and as ho had, (ho good fortune to play his first game for England against the New Zealanders at the Crystal Palace in 1905, he says he has been more than usually interested in “thinking back” to twenty years ago when watching the All Blacks in their late tour, and pondering over what has happened in the interval. The recent visit of the New Zealanders, “ together with their excellent record, served to bring the game of Rugby more to the notice of the public than ever. This is, on ibe whole, a good thing for Rugby football, though there are many and serious dangers attendant upon too large a public support of a purely amateur game. But it hardly needed a visit from the All Blacks to make the game widely known. Since 1919-20, the popularity of the game has increased by leaps and bounds, and it is no exaggeration to say that there must be at least four times the number of clubs playing regularly nowadays that there were in 1913-H. “ When Gallaher's team came here English football, except in the West Country, was undoubtedly at a low ebb. We had one of those lean times that all countries have in their turn, a time when high-class players are notably lacking. This was aggravated by the fact that the Rugby public in England was somewhat apathetic, and in this respect, at all events, the visitors did us a lot of good. We needed stirring up, and the overwhelming defeats sustained by our clubs and our international team had the desired effect C)f making us look into things a little. The fact that England did not win the international championship between 1892 and 1910 illustrates my point. “ T)iings were different when the New Zeidand team landed last year. England had been concerned in the championship of the four. In addition. England had won honours four times in the past five years, winning them outright three times out of the four. In addition. England had yon the championship in both seasons that immediately preceded the Great War. PROMINENCE OF W. W. WAKEFIELD. “With Davies, Kershaw, and Lowe as the nucleus of the back, England has been fortunate in finding six or eight men of outstanding ability as forwards, and they have played so otten together as to combine like clubmates. Foremost among these has been W. W. Wakefield, who first came into prominence in the Inter-Services Tournament for the King’s Cup in 1918-19. But before Wakefield we had J. E. Greenwood, the old Cambridge captain, and D. G. Brown, the old Oxford captain to link up the old with the new. which they did admirably. Wakefield, however, has been the most potent factor in the success of English forward play since 1919. Himself a great forward, very fast, full of dash, and skilful with his hands and feet, he is also a keen student of forward tactics, and there is .little doubt that England has done so remark-bly well in recent years largely because of the tactics of the forwards, alone or in combination with the backs. Never has a team brought this ‘whole team’ combination to such a fine pitch as the English side since 1920, unless it be the New Zea ; land team that has just left us, and this was a different sort of combination, though this is too technical a subject to deal with here. Great though Wakefield is, he could never have done his work had he not had some superb forwards to help him. A. T. Voce will go down as one of the game’s greatest wing forward, though many enthusiastic but ignorant folk have for long looked upon the fair-haired Gloucestrian as a man who ‘lived’ off-side. I consider Tom Voyco at his best —in 1922-25, say—as a genius of the same class as Davies or Lowe. Then R. F. Blakiston was also a splendid player, so were G. S. Conway and FI. L. Price, and R. Cove Smith and W. G. Luddington. These men became brilliant in their work in the loose, carrying out Wakefield’s ideas and their own, though both were probably derived from the superlative excellence of L. G. Brown's play in the open.” 1 WINGERS AND THEIR IMITATORS. Mr Gent says that the prevalence of “winging’’ is "a perfect nuisance to the game. There is a role for the natural ‘winger’ to fill, and when it is filled by men like W. Spiers, Ivor Morgan, Charles Pillman, A. T. Voyce, and FI. L. Price, to confine myself to moderns only, the game is helped considerably. But these players have had so many imitators that the ganjo is being seriously affected. These imitators have no instinct for this particular phase of the game, and their play consists all too often of an orgy of off-side and obstruction, especially the latter. Many old players must feel as strongly as I do on this matter, for the ‘wing’ forward has so morally helped the game down the hill that I often wish ‘winging’ had never been born. The ‘1905’ All Blacks are often credited with (he introduction of this phase of the game. But it was here before they came, though their style of play intensified the practice, whilst the ‘winging’ done by the side that has just left us was of such a nature as to help the side very little intrinsically, and not at all morally. Strong referees do check this nuisance, but, as I have said, strong referees are rare, and even they seem averse from inflicting the severest penalty on the alleged'‘winger,’ who revels in these obstructionist tactics. Clubs must take a hand in eliminating this nuisance by discouraging the ‘winger’—in other words, by dropping' him. “The mention of obstruction, which is, I think, the worst offence in the game, leminds me of another phase—viz., the increase of ultra-vigorous play. The ordering off of a New Zealander in the match against England was a deplorable necessity, but the best referee we have had lately was perfectly justified in his action. Although the’ actual sending off of a player is fortunately rare, very many players have almost deserved ‘the same punishment during the past season. There was at least one uglv incident in the England - Scotland match at Murrayfield that made most Englishmen blush. ‘Tension is great; Rugby is a vigorous game.’ Yes, we know all that, but a player who cannot restrain himself from abusing the vigour of healthy manhood, whatever the tension, should not figure in an international side, nor any side for that matter. One other grievance, and I have done with this aspect. In my opinion, the ‘advantage rule’ operates to the detriment of the game. Ethically it is quite sound ; the transgressing of the rules, intentionally or otherwise, by one side should be used, if possible, to the advantage of their opponents. But in practice it works out badly, lor often an appreciable length of time elapses between the transgression and the point of time at which it is proved that the other side can make no use of their opponents’ error. During that time the game is m a state of almost suspended animation, which is decidedly unsatisfactory. The difficulty of getting the ball into the scrummage is another nuisance, but as the Rugby Union have recently appointed a sub-committee to go into this matter, it is more than likely that this difficulty will bo removed. These are just a few dangers and difficulties that are militating against the complete enjoyment of the game by spectators and players alike. WHERE BRILLIANCE LAY. “With very rare exceptions,” says Mr Gent, “the New Zealanders met poor attacking sides, and the result was that their own defence was hardly ever tested severely. I saw it at odd times under heavy pressure, and I must say that it struck me as being decidedly shaky. The individual tackling was not particularly good, judging by the highest standard, whilst the team as a whole were’inclined to get rattled when hard pressed. lam a great believer in the need of a strong defence, and I look upon nard tackling as one of the glories of the game. F'or this reason no team satisfies me fully unless it combines sterling tackling qualities with those of skill and pace in attack. “The brilliance of our visitors lay in their combined attack, when all the backs and one or two forwards seemed to be bunched up in support of each other in such a way as to beat almost any defence. There were always at least a couple of men handy to carry on a bout of passing at full speed when the man in possession was about to give the ball up. These efforts —and they figured in every match played ou a dry ground—wore perfect, and Rugby football at its very best. A fact that has helped them in the developing of this short, sharp passing idea is that kicking to touch is not allowed under New Zealand Rugby Union rules—-at least, only under certain conditions. Thus, with punting to touch out of the question, immediate passing on receiving the ball has become their order of the day. This is a lesson they have taught us. for our kicking is surely overdone. One does not wish the rules tampered with, least of all ‘brought up-to-date’ : hut when watching some of the orgies of kicking, one has sometimes wished this rule wore brought in here.

“Again, the direct running—that if, the straight run through the A. E. Cooke and 11. W. Nicnolls was altogether admirable. Never did you see them force their wings or centres to the fouchline. Short, sharp passing as "a basis of combined attack, the elimination of kicking, straight mil ling, and ‘mass’ attack were the things that impressed me most, and the play of Cooke, Xicholls. J. H. Parker, J. Mills, and J. Richardson I shall remember for many a long day.’ 1