RUGBY IN BRITAIN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26197, 6 July 1946, Page 4

RUGBY IN BRITAIN

COMPARISON IN STYLES NEW ZEALAND BACK FORMATION PREFERRED Interesting impressions of Rugby football in Britain were given to a Daily Times reporter in an interview yesterday by Major C. K. Saxton, captain of the 2nd N.Z.E.F. Rugby team, who returned to Dunedin on Thursday. Discussing the standard of British football a& compared 'with normal New Zealand peace-time standards, Major Saxton said he believed it was almost on a par, though the British players did not train as seriously as their New Zealand counterparts. They did not iollow the New Zealand system of championship finals, but arranged games among the clubs, some of which had been played for 50 years. “ 1 think our system is to be preferred,” he added. “ Clubs such as Cardiff, which lost to the Kiwis 3—nil, are really town sides, and as good as any interprovincial team,” he continued. Cardiff was the best club side in Britain,. and* 10 of its players were in the Welsh team when it met the New Zealanders. “Fundamentally the tactics of the British teams are much the same' as our own,” said Major Saxton, “ but they do not appear to have developed team work or backing up to the same extent as we have done in New Zealand.” He added, however, that these qualities were more readily developed by a touring team, and had been evidenced by the British team 'in New Zealand in 1930. Formations Compared Most British teams favoured the 3-2-3 scrum formation instead of New Zealand’s now recognised 3-4-1 formation, he said. During the tour some teams, such as Wales when it met the Neiv Zealanders, changed to the 3-4-1 formation. The British back formation consisted of a very deep standoff half, with all the outside backs very shallow from him, whereas with the New Zealand formation the first five-eighths was not. so deep, and the outside backs took their depth from him in staircase formation. “We found many inquiries about our five-eighths system,” Major Saxton said, “ and many can see the good points of our system.” With two centres changing positions on different sides of the field, as with the British back formation, British teams did not have a specialist centre running his wings into position, and it had to be remembered that the second fiveeighths had a different job altogether from that of the centre. “ I believe that the second five-eighths should be a very strong tackier, good link and able to take an opponent’s tackle,” he added. “ and we have not had many second five-eighths who could play centre equally as well, or vice versa.” Major Saxton said he believed that New Zealand’s back formation was still as effective and more effective than any other formation. The game most akin to that played by the Kiwis was exploited by Scotland, who played the New Zealanders at their own game—backing up strongly and passing quickly to their wing three-quarters, three of the tries being scored on the flanks with very quick passing. Scotland’s win came as a slight surprise, as the team was largely an unknown quantity, consisting mostly'-of young and new players. Some other teams approached the type of New Zealand football, but did not any finish. It is of interest to note that at the conclusion of the tour Major Saxton, H. Cook, and R. Dobson played for the Swansea . Club in an Easter game against the Barbarians, who won by 11 points to 6 after a fine game. Some, generous Swansea citizens subsequently presented members of the team, through the Swansea Rugby Union, with same famous Swansea china to be handed to the National Museum in Wellington.

Interpretation of Rules Major Saxton did not find many differences in interpretation of the rules

during the tour. British referees, however, were rather severe in their interpretation of the knock-on, and if the ball rebounded off the chest or the thighs it was ruled as a knock-on. The refereeing generally was good, and well up to the standard in New Zealand.

“The English Rugby Union is very much concerned about the new hooking rule," said Major Saxton. “We found, as they did, that the half-back sometimes had to place the ball in the scrum five or six times before it was hooked correctly, this being owing to the outside man not being able to lift his foot. “ There had been talk of altering the rule to enable the outside man to lift his foot as soon as the ball had passed him, though he could not touch it until it had reached the fourth foot.

“ The Kiwis experienced a good deal of trouble from ‘winging’ forwards who infringed round the scrum,” said the Kiwi captain. One was often set on the blind side and another on the open to watch the opposing first fiveeighths, both standing off the scrums. This development was spoiling the game in Britain, and he believed the only way to overcome it \yas to delete the provision in the rule which stated that “ a referee should not penalise a player who over-runs the ball when it is in the scrummage if he immediately tries to get back behind the ball.” The deletion of this ruling would do something to put an end to spoiling play. Superior British Hookers

“We sometimes found that badly packed 3-2-3 scrums took the ball from us,” said Major Saxton, “but this was due to the general standard of hooking in the British Isles being better than it is in New Zealand. The 1924 and 1935 All Blacks had the same experience." Scotland packed a most effective 3-2-3 scrum, and England Improved its 3-2-3 scrum towards the end of the season, as it showed in its international matches against Wales and Scotland. “I think that as far as our type of football is concerned, howeevr, the 3-4-1 scrum is the better for-

mation, ior very few people in New Zealand know much about the 3-2-3 scrum.

“ English university football is every bit as good as university football in New Zealand,” said Major Saxton. M. P. Donneliy, the New Zealand representative cricketer, played in the Oxford University fifteen against the Kiwis, and would probably have been in the N.Z.E.F. team had he not gone to Oxford.