THE LAST OF THE INTERNATIONALS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3085, 30 April 1913, Page 53

THE LAST OF THE INTERNATIONALS.

ENGLAND DEFEATS SCOTLAND And WINS THE TRIPLE CROWN. One of the grimmest struggles in the annals of Rugby was flue general verdict at Twickenham on Saturday. March 15, after England had 1 regained the Calcutta Cup from Scotland and secured the International Rugby Championship. It was not a brilliant game to watch (says .Laurence Wood'house, in the Dai'y Mail), and yet that record crowd—it numbered 35,'J0J —was held spellbound for 90 minutes watching the desperate battle of the lor wards as they stubbornly disputed every inch of ground and broke up with fierce determination every movement on the part of the backs. In a way the game resembled that at Inverleith last year, when all unexpectedly Scotland defeated the all-conquering Englishmen. The Scottish players adopted the same scheme of campaign. Thc3' meant to harass and demoralise the Englisri forwards, to rush them off their Tcct and off their game before they could settle dowil. If England once settled down the victory must be hers by reason of her superiority behind the scrum. Valiantly the Scottish forwards set about their task. Heavier and bigger than the English fcrummagcrs, they kept forcing their way through the English ranks, and for some little time it looked as though their tactics would prevail. But the Englishmen had learned their lesson well last year. Doggedly they stuck to their work and stoutly withstood the desperate onslaughts. Then came a critical moment some 20 minutes after play had started, when Scotland cased up for a moment’s “breather.” Like a flash Wodehouse, the English captain saw his chance and took it. He' rallied the English forwards, and loci b.y Brown, the Oxford captain, the- Englishmen took the upper hand. They gripped the game and never relaxed • their hold. They forced the Scottish back to their own territory, they opened up the .game, and when once the English backs joined in the attack Scotland’s chance was gone. True, they rallied for a while in the second half; but England came again with a wet sail, and when “no side” sounded Scotland was a well-beaten side though flue score stood at only 3—o in the victors’ favour. England might well have won by a much larger margin, and this would ,not nave flattered them too rriuch Over-anxiety, however, played a very leading part in tire game. Boulton, that great match-winner, for once failed to field his passes. He simply could not hold the ball. Davies, the stand-off half, eecmed obsessed with the idea that safety tactics must be indulged in. Feed his backs he would not, although with Loudoun-Shnnd damaged and hardly able to hobble along, England’s superiority at three-quarter was doubly pronounced. Lowe, though he ran straight enough at the finish, spoiled excellent opportunities, in the first half by cutting across the field and hesitating in his start. Ooatrs was again the hero of the backs, running with tremendous resolution, leaving in his wake rows of fallen foemen who had fe’t the force of a stout right arm. Yet lie failed to cross the Scottish line, and this was largely duo to those splendid Scottish forwards who kept breaking up and coming hack to the aid of their sorely-harassed backs. The defence on both s'des was tremendous. Mon scorned to spring up from nowhere to “down” the man with the ball. English and Scottish forwards alike seemed able to double round in time to aid even their full backs. But it was largely due to r thc fact that the Scotfsh forwards had more of this strenuous work to do that flue English eight were so assertive and so clearly masters of the situation at the finish. England won, and won on their merits, but the credit must go to the forwards for their grand rally after they had w.thstood Scotland’s first fierce attack And one must congratulate the Scottish forwards for their indomitable pluck when playing a losing game with lyOudoun-S'hand injured. Not once in these international matches has England’s line been crossed, and, by defeating Wales. Ireland, and Scotland in one season the champions have revived the glories of 1892. The Prince of Wales, who was present at the boat race on Thursday and t!:e ’Varsity sports on Friday, was present to witness England’s triumph. England, one try (3 points); Scotland, nil. Teams: — England.—W. R. Johnston (Bristol); C. N. Lowe (Cambridge University), F. N. Tarr (Leicester). R. W. Pou'ton (Harlequins), and V, M. H. Coates (Bath); I. E. Oakeley (United Services) W. J A. Davies (Royal Naval College); N. A. Wodehouse (United Services), J. E. Greenwood (Cambridge University), C. H. Pillman (Blaek)ieath), J, A. King (Headingloy), J. A. S. TV.r on (Northumberland). G. Ward (Lcicest ei and S. Smart (Gloucester). All are old o.i ns except Oakeley. Scotland.- W M. Wallace (Cambridge University); J. B. Sweet (Glasgow University). E. G. Loudoun-Shand (Oxford University), J. Pearson (Watsonians) and W. R. Sutherland (Hawick); T. C. Bowie (Watsonians) and E, Milroy (Watsonians); F. H. Turner (Liverpool), J. M. TV Scotrt (Edinburgh Academicals), FI. Maxwell (Edinburgh Academicals), L Robertson (London Scottish), C. M. Usher (London Scott.’«b). W. D. C. 1.. Purves (London Scottish). D. AT. Bain (Oxford University), and P. C. Blair (Cambridge University)—

all old Internationals except tlie first three. Referee, Mr T. D. Schofield (Welsh R.U.). Results: Scotland 17 wins, England 14 wins; nine matches drawn. NEW ZEALAND UNION AND THE ENGLISH UNION. A CRITICISM OF THE FORMER’S ATTITUDE. , The following letter, which appears to have been sent to the presidents of the various affiliated unions, was read at tho meeting of the Otago Rugby Union last evening: “ The President, Otago Rugby Union. “Sir, —My reason for troubling you is that, although I am no longer taking an active part in the control of Rugby football, I am still very anxious to see the game nourish in New Zealand, and I believe that tho conduct of the game during the past season by tho New Zealand Union has in some respects been such as to bring tho name of New Zealand into disrepute. The attitude of the New Zealand Union seems to be this: They have been footed by tho delegates at the annual meeting; they aro authorities on football; they know how to conduct their own business ; they do not, therefore, consider it their duty "to consult the affiliated unions on matters affecting the welfare of New Zealand football. “ Taking up this position, at the end of 1911 they approached the English Union, asking that a New Zealand team might be received in England in 1912. When it was cabled to New Zealand early in 1912 that a South African team had been invited to .visit England, tho New "Zealand Union wrote expressing their disappointment, and, while earnestly hoping that' the English Union would receive a New Zealand team in 1913-14, stating that New Zealand would bo prepared to receive an English team in 1913. They pointed out that New Zealand had been loyal to the Mother Country in the South African war. and that, therefore, New Zealand’s claims should really be considered before- those of South Africa. Further, that unless some satisfactory explanation were forthcoming before the annual meeting in May. 1912. there might be trouble, and New Zealand might form a coalition with New South Wales and Queensland. , They a'so stated that South Afr'ca had been invited to visit Now Zealand, but that the.y had been unable to accept tho invitation. No reply was received before the annual meeting in May: the matter apparently was not mentioned, and there was consequently no trouble. But the New Zealand Union had to submit to a second discomfiture when they received word that England was not prepared to receive a New Zealand team in 1915-14. “ All this was being done without the knowledge of the local unions, who had no idea that the New Zealand Union wero negotiating, cither for a visit of a New Zealand team to England, or of an English team to New Zealand. “I question very much whether the affiliated unions are in favour of sending, a team to England, and I am almost certain Ahat they are not very anxious for a .visit of an English team to New Zealand—certainly not such .as we have had on tho occasion of the last two visits. - “You will have noticed that the New Zealand Union aro again approaching .South Africa with the view of getting a team to New Zealand. I believe that, if the New Zealand Union hail taken up a dignified attitude, tho South Africans would have asked that a visit from them might bo received. “As I have said for many years, I firmly believe that the best course for Nov/ Zealand to adopt is to secede from tho English Union, which has shown repeatedly that, it takes little or no interest in New Zealand football. There is >*ar too much made of the question of loyalty to the Mother Country. Wo can control our own football quito well and Jf our play is good and our methods are honest, there is no doubt that we shall get all the visits wo want, because the whole English-speaking world knows that we can play football That, however, is not the object of this letter. I wish to show that the New Zealand Union have acted in a way which has served to lower the prestige of New Zealand football, and by their ‘ad misericordiom’ appeal to tho English Union has put themselves in the position of being distinctly snubbed. If you will ask, at tho next annual meeting of tho Now Zealand Union, for the production of the correspondence between Mr Neil Galbraith (chairman of tho Now Zealand Union Management Committee) and Mr Wray Palliscr (representing the Now Zealand Union in London), with reference to the visir of a New Zealand team to England in 1912 or 1913 (the correspondence covers the rjeriod from November 17, 1911, to July 4, lo!2), you wili, I feel sure, agree with me, when you have hoard it read, that, in the fust place, the New Zealand Union nad no right to ask that, a teem should be received in England until it had consulted the wishes of the affiliated unions; and, secondly, that the various unions wero entitled to know what negotiations were going on between England and New Zealand. Seven or eight men have no right to assume that they represent the feelings of New Zealand in the matter of football v hen they have taken no slept; to ascertain what those feelings arc.—Yours faithfully, F II Campi.ell, ex-President Otago Rugby Union ”