Patea & Waverley Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 10th, 1922. LEAGUE v. RUGBY FOOTBALL

Patea Mail, Volume XLV, 10 May 1922, Page 2

Patea & Waverley Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 10th, 1922. LEAGUE v. RUGBY FOOTBALL

X IT has long been admitted in Rugby Football circles that something was needed to restore our national game to something of its former brilliancy. Since the triumphant tour of the All Blacks the game appears to have degenerated until it has become more of a rough and tumble scramble than a highly scientific contest between teams of skilful players. Much has been written of the advantage of the League game, both from a players ’ and a spectators ’ point of view, over the old Rugby game, and recently a representative of the “Press” was commissioned to view the League game as played in Auckland, its headquarters in New Zealand, and report as to its superiority or otherwise over the old Rugby ganie. Our representative duly visited the northern city and watched the play of no less than eight separate teams and as a result of his observation he came to the conclusion that whilst the League game had some advantages over the modern Rugby game it could not be compared to the latter played scientifically as it used to be played in this country, and we believe is still played by the first class teams at Home. The League games as played are certainly

faster than the usual Rugby games, a noticeable feature being the absence of line outs and the quick heeling from the scrums. Where the teams failed was in the lack of scientific footwork among the forwards and the lack of combination among the backs. The forwards, who were fairly fast, followed up the high kicks well, but their aim appeared to pick up the ball and run with it instead of dribbling it as a first class forward should. A good forward for example on gaining possession of the ball with his feet, can feint and dodge and will often take the bail right through the opposing forwards until he reaches the goal line when all he has to do is to fall on the bail and score. Our representative states that never once did he see anything approaching good dribbling* by any single player of the eight teams that he saw. “Kick and run” appeared to be the motto of each and every player on the ground. With regard to the backs, their football was the crudest of the crude. Each player, according to the exhibition given seemed to have no notion whatever of united action or team play. Having obtained possession of the ball his one aim and object seemed to be to run with it until collared. If he thought of passing at all he threw the ball from him on to the ground as if he was anxious to rid himself of it regardless of the consequences. There was almost an entire absence of proper passing and little or none of the feinting, dodging and swerving that made Gage, Wynyard, Hunter and other old time players so famous There was also no heady play such as one is accustomed to see with first class teams, no drawing of the opposing backs to one side of the field by the wing three quarter and then kicking across to the wing waiting on the other side of the field. Each player seemed out to score if he could, and if he could not then nothing else mattered. Summed up • our representative says that the League game may be described as a scramble ter the most part amongst the backs, whilst the Rugby game as generally played to-day is ' a scramble amongst the forwards. One old player in describing League football generally, declared it to be a game where the ‘ ‘ worst team usually lost, not so much by reason of its opponents’ superior play, as by reason of its own blunders on account of which the opposing side could not help but score, although through no superior play of its own. ’ ’ Altogether it would appear that the old Rugby game has nothing to fear if the authorities and lovers of the game generally wake up and insist on a more scientific game being played the old game of the days of Hunter, Bayley, Watson, O’Dowda and Co.— with, the abolition of the wing forward so that the backs have a chance to display their skill and thus help to make the game a seventy five per cent passing game, instead of a ten per cent passing and 90 per cent forward rough and tumble scramble. If they will do this, and teach the forwards to dribble more and pick up less, then the old Rugby game will flourish. To continue as at present will result in both League and genuine Rugby surviving for a time Until the game finally dies owing largely to its unattraetiveness. Certainly good scientific Rugby football, according to the highest notions of the game is not to be found on the League field.'