JUNIOR NOTES.

Southland Times, Issue 19508, 6 May 1922, Page 9

JUNIOR NOTES.

(By

Scrum.)

Saturday’s junior matches .while not displaying a high order of football, were nevertheless rather interesting as an object lesson in the effects of a five months’ spell. The most noticeable feature in many of the matches was the absolute lack of co-ordin-ated play. A great number of the players seemed to have the idea firmly fixed in their minds that they were to do their utmost to obtain possession of the leather, and remain in possession until run to earth. There is, all the same, a great deal of good material available, which, later in the season, if properly trained, should produce first class football. It is a pity that clubs do not give more attention to the coaching of juniors, as it is from them that the seniors are recruited. Pirate seconds have scored in getting hold of Blee, who wore the Winton jersey last season. Blee though small, is tough and has a splendid turn of speed. On Saturday, playing against Marist, he was unfortunate in running into the boundary fence, which is of barbed wire, with the result that he tore his arm badly; in consequence he will not play to-day. Playing against Pirates last week, Fotheringham of the Marist team had plenty of chances of delivering the ball to his own forwards, but failed to centre in almost every case, and sent the ball over the line. Several members of the High School fifteen are on the sick list at present, Raines broke his collar bone last Saturday, and Kilby did considerable damage to his knee, while Scully badly twisted his neck. In past seasons the High School have had a bye during their term vacations, but this year they will have to. put in a team. This seems hardly fair, seeing that a good proportion of the team comes from the country and those players, who spend all the term in town, usually go home for their holidays. Another matter about which some of the school players are sore is that their match against Pirates (3rd grade) is timed to start at 2.15 p.m. to-day. As this gives country players no time to catch their trains the team will be still further weakened. Surely a little forethought on the part of those •controlling the school’s interests would have avoided what is to the school, a rather unfavourable position.

Th® games for Saturday should, as the teams have been getting in a fair amount of practice during the week, prove more intereeting than those played last week. It is futile to expect a team to give a good display when, two minutes before going into play, the dressing shed can hardly be seen for cigarette smoke, as was the case in certain of last Saturday’s games. THE NEW ZEALAND SCRUM IS IT OUT OF DATE? (By “Onside Mac.”) E. H. D. Sewell writes in the London Daily Chronicle:—“l have received the following letter from a reader of the Daily Chronicle:—‘ln the book on the New Zealand system by Gallaher and Stead it is stated that when they decide to screw the scrum their lock man (centre man in their second row of three) ‘dips down and picks the ball up between his knees.’ How is this reconciled with the law against picking the ball up out of the scrum? To a mere theorist without practical experience (who has become a keen onlooker rather late in life) the advantages of the New Zealand formation of seven man (2 3 2) in the scrum appear so obvious and overwhelming that it is impossible to understand why it has not been universally adopted. The incidental advantage of a wing forward to put the ball in, leaving th’d scrum half free and in position to pick it up, appears equally convincing. The answer is that the present law against picking the ball, up in the scrum (Law 11, section a) was passed subsequent to the publication of Gallaher and Stead’s book. I believe I am correct in saying that the New Zealand practice of ‘dipping* and picking up with the knees helped to bring about the drafting of Law 11 (a). It is obvious that the practice is against the spirit of the game as taught and played at the best public schools.

“The seven-scrum formation has certainly numerous advantages if you can get the same seven in match after match, and these seven are very strong physically and well adapted for what should be made illegal, viz., special places in the scrum. The best scrum is that wherein there are no specialists, no expert hooker, no expert lock, but at which all can ‘hook’ or ‘lock,’ or take the rearrank fast break-away positions just as the run of the game demands. Special positions in a scrum mean, necessarily, that on many occasions opponets must wait until your specialists have got into their allotted positions, and such delay ought not to be permitted by the referee. Times have changed, indeed, since Gallaher and Stead’s book was written. It is a fact that New Zealand is now contemplating a return to the eightforward pack. This is one result of the smashing they received last summer from the South African eight.”

I would not have taken the trouble to comment on the opinions of this great critic, who fires off & long range bombardment at New Zealand rugby, were it not for the fact that views similar to those Mr Sewell expresses anent the South African tour are gaining a certain amount of credence in this country. In Christchurch I notice that the Marist Club has adopted the 3—2—3 scrum and in Southland the Referees’ Association recommends that the wing forward be abolished. Following directly on the visit of the South Africans, the conclusion to be drawn from these moves are obvious. These two bodies are at one with our 12,000 mile distant critic who seeks to show that the African scrum proved its superiority over the New Zealand wedge formation. Now, did it? In the first place it seem* rather strange that a formation that New Zealand has had practically since the beginning of its rugby liistory should suddenly go to the wall after having stood the test of time against Australians, Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, etc. As a matter of fact the South Africans did not prove the superiority of the 3-2-3 scrum over the New Zealand seven. What they did prove was that eight big forwards will beat seven and also eight small forwards every time. The success of the South African team was due to its forwards; and the success of the forwards was due to an immense preponderance of weight; not to the advantages of the 3-2-3 scrum over the wedge formation. In set scrum or loose ruck their huge battering-ram formation weighing anything up to 16801bs or 120 stone simply pushed the other side off the ball. Then as often as not fallowed those illegal tactics of handing the ball back from one to the other while the scrum preserved its formation, tactics which I did not see one referee in New Zealand penalise. Unfortunately I have not the weights of the respective scrums in the test matches by me, but the Springbok-Southland match will illustrate what has just been said. Southland, which probably had as heavy forwards as any other province last year, put a scrum in the field weighing 91st 51b. The Springboks replied with 112st 121 b. A difference of over 20 stone. Even including the wing forward, who is of course not part of the scrum, South Africa still had an advantage of 8 stone. In other words, man to man, the Southland forwards were on the average a stone lighter than tfie visitors. This was the position all over New Zealand and this was where the reason lay for the apparent superiority of the South African scrum. With the N.Z. wedge formation it is poss ible to give away a certain amount of weight against a 3-2-3 pack, but 20stone —? The only real advantage evidenced by the visitors’ scrum was their development of tactics whereby they prevented New Zealand from working the “loose head.” Once again, weight held their scrum in position while the necessary flank changes were made to “head off” Ned Hughes from the coveted position. Hughes w r as the best h’ooker in N?w Zealand last year, but he never got a fair chance against the Springboks. All the science in the world is of nt avail to a hooker if he hasn’t the weight behind him. Especially does this remark apply to the First Test in Dunedin where at time* Hughes and Duncan had to go down with only two men able to give them any real support, Storey, Bellis Moffett, and Hughes himself having received nasty injuries during the game. The trouble about the wing forward is that the present-day product is not up to the old standard. After seeing Donald in the First Test I expressed the opinion that he was not the man for the job in the third international Bellis was tried, but it was sacrificing a great short, side wing for ward for the more independent position. The only man in New Zealand ’last year that really understood the position was D. Baird who was Australia the previous year. The worst feature of present-day wing forward play Is the lamentable lack of knowledge of how to handle the ball. The Springbok tour showed us:—

(1) That New Zealand has got to have bigger men both back and forward for future international games (2) a new style of full-back play. In this latter connection few will forget Gerhard Morkel, ever cool and possessed, taking huge bites out of the side-lines with those great, standing kicks of his. Lynch, the, ex-All Black threequarter, was his first disciple and he achieved great success in the later stages of the Southland team's tour.

In the array of mighty Afrikander forwards sent to this country by South Africa three players had the following measurements: Height 6ft 4sin, weight 17st 71b; 6ft 2in, 16st 61b; 6ft Ijin, 15st. All the scrum formations that were ev*r invented wont beat that. Weight v. weight and tack on science after and you have a sure win ner. But get weight first The way to beat the Springboks next time is not by adopting the 3-2-3 scrum, but by searching the country for big fast forwards and big fast three-quarters and full-backs. Fur ten out of fifteen men a minimum of 6 feet in height and 13 stone in weight could stand as a pretty general rule. Cut off 2 inches for the front row men and there would be only the half and the two five-eighths left out.