THE ALL BLACKS

Southland Times, Issue 19389, 1 November 1924, Page 15 (Supplement)

THE ALL BLACKS

FIRST MATCHES IN BRITAIN

VIEWS OF THE ENGLISH Cnmc.->

RUGBY HISTORY IN THE MAKING.

OPINIONS IN BRITAIN. HOW THEY APPEALED TO THE CRITICS. THE FIRST FOUR GAMES. (From our Correspondent.) LONDON, September 26. Four matches of the All Black Tour have gone, and the critics are busy with their estimates of the 1924 combination. Of course, comparisons with the 1905 party are odiously plentiful, and, strangely enough, no reference is made to the Army team, which played fine football in Britain, end triumphed in circumstances which gave it no advantage over its opponents. The danger of using figures as a measure of comparison is stressed by Colonel Philip Trevor, C.B.E, in the Daily Telegraph. Colonel Trevor was probably the first English footballer to realise the new spirit in New Zealand football That was in South Africa in 1902, when he refereed a match between Australia and New Zealand at Newcastle, the players being drawn from the contingents from the two countries. He admits that the New Zealanders, soon opened his eyes by their speed (which he carefully defines as something different to pace), and when he returned to the Old Country he made no secret of his discovery. He prophesied disaster to the Old Country in 1905, was laughed at, and later became the object of his countrymen’s wonder—he knew, A KEEN, FRIENDLY CRITIC. Colonel Trevor’s opinions, therefore, are worth noting because he is friendly without being biassed, he knows the game with a warm sympathy that comes from a personal contact with its play, and he is up-to-date. After these games he was prepared to say something, and it is notable that he disagrees with many of the critics who are free in their condemnations. Writing of the All Blacks at the conclusion of the Devon match, he says: “A rather extreme view was taken at the conclusion of the match; namely, that the New Zealanders, especially their forwards, were anything but a great lot. I would add that a good many of their coun.rymen resident in or visiting this land also took that view. I do not concur. Their forward game is not yet right; that is to say, for the requirements of this country. In later articles I shall hope to speak in some detail of this technical matter. There was hesitation and a lack of clean heeling, but of that more anon. I think I detected the cause.

“A good many writers who—may I say it without offence?—ought to have known better, forecasted the possibility, if not the probability, of the New Zealand forwards playing unfairly. Stormy petrels ever hunt for storms. The New Zealand players themselves were determined to give no cause for these unnecessary and, as I think, unfair anticipations, and the result was that for such irregularities in forward (and half-back) play as there were, the home team were mainly responsible. That was also the case in the second match—more pronouncedly so, in fact—in which Cornwall was met and beaten. The third match—that against Somerset at Weston-super-Mare —was played in a quagmire, and during the first 40 minutes of it the New Zealand pack was held a little more than it held. “Nor was that all. The front row men of the New Zealand pack failed to get the ball when it was put into the tight scrummages. Obviously, therefore, the Somerset back division got many chances of attack. They did nothing with them, incidentally, but some back divisions against which the tourists are to play will take advantage of such chances. So it is imperative that this rather grave defect be remedied at once, and, to speak frankly, it is the only defect of importance I have observed in any thing this team does.” PLAYING A FAIR GAME.

One point that Colonel Trevor makes is the fairness of the All Black game, a point which will please New Zealand readers who recognise the difficulties attendant on playing a distinctive style of game with referees used to something entirely different. On this point the English Rugby expert has written:—

“The team has started very well in all respects. It is sound without being dramatic; it is clever without being showy, following the precedent of the lady’s postscript : ‘I have kept to the last what I particularly want to say.’ The method of play of the New Zealanders in the three matches I have seen has been strictly, indeed scrupulously, fair, despite what may be regarded as a certain amount of provocation. Some off-side play by the home forwards went unpenalised in all three games; but I was particularly pleased to note that New Zealand forwards showed no tendency to retaliate in this way. The refereeing in all three games was on the whole distinctly good; but even the best referees have admitted that it is only human nature to keep the especially keen eye for the more famous side. There is no intentional unfairness in doing so; it is just a case of the human tendency. Those who have some experience of refereeing will, I hope, indorse this remark.” In reference to the Gloucester match the Daily Telegraph, after remarking on the strenuous character of the game, mentions a “peculiar incident,” the second goal lost to the AU Blacks by a referee’s error: “A free-kick was awarded against Gloucestershire. Nepia took it, and his place-kick sent the baU over the cross-bar. As he kicked, however, the Gloucestershire forwards charged, and one of them managed to touch the baU with his fingers. For that reason the referee disallowed the goal, but, of course, the forward in question had no right to charge. Consequently, by disallowing the goal, the referee penalised the non-offending instead of the offending side.” A FINDER OF FAULTS The Sportsman’s football writer “Übique” Jaw the Devon match and revived the old wing forward complaints at once. Discussing the scrum he said: “As New Zealand played seven forwards Devon foUowed suit, but whereas the former packed 2-3-2, the latter adopted the 3-3-1 formation, and though they were much lighter than the AU Blacks they obtained the baU time and again. These Devon men scrummaged grandly, and they brought off several great rushes.” “Übique” declares that the AU Blacks “had the puU,” because Devon’s backs as an attacking force did not exist, though they had many chances offered them. “Dally was the star man of the New Zealand insides” he says. There was class about his work at scrum half, and he should be of immense service to his side during the tour. Porter hovered round one side of the scrum, doing very little except to get in everyone's way. It was obvious at the outset what he is there for, and against more highly strung sides than Devon there may be trouble. Mr Roberts looked after him ably on Saturday, and he was quite subdued, but the whole idea of his mission : s repugnant to Rugby footbaU as played :n this country. Porter would benefit his side better were he either to go into the scrum itself or stand at five eighths or in the three-quarter line.” This is the old story, but “Übique” was strangely alone as he was in his later attack on the “war cry.” Going on with the backs he says: “The two five-eighths, Nicholls and Cooke, did enough to show what good players they are. Cooke is bound to be heard of a great deal’ in the near future. Svenson also is a firstrate wing three-quarter, and Brown a. more

than useful centre. At full-back Nepia, a Maori, is first class. He possesses a fine pair of hands, and his kicking is of a splendid length. He led the war-cry to which the spectators were treated before the game was started—a long one it was, too. Since the novelty of these war-cries and dances has worn off, could they not be dispensed with? To my mind it is rather a pathetic sight to see fifteen presumedly intelligent individuals standing in a row and performing a series of Svengali-like movements, while emitting a volume of incoherent and unintelligible words in a strange tongue.” WHAT THE OBSERVER THINKS. The Sunday Observer talking of the Devon match commented: “On this showing the New Zealanders are not so powerful as the previous team. Their forwards were not a whit in advance of the Devon, pack, but they had a decided pull outside. Many of their passing movements broke down just as much through nervousness as by sure tackling. Perhaps the heavy rain that fell affected the play.” Somerset was met in what was practically a quagmire and this reminds one that few of the critics give enough attention to this point. The Observer remarked: “Considering the handicap under which counties labour in being asked to place fifteens in the field at this early period of the season—practically a month sooner than is the usual practice—Somerset certainly emerged from the struggle against their doughty opponents with a lot of credit. Likely enough the trying conditions which prevailed affected the New Zealanders more adversely than they did the county side, but still, making every allowance for the heavy going and the difficulty of handling the ball, it was no mean achievement to keep the tourists out until the last ten minutes of the game.” Then the Observer’s writer goes on to say that there were “many instances of the New Zealand outsides getting away with the ball, yet though they obviously had the pace of their opponents, they could not overcome the deadly tackling of the home three-quarters, in short, the match clearly suggested that on really heavy ground any high-class set of backs ought to hold their own with the New Zeaalnders. No doubt, as the tour proceeds, the Dominion players will learn to move better on muddy turf and to handle a greasy ball with accuracy, but for the moment it would appear that they have not yet acquired the skill in that direction necessary to render them particularly formidable under what are known as adverse conditions. In these early games the British teams have been content to play defence, perhaps with the idea of keeping scores down rather than achieving victory. As the season proceeds the teams may get more confidence and on dry turfs try to win—then the All Black scores may be larger, because they want an open game to show what they can do. If the home teams attack definitely and persistently the All Blacks should be pleased—their line may be crossed but their opponents will have cricket scores to remember. THE FORWARDS PRAISED. The football expert of The Times, in a column review of the Devon match saw many things of interest and incidently he noted the troubles caused by the “loose head,” which has been worrying the Old Country for several seasons and is still a source of irritation. Discussing the game he says that the Devon forwards, on paper a crack pack, rose to unexpected heights while the backs tackled like “desperate men with their backs to the wall.” Devon played seven in the back and a rover, who, however, was euphemistically called a “fiveeight” while Porter, the New Zealand wing was known as a “half.” Talking of the forward division this writer says: “The New Zealand game does not favour mere tactical kicking to touch, but the players are none the less good kicks in an emergency. But, it may be asked, what were the New Zealand pack, of whom such great things were expected, doing to allow a moderate, if splendidly keen, defence to baffle a much superior attack? In fairness to the All Black seven, they were doing many fine things. They were disturbingly quick on the ball for such big men, and they heeled out from the set scrummages and mauls with fair precision. Their rigid lock formation sometimes led to confusion, and the action of one of their number in forcibly adjusting the heads of the opposing front line to suit his convenience did not always please, but the pack as a whole played the hard, aggressive game that seemed certain to succeed. The Devon men, however, with an inspiring player like Buchanan among them, excelled themselves in the art of recovery and counter-attack. Each man, in his own way, played to the last ounce and whisper of a breath. The stamina of this ‘scratch’ pack was amazing.” Of the backs this writer speaks in warm terms mentioning that all and commenting on their free use of the reverse pass though undoubtedly there’s the idea that the attack was rather stereotyped. “Hie New Zealand backs, between them scored three splendid tries, and yet disappointed by not scoring more.” he says. “It seemed almost incredible that, at the end of 25 minutes of desperately fast and ruthless forward play, punctuated by occasional bursts of short, sharp passing, mostly well-timed, accurate and cleverlydeveloped, not a point had been scored by the All Blacks.” The explanation is ap- : parent—the only thing which will stop “accurate and cleverly developed” passing —hard, sound tackling. OPENING OF THE TOUR. DEVON, CORNWALL AND SOMERSET. The following article on the first three matches of the All Black tour was specially written for the Southland Times by N. P. McGregor, the ex-Southland, Wellington, ! Canterbury and All Black footballer:— NEW ZEALAND v. DEVON This match was played at Plymouth. The day turned out dull, and seemed ideal for football. The ground was very soft, but it lasted out fairly well till half time, when it began to rain, and continued practically till the finish of the match. Soon after the commencement of the second spell the ball became very slippery, and difficult to handle. There were 20,000 spectators and our team was given a good reception. New Zealand' lost the toss, and Mark Nicholls kicked off. Play was scraggy at the commencement, but brightened up after the game had been going about ten minutes Our first score came about half an hour after the kick off. From a scrum near the : centre of the field the half secured and passed to Mark Nicholls, to Cooke, who I short-kicked over his opponents. Securing again by quick following up, he passed to i Svenson, who scored near the corner. It was a brilliant bit of play on Cooke’s part. I Nepia failed. The next score came five min- ! utes later from a passing rush, Cooke taking I an in-pass from Svenson and scoring about ten yards from the corner flag. Nepia coni verted with a fine kick. This made the score 8-0, and as we had played against a slight breeze in the first half, we thought the score would be bigger when the team got warmed up to it in the second spell. Our next score was made four minutes after the second spell had opened. From a scrum near half way, Cooke went through on the blind side, and shortkicked. Svenson secured possession, and running strongly to within striking distance of the Devon

line, he passed out at the right moment to Brown who scored about five yards from the corner. Nepia failed. Later, Porter took a mark near the 25, and had a drop kick which went over. The referee, however, did not allow it, although it could be plainly seen to have gone over. However, at the dinner in the evening, he said he was now satisfied that it was a goal, although at the time he did not think it had gone over. We thus won by 11 points to nil, and you can imagine that the fellows coming off covered with mud and slush, greatly appreciated the hot baths and showers that were ready for them. The accomodation here was very good. Devon played seven forwards and eight backs. The extra man in the backs went up into the line outs, but for set scrums he occupied a position equivalent to where we play a five-eight. He, was, however, really a forward, and did some good spoiling work. The game was a poor one to watch, except when our backs got the ball then some good play was witnessed, especially the inpassing. A monotonous succession of scrums slowed the game up considerably, and the different formations caused much trouble over the loose head. Devon packed three in the front row and the remaining four packedin behind, no set positions. They were not content with one loose head, but wanted two, and it was this that caused a good deal of trouble. Much time was wasted, and the ball was put in the scrum as often as four times before it was allowed to go. On one occasion the scrum was down 42 seconds before the ball was put properly, so you can imagine the time that was wasted. If the ball touched the ground when being put into the scrum, and then went right through, it was called back again. All this tended to slacken up the game, and their screwing the scrum made the scrummages painful to watch. M. Brownlie was the pick of the forwards, and Cooke and Nepia were conspicuous in the backs. Svenson also played a good game. The game, was also notable for the absence of free kicks. The Devon forwards played a great game, and at times were pushing our chaps in the scrums. Rain spoilt the game, and had it been fine all through the match, the score would have been twice as many in our favour. The spells were of 40 minutes each—they won’t play 45’s here—the general length of the spells on this side being 35’s. Irvine did not play. He had a bad toe and Donald took his place. Jack Steele strained the muscles of his arm on the boat, and won’t be able to play for three weeks. NEW ZEALAND v. CORNWALL.

This match was played at Camborne, flway down near Land’s End. Our team was as follows:—backs: Nepia, Svenson, Brown Robilliard, Cooke McGregor, Mill, forwards: Irvine, Munro, M. Brownlie, Harvey, Richardson. Cuppies, White, Parker.

In the first spell our forwards soon settled down to their game, showing a great improvement as compared with their display at Devonport. We were leading by 13 to nil at half time, tries by Parker (2) and Cooke, one of which Nepia converted. When Parker got his second try, Cornwall had hooked the ball from the scrum, but Parker was round so fast that he picked the ball up before the Cornwall half knew what had happened, and was over the line for a try. Shortly before half time, Cooke was heavily tackled from behind, and knocked out. He had to be carried off, but came on again after a minute to come round.

In the second half, after warding off one or two good rushes by Cornwall, we got properly into our stride, and had increased our score to 29 to nil before full time sounded. Brownlie, Parker, Irvine and Mill scored tries, two of them being converted by Brown.

The day turned out lovely and fine, after heavy rain the previous day. The , ground was slightly firmer than Rugby | Park was the day we played the trial match ' there. The Cornwall backs played mostly ' off-side, especially scrum half and fly half, without being checked by the referee. The scrummages again caused some trouble, but nothing like what happened at Devon. We got the ball well from the scrums with Munro and Irvine hooking. George Nepia played a great game, somelike his North v. South Island game. He saved us time and again, and moreover opened up passing movements. On one occasion he picked up in mid-field, and running right through, ' passed to Svenson, to Brownlie, to Richardson, to Parker, the latter knocking on • and thereby missing a certain try. Another time Nepia nearly scored himself. Brownlie, Richardson and Irvine were outstanding in the forwards, and in the backs Cooke and Nepia. Cooke did not play so ; well after his bad knock, but nevertheless I played a great game, and was unlucky in not scoring at least one more try. Rxjbilliard played well on the wing and made ' the most of his few chances. The referee- : ing was much better than at Devon. We , had about eight free kicks given against us to their five. NEW ZEALAND v. SOMERSET. The forwards were exactly the same as in the previous match. In the backs Paewai was in at first five-eighth instead of me, and Lucas played at centre instead of Brown. It rained all the morning, and the water was lying in poels on the ground in many places. When we arrived at the ground, fieldmen were busily engaged sweeping the water off the field with brooms! New Zealand won the toss and elected to play with a slight wind. The game opened very briskly, considering the conditions prevailing. Svenson got hurt during this spell ,and but for his injury would have scored an almost certain try on one occasion. He went off a quarter of an hour before half time, Parker taking his position on the wing. Parker used to play wing three-quarter for Boys’ High School in Christchurch before he went into the forwards. There was no score at half time. Rain began to fall during the interval and the wind was also getting stronger. Things did not look too bright for us as a consequence; still, our chaps were confident. From the commencement of this spell, the game developed into a tremendous struggle between the forwards. The rain continued and made the ball very difficult to handle. Somerset played the eight formation in the forwards most of the time, but on occasions when they attacked, they used an extra forward in the backs. Our forwards were playing magnificently—it was great to watch them. The game was mostly in Somerset’s half, and as was natural on such a ground, they did sometimes critically invade our line, but without result. It was not till ten minutes off time that we obtained our first try. Near the Somerset 25, the ball came from Mill to Paewai, but Cooke did not take the greasy ball cleanly, and instead of trying to pick up, he kicked towards the line, and following up well, scored a nice try in a race for the ball. Nepia failed in a good position. New Zealand 3, Somerset nil. The terrific struggle between the forwards continued. M. Brownlie was playing magnificently and Son White was also going marvellously well—he is not done yet by a long way. Behind the scrum; Mill was doing good work both on attack and defence, and several times just missed scoring—once being held up oyer the line. He was rewarded, however, about four minutes after the first try. From a scrum near the line, he picked up and cleverly dashed over. Nepia failed. The whistle sounded soon afterwards with the score 6—o in favour of New Zealand, and we were attacking hard. Our forwards played great football, and it was a tremendous tussle in front. Somerset is the hardest team we have so far met, and their forwards put up a great fight. Parker played exceedingly well at extra half, but M. Brownlie and White did ! tremendous work. Brownlie is a wonder, and seems to be untiring. Our chaps missed many chances. The backs played well considering the day. The ground was not so bad, but it had pools of water lying in many parts of the field, and the greasy ball made handling difficult. Robilliard got a bone in his foot cracked at the beginning of the second spell, and was thus not his usual. All the honours must go to our forwards for the untiring fight they made, for they were going just as hard at the finish as when they started. They won the game.

Svenson could do very little as a consequence of his injury when he came on again at half time, and he was practically a crock.

Cooke was again conspicuous in the backs, but. Mill and Paewai played well, also. Nepia did not play so well as at Cornwall, but nevertheless he was always sound.

It is hard to pick out the forwards. Tffiey al played marvellously, but those I have already mentioned were the pick. Once again the screwing of the scrum came off very successfully.