RUGBY FORMATION

Southland Times, Issue 19396, 10 November 1924, Page 6

RUGBY FORMATION

TOO MANY PLAYERS I SCRUMMAGE THEORY AND ACTUAL RESULTS. IDEAL FORMATION. It comes as a rather startling announcement the fact that immediately after the AU Blacks’ first match at Home, “Forward,” a well-known and authoritative writer on Rugby topics, opens out with the following article under the headings given above: The opportunity of witnessing a representative game under Rugby Union rules so rarely comes my way that I gladly visited Devonport of the opening match of the New Zealand tour. I must confess that of the several national sides the representatives of the Dominion make the most appeal, and I do not think I am alone ,in the North of England, at any rate, in my preference. In the first place the New Zealand Rugby Union does not apparently deny that the revised rules adopted by the Rugby League possess some merit. I frequently heard during my brief sojourn in the Devonshire town talk of the New Zealand clubs who played football under amended rules. This confession that our Colonial visitors, or to be precise some of them, do not think the existing laws of the Rugby Union have reached finality was particularly pleasing to my sensitive ears. STILL SCRUMMAGE TROUBLES. As played at Devonport, the amateurs have their scrummage troubles. In fact, to be candid, the formation of the scrummage was productive of many delays, and this was due to a division of forces and ideas in a game controlled by the one set of rules. The bother was primarily due to the “loose head.” The forwards packed three, two, three and two, three, two, the Devon forwards, of course, being the pack which adopted orthodox formation. The New Zealand theory is that they, for pushing purposes, get five forwards against four, the men outside being players whose position in the scrummage prevents full use of their weight. This means that the orthodox formation wastes four men against the Colonials’ two. SHORT AND STOCKY FRONT ROW. I use the word theory advisedly, for in practice at Devonport it did not work as expected. But the New Zealand claim cannot on this account be lightly dismissed. The idea shows that in a straight pack the old formation has only four men with two shoulders down, against five in the Colonial formation. Solid weight in a real scrummage can better be secured by both shoulders down. The two front row men of the Colonial scrummage are usually of the short and stocky sort, men who can get low, and who are adepts at hooking with either foot.

The pivot, however, is the lock—the centre man of the second row. Those who remember the famous “All Black” combination of 1905 need not be reminded of the renouned Cunningham. This, in brief, is the contention of New Zealand in regard to their improved scrummage formation, and when in course of time the combination of the touring team improves, their theory may be more satisfactory in practice than was the case a week ago. EIGHT BACKS—A CROWD. The other innovatn- was the formation of the back division. Seven forwards to beat eight leaves eight backs against seven. To me, the seven backs —1 except the fullback from the illustration, his position is plainly defined—were too crowded together to be really effective. In addition to the crowding the field positions taken up on the formation of a pack were too close to the scrummage. Under Rugby League rules, which makes a player outside the scrummage offside if he is not behind the last forward in the scrummage, the New Zealand wing-three-quarter backs would have been invariably offside. The eighth forward in theory is thus an added back. He puts the ball into the scrummage, the half-back should get away to the five-eighths, one of whom, if the theory perfectly develops, becomes an extra centre, and the extra man being so easily made the wing three-quarter backs have a more simple task in scoring tries. With three, and possibly four, backs filling practically centre positions, the cut through, the most spectacular and at the same time the more effective attacking move in the game, should be often seen. IDEAL FORMATION. But, like the forwa.d theory, this back idea only rarely developed on theoretical lines. My explanation is simple, and I make it even at the risk of being accused of prejudice in preference for the more open formation practiced by the Rugby League. There are too many players in the given area, and they get into each other’s way. This view was supported at Devonport by an old player of International reputation, who. was a member of “the finest side: ever.” He declared: “You have hit the nail plump on the head.” Formations, orthodox or otherwise, are well enough to a certain point, but the average player wants adequate space to work in. The spectator also is more interested when he had a clear sight of the the ball. I am glad to see the tourists have greatly improved on their opening display, but candour compels me to admit that thirty players gave me the impression of crowding, and a game in which individual striving is more pronounced than combined effort. In Association football 22 players operate in a prescribed area of larger dimensions than the average Rugby enclosure. In Rugby Union football there are 30 players and in Rugby League 26. My ideal formation would be: Full-back, one centre and two wing-three-quarter backs, one five-eighth, one half-back, and five forwards. This would, I think, produce more open football of the spectacular sort, would greatly speed up the game, and, because of limitations in defence, the attacking qualities of players would receive the most tangible reward in the shape of tries. After all. the object of Rugby football is to score a try. BETTER STANDARD. IN ENGLISH RUGBY. ALL BLACKS AND PREDECESSORS. “The greater keenness on the part of one and all to get fit and to keep fit accounts for the big strides forwards made by English Rugby, and it is because the standard of the greatest of all games has improved umpteen per cent, that the present New Zealand combination is not making rings round our own sides.” This statement was made by a leading English critic after the match with Somerset. He went on to say:— “One is apt to lose sight of this reality when discussing the fact that our visitors only beat Somerset by a couple of tries. Because the 1905 side trampled upon our teams and ran up a succession of cricket scores at the start of their tour, while this side is hard-pressed to w’in in two matches out of three, many people jump to the conclusion that they are not nearly so good as D. Gallaher's team. I fancy that opinion will have to be modified before long. “True, W. E. Cooke, so far, has been the only one of the backs to stand out as a star performer, but one must bear in mind the extremely heavy grounds they have had to play on. A searching test of their real abilities should be provided in the next 10 days at Swansea and Newport.”