RUGBY TO-DAY

Southland Times, Issue 25361, 13 August 1935, Page 8

RUGBY TO-DAY

FORWARD PLAY DETERIORATING. VIEWS OF MR J. W. STEAD. Interesting and educative comment on the forward play in New Zealand Rugby to-day as compared with that of the old days was made by Mr J. W. Stead at the Star old timers’ function last evening. Mr Stead was one of the responders to a toast of the second decade of the Star players, but took advantage of his “two minutes” to offer a little constructive criticism on the forward play of the Southland teams of this and recent years. His remarks claimed the attention of all, his criticisms probably being prompted as the result of the showing of the Southland team in their game with Otago on Saturday. “When I look round and see the football of to-day I must say it has deteriorated terribly,” said Mr Stead. “I am leading up to what has been dubbed the debacle of Saturday. It was not a debacle. If the players could only get some of the ideas we had in the old days, the Southland team could be made into a side capable of lifting the Ranfurly Shield. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately there is no leading man or student of the game to whom these young fellows can look to. There is too much kicking and no penetrative powers shown or produced.” Mr Stead claimed that the whole root of the trouble was in the forwards. Once upon a time the name “Southland” was synonymous with good forwards, and Southland forwards were always to be respected, anywhere in New Zealand. Were the Southland forwards of to-day keeping up this good name? he asked. The answer was “no.” To-day they had new scrummage rules. He did not know what they were or what they meant, and could not understand why the scrum had been “hedged” round by a lot of rules they did not know.

The line-out work he criticized as a disgrace to Southland and New Zealand Rugby, and the reason was not difficult to find. The offending side gave away possession when the ball should be retained. The ball was thrown in casually from touch—some lobbed it into the lines without knowing to whom it was thrown; others spun it. Throwing-in was not or should not be a casual operation. The idea was to retain possession. What earthly good was the “tap back” as practised by the Southland forwards today? The half-back was not in a position to receive the ball and invariably possession and an attacking advantage was given away to the opposition. He hoped they would get back to the old style of getting their heads and shoulders down when in possession on the line-outs and going through. That was the hardest form of attack to stop—the forward thrust which started a rush and bustled the defence. They all knew that once a man was down stopping a rush it meant a man out of the way. The forwards’ job was to get possession and get the ball out to the backs. They (the forwards) could create the finest attacking opportunities on the field. He had had experience of that. The old

Star forwards used to employ the right tactics in line-out play. They would have to get back to the good old forward passing to succeed again. There were unlimited opportunities from the forward barrage—the forward rush. In conclusion he said he was satisfied the art of dribbling would surely come back, but not until forwards realized their first duty on the field. (Applause.)