RUGBY FOOTBALL

Southland Times, Issue 22999, 19 September 1936, Page 20

RUGBY FOOTBALL

The Australian Team’s Visit

(By

“Onlooker.”)

Southland plays its final game of the representative season on Wednesday, against Wellington. Whether Wellington wins the shield or not in its match with Otago at Dunedin to-day the game on Wednesday should attract a lot of interest. Ever since Southland won the Ranfurly Shield from Wellington in 1920 there has been an extra special interest in the matches between the two provinces, and during the last few years some very good games have resulted. Wellington is bringing a strong team south, and early in the season the team surprised the critics by defeating the strong Hawke’s Bay side by 25 points to nil. To-day’s match at Dunedin should give Southlanders a good idea of how the Maroons are likely to fare on Wednesday. The result of the match with the Australians was pleasing to those who like to see a time-honoured record kept intact. There was not much between the, sides,, but none would say that Southland did not deserve to win. If the team which defeated the Australians could develop some combination it could, hold its own with any provincial side in New Zealand. Although Southland has been beaten three times this season it is the only team to have defeated Otago. The result seems to have been lost sight of by some of the northern critics who have been discussing Otago’s splendid record. , , R. Ward, the Southland All Black forward, showed a surprising turn of speed when he took the pass from Mitchell which led up to Southland s final try on Wednesday. He also showed clever anticipation, and as soon as Mitchell had started his run, was racing alongside to be in a position to take his pass. In the short time that Ward has been in All Black company he has improved in many ways and by next year, when the Springboks visit New Zealand, he should rank with New Zealand’s best forwards. Metcalfe and Crawford. T. Metcalfe, former All Black forward, showed that he was far from finished with his Rugby when he led the Southland attack in the first half of the game with the Australians. His dash was as noticeable as ever, and his cleverness in drawing the defence to make Mitchell’s try left nothing to be desired. With W. L. Crawford he was the equal of 0. L. Bridle and Ramsay (Australia) in the loose. Crawford has produced his best form in his latest games. It is a pity that he was not just up to form when the first Southland team was selected this year. His control of the ball on heavy or dry grounds reminds one of “Son” White at his best. He should be a valuable man to Southland on the tour of New Zealand next season. During their visit to Invercargill the Australians were loud in their praise of the Hawke’s Bay forwards. Two of the Test team said that the Hawke’s Bay pack was better than either of the packs fielded by New Zealand. The deadliness of N. A. Mitchell’s tackling was responsible for the retirement of the Australian centre, R. E. McLaughlin before half time in Saturday’s Test match. Mitchell put, in some great defensive work in the first half when the Australians were going so strongly, and one flying tackle which brought McLaughlin down left its mark. McLaughlin suffered from a broken rib.

The gate receipts at the second Test at Carisbrook on Saturday came to round about £2300. This amount will be divided between the New Zealand Union and the Otago Union, the former taking approximately two-thirds and the Otago Union one-third. One of the best tackles seen at Carisbrook on Saturday took place in the second spell when Storey, the Australian full-back, brought down Reid as he was going over between the posts, (comments “Full-back” in The Otago Daily Times). Had Reid passed to a support who was handy New Zealand must have scored another try. _ The present Wallabies’ team receives an allowance of four shillings a day in cash.

The gate for the first Test, at Athletic Park last Saturday week, was in the neighbourhood of S2BOO. J. M. Watt, the Otago wing threequarter, was one of the four Wellington College old boys in the All Black team this season, the others being J. L. Griffiths (captain), B. S. Sadlier and B. A. Killeen.

“Dunedin Football Mad.”

A northern visitor to Dunedin who saw Otago play three Ranfurly Shield matches returned with glowing reports of Otago’s strength (says the Wellington Sports Post). He says the Dunedin people are mad on football; that they walk, talk, eat, drink and even sleep it. He was impressed with Otago’s quality on the field, and he considers that it will retain the shield against Wellington’s challenge. He was interested in things, and made inquiries for himself to discover the effect of the shield on Dunedin. He spoke to a railwayman, who enthusiastically applauded the shield, because, he said, it had given him and dozens of other workmen a week’s overtime preparing railway engines for the excursion traffic on the Saturday. Besides that, the northerner found that all hotels, restaurants and general business stores have benefited by increased trade. So the “log of wood” has some uses after all. Auckland Rugby has lost the services of A. Beyer (Otahuhu) for it is reported that the full-back has gone over to League. It’s a pity, for he was a fine player in his position. If he has a grievance through not being included in the Auckland representative team that met the Australians it is not unfounded. On the season’s form Beyer, although not as experienced, is a better man than Bush. Murdoch (Marists) is another recent convert to the League code—Sporting Life.

The Veteran Class.

Writing to The Otago Daily Times, a correspondent signing himself “Vet,”’ had some comment to offer on the refereeing in the second Test match at Dunedin. He wrote:—“Dear Full-back, —Myself in the veteran class, I am all for joining in the more or less futile chorus about the unapproachable splendour of the has-been but not too obsessed to recognize that it is not seemly that the veteran should tarry on the field when he should be occupying a seat in the grand stand. Mr McKenzie, the referee in the second Test match, no doubt put up a very good performance considering his age, but is was obvious that he now ‘lags superfluous on the stage.’ A man within about three stone-throws of three score may be still a satisfactory legislator in connection with the sports of youth, but if he continues to delude himself that he can foot it with the present-day game he should be taken quietly aside and told that he is about a generation out in his calculation. And so should those responsible for so stupid an appointment to an international fixture. Mr McKenzie did his best to keep up with the play, the field glasses disclosing that his brow was wet with honest sweat and it is a pretty safe guess that the jaded Australian forwards had nothing on him in the shape of relief at the sound of the final whistle. But

that does not alter the case. With Mr McKenzie’s control and knowledge of the game I have no complaint, except in one vital matter which, strangely enough, has not been commented upon by the scribes. Half the time the ball never got into the scrum! Yet the referee rarely penalized, but either let the play go or meekly ordered the players to try again.”

The Second Test

WHEN CRITICS DIFFER

PRAISE FOR MITCHELL AND GILLIES

After witnessing the play of the New Zealand backs in the second Test at Dunedin last Saturday there must have been very many in the crowd prepared to admit that at last the South Island had found five-eighths and three-quar-ters equal in ability to the North Island backs. The three-quarter line was wholly comprised of South Island players, and as coincidence would have it the positions were distributed over the length of the Island, one coming from Canterbury, one from Otago and one from Southland. And reflecting upon the pace, dash and work of that threequarter line one is forced to admit that it compares very favourably with the best lines New Zealand has produced. The only weakness apparent on the day was J. Watt’s high tackling. As an attacking force, however, it is doubtful if a better line could be found anywhere at the present time. Then in the five-eighths line New Zealand discovered the man it has been looking for for two seasons. That man was C. C. Gillies, who at first five-eighth made all the difference to the New Zealand attack compared with the showing of the five-eighths in the first Test. The Otago

man played excellently; he displayed unusual initiative, and above all he directed the attack as it should be directed.

Yet with the knowledge of all this there are some critics prepared to overlook the good work of the South Island backs, and almost, it would appear, try to belittle their performances. The grounds for this charge are found in the report of the second Test in The New Zealand Herald (Auckland). It is quoted briefly below. In the case of Mitchell his play is neither praised noi- condemned. His name is not even mentioned! But how could any critic, if he really saw the game, overlook the brilliant work of the Southlander? Is it parochialism that prompts this sort of unusual commentary on the play and the players ? Here is the report in The Herald:—

“Poor Combination.”

“The New Zealand backs were a poor combination in the first half. Gillies endeavoured to cut in too much and invariably ran into trouble, while Griffiths was too slow to be a good connecting link between the first fiveeighths and centre. Gillies improved in the second spell, when the weakness of the opposition enabled him to find innumerable openings. On some of these occasions Griffiths was cut out of passing rushes. “Sadler played a plucky game behind the scrum. He was paid a lot of attention by the Australian breakaways, Hodgson and Bridle, but stood up to his task in commendable style. The three-quarter line was seen at its best in the second spell, when plenty of opportunities were offering. Hart and Watt, who was the idol with the home crowd, showed improvement upon their form in the first Test. Pollock again gave a very sound exhibition at fullback. Although on a few occasions he failed to field the ball accurately, his trickiness won him applause. “The Australian forwards cannot be blamed for such a substantial loss. They played splendidly right up to the time when their backs let them down so badly and it is not surprising that they wilted under pressure in the closing stages. Hodgson was not so prominent as in the first Test, paying a little too much attention to his opponents instead of concentrating on the ball. This made him unpopular with the crowd. Bridle played a fine game in the loose, again showing exceptional speed. His brilliant interceptions worried hi: opponents a good deal. The other packmen all strived hard.” It is almost a waste of words to bother about this particular’ report, but in fairness to Mitchell the comment is reprinted in order to give an idea of the treatment some of the better known southerners receive from some North Island critics. The New Zealand Free Lance reporter has taken a different view of the play of Gillies and Mitchell. Here is what that paper says:— “Gillies and Mitchell Show Up.”

“Gillies and Mitchell were the best of the inside backs. Mitchell at times rose to real heights and his try in the first spell was a glorious ending to a perfect movement. Gillies received and cut in excellently, handed a perfect pass to Griffiths, who passed on as perfectly to Mitchell who lunged over in a threeyard dive for the line. A determined run after being placed in position by Watt who threw in-field also goes to his credit. Hart and Mitchell showed really great class and Watt is just at their heels. To-day’s three-quarter line would be difficult to better. This is written, of course, without a sight of Sullivan. “Griffiths was well served with the ball, but his play at times was a little uncertain, and his handling distinctly so. The brilliance of Mitchell offset some of this. x In tackling, both Gillies and Griffiths were particularly sound.” A Puzzled Follower. In view of the foregoing it is worth while giving publicity to a letter which appeared in The Otago Daily Times on Thursday. It reads:— Dear “Full-back,” —I was unfortunately unable to attend Saturday’s Test match, but, being of an inquiring turn of mind, I thought it might be inter-

esting to get the opinions of the critics who write for the papers outside Dunedin. After half an hour among the files of the Public Library, I came away wondering just by what standard some of these writers compare the players. Take, for instance, the case of Gillies. Our own dailies classed him as among the best backs on the ground, and my spirits rose when I read the following in The Southland Times:—“Gillies and Sadler were New Zealand’s best backs. Gillies proved himself absolutely, and on his performance is entitled to be ranked with the best five-eighths New Zealand has had.”

Depression set in however, when I espied this little “knock” by the athletic reporter of The Auckland Herald: “The New Zealand backs were a poor combination in the first half. Gillies endeavoured to cut in too much, and invariably ran into trouble, while Griffiths was too slow to be a good connecting link between the first fiveeighths and centre. Gillies improved in the second spell, when weakness of the opposition enabled him to find innumerable openings. On some of these occasions Griffiths was cut out of passing rushes.” Yet, Mr S. S. Dean, who should be a good judge, told The Dominion that “C. C. Gillies (Otago), after a somewhat shaky start, settled down nicely, and brightened the attack pleasingly.” Now, “Full-back,” whom am I to believe?—Yours, etc, Puzzled.

Six Losses And Two

Wins

AUSTRALIAN TEAM’S RECORD The touring Australians have won only two of their eight games to date. They were successful against Wanganui and North Otago, two unions regarded as more or less in the minor union category. The Australians have scored 95 points against their opponents 135. Their record is as follows:— v. Auckland, lost B—s. v. Wanganui, won 22—12. v. Hawke’s Bay, lost 20—14. v. Wairarapa, lost 19—13. v. New Zealand, lost 11—G. v. North Otago, won 16—13. v. New Zealand, lost 38—13. v. Southland, lost 14—6.

Son tliland’s Four Wins RECORD TO DATE By its win over the Australian team on Saturday, Southland brought its number of wins for the season up to four in seven games played. The three losses were against Auckland, Otago (at Dunedin) and South Canterbury. On Wednesday, the Maroons meet Wellington, and whether they succeed or not their record will not be so bad after all.

Following are the results of the games played. v. Otago, lost 16 —3. v. Auckland, lost 19—-16. v. Manawatu, won 13—12. v. Otago (return), won 9—6. v. Canterbury, won 32—14. v. South Canterbury, lost 10—8. v. Australia, won 14—6. Summary: Played 7, won 4, lost 3. Points for, 94; against, 83.