Great Forward Play

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 727, 29 July 1929, Page 6

Great Forward Play

LESSON BY SOUTH AUCKLAND ClOvSe Tussle at Carlaw Park AUCKLAND BACKS CARRIED THE DAY ft N J ICIPAI lONS that South Auckland would make a bold IV bid for victory in its challenge for the Northern Union Cup were fully realised at Carlaw Park on Saturday. On a ground that suited their hustling, bustling style of play, tlie Southerners made Auckland fight every inch of the way. The Metropolitan thirteen had a bit in hand at the finish, - but it was a close battle all the way. The honours of the day rested equally with the South Auckland forwards and tbe Auckland backs.

Auckland suffered a stroke of bad luck right at % the start when Simons, the fullback, had to retire with nasty injuries to his leg. Had Dufty been available to fill the vacancy, the temporary confusion that occurred in the baxfivs would have been avoided, but as it was, Delgrosso’s rapid reshuffle of the backs worked out splendidly. Seagar and Brisbane combined most effectively at five-eighth, and Delgrosso proved his versatility by giving a brilliant display as last line of defence. Although the South Auckland forwards were too good for the home side in bimching and dribbling, the Auckland pack managed to get a fair share of the ball from the scrums in the first spell. This threw the onus of rising to the occasion on to the Auckland inside backs, it being apparent that the state of ground and ball did not permit of accurate handling from half to wing in orthodox chain passing.

3risbane and Seagar rose to the occasion in magnificent style. They made the openings in devastating iashion, and with useful support from List and Len Scott, Auckland led by 8 to 3 at half-time. Although South Auckland held the upper hand in the scrums in the second spell, the Auckland forwards worked better as a pack. An analysis of the scoring shows that South Auckland was lucky to get the try it did, and the only other points it scored was a penalty goal. Auckland increased its score to 11, as a result of a splendid piece of work between Seagar and Brisbane. Auckland won fairly on its

merits, but South Auckland put up u. sterling fight. Had its forwards received better support from the backs, it might have made things extremely uncomfortable for the holders of the Northern Union Cup. As it was, Auckland was always in front, but it had to play right out \t.o win against

a team which produced forward play of a standard all too rarely seen on a heavy ground. The result of the game strongly suggests that there is room for improvement in the Auckland forwards. So long as it is necessary to revert to the old rules for rep. matches, forwards must be chosen with an eye to the different system of play that is called for. The need for hard-grafting forwards, coached to bunch in massed formation with the ball at toe for dribbling work, was much in evidence on Saturday. South Auck land taught the City a lesson ir this respect, and it is to be hoped that it will not be forgotten. Saturday’s match was marred by weak tackling on the part of both sides, and too much kicking, especially by the Auckland backs. Time and again, the game was held up while the rival fullbacks indulged in a longrange duel, which as often as not ended in stalemate. The South Auckland forwards deserve pride of place in any mention of the players, with the possible exception of the brilliant display given by Seagar and Brisbane. They gave a magnificent display of organised footwork, and showed in unmistakable fashion that the old dribbling rush is still a vital factor in the modern 13-a----sido game. In these days of flashy forwards rejoicing in the title of breakaways, rovers, and extra backs, it is refreshing to find that the country districts at least are producing forwards of the calibre of Timms. Trevetta, and Stephenson, who are not afraid to get into the heavy stuff and stay there, leaving the backs to attend to open-field movements. Timms showed that he still retains the form which took him into the New

Zealand team last year. Fast and tireless, he was a great worker in tight and loose alike.

With a well-balanced scrum behind him. Stephenson carried two many guns for Pascoe, especially in the second spell. But had each man changed places, it might have been a different story. Stephenson, however, not only hooked well —he played a great game in the tight.

Trcvetta was another solid worker. Heavy and strong, he was not afraid to put his weight into it, and he headed some fine rushes. Dfenzies, too, showed out well. The style of play suited him, and he showed out in his •Id form in the loose.

The most effective forward on the ground was Jones, the South Auckland captain. He, too, was suited by the run of play. When his forwards are beating the opposing side, a back-row man is fully entitled to play loose, and Jones took full vantage of his position. He was very quick off the mark, and he did some great spoiling work. Abbott was quite up to the form he showed in Auckland last year. Quick and clever in his work, he was a constant source of trouble to Auckland, and he proved a very slippery customer once he got away. The inside backs, Whorskey, Farrell, and Jackwaj’s. played fair games, but

they could not hold their markers, and this was where South Auckland was beaten. Admittedly they faced a big hurdle in having to stop players of the calibre of Seagar. Brisbane and List, but all must pay more attention to

tackling. The finest player in the world cannot get through if he is caught right at the start with a good solid tackle.

The two wings, Tettleton and Paki, created a splendid impression. The lorrner especially was the most dangerous threequarter-back on the ground when he got the ball. G. Raynor was rather on the slow side, and seemed to prefer playing a lone hand to working in his play with tho rest of the team. Apart from that ho played a splendid game. He was •always safe and reliable, and his kickwas strong and well directed conditions did not suit tlie ■hVi i kl ?i nd *- foi ' wards - and 11 was noticeaPff * ha * J, he reversion to the old play-the-ball rule found them lost for uio moment on many occasions in the ! ialf ’ They played better tok?,+ -l as a pack in the second spell, but it was apparent that there were too many breakaway forwards in the

Dloisley is still far from being a finished player—he kicks too hard, instead of dribbling— but he is a great nor^ ei oe a r d l he team could do with ,? f his type. Pascoe was up •g. nst n stiff hurdle in his first repre-

sentative match, but thought beaten for the ball, hr Played a solid game. Skelton deserves every credit for ’’ealising that \ breakaway game was no good to his side. He got int-> •he heavy stuff in -"od style, and was one of the best forwards in the

pack. The Auckland pack was too weak in rucking and scrumming to permit of a breakaway being used, and AJf Scott was unable to exploit his natural ability in this direction. In the second spell, in particular, he put in some great work in the heavy stuff. Ruby’s speed enabled him to be in

| the play time and again where a heavj ier and slower man would not have been so conspicuous under the conditions ruling. Hamilton played solidly j throughout.

Brisbane was undoubtedly the danger point of the Auckland backs. He was far from perfect at times—his handling was wretchedly weak on several occasions—but when he did take the ball accurately with a failhead of steam up, it was “good-night. Nurse,” for the other side. Ho made several magnificent runs, as well as being a tower of strength on defence, and the two tries he got were a couple of beauties. Seagar was very tricky at first fiveeighth. He beat the opposition on several occasions with a tricky dummy and swerve, and had Brisbane been able to follow him all the time and take his passes accurately tlie Auckland score might have been' bigger. Still, both men deserve credit for the way they played under difficult conditions. List was very sound at centre. He put plenty of dash into his play, and did some good solid work on defence. Mincham did not get many chances. He was buried under a mass of charging forwards half the time, but his defence was good. This was another weakness of the Auckland pock. It let the South Auckland forwards through on to its backs far too often. Len Scott showed all his old pace and determination in scoring the try he did. * He did not often get a chance to show his pace, but his play was very solid. Delgrosso had to take up the fullback berth at a moment’s notice, and considering all the circumstances, he gave a splendid display. His kicking lacked power but it was safe and well directed and he tackled and stopped rushes i'i better than ; any fullback who ha - played for Auckland for quite a time past. He and Moisley made one mistake between them, but whose fault it was could not readily be discerned.

BEATEN IN BACKS SOUTH AUCKLAND JUNIORS LACK COMBINATION A more finished style of play, i featuring far superior combining efforts, especially on the part of the rearguard division, was the key to the success of the Auckland junior representatives by 15 points to 8 in a curtain-raiser to the big game at Carlaw Park on Saturday. Had these two sides met on a dry ground the Auckland rearguarders would have certainly played havoc with the opposition, but as it was on a very slippery ground which suited the South Aucklanders admirably for the most part, the match was a “battle royal.” thoroughly enjoyed by the large and enthusiastic crowd of fans present. From the point of view of spectacular football, the game compared very favourably with the senior match and in some respects featured a sort of fineness which is not always prevalent in bigger football, when so much is at stake. As in past seasons. South Auckland fielded a line set of bustling forwards, who time and again rushed the home team to the defensive. But the visitors’ rearguarders could not be compared with those of the home side, who brought off some of the most brilliant moves seen on Carlaw Park for j some time. And then, while the South Auckland back line seldom got away j in what could be claimed to be a neat j passing bout, it tired us the game went j on and in the closing stages made a i poor showing. In a nutshell, the visiting thirteen held its own in the forward division, but lost the game in the backs. Both sets of forwards were very even and it was quite difficult to pick out the real stars. For South Auckland Crooks, the breakaway was a continual annoyance to the home side, while Neil, Geary and the captain of the team, McCallum. were responsible for much of the hard, bustling play which so often made matters look bad for Auckland. Hunt and White, two players who are favoured with a little senior football experience, proved themselves the cracks of the home side’s forward pack. But the honours of the day must go to the two Auckland five-eighths, Davis and Dunn, and the Hart brothers, who filled half and first five-eighth positions for the visitors. Davis and Dunn were invincible and brought off some brilliant moves, which completely dazzled the opposing line. Joy and Munro. the two wingers, also made fine showings, but for many of their I fine runs they have Davis and Dunn to thank. For South Auckland, R. Hart was outstanding and proved himself very | elusive, but was inclined to hang on to the ball too long. Berry, at centre, was in the limelight a good deal as a result mostly of numerous fine solo efforts. Of the two fullbacks. both played well, Laing for Auckland being perhaps a safer and cooler custodian than J. Hill.