THE ALL BLACKS

Taranaki Daily News, 18 December 1924, Page 8

THE ALL BLACKS

INTERNATIONAL RUGBY.

THE DEFEAT OF IRELAND. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF £By R. A. Byers-Barr, Daily News representative with the team.) London, Nov. 6. The triumphal tour of the All Blacks, of 1924 in the British Isles marks another epoch in the history of Rugby, and such history as Rugby ever knew. The New Zealanders have triumphed over every team in England. Wales and Ireland to date, in successive victories, culminating in their defeat of the Irish internationa Is at Dublin on Saturday, November 1, after a great and gruelling game. The first test match must ever be memorable for the magnificent display of the Irish forwards in the first spell, when they fought every inch of ground, stemming the repeated attacks of the. All Blacks, and saving their line by stern defence. Irish forwards have been famous for their dash, devil, flaire and danger, in their desperate dribbling rushes, staggering the defence to the last line. The All Blacks of 1905, on the oame ground, Lansdowne Park, Dublin, submitted to the shock of the Irish forwards in that great game, twenty ▼ears ago. It was only history repeating itself when the All Blacks of 1924 were subject to the same dashing, desperate and dangerous dribbling rushes of the Irish international forwards in the test of the British Isles tour. The All Blacks of 1905, like the AU Blacks of 1924, by stern defence, with tenacious tadkling. stemmed the tide of attaick, survived the rush and onslaught, steadied and flung back the counterattack. sweeping the Irishmen off their feet, to penetrate the last line, culminating in the scoring of sensational tries. The original All Blacks defeated Ireland on a fast, dry ground, by I*s points to nil. The second All Blacks defeated Ireland on a sodden field, and a treacherous turf, handicapped by a heavy, wet ball, by 6 points to nil. The conditions were all against the New Zealanders in the momentous first spell, with a strong breeze against them, and heavy rain driving in their teeth. The 1924 All Blacks not only fought the Irish international team, but they fought the Irish blizzard, on a flooded field, treacherous as an ice ford, dangerous to a degree. The modern New Zealand forward does not readily adapt himself to such steadying influences, as was only too well demonstrated in the opening matches of the team against Devon, Somerset and Gloucester, when the state of the ground and ball were equally shocking and distressing. The elements p’ay a prominent part in the game, rain reducing the most brilliant side to the level of mediocrity. VICTORY DESERVED. *The All Blacks thoroughly deserved their victory. They gained it in weather conditions which were amazing, if not unprecedented —conditions which, from their own point of view, could not have been worse.” Such is the statement of Colonel Phillip Trevor, C.8.E., who has an intelligent regard of the game, and whose opinion I offer to excuse for quoting further. Strangely enough, during nearly all the first half the ball was practically dry. Anyhow there was no mudlarking —a fact for which the length of the grass was perhaps responsible. About five minutes prior to half-time the wind dropped altogether and the flags hung limply on their stems. Then the rain again set in and the wind changed. At first it blew right angles to the field of plav. Later it veered right round and blew once more at the backs of the Irishmen. It increased (and so, for the matter of that, did the rain), and at the end of the match was blowing

harder than ever. So the New Zealanders had it against them practically all the time, plus the disadvantage of a greasy and sodden ball, just when they had reasonably hoped for a dry one. In the circumstances they did quite well, and won, as I ventured to predict they would win. There was no scoring in the first half, end it was then that the Irish made the mistake of not exploiting their back division. I have a shrewd suspicion that the New Zealanders designedly let them get the ball in this half. They did get it fairly often, anyhow, but the temptation of the strong wind was too great to be resisted, and they “fell for it.” Huge kicking by their backs put the New Zealanders continually on the defensive, but only after a very long time was the hopeful and expectant crowd made to realise that pressing is not scoring. The New Zealand defence held and never looked like giving way. Yet there was every reason why the Irish three-quarter line should then have been used. The occasional glimpses we got of it in attack were favourable, and once it seemed a certainty that T. Hewitt would score. He played well until he was unluckily hurt, but on this occasion he hesitated. THE SECOND SPELL. The New Zealanders themselves during this period made no attempt to open up the game. They were evidently waiting for the change of ends. How were they to guess that after half-time the rain would come on again and the wind again help their opponents? It was very early in the second half that the one try of the match was scored. The big Brownlie was given the ball, and using his physical strength he burst through. But he did not presume on his initial success. He tossed it to the attendant Svenson, who did the rest. A little later Mr. A. E. Freethy (who, by the way, was at his very best as a referee in this game) was compelled to penalise one of the Irish forwards for culpable off-side play, and Nicholls then kicked a penalty goal. That forward, by the way, on more than one occasion sacrificed judgment to impetuosity and did his side disservice ia consequence. It was in this half that the Irish policy was again at fault. Before the ball got slippery and sodden, and wlren the turf was firm, their backs declined to attempUbouts of passing, but when, owing to bad weather, it needed superWelshmen to do this kind of thing, they attempted it. Needless to say, their attempts never looked like succeeding, and we who watched them were amazed that they should have been made. Certainly the New Zealanders were relieved in more ways than one by them. Throughout the match their pack had to work its hardest to eoj*e with the really

fine pack opposed to it, and pleasantly surprised were some of us bo see the Irish forwards last so wonderfully. They had a bad ten minutes in the second half, and I thought that I was hearing then their swan song. But I was wrong. They found their voices again, and finished on their top note. Most of them were very good indeed, and Clinch was best of all. He played a really fine game, and his judgment never failed him. GREATNESS OF NEPIA. As a physical tussle between two teams as well endowed with pluck as with thew and smew the match was a real treat, and the tackling of both teams was magnificent. It must have been something of an experience to the New Zealand giants, Brownlie, Parker and Cuppies, to be overthrown as they were. Yet they had the satisfaction of retaliation. But it was all physicalism of the best kind—-all open front work. The match will not be remembered for tis finesse. The Irishmen attempted Hone, the New Zealanders deferred their effort to use wile and guile till the conditions of play should be propitious, and, as I have said, they never were ■propitious.

The star performer of the match was the New Zealand full-back, Nepia, and in the first half in particular, when half a gale blew in his teeth, he was a model of strength and accuracy. Some of the catches he made (and he never missed one) would have made a good juggler’s turn at a music hall. His gathering of the ball was faultless, and his screw kicks into touch against the wind had also a touch of jugglery about them. But for this really wonderful performance I should have been inclined to give Crawford pride of place. The time has not yet come for Crawford to retire. Ido not ever remember seeing him play better than he did on this oirasion. Once it looked as if the fleet Parker had got him. Crawford made desperate efforts to get alongside. He just failed. So he dived, and successfully too, for Parker foundered. INCIDENTS LACKING. It was not a match which lent itself to description in detail. Its thrills were few, and so were its actual incidents. Once the Irishmen were awarded a penalty kick, which ought to have produced a goal. Once Cooke dropped the ball just as he was crossing the goal line. Once Svenson failed to score by about eighteen inches. Cooke played extremely well, so did Nicholls, while Dailey had a gruelling time of it, and came out of the ordeal with great credit to himself.

And what chance it may be asked, has England, Wales or France, of doing what Ireland has just failed to do? My answer to that question is: “It all depends on the weather.” Bad weather undoubtedly takes 60 or 70 per cent, out of the sting of the attack of the New Zealand backs. They are not by any means the equals in this respect of some Welsh back divisions of the past, nor are they the greatest tackling backs I have seen. But this latter consideration I do not think, in 1924, Tanks high. Tf you get seven tries, and your opponent gets three you score a fairly substantial victory. The New Zealand forwards go on improving, and the Irish pack which has just put up such a fine performance against them may be pardoned if they indulge in a little selfcongratulation.