AFRICAN RUGBY STYLE

Taranaki Daily News, 15 March 1928, Page 4

AFRICAN RUGBY STYLE

PROSPECTS OF ALL BLACKS SPRINGBOK FORWARDS HARD. ADVICE TENDERED TO REFEREES. (By J. A. Daleboubt, late of Cape) Times, Capetown, S.A.) No. 111. To the ouside Rugby world, apart from those two countries which will have the important issues of national sporting prestige involved, the coming matches between Springboks and All Blacks will be interesting as representing a conflict between two radicallj' opposed schools of Rugby principle. Thus, while the sporting interests of South Africa and New Zealand are hanging on the result of each match, the other Rugby nations, England, Ireland, Scotland, France, and New South Wales, will sit back and watch the developments in a disinterested sort of way, and at the conclusion they will be able to say: So much for this style, and so much for that. New Zealand, of course, is practically alone in the style it has adopted. Possibly New South Wales approaches it in breezinees of baek play, but certainly not in the stamp of its forwards. In its particular style of forward play New Zealand stands alone. Nowhere else are such tests demanded of a forward. Here he must possess not only physique, but also the speed and handling ability of a back. Finlayson and the Brownlie brothers are examples of the type of men I mean. In South African Rugby, forwards of such type are rare. Mostert is one; Kruger was another. C. & Barlow, an old Cambridge blue, is among those the All Blacks will probably meet. FORMIDABLE FORWARDS. Though they play a different style yf game, it is the South African forwards that New Zealand will mainly have to fear. Extremely heavy, very vigorous, and great in tight play, they are, moreover, used to the exacting demands of the climate. Their method mainly is to eschew the open game which New Zealand has developed so successfully, while at the same time concentrating on compressed and very powerful drives hi which the players move almost in wedge formation. I understand these tactics were exploited successfully by the Springboks in New Zealand in 1921. The ball is kept off the ground, and passed quickly from hand to hand, the whole manoeuvre gaining many yards of ground, being often carried out in sueh a manner that the ball, kept among the tightly packed men, is hidden from the eyes of the spectators. According to rigid interpretations* these methods might be construed as infringements in some form or other. Certainly they frequently involve instances of more or less flagrant obstruction.

I believe, also, that South Africa will beat New Zealand in the scrums. The advantages of the 3-2-3 formation, such as South Africa favours, are obvious wherever, as they do in South Africa, the referees insist that the ball shall pass the inside man before it is hooked. This ruling practically paralyses a Ne v Zealand scrum, with its two-man front row, leaving one front-ranker to hook against the two opposed to him. If South African referees surprise the All Blacks with their interpretations of the efforts of the wing-forward, and in their attitude toward the hooking of the ball, it will partly be because in the South African Press, within the past few months, various articles have all tended to demand that the referees next winter pay particularly close attention to these aspects of the play of the New Zealanders. South African players write considerably for the newspapers. There was one article by Benny Osler, drawing attention to the need for watching what he called the New Zealand five-eighth, by which he presumably meant the wingforward. As Osler himself is stand-off half, and the one man who would therefore be subjected to most of a wingforward’s attentions, his appeal was hardly as disinterested as it might have been.

Incidentally, as has been mentioned before in this series, Osler is a player upon whom South Africa will place the most implicit reliance in the approaching tests of strength, and the discovery of a suitable partner to feed Osler from the serum is regarded, as one of the most vital problems of South African Rugby. OSLER'S PARTNERS. 11l the last international series, when Cove-Smith’s team was in Africa, Osler was partnered successively, in the four tests, by Myburgh, Truter, Devine, and Truter again. Truter wae the best of those tried, but he has since been out of the picture, and it is possible that for the coming matches the scrum half will be B. Pienaar, yotmger brother of Tof Pienaar. Pienaar made a great name for himself last seaeon when playing behind the scrum for Stellenbosch University, and he is now at Somerset West, not far from Cape Town, which will qualify 1 im for inclusion with Osler in the Western Provinces team, which has been the outstanding Rugby combination in South Africa in recent years.

The matter of playing styles still concerns us. It is to be noted that in South Africa the forwards do not spread into an open attack. Nor do they entrust the ball to their backs, usually, until satisfied that they have reached a position from which an attack may be projected with reasonable chance of success. The method is to keep the ball tight, working downfield the while. Then, within striking distance, the ball is shot to the backs. Those who compare this conservative method with the method employed in New Zealand, with the forwards dangerous from any quarter of the field, and prepared to co-operate with the backs in launching attacks from anywhere, will readily understand that a newcomer, used to South African methods, is forciblystruck by the difference in styles. Now as to the backs —while they frequently use the dummy pass beautifully, their general principle is to get the ball to the wing with all possible rapidity. Their kicking is good, and that of the full-backs and three-quarters is usually superlative, much better than I have seen in New Zealand.

The strength of New Zealand Rugby is its brilliant daring; that of South African Rugby is its conservatism. During the matches with Cove-Smith’s team, the last international team to play in Africa, a hot controversy developed over

the tactics employed on the field, and it was held that the selection committee erred in trying to impose a definite line of tactics for the team to follow on the field. In the last test, at Newlands, the Springboks ignored instructions, and romped home by 16 points to 9. This was held to be a vindication of the traditional African style. The selection committee at that time was Messrs. Markotter, Schreiner, Pienaar, Dcvenish, and Townsend. All are big men in South African Rugby, and Markotter’s son, of Stellenbosch University, is one of the most promising of the younger players. To sum up, the differences in styles and types are: In the forwards, New Zealand will be taller and faster, as well as more dashing in the loose. They will probably command the line oute, hut not the scrums, and in elose work I believe South Africa will be superior, In the backs, except in kicking, New Zealand will be superior. The handling of the South African backs is generally flawless, both, overhead and off the ground, but in general tactics they lack the enterprise of New Zealanders, and the speed of their three-quarters it the only compensating factor. jTo be concluded.)