Weaknesses In Construction And Tactics Of All Black Team

Taranaki Daily News, 10 September 1934, Page 11

Weaknesses In Construction And Tactics Of All Black Team

INADEQUACY OF SOME FORWARDS FOR SPECIALIST POSITIONS

JpURTHER reflections upon reports of the New Zealand Rugby team’s matches in Australia, comments on the team’s game with the Rest of New Zealand, interviews with members of the side, and conversations with Rugby enthusiasts from the Dominion who saw the Test matches, deepen certain impressions formed while the tour was in progress. It is quite plain that, whereas Australia’s representative Rugby has improved considerably, especially as a result of the tour of South Africa, the New Zealand team was not nearly as well balanced as the average All Black side tor Australian visits. There were definite weaknesses in both the construction of the team and its fieldtactics. These should be noted with the object not of holding an “inquest” upon New Zealand’s loss of the BledisIde Cup but of appreciating fully the points at which an accession of strength is necessary for,the visit to the United Kingdom and Ireland, * •» * Although the New Zealand forwards did much g-and work, especially in the second Test, they were not , fully equipped in specialist positions for their bard task. When this fault is revealed clearly one can understand just why they tired toward the finish of a game, for in a Test match the pack as a whole cannot last well if every man is - not fully qualified for his position; one man's want of aptitude for the position assigned to him in the scrum is sufficient to throw more work and responsibility or, the other forwards in an international match. Considering how the All Black forwards dopiiriated the play for periods of the Tests, one may assume—quite fairly, 1 think —that if there had been proper regard for the filling of all the specialist positions in the pack they would have lasted out the first match with Australia without the marked diminution of energy which was apparent, and would have had a good chance of winning the second Test despite the lack of penetration by their inside backs. * * * ,As the first requirement in Rugby is possession of the ball, the primary specialist position in the scrum is in the middle of the front row. New Zealand had a hooker, W. Hadley, who proved that. he could beat Australia’s hooker, B. Bonis, when the weight of the New Zealand scrum was applied properly, and it had -in the other, places in the front row two good forwards who hook for their provinces—one of’ them, J. Hore, an excellent all-round forward throughout the tour. But the locking of the All Black scrum for the first Test was inefficient. The All Blacks had three specialist locks—D. Max, A. Knight; and R. M. McKenzie—and a utility forward, R. King, who could be played as either a flank-forward or a lock. The locks for the Test matches should have been two of the three specialists, if the selection of them was sound and they were in form. But ithe striking fact, that cannot be glossed over, is that none of these three

specialists was good enough for his proper position in the second Test. * * * The lock-forwards in the second match with Australia were King and; E. Barry. Now, Barry is a flank-forward who had been chosen for the tour only because A. H. Andrews, selected -for the back-row position, could not gio; on the tour. Yet New Zealand was so; illequipped with lock-forwards of sufficient calibre for the Tests that Barry had to be tried in one of these positions. As it happened, he did the job so well that King and he gave Hadley the weight that was ’ lacking .; before. Even with Barry in that; position,. New Zealand had plenty of flank-forwards available. But it had no specialist backrow forward. The pack was patched up by the playing of a flank-forward as the back-row man,-arid by the playing of D Max, discarded, as a . Jbck, on one flank of the middle, row. Apparently the reasoii for retaining Max .in the Test side Was that his height was!'.required for the line-out ,'play. Still, there was the weakness that he is neither suited for nor accustomed to flank-forWaid play. * * * ' The All Black scrum was lop-sided, then, in its adaptation to flank-forward and back-row play. It is significant -that the men who were mentioned most frequently for good play in the important games—Hgdley (as hooker), ; Hore, and J. E. ; Manchester—were specialists playng in the positions for which they had been, trained; > '* *- , . * ■■■.. There was also a notable mistake in-field-tactics in the play of the first fiveeighth, J. R. Page. This player has a tendency to run rather wide, and the way in which the Australian flankforwards went for him, leaving the New Zealand half-back to be dealt with by others, exaggerated the tendency, with the result that the attacks of the New Zealand backs moved crabwise, and urgently needed a straighteningUp which was not given to them in the second Test. The obvious remedy for the harassing of the first five-eighth by the Australian flankers was for Page to stand farther back, practically behind his half-back, and deep, and to depend upon speed off the mark and swift, accurate passing of the ball, to defeat those flankers. He did not try . that remedy. In contrast, the Australian five-eighth, L. Lewis, stood deep, to defeat All Black spoilers from the scrum. Lewis’s positional play, his ability, and the lop-sideflness of the arrangement of specialists in the New Zealand .scrurn combined to keep him from much of tuch attention as was given to Page. The selectors of the New Zealand team have plenty of food for thought. A.L.C. •

Arthur J. Richardson, the former Australian Eleven player, who has been playing in Lancashire League cricket, as a professional, for some years, had a disagreement with his captain recently, and his club,. Burnley, suspended him. The suspension has now been endorsed by. the Lancashire League.