THOSE INSIDE BACKS

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1935, Page 9

THOSE INSIDE BACKS

MANAWATU MATCH LESSONS NEED FOR MORE ADAPTABILITY TARANAKI RUGBY TEAM PROBLEMS (By “Side-Row.”) . ONE felt very similar feelings leaving Pukekura Park last Saturday after Manawatu’s defeat of the Taranaki Rugby team as one felt after the inglorious challenge match against Hawkes Bay at Napier last year—a sensation of great disappointment and of having been “let down.” The circumstances were almost identical, and one must sadly realise that whatever Taranaki s capabilities may be the team lacks the power to adapt itself to conditions. Manawatu has come and gone, victorious even as Wangamiibecause there was no-one in the Taranaki team with the leadership to switch play out of a channel in which Taranaki was surely beaten. ‘ There is little point in bemoaning the sorrows of Saturday gcept insofar as the team can learn its lessons therefrom. There Ae a number of lessons.

Manawatu beat Taranaki because its tactics were better. Taranaki forwards, although not up to the usual standard, did all the tight work and Manawatu was content to let them. The visitors big winging forwards swept through round C. Sangster and G. Sangster and the back-line stood up close—those tactics paid, because C. Sangster could not stand up to the forwards and G. Sangster, maybe for fear of side-line comment, did not use the stab punt to drive the back line back. # * # * Taranaki went blindly ahead throughout the match and Clarke, with his forwards having a hard time with so many leaks in his back-line, effected no alteration in tactics. As far as that was concerned it was a repetition of the

Hawkes Bay match, except that as an attacking combination Hawkes Bay was superior whereas Manawatu won only because of Taranaki’s weaknesses. In both a change of policy would have worked wonders. If, Ray Clarke is to remain captain of the representative team he must show more initiative to combat situations like Saturday’s.

Much was . expected from the gangster brothers, but little profit was gained from them. They have undoubtedly been playing excellent club football behind the Stratford panic, with Its many advantages, and C. Sangster noticeably improved, the attack against Auckland. Surrounded by Manawatu forwards his play lacked the reliability required of a representative half, and his passes were anything but sure. G. Sangster, thus handicapped and further harried by a Manawatu line standing almost straight across from the scrum wherever play was, rarely gave the ball to the outside men when he had the opportunity, preferring to try surprise dummies and cut-ins that landed him in trouble every time. When he did punt it was always too hard. Saturday’s match was an occasion when a course of neat stab-kicks would have compelled the opposing backs to stand back/ thus leaving the way open for a few runs by the threequarters and finally completing the confounding of Manawatu by leaving the opposition in a state of ignorance as to what was coming next.

If the Sangsters are going to play no better against simple tactics employed by good forwards than happened on

Saturday it is a gloomy prospect for Taranaki against packs such as Hawkes Bay, Otago and Southland will place in the field—touring teams with a combination worked up. The weakness in the first five-eighth and half positions is now undoubted. Gudgeon’s ankle is unreliable and his play off-colour; C. Songster is not equipped to deal with tough forwards; G. Sangster seems colourless and independable when the link inside him is weak; and C. Brown is a slow mover as a first five-eighth. What is, therefore, to be done?

There are two courses open to the selectors, one is an “as you were” policy, trusting to tire players who have already been tried .and found not altogether satisfactory; the other is experimentation, and it is on this that “Side Row” has some comments to offer for what they are worth.

Hawkes Bay, Southland and Otago will not be obsessed with the idea of preventing Taranaki from winning; they will be playing to win themselves. The difference seems slight but it should make a world of difference to Taranaki’s preparations. This province must be prepared not for defence but for attack. To begin with the inside backs, proved by four matches to be shaky, must be selected to give the utmost' service to the men wherein, it must once again

be said, lies Taranaki’s outstanding attacking strength. They must b& prepared to deal faithfully and well with dangerous opposing rearguards; they must be capable of standing up to heavy, fit and fast forwards; they are entitled to opportunities just as much as they must be expected to bear responsibilities. There is a prospect of a trial match at Stratford on August 31, and with •file team in the condition as seen last Saturday it is imperative that this should be played. The match will afford an excellent opportunity for Mr. Hickey and his confreres to execute a stroke of brilliance and unearth an inside back connection worthy of the team. It is common knowledge that they have not been altogether satisfied with the exhibitions of any of the men playing those positions in the club teams, although it appeared as if the Stratford players would solve the problem.

"Side Row” has the suggestion to make that old players be tried in new positions. In 1929 Claude Brown, then a High School boy, was Taranaki’s representative half-back. Tukapa, possessed of the services of Boswell and Brown, converted Brown into a first five-eighth and made Boswell into a really fine half. That arrangement has • persisted, but Boswell has not shown such good form in representative teams. Brown, who started his career as a half, was made a five-eighth because of the exigencies of club football and reached the provincial team a second time—as a five-eighth. The only fault with Brown is his slowness on his feet as a five-eighth; his passing is sure and snappy, his defence and stamina excellent; why should he not again be a half-back of great dependability?

As far as first five-eighths are concerned, there are two recognised representative backs now playing in other positions whose early training was in an inside position—Edwards and Hunter. Edwards is at present starved on the wing in most of the representative matches.

He is a good defensive man now and a player of resource. The Hunter-Ham-mond five-eighth combination performed well for Hawera four or five years ago. At present W. Dymond, too, is proving particularly elusive for Hawera, and he and Galbraith would provide a puzzle for opposing teams. The only drawback is that Dymond might prove as big a puzzle for Galbraith and the Taranaki three-quarters. There is the trial match at Stratford on August 31 as an opportunity to try out these suggestions. It my be that G. Sangser, outside Brown, may be the team’s “best bet,” but no-one can say until the other possibilities have been tried. *. * ■ * * There remains the question of giving the five-eighths every opportunity. Tam* naki is not compelled to play the 3-4-1 combination, and there seems no reason why the province should not return to the 2-3-2 scrum and a wing forward. A trial for this has been suggested before but has never been adopted and the result has been consistently weak scrummaging. Fowler and Gargan would, one imagines, prove an ideal pair for the front row, and Clarke has the physique to hold the scrum by himself. As for the leadership of the side, Ray Clarke captains the forwards in excellent style but he does not impress as being the man to direct the backs. There Is no-one in the Taranaki team with a better knowledge of football than Collins, and the position of the Clifton team in the competition bears out the - strength of his captaincy.