THE SWANSEA DEFEAT

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1935, Page 12

THE SWANSEA DEFEAT

WELSH CRITIC’S VERSION x VISITORS’ COURAGE Why did the All Blacks go down to Swansea 11-3? The critics are still arguing the point, so it is of interest to read the views of the football writer of The Western Mail and South Wales who saw the game and made his own intelligent interpretation of its lessons. In the issue of September 30, he wrote: “What was the explanation? Was it that Swansea was a great side? can scarcely be claimed. The true explanation is that the Swansea team pos- - sessed the very characteristics which the All Blacks could not counter, and that once the Swansea men discovered the weak r spots in their opponents’ armour they had the good sense to concentrate on them. Relative rather than actual those weaknesses may have been, but that they existed was .proved in the ' most convincing way—in the trend of play and the result. " , “Swansea were a shade in front forward and rather more than a shade in front at half back. Realising that they ; had this advantage they used their knowledge and abilities to force the New Zealanders' into the channels they would dearly have wished to have avoided. X The gallantry with which the tourists struggled to avoid those channels made the game what it was—one of the most thrilling and most desperate ever fought —but its* really spectacular efforts were far fewer than were the occasions on ' which the threat of unpleasantness crept in through the swigging of punches and the unnecessary charges by the forwards ‘ of both sides. ■ J \’' “Courage, strength, and determination all were present in full measure and Swansea won deservedly because they, had greater attacking strength at half back, than their distinguished opponents ■ could produce, and superior bustling abilities forward. There was another point in Swansea’s favour, too, which must be placed higher in the list—that was the clever maimer jn which Eddie Long, the Swansea captain, shadowed the New Zealand’ half backs and the quickness with which Joe. and Dai White , reached Manchester and Wynyard in their endeavours to make the particular and effective wing movements favoured ■ by those fine forwards. Those were the factors plus the result that made j the. match the-game of the century. “The secondary factor of New Zea-, '• land’s defeat was that their forwards, even with. McLean constantly in the scrummages, were frankly not good enough. Swansea’s" pack was magnificent, showing a slight superiority in the tight and attaining heights of footwork that their opponents could not reach'. All that was required of ' Swansea’s three-quarters and filll-back was accuracy and finishing ability, and that they gave without stint. But, it was the schoolboy half-backs who won„the game, . and I make bold to say that, h*ad they been on the other side the New Zealanders would still .be seeking that invincibility which came to their predecessors of 1924.” . Of the winning try the commentator .says: “Willie Davies already on the run, took it without loss of pace, shruggedx his shoulders, performed certain con? 1 tortions that suggested his feet and body • were moving in opposite directions—and in a twinkling he had the New Zealand defence going away from him instead of towards him. Claud Davey was coming up to support at top pace and when he took Davies’ pass he had the pace to keep ahead of pursuit for 35 yards for a glorious try which Wilfred . Harris goaled. That sealed the fate of New Zealand." . r ' ' ' ' , " ' ;