FOOTBALL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8104, 1 September 1904, Page 1

FOOTBALL.

' NOTES. {By QUIDNUNC.? Football is a game of surprises and contrasts, and though there were, perhaps, not very many surprised people at the Otago — ; Canterbury match, there were some who could not help contrasting the display of Canterbury's best team with that of the rither Scratch lot that held up their end against Wellington oh the previous Saturday. The fifteen players who went to Wellington had a baa- contract to tackle, but they were by no .means beaten before they got to the post, and they put up a really cood go, but the same cannot be said of . the team that opposed Otago. They were , badly beaten, but there was no particular merit hi the play ;tliat beat them, and on thejr proper form there was not the slightest reason why., the Canterbury representa- ' tires should lose. -Yet they did what many a Canterbury team has done against Otago -—lost then? heads and allowed themselves to be beaten in the sort of scramble that should hardly be dignified by the name of football. Even in the early stages, when J \ Canterbury held the upper hand, there was little sting< in their attack, numerous mistakes and silly blunders spoiling all their . attempts. "The back play was very weak ■ indeed, and even the forwards seemed de(pressed. Brunsden, Fanning, Denham and' Roddick were to be seen at the head of occasional loose rashes, and their work was at times very creditable, but the efforts were not well sustained, and a forward rush in one direction was always .followed quick--7 ly by another in the opposite direction. .The Otago forwards were said to be good in the loose, but they were not really good enough to overran the local men as they did, for there was no great amount of cohesion in then? work. In the scrums they went better, and, contrary to expectations, ' they frequently beat Canterbury for the ball. Their backs; however, made no better use of their opportunities, than the local men. Possibly the absence of Bennett and . Hialop was a severe handicap, and this . ' must have been the reason for their weakness in attack. Gilray was the only member of the back division who showed any •mount of dash, and the mistakes of those nesrer the scram robbed hini of opportunities. Their defensive work was patchy, bnt "an the whole better than the attack, and some of the kicking was' quite above the average. The game was. a. poor one on which to judge the merits of the visitors, but it is probable that their northern tour will be tnute a big enough handful for, them, and I do not anticipate that they will go through unbeaten: It will not be their for- . - tone often to meet teams which will go to pieces as Canterbury did. Erera the full-back down, few of the Red* ■; were blameless. Love was for once rather \- unsafe in taking the ball, and though he \i kicked rather better than usual;, this hard- '/ Jy compenxsted for his other mistakes. Menses was as energetic as ever, bet was :dvn no phance for attacking work. layery played > l air game, marred by one '•jo* two errors of judgment in cases of «nergency, and Harper was not so -sound ss usaal, though he made several strong tun* vA collared w«H. Deani scored his t*y as the result of cleverness, and throughout the game he managed to do the right rtUjig when fee was va&i&l 51a mma..

did not suit H. Byrne co well as gome he has played in, but he did good, work in his team's one pas-sing attack. P Byrne was out of form, and the oall oeat hrai badly more than once. . He <I.ml not get down to the rushes with his usual certainty. The /best of tie forwards were Fanning and \Penham. The former worked bonestly< from start to finish, and the latter was always on the ball in tie loose work.;; Roddick had a tendency to get off-side, mit was useful on. the wing. Brunsden hardly kept going as well as usual, and Corbstt and Pearce appeared to work at intervals onJy, while Shannon, though he did not show up much, was always in the thick of it. Newton worked hard for a- timo, but want of condition tald on ihim before tfhe game was over: . - The best of the visitors' backs was Gilray,^ who showed a lot of initiative, and was never at a loss. In spite of -his youth he knows the game well and plays ; with a lot of head. . His running was very Strong. Baxter made a fair showing on the, other wing, and Munro was the best of the five-eighths, being useful all round. Booth's best work was his place-kicking, •which was exceptionally successful; Porteous played a good game at wing forward, breaking away frequently in rushes that were apparently irresistible. C. Stewart, D. Stewart, Johnstons and Abbott were the most oonspicuous.in the loose work. '**■ FronY-the tfiiint. of .view of. those-bn-the" touch-line Ota go's fourth try. was a lucky one.. The ball was thrown at the rcrum, but apparently bounced off the oi'tside lej of one of the front rankers and was snapped up by Porteoue, before it' had really been in the serum. . Gilray's try on Saturday should, never have been, obtained, though that dpes not mean that it was undeserved, for his play was very smart. But it was Lavery's fault alone that Canterbury did not score on that occasion. Love did just- the' right thing in running across the field and into the only Otago man who was within' striking distance. . He passed to Lavery, but the latter failed to take the ball, and hesitated so long that Gilray was able to snap up the chance.' With another man to spar© and practically a clear field a. Score looked certain for Canterbury, if Larery had shown any judgment. The absence of Harvey was severely felt | by tbe Canterbury team on Saturday, and ! contributed largely to the disorganisation that was so painfully palpable. With Harvey behind the' serum the backs would have benefited from such opportunities as their forwards endeavoured to give them, and the Otago forwards would have found that their rushes were not so irresistible as they seemed to be. Canterbury had a great opportunity on Saturday to add to their small list of wins against Otago, for the visiting team wa« by no means the strongest the province can raise. But just because,.the occasion was one on which the local men were needed to do their- best, they celebrated it by an all rounid exhibition of stupid blundering. The correct scores in Saturday's match' were ten points to. *nine, as Otago were allowed two tries /not fairly won.( They would never have been awarded by a competent refere?. Canterbury;, dl-d ni>t get a penalty awarded them in the first spell;, though obstrue-, i'tion in -the, open -field and off-side play, I particularly by the back when defending, were quite common in Otago's play. If the • referee in Saturday's match b^I tween Otago and Canterbury was in his true form I trust we hatfe seen , the last of him in an important match in Christchurch. In. the Otago— Canterbury match there were seven, shots at goal from place kicks, and six of them .scored. This ia a splendid record in riew, of + t he strong, cross i wind that was blowing. And yet only the other day Otago failed miserably at ! place-kicking when badly wanted— against j Britain. The ways of the Canterbury Rugby Union's Selection Committee, have been, i since they first got into harness, at least as dark as those of the illustrious heathen,

and more than once their tricks have been proved to be nothing but vanity. The latest of their vagaries is the inclusion of V. Byrne in the team. On Saturday Byrne gave a wretched exhibition, and after a spell of about a month little better could have been expected, but the selectors have not seen fit to drop (him. The half-back they unearthed for the Wellington game was immensely valuable to his side, ,and certainly deserved another, chance in preference to a player so obviously oat- of form as the Old Boys' half-back. But. perhaps, it is too" much to expect that the j Selection Committee should be capable of j tie discrimination needed. It is reported that a combined New South, Walee-Que^nsland team will tour New Zealand next season. Referring to the match between the British team-and New Zealand, "The Cynic" writes in the Sydney " Referee " as follows : -—It is the most glorious event in the football history of New Zealand. There has, however, it appears to me, been a tendency to "high falutin'" in some of the cabled messages descriptive of the play. Knowing the capabilities of the New Zealand players,, one quite easily imagines with what maprnificent dash and devil the forwards played, how Gallagher, the most accomplished' of wing forwards, was as a stiletto in the hearts of the British backs, and wi*h what resource and quickness and soundness the backs checkmated the nimble Britishers. But, after all, the victory, was only nine to three, and surely if New Zealand attacked with such tremendous dash and skill, the British team must have defended with bulldog pertinacity and very high ability-. We do not hear very mufch about this feature of the game in the cabled messages. It reminds one of the rather proud boast of the New Zealand captain, James Duncan, after beating New South Wales by twelve to nil in the first match last year, that his team would practically annihilate them in the second match—which New Zealand won by a penalty goal to nil ! As one who expected New Zealand to win this match, and a*/ a vsry firm believer in New Zealand footballers, it appears to me that the statement that the Britishers, entered the field at a great advantage over the jjvew Zealanders is unsoundly based. In the first place, the New Zealand team was very largely made up of men who had toured Australia last year, and, as we all know, worked up perfect combination. Five of the seven backs and four of the eight forwards were nine of the best fifteen of . 1903. Add to this fact that of their, havinjr been coached for five days prior to the match by James Duncan (the 1903 captain^, who had been primed up with the -fullest posoible information about the system and, tactics of the visitors, and the ability of each individual player, and who also emoyed the advantage of seeing the Britishers blav their firj* match in New Zealand. And add to it allthis fact : every ft ew Zealand footballer of note, be he a back or a forward, plays a characteristic New Zealand jrame, iust as every Welsh back plays a game peculiarly Welsh. Now. it isf far easier for men who have learnt their football under a well-planned system to dovetail, into a sound combination than it is, for men who 26 into the paroe with widely different ideas as to, system and tactics, and whose play proclaims the individual mind working entirely on its own. These remarks intended not to ia any way

belittle the magnificent victory of Neir Zealand. But they point out soine of the strong points of New Zealand football as compared with Australian— the difference in the main is that of mind and muscle combined as opposed to muscle solus.