JUNIOR RUGBY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12711, 5 August 1919, Page 2

JUNIOR RUGBY.

SATURDAY'S GAMES.

BOYS’ HIGH SCHOOL v. CHRISTCHURCH.

A large and enthusiastic crowd witnessed the game between Boys’ High . School and C-lirist-church, and they wore treated to a line exhibition of footballI'be game was full of excitement throughout, and play was always fast I and open. Tito Christchurch forwards j soon made it apparent that they would dominate the game, and they did so until towards the end, when they tired. School owe their win to their better form, and combination, and the superior handling of the ball, which at all times was splendid. The feature of the game was the manner in which the School forwards, who were the lighter pack, played to their hacks. For vSchool Jacobs as full-back was safe, except on one occasion, when Talbot caught him napping and scored a sensational try. Crawford, on the right wing, did a good deal of useful work, aud put in several nice runs down the lime Ford, on the left wing, was j not quite quick enough to get going. I Dickson, at centre, was very safe. He fielded and kicked well, and it was unfortunate that his receiving and trnnsferingof passes was not better. Hm splendid following up was very noticeable. Carlton and Dailey, at fiveeighths. both played a solid game. They kicked more than usual, and this gave Dickson a chance to get up to the hallThose two made several good attacks, and their _ following of each other placed their teams in positions of advantage. Rage, at half-back, was good-’ Ho sent the ball to his backs from all kinds of play and angles, while ho won If down to the rushes in good style. For the.forwards Alley, Sands and Robertson were the best.

- For Christchurch Orchard at full-back was never bustled, and he used good judgment for his kicking. Talbot, on right wing, was always on the ball, and ho rrhly deserved his try. which ho gained through his fast following up. Tapley tackled well, but he was not given much to do on attack. H. Blazer, at five-eighths, was the best back. He did sonm, good spoiling work, and frequently intercepted the pass from Carlton and Bailey. Afarshall was sound in defence, but was slow on attack, and he should pass nut sooner. Phillips, at half-hack, went well, hut was inclined to run too much before kicking or passing- He stood up to the opposing forwards very well. In the forwards Williams, Irwin and Spooner were the best. MTCTMVALF, r. TTXWOOB. Mei'iya.le proved much 100 good for Linwodd, who showed very little combination’, particularly among their backs. The game throughout was chiefly among the forwards and it was Meri-va-lo’s superior weight and combination that gave them their win. For Merivale. Thompson, at. full-back, was responsible for some good saving work, particularly in lino kicking. Mawson and Malmanche, on the wings, had very little to do and the latter was always too far back to seize an opportunity. Smith, at* centre, was safe, his fielding being very good. Hobbs and Hardie were very conspicuous, particularly in their cutting in. The former shows a lot of dash and takes some stopping. Dickey, at half, did not get much of the ball a,s it seldom, canto out clean to bira, but he started several good rushes from the loose. In the forwards M’Kenzie was conspicuous, hut he was given far too much grace on the line-outs when he broke away repeatedly. Italtou and Chick also played well.

For Linwood, Cox., at full-back, put in some good tackling, while he also brought off several nice saves with a timely kick. Holmes and Hoskins, on tho wings, were not overworked. The latter followed up well, but should get back to his place quicker. Whitfield, at centre, played well. Gibson and Stewart, the five-eighths, had few chances to get going on attack, but were kepi busy tackling. Rigby, at halfback, stood too far back and seldom went down to tho. rushes, while he tvas particularly .noticeable for speculating. He could not get his backs going. In the forwards, who went well in the loose, Gillies was the best, bub lie was badly. supported. Prudin and Janies also wont well.

MARTSTS t. TECHNICAL COLLEGE. Both sides played short in this ga.rao and it was a fast hut rather, ragged display- florists, with heavier forwards, had .most of the ball, but their backs were weak. Technical still played their four three-quarters game and consequently had no five-eighths. This formation is not a success against heavier forwards, especially when the teams are short.

M’Donald, the Mar hi; custodian, played a- poor game. Of the threequarters, Flood and M’Donald played well. The latter is rather a speculator and misses many good chances. Tho remainder of tho backs were very patchy. In the forwards M’Alcer and Moecham played well. Taylor, full-back for Technical, bad a day off. Of the three-quarters. Price and Dawber wc.ro noticeable. Brosnahan. at half, was the best player on the field.' "Wylie and Lloyd were the best of a keen but losing pack.