SCHOOLS’ RUGBY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16814, 17 August 1922, Page 6

SCHOOLS’ RUGBY.

COLLEGE-SCHOOL RETURN MATCH. If Cromb’s kick at goal had converted School’s last try against College, instead of hitting the upright above the bar, the match would have been drawn, and there would have been plaj-off to decide the winner of the Secondary Schools competition. .Christ’s College accounted themselves a bit lucky to win; and perhaps they were lucky for a team beaten in the forwards and deprived of the ball in three out of four scrums in the second half They were lucky inasmuch as Sheen’s rapid pot at goal went over the bar It was a great effort for a player who was running at top speed at the time. They were lucky also when Cromb’s kick hit the upright. But apart from that they deserved to win as a back combination. In attack they were not superior, as an attacking combination, to School, although Sheen aj?d Talbot individually, were out by themselves as backs, and demanded much more vigilance from the other side than was required in respect to any individual backs in the School team. Talbot kept the opposition thinking hard as to whether he would feint or pass, and it ■was only by going straight for him that his movements were held in check. As for Sheen, his speed was so great that he simply shot his way through difficulties, and his Rugby science helped to tangle the other side. But it says much for School that against such brilliant soloists, not to mention M’Lean at half, and Birch, an ideal full-back, they were in the lead for a good paxt of the match, and were beaten by the narrowest of margins. The school passing was very fine, and Brown, at five eighths, showed the makings of a brilliant back. The others were even in attack, but Cromb, centre, and Kemp, full-back, were very weak in defence. Kemp stood much too far back all day, and waited for the bounce. Against such fine kickers as Talbot, Sheen and Birch this was fatal. It is safe to say that if he had put himself under the ball oftener he w r oukl have saved his forwards to such an extent that they would not only have kept the upper hand, which they did throughout the game, but might have demoralised the other side in the closing stages of the game. As it was, the School forwards played a grand game. Burrows, Hindenach Porterfield and Miles stayed on the ball with a singleness of purpose that was always refreshing. The College pack contested the ground stubbornly, and although one or tw r o of them were not fit enough to stay the distance, they were recovering in the last ten minutes.

The lesson of the match for the losers is easily read. They will have to tighten up their defensive play in the matter of fielding and handling the ball. They fumbled much more than College. As for College, it must be remembered that they had no safe margfn of points, even against such weak defensive tactics as they met yesterday. The first essential appears to be harder training for the forwards, and an overhaul of the scrum formation. As for the backs, they will have to pass more accurately, and run right up to their man before getting rid of the ball. There w as not that nice swinging deliv ery of passes that puts the ball into the other man’s hands. With such enterprising inside backs the College team ought to go a good deal further, but some of Talbot’s passes are a bit carelees.