UNION RUGBY

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17035, 8 May 1923, Page 2

UNION RUGBY

The Game and Its Players

JUNIOR NOTES. (By “ WING-FORWARD ”) The third round of the junior competition was decided on Saturday, under very unfavourable weather conditions. Two surprises were effected, one being the defeat of Riccarton by Varsity A. and the other. Marists’ win over Old Roys, although the latter result was expected in some quarters. Marists defeated Old Roys by 11 points to 3, and Varsity A accounted for Riccarton by a similar score. Merivale and Uinwood were evenly matched and played a drawn game Belfast and Sydenha m-Uyttelton only played one spell. The latter team turned out with only eleven men. and as the score was 11 points to nil in Belfast’s favour at half-time, the combined team retired. Christchurch ran up a total of 28 points against Varsity B and were never extended. J\ aiapoi defeated Prebbleton-Halswell by '7 points to 3, and Technical "beat Albion by a margin of i points. The following table shows the position of the teams at the end of the third round:-

The following is the draw for next Saturday : Prebbleton-Halswell v. Technical; Christchurch v. Belfast ; Sydenham-Lyttelton v. Varsity A; Ri<carton v. Kaiapoi : Varsity B v. Merivale ; L inwood v. Old Boys : Marists v. Albion.

MAI*rSTS (II) V OLD BOYS (3). -Judging by their play against Old Boys last Saturday. Marists will prove a tough proposition in the junior grade. They have a solid pack of forwards, whose loose play on Saturday was remarkably good. The backs a, ‘ e ’ a fair set and might with more assiduous practice and steady coaching develop into a combination of more than average merit. Old Boys were rather unfortunate in striking the Greens in such wretched weather, as they are an exceptionally light side and in addition they played one short throughout the* game. The chief factor which contributed to the White’s defeat was an unusual lack of confidence among the players, the majority of whom preferred to watch the ball bounce, which enabled the fast Green forwards' to play havoc with the defence.

There were several sparkling periods of play. Both backs handled the heavy ball well, resulting in some clinking passing rushes. The Greens secured more than their share of the scrums, in which their extra weight gave them .1 decided advantage. Smith, the Old Boys’ full back, gave n fine exhibition, and never let his team down. Ford at centre worked hard, but the wings were decidedly weak, frequently being found out of position. Richards did some effective spoiling work, while Graham, at first five-eighth, was always dangerous. Condi iff e got the ball away smartly and defended equally well. Of the forwards, whose play was below standard, Forsyth, Gunn and Milne were the best.

Brittendon and Batchelor were the nick of the Greens’ hacks. Stride, on the wing, also showed dash. O’Brien, at second fire eighth, was disappointing. and proved a weak link in attack, firopping the ball at the critical moment. Of the forwards. Ellis went well from start to finish, and is a fine hooker. Dobbs and Manning were conspicuous in the loose, while Sutherland and O’Connell were always on the ball.

MERTVALE (6) v. LINWOOD .(6). Merivale were quick to adapt themselves to the greasy state of the ground, and passing rushes among their backs were few and far between. Lin wood, on the other hand, frequently attempted passing rushes, which, however, were not very successful. The forwards excelled in the loose and gave Merivale some anxious moments. Cox and Gerard, Merivale’s hookers, beat their opponents badly for the ball Rudkin and Thompson were always well up. and their combined efforts often put Merivale in an attacking position. Hooper at halt was easily the best back on his side. He made many openings and was always ready to go down to Linwood's loose rushes. Hobbs on the wing put in a lot of useful work. His handling of the ball was safe, and his line kicking showed fine judgment. Linwood possess a fine team of backs, included among them being such vet erans as Coe and Rigby. The latter was ever on the alert to send the ball away, but bis forwards were frequently beaten for the ball, with a result that he wa forced to make his own openings. Hi. ;

lop and Coe, five-eighths, are a good pair. Choate was not at nis best. His handling was somewhat uncertain, but nevertheless lie-put in a lot of useful work. Young at full-back wu safe* Parsons, King and Blythe were the best forwards. CHRISTCHURCH (26) r. * VAR MTV B (3). Christchurch had the better of the game from start to finish. ’Varsity rallied several times, and used their forwards to advantage, but these rushes were too occasional. Richards, the Christchurch fullback, was very useful with his kicking, and his fielding was good considering the state of the ball. Allison played well on the wing, and M’Kenzie and O’Reilly combined well, the latter plavuig a good game at half, where he made full use of his opportunities. Although the pack included several third grade players, the T easily held their own. Feast. Johnson and Galbraith were the pick of the forwards, all three following up to great advantage. Parr, the ’Varsity left wing. Has -t great turn of speed and should b* ujseful with a hit more experience. Aitcheso-n, on the other wing, put in some strong runs. Page, wing-for-ward. and I>iehl. leek, were tile boat of the forwards, playing well throughout. BELFAST (11) v. SY I>EXHAAt-LYT-TELTOX (0). Sydenham-Lyttelton could only muster eleven men and only one spoil waft played. The Belfast forwards showed an. aptitude for loose rushes whadb their opponents were seemingly powerless to <sCpe with. Their becks w*i» resourceful and eager and on a dr|e day the team would prove a formidable one for any other team in the' oo repetition. Todd and Short were Belfast's star backs. Pahi anil Kola alee played well. Goss at full back was petchy, his handling of the ball leaving a lot to desired. Tilling and the Hillier brothers worked hard in the forwards. Tilling excels in clever footwork. Muason is a very fast forward. but lacks determination and that faculty of persevering once an opening has been made for him. Lord, M'George and Collins were Sy de nh am-Ly t tel ton ’ s best forwards. Kennedy also played well. Herron, afc full back was a disappointment. ’VARSITY (11) v. RICCARTOX (3)The match between ’Varsity A and Riccarton was played on a ground that under favourable conditions is scarcely fit for play and the Rugby Union should seriously consider whether it should be used for junior matches until it is improved. A arsitv shower! marked superiority in the scrum and the hooking was firstclass. In the loose Riccarton played their part well. There was not much back play but in what little there was College showed better style and cleaner handling. M’Clatchie, the College custodian deserves special mention for his fine defensive work. On a wet day he is the safest back in the competi--1 his year’s ’Varsity A team contains a few outstanding players. Comrifc at wing-forward has improved out of all recognition and except for a weakness of playing off-side he is head and shoulders above any other man in tho position in the competiton. The halfback, Barak, had quite an easy time babind the College scrum. Wilford at lock is a fine solid type of player and he holds the scrum together wonderfully well. M’Clatchie. last year's half, is proving a rare “ find " at fullback and provided he keeps up the form of his last two matches he is bound to catch the .selectors’ eyes before the end of the reason. Riccarton showed a weakness in tactics and the backs stood far too deep altogether for effective passing. Too much was expected from the brilliant Rax worthy.

P. w. Pt*. Champ. Xf. I). For Asst. Pts. Marists 3 — — 48 17 3 lii nwflnd 2 — 1 38 24 Belfast 2 — 1 28 6 24 Old Boys 3 2 1 — 47 1C 2 Varsity A. 1 — 31 2 Merivala 1 1 1 23 92 14 Riccarton 3 1 1 1 35 22 14 P. W. Pt«. Champ. L. D. For Arst. Pts. Albion 3 1 2 — 12 44 1 Varsity B. 3 1 2 — 27 89 P.-Iials well 3 1 2 — 35 22 l Cliristob'ch 3 2 — 52 l 1 2 — 13 31 l Technical 3 1 33 l Syd.-Lyttu. 2 — 3 — 8