Rugby Football.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19098, 17 June 1930, Page 15

Rugby Football.

VISITORS PLAY BRIGHT GAME.

GOOD SCRUMMAGING MAY BE EXPECTED. (Written for the “Star" by G.E.8.) Tha fascination of Rugby is its uncertainty. Away down the corridor of the past—lß94 to be precise—a New Sooth Wales team came to New Zealand, was Kberaliy beaten by all the provinces, and, finally, to the surprise of themselves and much more New Zealanders, they won the sole test match of the tour, which was played at Christchurch. Just as pride comes before a fall, so defeat has a chastening effect. It is equally true that history has a tricky habit of repeating itself. Just two seasons ago. New Zealand tasted the bitterness of defeat in two test matches in South Africa. Yet those defeats led to better endeavour and the squaring of the rubber before the test series was completed. Up to date, the touring British side of 1930 has lost two games against New Zealand provinces, but that does not prove that the rubber is yet in the safe keeping of the Dominion. With a young, virile, intelligent team, there is always hope, and a change of tactics will often accomplish wonders. The Merry-Go-Round.

Up until the Wellington match, the British team sailed merrily on their winning way. Then came defeat by a potted goal in a match which they were unlucky to lose. Against Canterbury the team they fielded was not nearly so strong as the one beaten by Wellington. The best side the Englishmen can field is still a highly dangerous combination. They are sure to have learned a lot by their two defeats. Memories of the All Blacks’ tour of South Africa come racing through the mind. This British tour so far is a tale of South Africa all over again. Just as the All Blacks had to change their methods against the Springboks, so will the British team have to make a change against New Zealand. The merry-go-round of football is telling its tale. In 1924 the All Blacks in England were named “The Invincibles.” At that

time, New Zealand forwards were developing the “shining” game, the fast, loose style of play. And England, paralysed by their sweeping attacks, and appalled by its own defeat, was neverless full of praise for the brilliant play of the All Blacks. Since 1924, if this British team

reflects the present-day style of play at Home, the old traditions of British forward play have been forsaken, the old methods have gone by the board, and in their place there has been developed the fast-breaking “shiner” type of forward. Solid scrummaging, for which once upon a time the English forwards were famous, has apparently been forgotten. Prentice’s team- has come to play New Zealand at its own game. They have succeeded in all but two matches. One of the biggest factors in those two defeats was the solid scrummaging of the local packs.

Leuooi From South. Africa, So the British have caused a surprise by their fast and loose forward play, and in their turn they have been surprised at the excellent pack work of Wellington and Canterbury. So far as New Zealand Is concerned, the South African chickens ha«ve come home to roost. We in New Zealand have benefited by the bitter lesson the Springboks taught us in the first test of the 1928 tour, and we have realised that to win the ball in the scrums, solid scrummaging is essential. No longer will be selectors tolerate the “shiner,”

and it was not surprising to hear a selector at the trial match at Palmerston North the other day tell the two packs that any man who did not scrummage, and scrummage effectively, would not for a moment be considered. Realising then, that New Zealand teams have settled down to solid scrummaging again, is it that the British will continue their “shining” tactics? Is it likely that we will see in the tests Ivor Jones, the famous breakaway, and Prentice, and Wilkinson each resting with just one hand on the pack? Hardly. When the British forwards scrummage as British forwards can, it will be a desperate battle, just as it was in South Africa

in 1928. These British players produce attractive football. They are, without doubt, reflecting the lessons they learned from the All Blacks of 1924. The whole team backs up splendidly, and their positional play is superb. Their backs have great pace, resource and judgment, They launch attack after attack with lightning rapidity, and often bewilder the defence with their fast and incisive methods. They have a brilliant footballer in R. S. Spong, the stand-off half, who has the characteristics of a Bert Cooke. He has the speed of Cooke, the thrust of Cooke, and the brilliance of Cooke, but he has not that touch of genius which is all Cooke’s. The Loss of Sobey. It is unfortunate for the tourists that they have lost the services, in the meantime at least, of Sobey, a • scrumhalf of many gifts. So far the

Britishers have not fielded the famous Sobey-Spong combination. Poole and Murray have served as the substitutes for Sobey, and although Murray is really a three-quarter he has tuned out to be quite a serviceable half. . The three-quarter line is a fast quartet. There is Bowcott, who never fails to run straight, and Aarvold, who on his day is brilliant, and Morley, one of the trickiest wing three-quarters who have come this way for many a day. The handling of the backs is superb. They can give and take a pass from any angle. Their style of attack is now out" style. No longer do they depend entirely on their wings. Their inside backs know the art of penetration.

The team plays hard football, robust, fast football, but it has not the appreciation of the tactical side that New Zealand teams have. Too often they open up the game in their own twentyfive. Such a move is always attractive to watch, and may be dangerous if the backs get properly going, but it appears to be unnecessary when they have such fine line kicks in the team as Spong and Bowcott. The British forwards do not get a stranglehold on the game as the South Africans did, and consequently all the work is falling on the backs. It is a good side, this British side, and, as Mark Nicholls was overheard to remark after the Wellington match, “Put Bennie Osier, the famous South African fly-half, behind their pack, and they would be a great side.”

SENIOR B NOTES.

The football season is now well into its stride, and on Saturday the seventh round of the senior B grade was played. Old Boys had another win by a narrow margin, beating Linwood by 6 points to 3. Training College also had a hard task to beat Albion by 6 points to 5. The latter have been very unlucky this season, being beaten by Old Boys by only 6 points to 4, and drawing three other games. Another closely contested game was that between North Canterbury and Varsity B, the covyitry team winning by 3 points to nil. Christchurch had an easy win over Varsity A, while Merivale accounted for Old Collegians easily. St Andrew’s Old Boys defaulted to Sunnyside.

The following table shows the posi tions of the teams:—

OLD BOTS (6) v. LIN WOOD (3), Old Boys had the better of the play in the earlier stages of the game, Mortlock scoring twice. Linwood were rather unlucky in not scoring once or twice. On one occasion the forwards were over the line, but the bounce favoured Old Boys. Shortly before halftime Old Boys were penalised in their own twenty-five and Gunderson kicked a goal. In the second spell the ground was very greasy and handling was difficult. Linwood adapted their play to suit the conditions and forced play for quite a spell, and only good work by Hall, the Old Boys custodian, prevented thgjn from scoring. For the winners, Hall at full-back was easily the pick of the rearguard. He has improved with every game. Mortlock went well on the wiqg in the first half, but did not have many opportunities at five-eighths in the second spell. Bluett, on the other wing, played well, but the other backs were unimpressive. The forwards worked hard against a solid pack, Cookson and Bowes toiling hard. Berry at wing forward also showed good form.

For Linwood, Laffey at full-back had a hard day’s work and acquitted himself well. Davis, on the wing, saw little of the ball, but was good on defence. One player in the forwards who was outstanding throughout was Gunderson. Although he lacks weight, his height enables him to be very useful in line-outs. His work in the loose was splendid. He was well supported by Loader, Erickson and Bucknell. k NORTH CANTERBURY (3) V. VARSITY B CO). At the Show Grounds, after an uninteresting game, North Canterbury had a somewhat lucky win over Varsity B by three points to nil. The winning score was a penalty goal. For North Canterbury, Robinson, behind the scrum, was good and Fahey, on the wing, though he saw little of the ball, showed a good turn of speed. Hawkins was the best of an even lot of forwards. Of the Varsity forwards Wilson played particularly well. Paku at full-back was very safe and handled well. MERIVALE (20) V. OLD COLLEGIANS (5). Merivale were speedier than the Collegians, and were more sure of their passing. Malcom and Campbell, on the wing, played well in the forwards, and Bullivant was the most outstanding of the backs. The Collegians played a hard game, but many of their movements were spoilt by weak passing. Of their forwards Murray and Wynn-Williams worked well. Symes, at full-back, saved his side by good line-kicking, but was a trifle slow.

TRAINING COLLEGE (6) V. ALBION (5).

At the Polo Grounds Training College beat Albion by one point but deserved. to win by a wider margin. At the same time Albion were unlucky to lose this game as Sweeney, playing at five-eighths, after a determined run was collared within inches of the line and had to leave with a sprained ankle. Both sets of forwards were evenly matched, but the handling by the Training College backs was far superior to that of the black rearguard. Webb kicked a penalty goal in the first spell'for Training College and Grahams scored a try in the second spell. Five minutes before time Biddle went over for Albion and Huia converted.

For Training College, Hill, W r ebb, Russell and Harper were the pick of the backs. The best of the Albion backs were Huia, Sweeney and Pine. Both sets of forwards played a good clean game. CHRISTCHURCH (17) v. VARSITY (0). An indifferent exhibition of Rugby at North Hagley Park resulted in Christchurch scoring a comfortable victory over Varsity, although the game was more evenly contested than the margin of points might indicate. Play was confined mostly to the forwards, and it was in this department that Christchurch were territorially the better. There was little to choose between the opposing rearguards, though the winning backs showed up better in combined play than did the students. For the winners, Pawson (2), Fleming (2) and Woder (1) each scored tries, while Pawson also converted one.

Pawson and Martin, at five-eighths, were perhaps the pick of the Christchurch rearguard. The former showed a marked ability on attack, both his tries being good individual efforts. Campbell proved a very safe custodian. He continually saved his forwards with well judged line kicking. At wing forward Gasson proved an adept at the spoiling game, and on several occasions cleverly. sent his backs away. Boddington, Fleming and Arnold were always prominent in a solid working pack. Blythe, a promising type of fiveeighth, was one of the best of the Varsity backs. He was often conspicuous on attack, but lacked support. Hilgen* dorf, at second five-eighths, was a trifle slow on attack, but put in some good defensive work. Of the forwards, Dowling, Watson and Hocking did excellent work in a light but willing pack.

Points r.h p. w. L. D. For. Ac Pt.S Old Boys .... 6 5 — 1 70 38 5* N. Canty. .. 7 5 2 — 00 51 Men vale 7 5 2 — 83 47 Christchurch . 7 4 2 1 64 41 45 Sunnyside .. 7 4 2 1 79 36 45 Training Coll. 5 3 i i 09 24 35 Albion 7 2 2 3 61 46 34 Linwood .... 7 3 3 1 68 55 34 Varsity A .. 5 2 3 — 44 78 2 St Andrew’s i O.B. 7 1 6 — 17 no 1 Varsity B .. 5 — 5 — 14 49 — Old Collegians (5 — 6 — 30 107 — 2S a