Were Merivale Lucky?

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 173, 23 July 1931, Page 9

Were Merivale Lucky?

late CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor. Dear Sir, —The report published on page ten of Saturday’s eight o’clock edition of the “ Star ” is, in the opinion of the writer, the acme of perfection as a misleading and glaringly biased account of a game of football. The heading in large capitals, “ Luck Favours Merivale in Game Against Christchurch,” should certainly have read, “ Luck Favours Christchurch in Game Against Merivale,” for the three points scored by Campbell with that splendid (with the wind) kick, represented the total of points deserved by the Christchurch team on the day’s play. Were it possible to obtain the opinion of all the unbiased spectators as to the merit of the scores, on the play, 90 per cent would say Merivale 15 (minimum). Christchurch 3 (maximum). The try scored by O’Connor at the north-east corner was the finest individual effort it has been my pleasure to witness this season, and on his showing of the day he will be hard to beat as a half-back.

Howatson, who possesses a wonderful turn of speed on a tackle, and never appears to get bustled in fielding the ball, is a very reliable line-finder, and seeing that it takes about three of the opposition to grass him, makes him the outstanding full-back in Canterbury this season. Also, the play of the Merivale team as a whole (which is a great improvement on last season) gives one a like impression.—l am, etc., UNBIASED FROM TARANAKI.

The writer of* the comment referre to states:—Christchurch, with the ri

of the wind as well as victory in t scrums and line-outs, were on the ;

tack for most of the first half. The;" hookers let the backs have the _ bail smartly, but in the case of Merivale the leather hung in the back of the scrum, giving Christchurch a better chance of smothering the opposing inside backs. A certain try was thrown away when Shirtcliffe, who had a fair chance of getting through on his own, sent out a bad pass to Hart. On the other flank another mistake prevented a try. In any case, Christchurch were continually on attack, and were just as unlucky not to score as Merivale were lucky in their spoiling work, in

which the speed of their backs was a factor. With the scores even at halftime the prospects of Christchurch winning, after throwing away so many chances, were not bright. Merivale were on attack for more than half of the second spell, but Christchurch came again hotly towards the end, making the honours about even for the second half. Praise was given to both O’Connor and Howatson for their great work, and the two tries, for the actual work put into them by O’Connor alone, and not the Merivale team, were well de-

served. Campbell deserved his splendid penalty goal, but his team need not necessarily have deserved it on their general play, a factor which must be taken into consideration in assessing the relative worth of the teams on the day. The features of the match were the hooking and loose work of the Christchurch forwards, the handling of their backs, and the more or less successful smothering of rushes by the opposing inside backs.