FOOTBALL.
THE NEW ZEALAND TEAM. MATCH AGAINST ENGLAND. , COMMENT BY IHE LONDON CHRONICLE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Received January 12, 8.2 a.m. SYDNEY, January 12. f Commenting on the football match, England v. New Zealand, the London Daily Chronicle says:—"lt is a reasonable inference that if the Crystal Palace match bad been played with a dry ball on a firm .ground the margin m favour of New Zealand j would have been amplified into something like 30 or 40 points; Time after time there was a narrow failure in consequence of the difficulty of gathering the ball, which soon acquired^a, coating of mud grease. . From a critical point of view England was very badly The New Zealanders' five tries only faintly express the actual difference; tfiPlaperiority of the visitors was proved by the general run of the game. They gave an impression of comphcent economy of effort—content to win comfortably, but not at an extravagant expense of physical power. Their actual passing was not sensational, but mobility, instructive co-oper-ation in all departments, speed, strength, virility, enterprise —all these attributes and others received exemplification. The paper pays a tribute to the excellence of the visitors individually, and continues: "The English tackling was terrifio. Whatever are the deficiences of English football, oourage and stoJid strength remain. There were not wanting opportunities for the development of preventive tactics, but even allowing for the restriction of talent to that purpose. we uan at least claim that nothing better in the way of collaring was desirable. Behind the scrum the Englishmen were, in comparison with the visitors, deliberate and laboured. It was not a game to linger in the memory, but considering the exhaustive conditions the teams may be satisfied, New Zealand to have preserved both its unbeaten record and its reputation, and England to have resisted an overwhelming dofeat. After the match, Romans, captain, of the Gloucester team, expressed the opinion that the New Zrtalanders were getting a little stale." WING FORWARD TACTICS. Received January 12, 8.44 a.m. LONDON, January 11. The Duily Mail has published a history of the New Zealanders,' tour. Gallaher, the Auckland wing forward, strongly defends the New Zealand tactics. Arthur Gould, an ex-Welsh international, in a letter to the Mail, declares that the method of a wing forward is illegal, and that the game will suffer greatly if it should become general.
FOOTBALL.
Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7940, 13 January 1906, Page 6
Log in