THOSE SCRUMS!

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 71, Issue 237, 6 October 1928, Page 5

THOSE SCRUMS!

SPRINGBOKS’ TACTICS IN THE FOURTH TEST Pack of Seven Forwards Fielded Against N.Z. Eight “BEATEN BY A BETTER SIDE” (By “Cross-Bar”). Writing from Cape Town, under of September 5, Mr Leon Downes contributes further interesting references to the All Blacks’ tour, particularly bearing on the Fourth Test. "When it is remembered that South Africa largely owed victory in the major matches to the tremendous scrummaging power of her forwards, the news tl st experiments were tried in the fepringbok scrum formation in the final (and most important) game played, comes as something of a surprise, more especially in view of the fact that it was known that the All Blacks had shown marked improvement in this all-imp- riant department. Apparently, the Sp’ingboks weie di. atislied with the long-cherished 3-2-3 pack, yet why they should have been is a mystery, seeing that it dominated much of the scrummaging throughout th« tour. On the other hand, there may have been an over-confident feeling that they could beat the All Blacks with any old scrum, notwithstanding that the visitors had been forced to pack an extra man at “loose-head.” Again, the change may have been aimed at coping with Stewart playing the “off-man” in the New Zealand front row, but whatever the cause, it has apparently not found favour with the South African public, the more so in view of the substantial loss sustained. South Africa practically adopted the New Zealand pack, with three men in front, while the All Blacks just missed the Springbok formation by a fraction. The outcome was what might have been expected, according to logic—eight men against seven carried the day.

Much Argument. The rival scrum formations will long be the cause of arguments, but it is high time that the powers that be in New Zealand Rugby, set about improving a vital phase of play. Assuming that the Dominion formation (2-3-2) has been superior up to now, the following. pertinent questions demand answers: Would it be better to go back to the old kick-to-touch rule to create better scrummaging forwards? Would the adoption of the 2-3-2 pack be any help? Was New Zealand’s 2-3-2 scrum tested and its reputation established when opposition similar to that of the 1928 Springboks was fielded against it, or was its worth proved when opposing forwards were poor “scrummagers?” Has South Africa so perfected the 3-2-3 scrum that it has displaced the Dominion formation as the best matchwinning factor in the world? The writer holds no brief for either formation, but if it is a fact that New Zealand has no good scrummaging forwards, she must find them to regain her position in international Rugby and if finding them involves sacrificing the 2-3-2 scrum or going back to the old rules, the position should be faced firmly. We should not be carried away by a mistaken idea of loyalty to the past. It is the present which must be coped with, with a view to future improvement, and the all-important need of the moment is match-winning scrums whether they'be 2-3-2 or 3-2-3. If these will be obtained by improving the calibre of the forwards without abolishing the present Dominion formation then by all means let it be done; if not, then there is but one remedy available —take heed of the lesson South Africa has taught. Mr Downes writes as follows: The last game was played to-day and the tour, which will be long talked of, has come to an end. We are all square on the Tests and the issue has still to be decided. I expect New Zealand was wildly delighted with the result of the last match and I think we can say we were wildly surprised. No Excuses. We have no excuses to make as we were beaten by a better team on the day’s play—beaten in every department of the game. At the same time the reason for the big margin of the scores was due to mistaken tactics on the Springboks’ part, and we cannot understand why they persisted in the unusual scrum formation throughout the game. The reason for South Africa’s success in previous tests was due to superiority in the scrums and the resultant opportunities which camo their way, but in the final game, for some unknown reason, they decided to play the 4-3 formation with one man out, with the result that the All Blacks, who packed the extra man (8 against 7), obtained the ball monotonously.

No doubt reference was made to this in the cable reports, and we are still mystified as to why we should scrap our scrum formation, which had proved itself, and adopt this new formation when it was well-known that the scrummaging powers of the All Blacks had considerably improved.

Over-confident Another factor in the game, I think, was the Springboks’ over-confidence as the result of the previous week’s game against Western Province, when the All Blacks were badly defeated. (The Springboks’ team included eleven Western Province men). regards the Western Province match, the All Blacks were just as badly beaten as they, on the following Saturday, beat the Springboks. The Western -Province game was a very fine one to watch and, at the start, I thought the All Blacks were going to hav9 a walk over as they rushed down and scored within the first few minutes. It was really wonderful, however, to see how Province gradually gained control of the game, and in the second half there was only one team in the picture.—Not the All Blacks. It Vv-s a wonderful and sore-ly-harassed, defence that kept the

t score as low as it was, for, in the sec;ond half, Province were hammering [ in attack after attack all the time, and the .All Blacks "d the half-way line only on two occasions. The ’Varsity Match As regards to-day’s match, the “friendly unofficial” against the Combined Universities, I suppose this was one of the most enjoyable matches of the tour to watch. The All Blacks won 14 to 9 and I think the “’Varsities” are to be congratulated on the fine shoi 'ng they put up, especially when it is taken into consideration that, as this extra match w s hurriedly arranged, the team had to Im? picked without trials or any practice matches of the game as played under New Zealand rules. In the beginning it was apparent that the All Blacks were taking things easy, but after ’Varsity had opened the scoring, things moved somewhat, and the All Blacks -were fully extended, only scoring the winning goal shortly before the end of the game. Springboks’ High Standard However, it is all over now and I suppose there is nothing for it but to look forward to the next tour. The issue is still undecided. As far as I can gather, the general opinion in New Z land is that the 1928 All Blacks have not proved themselves to be of the same calibre as the 1924 team, but I do not think there is much in it, for it must be remembered that the opposition here is of a different standing. Although I say it myself, it is so, as one need only refer to the record of the last British team to tour South Africa. DISSENSION DENIED BROWNLIE AND MARK NICHOLLS ALL BLACK TOURISTS WERE HAPPY FA’MILY SYDNEY, Oct 5. Speaking at the welcome to the New South Wales Rugby team, which has just returned from New Zealand, Mark Nicholls, the only All Black present, took the opportunity of denying reports regarding dissensions among the members of the. team during the Af .’.-an tour. He particularly refuted the suggestion that the captain and himself had been at loggerheads.

He said: “Brownlie and I are great friends. We differed in our opinions regarding football matters at Umcs, but these were brushed aside on the field, where the team was always wholehearted in its desire to further the fame, of New Zealand.”

He expressed the opinion that as the result of the tour the New Zealand football authorities would be convinced that thfj day of the wing-forward was over. RUGBY CHAMPIONS POSITION IN BRITAIN WARWICKSHIRE WIN FINAL LONDON, Oct. 4. In th§ Rugby county championship Warwickshire defeated Leicestershire by 24 points to 5 at Coventry. ON THE RACECOURSE TERRITORIALS’ MATCH TEAMS FOR THIS AFTERNOON In the Territorial Rugby competition to be played on the racecourse this afternoon at 1.3 O’ciock, the draw is as follows: A Company v A Squadron 2nd Mount- ’ edi Rifles. B Company v Headquarter Wing. Teams will bo as follows: A Company—Bassett, F e Gallagher, J. Gallagher, Holland, James, Mowat, McNeill, McGonagle, Robson, Roydhouse, Scott, Signal, Treader, Tilley, Tonks. Reserves: Broughton, Chainey, Fitzgibbons, Kench, Lynskcy, Mc- z Lean, Trott. B Company—Aitchison, Harman, McGregor, Holt, Clark, Carmody, Beardmore, Wall, Rayner, Ball, Ormond, Wellington, Carlson, Swallow, Tabart. Reserves: Thomson, Cowie, Shine, Purnell. Headquarter Wing—Ambrose, Bassett, Currie, Cresswell, Crysell, Craig, Glanville, Hulbert, Kendrick, Karton, Laing, Moir, Schultz, Simpson, Trask. Reserve: R. C. Martin. Other players from this unit are asked to attend at the grounds. A Squadron Queen Alexandra Mounted Rifles:—J. Andrews, A. C. Rogers, R. R. Rogers, J. Rutherford, G, F. Sampson, P E. Stiver (captain), J. Thomson (vice-captain), J. Waters, K. Stuart, H. Hurley, G. A. Wyllie, S. J, Forsyth, F M. Gilchrist, C. Bullock, D F. Stodart, A. W. Noble, C. R. Leach, G A. Palmer, A. Flintoff,