EYES ON THE RUGBY FIELD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 76, Issue 108, 10 May 1933, Page 4

EYES ON THE RUGBY FIELD

(By

"CROSS-BAR”).

FIXTURES May 11. —Annual meeting N.Z.R.U. May 12. —Australian University team leaves Sydney for New Zealand. May 13.—Cup matches. May 17.—Australian Universities v. Auckland University. May 20.—Wanganui plays Taihape at Paihape. May 20. —Australian Universities • v. New Zealand University (first Test), at Auckland. May 24.—Australian Universities v. Victoria College, at Wellington. May 27. —Cup matches. May 27.—Australian Universities v. New Zealand University (second Test), •it Dunedin. June 3.—Wanganui plays Taranaki, at Wanganui. Seven-a-side tournament in the morning, proceeds for the clubs. Technical Old Boys were no match for Kaierau last Saturday. In the first dace their defence was totally inadequate and, in the second, the team was uot sufficiently fit to stand the pace. Kaierau dominated the ball for the major portion of the play and, naturilly, called the tune. Everybody wants o know what will happen if a team ,an control the ball and find the weak »pots in the Kaierau defence. There ire weak spots and, in all probability, .hey will be found ’ere the season ends.

If play continues as it has begun the Metropolitan Union will have to pick team from the combined “other’ clubs and pit it against Kaierau. The naroons have not had their line crossed this season and, further, have never looked like having it crossed. Pirates have high hopes of next Saturday. Most people have high doubts.

McGregor, Kaierau’s half-back, >layed a poor game in the first spell, out came into his own in the second. Mad he performed as well throughout the whole game; as he did in the match aaginst Old Boys the chances are he would have played in the pivot’s position against Taihape. His first spell ■ffort, when the Technical Old Boys forwards were a better fighting force, eft the selector in doubt, and drove aim back to the player he knew, Jack Duncan.

One of the greatest weaknesses in the Kaierau back line is the slow method of attack close to the scrum. McGregor’s passes, throughout* Saturday, were ow, slow and to a standing five-eighths. A. Beiliss, even in his veteran days, vould never let that go without exploiting it. The fact that club teams in Wanganui have not played into these moves shows up the margin of superi)rity Kaierau really have. They can play slowly and get away with it.

Morgan, however, must not be disounted entirely for standing still. Part if the duty of bringing a five-eighth up rests on the half. If the half wants .is five-eighth directly behind him and iat-footed, so be it—the fault is enirely on the half’s head. But if he rants him to move up he surely knows he way to make him. And it may be taken for granted that when Taranaki day here if the first five-eighth does not move up Wanganui will lose.

What is the use of having good .ringers if the half and first five-eighth lo not understand the cardinal principle of back play —make room for the wings. Kaierau have a good winder .a Osman and how much use are they making of him. When the maroons score tries with Osman (perhaps with Mutimer), and those tries are clean, well-defined efforts, Wanganui will be able to say two things—that Kaierau, •it last, have a back team equal in attacking power to Old Boys, and that .he first five-eighth is making the ground necessary for such an honour. Until then Wanganui must acknowledge that the best back the present champions have is Davies. He does his Muff for the men further out.

Davies has been seen in two matches on Spriggens Park this year. In the first his play suffered because of the stand-still policy behind the Kaierau pack and because of North’s weakness, in the second his club moved him in a place—to second five-eighths. In consequence the play livened tremendously. Would it be better to shift him in still further, just to see what difference would be made, if only for Osman’s sake, in the penetration!

Particular note was taken of the first hree Kaierau back attacks on Saturday. When the ball reached Davies he has a good five yards to make good to bring it back to a po»nt level with that where it was placed in the scrum. What nope had the wings under such conditions? The fact that Technical Old . »oys’ defence was poor played into Kaierau’s hands and covered up weak.esses in the maroons’ attacking. Old Boys these days are suffering rum mucn the same fault. They have good outside backs, but the half does not get the ball away fast enough. ■ ’irates’ trouble lies in the centre of he field. Wakeling and Williams are both fair wingers, but, like Osman, they rarely see the ball except with an inch <>r two room to spare, and then after ? low movement which has allowed the defence to form up.

Technical Old Boys played with expected vim until Rogers, the man they .ere relying on in attack, was injured. A re arrangement in the back line was necessary and the spoiling of the Kaierau backs in between Morgan and Da- . ies was frustrated. Had Rogers remained on the field matters would have i ired better with the blue and whites. . <ennis was really not fit to play, and fie fact that, in an extremity, the side ad to call upon E. Reid, one of the < lub’s past stalwarts, indicated how : hort of players Technical Old Boys ere. In view of the circumstances, aicrau should not be buoyed up too high with success. F. Thompson was lie best back Technical Old Boys’ fielded. He was game to the last ounce. Brisco saw too little of the ball to j idge him, but his defence was good. There arc two forwards in the Kaiei iu team who were unlucky not to find , aces in the representative side—Pai- . una and Firmin. As a matter of fact I'irmin is probably Wanganui’s out- ? anding forward player. It must be ' onceded, however, that the team as j icked has been chosen largely on last x car’s form. Some have been included on reputation. Let it be hoped that reputations will be as unfaded when the

team comes home from Taihape as they are when it sallies forth to Bcllissville.

Fowler and Duric played good games for Technical Old Boys in the pack and another Kaierau lad who is showing promise is Dawson. Hutchinson played his usual hard-going roving game for the blue and whites, but did not seem to finish his good work off sufficiently.

There is no team in the competition which is deserving of a greater shaking up than Pirates. If they were all put in a sack and lumped round the park twice or three times and placed as they fell out, from full-back to hookers, they could not have performed any worse than they did on Saturday. It is time the forwards, and the backs too, got down to business, and started to realise that Kaierau lies ahead.

Jack Duncan was not up to form. He certainly performed better in he second spell and the fact that he came through with a fairly live pack against him won him back his place in the representative team in preference to either Hodson (Marist), or McGregor (Kaierau). In consequence of Duncan’s play, Gibbons has not performed as well as was expected in any game this season. A try out against Kaierau next Saturday will prove whether or not the selector has been wise in his selection for these two key positions to the Metropolitan attack.

Claud Spriggens, last year’s winger for Old Boys, has made his appearance in Pirates’ ranks as a second fiveeighth. Considering that he was playing in a position new to him ho did not play badly. He endeavoured, and nearlv always succeeded, in cutting a man out. As a matter of fact his penetration helped Williams in the scoring of a clean try in the second spell. What ho failed in was defence. Ho rarely collared his man. McGonagle is not a good centre. It is true that, like all backs out from the scrum, he is handicapped by the play of the half, but he has not the keen knowledge of tactics so essential in a player- whose function it is to bring the wings into action. Williams and Wakeling are both equal to it if their inside back will only perform properly. Williams’ ability to centre the ball is good, but there are times when it becomes so monotonous from him that the opposing teams wait for it.

The Marist pack played well in the first spell, but faded in the second. On the day, however, they were a better force than the blacks. The game should have been a draw. Buckley and Matthews are not playing as well as they did at the end of last season and are among those who have been selected largely on reputation. Hodson, at the base of the scrum, is an alert player, whose concentration on the ball marks him as a good half. He is game too. He is likely to improve with experience.

Upston came through the day’s ordeal exceptionally well, but he was rarely in a tight corner. Pirates conceded him that favour. Because of that and the recollection of his play last year he is not in the representative team. It will be interesting to sec how he shapes against Kaierau.

Beadle, a promoted junior, gave a good display for Old Boys as a wing three-quarter against Ratanp on Saturday. He is strong on defence and does not need being told to “give it a go” on attack.

Old Boys’ outstanding forwards were Whale, McGregor and Green. These three functioned well in the tight. Halligan shone in the loose. As for tackling, however, Old Boys’ forwards did it “cabaret” style—round the neck. That sort of thing is quite O.K. when people are in love, and the band plays those ! soothing tunes like “Springtime in the Rockies,” but it is useless on the Rugger field. The scrum packed much better than usual, but forgot the art of heeling from ruck scrums. Tries are scored by adopting this method.

Despite the fact that the ground was too muddy to permit of first-class back playy, the Old Boys’ backs did very well. Ratana fielded a good pack of forwards and the day suited them. On the display they will be a hard team against Marist and Technical Old Boys. Hekenui, at full-back, was the outstanding player the natives fielded. He performed with uncanny accuracy all day, handling and kicking a wet ball. He used both feet, and Old Boys regarded him as a “Rock of Gibraltar.” Kawana, at half, also played well and H. Paki, on the wing, was as good as ever.

There has been a good deal of comment about the representative team. It must be repeated that, early in the season, a selector is’ in a quandry. He is faced with two alternatives—to accept new players on a sort of half knowledge of them, or go back to the old and choose them on what ho remembers of their play last year. Mr. Southcombe has gone back to last year in preference to coming forward into this. Probably he has been wise. Time will tell. On this year’s form the chances are the representative team would have been as follows: — Hekenui (R) Bullock-Douglas (OB), Gibson (OB), Brisco (TOB) Egan (OB) Davies (K) Ist. Hodson (M) Hutchinson (TOB) Lockett (K), Firmin (K), Maitland (P), Byres (K) Dawson (K), Thompson (P), Pairama (K) Reserves: Gibbons (P), back; McGregor (OB) forward. The one man that a risk would be taken with is Davies, playing at first five-eighth. This man comes from Wellington with a reputation as a winger, or a full-back and he performs well as centre and second five-eighth. How would he go closer in? It would be worth while to risk him there against Taihape just to see how the land would lie for the match with Taranaki. If the combination did not satisfy then Egan and he could bo changed to see the second half of the game out and the selectors would know where they were for June 3. Challenges for the Ranfurly Shield were received from the West Coast and the Buller Unions at. last week’s meeting of the Canterbury Rugby Union. “Wo should try to give tho West Coast preference over all of them,” said Mr. J. K. Moloney. “After the unfortunate incident in their game last year they still came over to play in tho

special charity match, and they were one of the finest sides to play on Lancaster Park last season.”

Eighteen meetings of the management committee of the New Zealand Union were held during tho year. The attendances wore: Messrs S. Dean, 17; A. C. Kitto, 18; T. A. Fletcher, 7; H. S. Leith, 18; J. Roache, 16; F. Glasgow, 18; W. J. Wallace, 17; C. S. Hylton, 18; K. Tahiwi (Maori Advisory Board) 16. In addition to tho regular meetings a number of sub-committee meetings were held.

L. Elias (Sydney), who is included in tho Australian Universities’ team, is the veteran of his side, but is still young, and should bo good for some time yet. In every position of the pack ho has shown form (according to a Sydney report) which few forwards have bettered, and only lack of weight has prevented him from gaining the highest honours. Early in his career he was chosen to play against New Zealand, but his lightness caused him to be dropped, and since then ho has not gone higher than city and metropolitan sides. J. Richardson, the former All Black forward, played in Sydney recently for Manly against Merewcthcr-Carlton. Newcastle’s premier team. Early in the game he was outstanding, but he broke his nose half-way through tho first spell, and was forced to retire. Another New Zealander, H. McLaren, formerly of Wellington, was Manly’s half-back during the first spell, and his passes from the scrum wore much admired.

At present playing for Western Suburbs in Sydney is T. Pauling, son of the famous All Black forward of 1896-97, who afterwards represented New South Wales. Young Pauling is a half-back.

R. Westfield, one of the full-bar' in the Australian Universities’ team, has previously visited New Zealand as a New South Wales representative.

Caughey was outstanding at centre-three-quarter for Auckland University against Training College. Milliken displayed great dash at wing-three-quarter and Bush was safe at full-back.

The following are captains of thi* year’s senior A teams in Wellington: Athletic, I. Jolly; Berhamporc, T. Cam eron; Eastbourne, J. Coman; Hutt, 11. T. Lilburne; Marist. C. Robins; Orion tai, G. Mell wraith; Johnsonville, H. E. Chaney; Petonc, E. l*ead; Poneke, A C. McPherson; St. Patrick’s College Old Boys, P. J. O’Connor; University. R. E. Diedcrich; Wellington College Old Boys, J. Lamason; Wellington, F D. Kilby; Upper Hutt, G. T. Campbell.

The deaths of the following gentle men who were closely associated with tho game are recorded with regret in the annual report of the New Zealand I Rugby Union:— Mr. F. Logan, who was president of this union during the 1894-95 season and again in 1909-1910. Mr. M. J. Crombie, who wag a member of the executive from 1910 to 19 and the Appeal Council in 1914. Mr. B. P. Palmer, a New Zealand representative player in the years 1928, 1929 and 1932. Mr. Palmer u following an injury sustained wli playing. News was recently received from England of the death of Mr. Ernest Prescott, the hon. treasurer of the Rugby Football Union (England). A message of sympathy and a wreath were forwarded from the New Zealand Union through its representative, Mr. C. J. Wray.

Hutt kept their ex-wing-three-quarter N. Ball, well bottled up when he turned out for Poneke. Early in the game Poneke were inclined to work Ball, but when they saw the attention he was receiving from his old teammates they swung the play whenever possible to tho other wing.

In view of tho English prejudice against the wing-forward, as expressed by Mr. J. Baxter, manager of the 1930 British team, the following article by G. S. Conway in The Manchester Guardian is of interest:—

“Tho wing-forward’s job in constructive forward play grows naturally out of good forward play as a whole. Every forward is a potential wing-for-ward, but his position in the scrum enables the wing-forward proper to be there both in attack and iu defence to put the finishing touches to the combined play of backs and forwards and to be up and about as the ‘snapperup’ of all ‘the unconsidered trifles which arc not quite within tho domain proper of either forwards or backs. At the same time the good wing-forward should be ready at any moment to abandon his skirmishing and join in the heavy artillery battle of the forwards. He is a luxury, an invaluable one certainly, but only to be afforded by the pack which has already established sufficient forward superiority to be able to develop tho constructive typo of game.

“Tho wing-forward is not an undesirable person because he cramps the opposing half-backs and three-quartrs and slows up the game; that is essentially his job if he is good enough to do it and if the opposing pack are poor enough to give him time. The real danger is that the existence of the wing-forward as a specialist entity encourages the rest of tho forwards to regard themselves merely as solid scrummagors who are not called upon, once the ball is heeled, to take an active part in the subsequent movement provided they are up in reasonably good time for the next serum. This, to my mind, is the negation of good forward play. “For similar reasons any tendency to specialise in one particular branch of forward play or position in the scrum is thoroughly to be deprecated for a forward who still has his spurs to win. So much all-round play comes tho way of every forward who is awake to the possibilities of the forward game that ho must be ready to turn his hand to everything. Special isation in forward plav Rooms to mo in fad, almost, a contradiction in terms. Once a forward is thorough!'' familiar with every position in the scrum, ho mnv then develop his par ticular aptitude for hooking, or for front, second, or back row work, but

it. is a mistake to try to reverse the process.

“For a pack of well-trained for wards it is scarcely open to argument that fixed positions in the scrum will give better results than ‘first up, first down’ methods, but for members of school and junior club teams too much attention cannot be paid to all-round forward training. There is a dangc that the increasing amount of instruc tioal and other literature which the popularity of the game has brought ito being and the, intensive conchinr of present-day school teams may ten to lay too much emphasis on the detail of forward play at the expense of general principles.”