RIVAL RUGBY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 204, 29 August 1936, Page 6

RIVAL RUGBY

ALL BLACKS AND SPRINGBOKS THE TEST OF THE SYSTEMS By F. W. Lucas, member of the unbeaten 1924 team in Britain and of the 1928 side in South Africa. (Copyright—Special to “Chronicle.”) The meeting of the Springboks of 1937 and the AH Blacks will be something more than a renewal of old friendly rivalry. As I see it, the next series of meetings will be something absorbing to every lover of the game. It will be the test of two rival systems of play; the clash of vitally opposed theories. Which will prove the better? No one can predict with certainty, but there is one fact which emerges clearly and that is that in this next encounter of the chosen representatives of two great football countries persona] qualities, individual excellence, will count for a great deal.

Seldom can there have been the same state of uncertainty in New Zealand football before the beginning of a big international visit. To-day, even though we sent, a carefullychosen team to Britain in 1935, it is impossible to predict who will be in the backline against the Springboks. Of only two names can one say with anything like certainty that they will ne in the team and that their owners will perform up to international standard. These are B. S. Sadler, the Wellington half-back who won such a high reputation on the British tour, and R. Bush, the Auckland New Zealand full-back who has played for New Zealand in three different years but has never made a long tour with an All Black team. Sadler should be up to expectations, though it is difficult to believe that he is as good as Mill who was the test half of the unbeaten 1924 team. Bush has not the marvellous brilliance of George Nepia the greatest full-back of our generation, but he is very sound, he has a line pair of hands is a kick with excellent control and is heavy (over 15 stone) and therefore a greal danger to an attacker, and is fast on his feet. If he does not get into the team it will be because a very fine fullback indeed has been discovered and one who is not at all widely known to-day. Glen Hook is, I believe, a rising back, but it seems doubtful if th? selectors will consider him old enough for some time yet. He is light, but he has a great football head. Wings Easy to Discover. Wing-threequarters I believe we shall always be able to discover. Their job is not so tremendously difficult that we cannot find someone to fill a winger’s place with credit. They have, after all, the job of finishing oft movements which, if they are to be successful, must be properly developed infield. But the task of finding the inside backs to do this developing is the chief problem before the New Zealand selectors. My own observations lead me to suppose that to-day many backs are “man-shy.” They are not lacking in courage, but they are not able to attain that coolness which will enable them to carry out a manoeuvre without troubling about the inevitable tackler who, sooner or later will arrive to down them. The inside back must be able to judge quickly and try a new plan if his first one does not seem likely to work. He can never reach this state of mind until he is indifferent to a tackler and can regard this man as an impediment who must be drawn from place or have his attention diverted in order to make possible a successful attack in another part of the field. And he can never give or receive a pass properly until he is cool in the face of the need for rapid action. To-day we seem simply not to have men like this. They may be found in the trials; I believe that they will be found because our trial matches have had the habit of unearthing good material. But the fact that the selectors last year chose one inside back out of place after a brief trial of him in the five-eighth position shows that in 1935 at least this position presented a problem which was not solved with any degree of ease. And one reason for this, in my opinion, is the fact that at present New Zealand Rugby selectors are inclined to place too heavy a premium on defensive qualities. If attacking backs are wanted they must be taken where they are found and the fact that they are not so strong on defence as some others must not be allowed to affect the position. For the best defence is, after all, attack, and in my judgment it does not matter if a big total is scored against a team sd long as that team scores a bigger one. In fact that is the kind of football which everyone likes to see and which entrenches the game in popular favour.

This inside back problem is doubly important in light of the 1937 Springbok tour because it is the inside backs that are traditionally expected to give the thrust to the All Black attack. The Springboks play a different type of game, they make more use of the line and generally manoeuvre for an attacking position before opening up the game in the attempt to cross the goal-line. This has meant that they have developed kicking far more than we in New Zealand have developed it. Our kicking, by comparison with the South African standard, can only be described in one word and that is deplorable. But at the same time I cannot help thinking that by using this method they handicap themselves. It is sometimes described as the English method, but that is not correct. The English play a type of game more like that of the All Blacks, but with the difference that they insist on pace from one end of the backline to the other. In New Zealand we are inclined to use slower and smaller men infield and demand more pace as we work out towards the wing. The South Africans, on our 192 S experience, placed great confidence in their wingers and bustled the ball out to them as quickly as they could. This coming tour is going to reveal an interesting conflict between their system of using the line-kick as an attacking medium, and the back-line rush reserved as a top-ping-off measure and the All Blacks’ plan of employing the passing rush from anywhere. South African Rugby Orthodox In other words, South African football still appears to me as rathei orthodox and our own game more unexpected and wider in its possibilities. To show these possibilities 1 might point out that in England in 1924 when we did not lose a match, we did not get the ball from the set scrums 20 per cent of the time. In fact we evolved the plan of letting the other side get it and then bustled them, took the ball away from them and profited by their mistakes. We developed a rucking game and by a system under which forwards supported backs we scored many points. This system, I think, is a logical development of the type of game we had begun to favour when we decided that retaining possession of the ball was the major thing, that, the passing rush was the best method of remaining in possession and that therefore to begin a passing rush, even in our own twentyfive was justifiable and also desirable. This system was not evolved quickly, but. it brought with it a new type of forward, the big, heavy, fast man who could run and handle like a back and give support to the backline in its of- ■ fensives. That meant, in turn, a forward less able to stand up to the hard work of the scrum, but with ability - in the open to offset this disadvantage even though we lost ground in the ‘ line-outs as well. And for this reason I say that getting the ball from the ; | set scrum is not so vastly important , as many people still believe and that ■ given the type of inside back who can ■ bustle an opponent and turn misi takes to account we can field a good . team against South Africa. We are i certain to get a useful Jot of forwards I perhaps not. as heavy as those of the > past, but seasoned and willing. Our ■ backs will not be lacking in pace and ‘ if we can get some infield men who i are able to make a break-through we , shall have a good team even though ■ at present we cannot discover any ■ stars of the first magnitude. ; Next Tuesday: “New Zealand’s i New Back Play,” by N. P. McGregor. ; TO-DAY’S PROGRAMME ■ MAJOR MATCHES IN DOMINION ' AUSSIES CHALLENGE THE ‘BAY CANTERBURY SEEKING THE SHIELD (By “Cross-bar.”) ■ | Rugby has fully entered its 1936 programme of representative fixtures, ; and the two important matches in today’s list will be the tussle between Australia and Hawke's Bay at Napier, and the match for the Ranfurly Shield between the holders (Otago) and Canterbury (challengers), which is to be played at Carisbrook, Dunedin. Australia’s Chances. A better line on the true form of the Australians in their pending tussle with New Zealand for the Bledisloe Cup will be possible after the match they play in Napier to-day against Hawke’s Bay. It is certain that the real capabilities of the visitors in the van will be fully tested. The ’Bay, fielding a side which will play effectively in the tight, will perhaps find itself outplayed in the loose. Under the circumstances the home backs may have more to cope with than they expect. Australia, if it is to win a major proportion of its New Zealand engagements, will need fine weather, fast grounds and open play. It is evident that the secret of Australia’s brightness in Rugby is the preference for picking the ball up and running with it instead of, as in New Zealand, relying almost ceaselessly on foot rushes. If they are able to get sufficient ■ ball from the domination of the ’Bay ’ pack the visitors will exploit that type ’ of game, and unless Norman McKen- ! zie’s backs can foot it with the fleet three-quarter line matters will go ■ against the ’Bay. Looking to its pack 1 for coverage, however, the Hawke's ■ Bay team is confident of spoiling the : visitors’ back line and, by playing to : Storey, keeping him bustled. ■ The Ranfurly Shield. Otago has had a commendable run of success in its defence of the Ran- . furly Shield this year, and will face the serious challenge of Canterbury to-day. Canterbury has high hopes of winning, but fully realises the strength of the Otago team. Otago’s record and list of future matches for the shield is as follows: ’ v. Southland—August 1; won 16 ’ points to 3 points. v. Auckland—August 5; won 14 ! points to 5 points. : v. Manawatu—August 12; won 11 ■ points to 5 points. ; v. South Canterbury—August 26; > won 26 points to 3 points. v. Canterbury—August 29. : v. North Auckland—September 5. i v. Wellington—September 19. i v. Hawke's Bay—September 23. v. West Coast—September 26.

I The possibility of Canterbury depriving Otago of the Shield has not ; been lost sight of by unions which 1 have fixtures with Canterbury later t in the season. Requests for the Can- . terbury Rugby Union to accept chal- > lenges in the event of it being t.,e . shield holder at the time, were re- . ceived by the management committee t of the union from the North Auckland and West Coast Unions, which have . fixtures against Canterbury at Christ- , church on September 9 and Septem- . ber 12 respectively. The committee , agreed to accept the challenges, subj ject to the shield then being in Can- , terbury’s possession. I The letter from the North Auck- ) land team stated that considerable inI terest had been created in the dis- . trict by the southern tour in quest of | the shield, and it was desired that j this interest should be maintained if . possible.

e “They arc taking no risks,” ree marked Mr J. K. Moloney, after the 4 first letter (from the West Coast t Union) had been read. “Challenges i, are in order up to August 31.” A - member suggested that there was no i- need to reply until it was known it whether Canterbury held the shield. Dr. Seed: They need time to make o arrangements and to notify their d challenges to the New Zealand Union. ■- On his motion the challenges were •. provisionally accepted. d Canterbury Team e Canterbury will be represented by; ‘e Full-back; G. Nolan. n Three-quarters; G. F. Hart, C. H. e McPhail, Round. it Five-eighths: K. S. Mortlock, W. A. it Brookes. n Half-back: J. J. McAuliffe. 5- Back of Scrum: J. G. Rankin, d Sides of Scrum; J. E. Manchester e (capt.), and M. Scandrett. Is Locks; H. Milliken and C. Parblee cheque. ,r Front Row: Hattersley, R. Burke, d and J. Mahoney. o Nolan, the Old Boys’ full-back, is e playing in the place Behrns played h in in previous representative matches y Canterbury was engaged in this year. Round is the Old Boys’ second five’s eighth. The Shield Defenders Otago has chosen the following players to defend the Shield:— Full-back: J. M. Taylor. I Three-quarters: J. M. Watt, R. McSkimming, W. A. Black Five-eighths: D. Trevathan, C. C. Gillies. Half-back: H. Simon. Forwards: C. Quaid, W. Laney, J. Horc (captain), W. Parkhill, F. Vorrath, F. Green, L. Niven, W. Forman. ' Emergencies:—Eacks: C. Saxton, B. I Townsend, H. Maskell. Forwards: E. Murphy, E. Valentine, R. Neiper.