THE WING FORWARD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 264, 6 November 1937, Page 4

THE WING FORWARD

HIS FEATS EXTOLLED NOT WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING AUSTRALIAN WRITER’S VIEW WILL N.Z. RUGBY COME AGAIN? The defeat of New Zealand by South Africa in the Rugby Union rubber seems to have saddened too many in New Zealand, if opinions in some of the letters I have had from across the Tasman are not overdrawn, writes “Cynic” in the Sydney Referee. The superiority of the South Africans is freely acknowledged. Many newspaper writers seem to hold the opinion that the Africans are the finest team they have ever seen. If that is so why grieve because such a team defeated the flower of the home country? The truth is that New Zealand Rugby has gone back in standard — has been going back —ever since the national system of playing the game was changed, by the abolition of the %-3-2 scrummage and the wing forward.

Any man who saw the marvellous 1903 team under Jimmy Duncan, and some of its brilliant successors in this country, knows that forward play of New Zealand was magnificent in every angle and that the wing forward wag no mere wolf in sheep’s clothing, as so many have dubbed him.

As I viewed the best New Zealand wing forwards from the time of David Gallagher and along the years to C. G. Porter, he was a clever, constructive, brainy, ano brilliant player. Those great New Zealand teams, like outstanding Welsh teams, wen wonder men in the use of touch by punting. The older world still cherishes this feature in the old game. In New Zealand and Australia it is taboo, largely because so many second-

rate players kicked out aimlessly instead of using the line scientifically as team-tactics. It is understandable that a scrummage with two men in the front row may be beaten for the ball by scrummager of similar powers with three in the front row. Nevertheless the 1903, 1905 and other All Blacks rose superior to that. The Africans play 3-4-1, and British teams 3-2-3. The laws of the game were altered to make three at least in the front row. Why? As the re-creators of modern Rugby, New Zealand should stand up for the methods .by which they mad* the game so polished and so great, without impairing its superb virility. New Zealanders steeped in Rugby football may take it as certain that in the eyes of Australians the latest African team, strong as it was, in the pack and difficult to defeat, was not •so great as some of their own teams seen over here. New Zealanders now have to find fresh talent of the highest class, ana encourage a higher quality of play right through the provincial Unions. If they do this the problems will gradually solve themselves. Whether they will find it best to continue to play locally under relaxel rules or adhere to the international laws is for themselves to determine. We may be sure that New Zealand will soon rise to the old pinnacle. Discussing New Zealand Rugby with Mr. Harold Judd on Saturday, he remarked that on what he had seen over there the standard has fallen away. He saw only four forwards in the same class as the great men we knew in the past, and only one back, Mitchell. One of the forwards he ha I in mind was not selected in the Tests. Harold Judd thinks the Africans must have developed better form all-round in New Zealand than they showed in this country. These views are similar to those of Mr. Jim darken, an early Aucklander, though an Australian representative.