SPRINGBOKS LOOK BACK

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 300, 18 December 1937, Page 4

SPRINGBOKS LOOK BACK

1937 TOUR IN RETROSPECT “BOY” LOUW SAYS THAT FORM OF BACKS WAS FLATTERING POOR N.Z. TACKLING AND BACKING UP Arriving home in South Africa the victorious Springbok Rugby team had some interesting things to say of New Zealand Rugby and of the standard set by their own team by comparison. One of the most interesting observations came from M. JI. (“Boy”) Louw, long recognised as one of the greatest masters of Rugby tactics in the world. He said that South Africa will be disappointed in its backs because the New Zealand standard in the rearguard was not a good measuring rule. He also had some interesting comments to make on scrummaging in the following interview with him, described by H. du P. Steytlcr in the Cape Times. Louw, contrary to the trend of opinion in the Dominion, thought New Zealand would definitely scrap the old 2-3-2 scrum and concentrate all its energies on perfecting the 3-4-1 packing, which served the Springboks so well.

A large and enthusiastic crowd welcomed the Western Province members of the Springbok Rugby team when they arrived in Cape Town, writes Mr Steytler. All the players looked remarkably fit and well, very pleased to be back home again—but probably very tired of answering the question: “Did you have a good time?” During the next few weeks I suppose they will often have to reply to that question, and many others on the matches and inci-

eight men played a tight game and made us work very hard. They tried a kmd of a rover in one Test, but he was chopped for the next. “And yet, somehow I don’t think the New Zealanders have their whole heart and soul in the 3-4-1 formation. Many of the enthusiasts there will hanker after their famous diamond formation, the 2-3-2 with one* man loose. “We had nfeny arguments about the merits of the rival formations, but I think that New Zealand will now, after our tour, definitely decide that the 3-4-1 is the best formation taking everything into consideration; and, as their forwards gain experience in playing it, they should be every whit as good as a Springbok pack’” Boy Louw expressed great admiration for the way in which the whole South African side played and pulled together, and always gave of their best. “But do not be disappointed if you find next season that our backs do not quite reach the heights they did in New Zealand and Australia,” he concluded. I also had a chat with Louis Babrow who was the star centre of the party. One of the first questions Mr. A. F. Markottcr, the S.A. selector put to him when he met him, was: “What has happened to your hands?” It was a rather remarkable part of Babrow’s play overseas that his “bad hands” disappeared as soon as he set foot in Australia.

dents during the tour. They all agreed that the tour had been a thorough success from start to finish, and that the Springbok backs showed up particularly well. The “Master.” I fastened on to the “Master" ol the team, as he was called, Boy Louw. L think Boy is. one of the best students of the game we have had for years, and he is always ready to discuss the play and players. He made the rather startling statement to me that we may, to a certain extent, be disappointed in our Springbok backs when we see them on the field next year, “for the opposition rather flattered our attacking and breaking powers,” declared. “Fortunately for us perhaps,” lie continued, “we apparently struck New Zealand at rather a lean period, and their back play on the whole didn’t come up to the international standard we know, and the standard they themselves set on their 1928 tour of our country. This was particularly the case in their defence. Our centres sometimes went through gaps that should never have been there; and often it was bad tackling that let our men in. “They failed to back up too, and in their own attack there seldom was a really constructive movement to the wmg. Their style of play is for the fiist centre to cut in and bring the play back to the scrum, a method that cannot be successful against a web-trained pack that breaks quickly an 1 intelligently. The Test Defeat. “This was especially noticeable in the first Test in New Zealand when they beat us. The All Black forwards played wonderfully well on that day, end if their backs had used their op-

Louis told me that although he would not in any way call the All Black defence weak, they left gaps

portunities to better advantage, they must have scored at least another eight points.” “In that game we were defeated by a better team, and even if the Springboks had altered the makeup of their side, I don’t think W’e could have beaten the All Blacks on the form they showed that day.” _ Boy Louw expressed great admiration for the way in which the All Blacks played at forward. shoved a 3-4-1 scrum against «s,” he told me, “and in most cases all

that one should hardly get in international matches, and their backing up, too, was not intensive enough. “Often a back of the home team found himself isolated after a break with no support in the offing and forced to go on his own,” he said. “Against such play our defence usually prevailed. “That was the one big difference in our s'vies of play: a Springbok seldom was left with no one to pass to; the New Zealanders, especially in the provincial games, often found themselves alone.” “But it wasn't only the backs who made the many fine movements we had, possible,” Babrow continued. “Behind a pack such as we had in Australia and New Zealand one had to be bad indeed not to play well. How that ball did come from the scrums. A long and swift pass from Craven or Pierre de Villiers, Harris or Van de Vyver away like a flash—and the most we centres had to do, was to run, run hard, and run straight.”

I “It was a real pleasure playing ! behind such a pack. 1 have heard I arguments that the pack of the 1931 ; Springbok British tour was better than jour pack. It is hard to believe. I, for one, don’t want any better forwards to play behind.” That Rick. Gerry Brand, who with Boy Louw was on the touring selection committee, had nothing but praise for the way in which the forwards and backs combined to make the tour the success it was. He told me that he doesn’t want another kick like the one he had in the second All Black Test when the score was 6—5 in the home team’s favour and the penalty kick he took charge of had to decide the winning or losing of the match—as it seemed at that time. “No, I wasn’t excited in the least,” he said with a laugh.