WHEN THAMES WON.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17493, 29 August 1928, Page 11

WHEN THAMES WON.

HOME SIDE'S MISFORTUNE. REVIEW OF THE PLAY. (By "Watcher.") With only rare glimpses of spectacular play and long spells of scrums and line-outs, the representative game between Hamilton and Thames was not the hest seen from a public standpoint at the Hamilton Rugby Union grounds this season. The combination of neither team could be called brilliant, but if the home side had taken full advantage of the many opportunities -offered they would not have had to return to the dressingroom vanquished by a margin of only one point. Nearly all the action took place on the -visitors' territory, and although their defence was fairly sound it was far from invulnerable. Representative matches can usually be depended upon to provide a few thrilling Individual efforts, and whatever may be said about the combination there were players on both sides who fully deserved the unstinted applause from the stands. The visiting brigade boasted one or two veterans of the code who were solid enough in the surfeit of forward movements. There were some alterations among the rearguard from the original selection, P. Clarkin acting as custodian, Gunn first five-eighths, and Sterrett on the wing. Form of Hamilton. P. Clarkin was quite an able fullback, and although his angle was wrong with one conversion, no harm would have be.en clone by giving him a greater share of the kicking. His clearances were rapid enough. Collins' play was very erratic in the first half. Taking into account the fact that Allen held the ball too long and starved him, he seemed averse to cutting in, and allowed himself to be forced out at disadvantageous positions However, he came to the fore at other times. Allen justified his

VALUE OF GOAL-KICKING. “DON’T CHOP AND CHANGE.” One reason why Hamilton failed to win from Thames on Saturday was the failure to realise on the goal-kicking opportunities. This is a department of the game on which the winning or losing of a match often depends and it Is well that its requirements should be carefully studied. There was too much “chopping and changing” of the kickers on Saturday. Before his team takes the field a captain should know the best fitted men in this department. It may be that angle and long kicks will be the most suited to one player, while the close-up-6tralght In-front-shot comes readily to another. If a player has the dual qualification so much the better. Because a narrow failure occurs it Is not wise to go experimenting as was witnessed on Saturday. Determine the most competent beforehand and then adhere to that decision, should be the rule to follow.

inclusion by at least two noticeably smart saves. His chief fault has already been mentioned. Stcrrctt was not permitted to do much, but came in handy on the occasional times he was sent away. Gunn did a lot of good work unostentatiously. lie came to the fore with a clever “dummy” and dash goalwards before being pushed out, and exhibited no signs of weakness. Fitzgerald again proved that he lets no chance depart unattempted. In some of his movements he manipulated the ball with -remarkable dexterity and his try in the .last quarter was, in the football sense, artistic. Tuck's performance was not without a few faults but on the day he fed the backs consistently and followed up sensibly. It was exhilarating to watch him get the ball away from a net of forwards, run round them and touch down. As rover, Mitchell was not very convincing. Lately his kicking has proved useless and there was no marked improvement on Saturday. Stubbs’ play was nothing short of heady. There were times he came to the rescue when a back was found wanting His following-up work and general field play were most creditable. Other forwards who shone in the close work were 1L Charleston, Courtney and C. Christie. Ford was not very prominent.

Visitors’ Performances. Little fault could be found with Gilmour’s display at full-back. Both Moran and Denize on the respective flanks showed they were adepts at kicking, and they both made some fine solo efforts. Dufty played soundly as second five-eighths. Darling, the half-back, was one of the snappiest visiting men seen on the local ground for some time. lie was always in the thick of it, transferred at the right time, and made up for sundry deficiencies among his colleagues. A sparkling movement. by him was when he collected the leather and covered half the field, beating his pursuers to touch down. As this was his first rep. game, he is likely to be heard from to further good effect. Hayward, Percy and Smith were the toilers in the forwards. Hayward was splendid at times in the tight and also put up some useful kicking. The Thames captain keeps up his form rcmarkablv well. His continued ability was indicated by the invitation the Auckland selector gave him to go on tour this season, but, through business reasons, Hayward had to decline.