The Man in Possession.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIII, Issue 3, 21 July 1909, Page 10

The Man in Possession.

FORM AND QUALIFICATIONS. (By GEO. GILLETT.) [George Gillett, perhaps the finest allround player -who ever kicked a football —brilliant in any position, from full-back rip to wing — contributes an all-rounl article on training and playing. Esp.cially he writes of the “ down with the Wing forward” cry.] One critic on the “ All Black Team, 1905-6,” wrote this: “They win because they are footballers who do a little work, while their opponents are workers who play a little football. Now, if this Is correct, what a fine time the young colonial must have, since New Zea’and, South Africa, and Australia have all shown England how far she is behind in the Rugby world. My own- opinion on the matter is that instead of being represented by the classes (as in England) we are represented by the mass.-s (the worker, who is generally in a good solid condition to play to the end of an evenly contested game). We realised our opponents of 1905-6 were not in form a great deal sooner than they did themselves, and as it takes a player about five or six weeks’ solid training to strike form, one can easily understand how ill-conditioned these p'ayers were who only played each Saturday afternoon in a tired, halfhearted manner. I am sure if you took two-thirds of the players we met on our tour you could not make a Seeling, a McDonald or a Roberts if you trained them for six years, simply because their every-day life is totally different, and they will not devote their spare time to training with enthusiasm. I would be disbelieved if I told some of these players bow our men trained throughout the summer months as well as winter. Take the condition of our late visitors throughout their tour of New Zealand. I met them upon three different occasions on the field of play, and I never saw the team, as a whole, in good condition. The consequence was they were easily injured, and went further out of condition while recovering, and thus the team was a wreck when it should have been at its best. Tlie record of this team’s tour is still green in our memory, and when one compares English representative form with the colonial standard, it is surprising and disgusting to find a progressive body like the N.Z. Rugby Union pandering to a dead and alive body like the English Rugby Union, who appear to me as Rip Van Winkle in disguise. For the want of a little tact and common sense, some years ago this sleepy body allowed their forces to split, and the professional body known as the Northern Union was the result. This professional movement has already got a hold in the colonies, and it behoves the N.Z. Rugby Union to be up and doing instead of waiting until this dilatory body which presumes to legislate for our national game wakes up and removes some little items which are objectionable to players and public alike. No doubt the game is very attractive when two first-class teams meet, and an efficient referee has control, but how often are the public wearied by the everlasting scrum, scrum, scrum, and the jostling and bullocking along the touch line to prevent opponents opening up the game? It is in this kind of play many dirty tricks are resorted to which the public seldom see, and players are often mysteriously injured. The referee, who has his whole attention on the ball and man in possession, cannot see many of these little incidents, and so they go unchecked. The result is a wordy warfare between two players or some excitable spectator, which occasionally leads to Wows.

Football is a game which requires science, and moreover requires that every player shall sink all individual feeling, and, like a piece of machinery, work in perfect harmony with his associates. The main strength of a team is generally composed of weight, pace, combination with sound judgment, which is only acquired by keen observation of other teams and their tactics. To do the unexpected is to confuse your opponents, and then it simply remains for your team to turn it to account. In many teams the general heavy work falls to the star performers, and the result is a rough handling. In my opinion a side should nurse its good men as much as possible, and then when a supreme effort is required, they ars in a condition to attack effectively. A good captain with sound judgment will always attend to these details.

I Coolness is another very necessary qualification, especially in a back, who must do without fear or hesitation ths right thing at the right moment. Perhaps for a second only the chance is there, and if lost the match may be lost with it; to be able to anticipate u invaluable, and it makes the slow player a George Smith. In football, as in other things, possession is everything, and as you must have the ball to score with it shows the absolute necessity for good forwards. That good forwards will win against good backs is an old saying and fairly correct, as many a good back team has “starved” simply because their opponents controlled the ball, Auckland Reps, have fairly illustrated this for two or three reasons. Line play is more often very uninteresting, especially when of a defensive nature, too much “Scoth navigation” beina used; however, it distinctly shows the combination of the forwards.

Outside the pack is the much-discussed wing-forward. I think a wing-forward should always be a man of self-restraint, because he is sure to be abused by someone, and if lie stopped to discuss the merits of each case I am afraid he would do more talking than play. I think the whole thing is in a nutshell myself; ths complainants, as a rule, are the opposing half-back, the five-eighths, or the spectators. Now, if Mr. Wing-forward grabs his opponent with the ball before he gets rid of it, well—he is a good player, and the ball should be immediately released. But should this objectionable gentleman show himself in his opponents’ territory, and should there be no ball to justify his intrusion, well—there is a referee not far away, and if he does not penalise this impudent gentleman then the wing must be friends with the referee or extremely lueky. Everything a wing-for-ward does must be either right or wrong, and if he is w r rong the referee should see he is penalised. If the N.Z. Rugby Union had sent an extra half-back to England in place of a wing-forward, no mention would have been made of the position he took up on the field. It is amusing to hear of “doing away” with the wingforward. I would remind those who use this expression that as long as a player keeps on side no referee can order him away from the side of his serum. Since a wing-forward is such an annoyance to his opponents he must be of immense value to his team, and as the secret of football success is to make the most of the fifteen players at your disposal, why discount a player’s value in this manner? I contend a wing-for-ward opens up as much play as his half back. If he infringes the rules he is penalised, so I fail to find any reason for his being done away with. Of course, the referee has pride of place for abuse and dissatisfaction, but I must say this is largely due to the incompetent persons who undertake this thankless situation. My idea of a referee is a man cool, quick and practical, not one who has swallowed a rule book and hardly played the game in his life. Most of these gentlemen are examined all right, and can quote word for word from the rule book, but if you want a practical illustration it is a very different matter. All players should assist the referee by accepting his rulings without demur, and disputes should be left to captains unless evidence is called for.

Let us just review those New Zealand teams who have placed us on such a high pedestal. In the year 1884 our first New Zealand team travelled to New South Wales, and included such players as T. B. O’Connor, J. Warbrick, Lecky, Milton, and J. Tairoa They romped over their opponents in the first match by 33 to nil, so to equalise matters a little, in after matches their opponents always played with seventeen men This team won all their matches, scoring 167 points for with 17 points against Then followed the Native team for England, which, although a great side, was not representative of New Zealand Their record was—Played 74 matches, won 49, lost 20, and drew five Matches were also played and won throughout Australia. In 1893 the New Zealand Union sent another team to Australia, which included such players as Gage, Bayley, Ellison, Murray, Good, and Jervis. Ten matches were played—won 9 and lost one, scoring 173 points for and 44 against them. The next team, in 1897, included George Smith, Humphries, Pauling and poor Armit, who met misfortune on the field of play in the season of 1809. ThU team won nine matches, losing one, and scoring 229 points, and having 7H points scored against them. In 1993 Um

very strong team toured Australia, the selection ineluded no less than eight Aucklanders, winning the ten matches and scoring 276 points as against 13 points. In 1904 the memorable battle with Bedell-Sivright’s team was played at Wellington, New Zealand gaining the honour of lowering the hitherto unbeaten flag. 1905-6 saw the All Black tour —New South Wales, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales—winning 33 matches, losing one and drawing one, besides winning several unofficial matches. In season 1907 New Zealand representatives again visited Australia, and were taken by surprise at the great improvement in the play, and, after some hard matches, the record read as follows: Played 7, won 5, lost 1, drawn 1. Last year saw the Anglo-British team come and go, losing two and drawing one test match. The drawn game should have been a one-sided victory for New Zealand, as the first test was won by 32 points to 5 points and the third by 29 points to nil. It was the utter indifference shown by the New Zealand Rugby Union officials which enabled our visitors to make a draw of the second test. New Zealand representatives and the Native team have played 157 matches, won 126, lost 24, drawn 7—a record any country might be proud of. This record is the result of players acquiring a tnorough knowledge of the game and being enthusiastic enough to go on fhe field fit and well, with determination enough to win Waterloo.