— RUGBY —

Te Ao Hou, Winter 1954, Page 51

— RUGBY — Scott or nepia — who was the greatest fullback? I suppose racial loyalty will prompt most Maoris to award the honour to Nepia. I would be inclined myself, if such an award were necessary or even desirable, but is it not invidious to draw comparisons when on the one hand we are depending on overseas commentators for our facts, and on the other hand George Nepia —Crown Studios we are drawing on hearsay—or a memory which may be enhanced by time? The main point, however, and one which many protagonists conveniently overlook is that the structure of the game has changed. The requirements of the position in 1924 were not the same as those in 1954. Nepia developed strength where it was needed in his day. Scott has developed his play to suit the needs of the present. If any comparison is to be drawn between Scott and Nepia, it can be only on points which have been applicable during the era of each player. In my view these are few, because of the structural changes since the 2–3–2 scrum was abolished. For instance, I have no doubt that Nepia was the better tackler. Scott can tackle well, but he lacks the ferocity of the famous Nepia dive tackle. Also Nepia, alone of all fullbacks, had the superb gift of crowding several runners to the touch-line and of then bundling the lot into touch with one pounce. Nepia was also incomparable at stopping footrushes and clearing to touch. Who can forget, who saw him launch that tigerish pounce which scattered men apart, and which ended with him in the clear, shaping for one of his prodigious linekicks? Scott plays in an era when these traits are not so essential. The cover defence usually intercepts backs who break through in midfield. Breaks which pass the cover defence are usually made at the end of the chain, and the fullback has only one man to contend with. The axis of attack tends more toward the touch today, whereas in Nepia's time breaks were made straight down the middle, with support on either side. If he had to, I think Scott could have developed the Nepia tactics of moving runners into their supports, but the need rarely arises. On the other hand, I see no reason why Nepia could not have developed the will-o-the wisp elusiveness of Scott had he needed to, and had he not favoured his famous and spectacular explosions methods. Under present conditions of bigger, and I feel, faster, forwards, I suspect that Nepia, too, would have seen the advantage of being elusive rather than explosive. I have said that I think Nepia may have been the better man. I arrive at this opinion on two points only. First, he played behind teams which were primarily attacking units. As so often happens, good attackers are not always good defenders — even the great Nicholls and Cooke had weaknesses on defence. Nepia built a reputation based on the prime attribute of fullbacks—defence. Scott has played most of his football behind teams selected for solidarity, behind backs who could exploit our supremacy in the forwards, but who would yield ground dearly. I think Scott's has been the easier task. Secondly, I have no doubt that Nepia was the better line kicker, the greater saver of the men in front. Too often have I seen Scott miss the line through trying for too much length. In the first half of the test against

the Lions at Wellington he missed touch more often than he found it. This crucifies forwards. Nepia rarely missed the line, and rarely did he waste any distance—those “torpedoes” consistently just went out. His kicking artistry was exemplified during those years when he could not kick out on the full except when in his own twenty-five. Nepia seemed to have the knack of skidding the ball into touch as the kick died. These may be very slender grounds for preferring Nepia, and I would be quite happy to accord each of these great players a permanent niche for posterity—and I am certain that most of my readers will also. In addition to the Scott-Nepia controversy the return of the All Blacks enabled the critics both amateur and professional, to have a Roman holiday at the expense of the team and particularly its management. No doubt national pride makes us wish we could roll out the red carpet and play “Here the conquering heroes come”, but because the team suffered several defeats I see no reason for the carping criticism which has unfortunately been allowed to descend to personalities. Now that the tour is over, there is a wonderful opportunity for the “I told you so” brigade, of whom most, no doubt, have conveniently forgotten that they, like the rest of us at the outset, looked upon this team as our best ever. I still think that perhaps it was our best ever. Certainly the opposition seems to have been the best we have faced in Britain, and I for one would like to join the Rugby Union official spokesmen and congratulate the team on a splendid showing. Most of the criticism aimed at the management has concerned test selections and team tactics. As we did not see the team play, and because we cannot guage what the opposition was, I feel that criticism of this kind is unfair, particularly when individual players are compared to illustrate points of criticism. I can see only one avenue for criticism of the management, and in my view it is a serious one. It must go without saying that the selection committee which chose the thirty players for the tour are the best available judges of rugby in the country. They were, in effect, the appointees of every player in New Zealand. It is reasonable to suppose that the team was not chosen haphazardly, and that each playing position was filled by the best suited to that posi-

tion. Yet the tour management — as has happened so often before—saw fit to ignore the views of Mr Morrison's committee, and right from the beginning indulged in experiments with men in positions other than those for which they were chosen. This is unfair to the players, and seems an expression of no-confidence in the New Zealand selectors. It is not easy to say how this can be guarded against in the future, but it does seem evident that the governing body should cover the point in its instructions to managers, and indeed it seems that a member of the selection committee should also accompany the team as manager. One final point I should like to make concerns the public comparisons being made between players. It is unimportant whether Bowers is better than Haig, or Fitzgerald better than Loader, or anybody else is better than the next man. They are all All Blacks, and as such they are all good, and it is lacking in taste and considerations for invidious comparisons about individuals to be drawn in public.