Maoris and Sport By PAUL POTIKI

— 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