1935 ALL BLACKS

Evening Star, Issue 22462, 6 October 1936, Page 12

1935 ALL BLACKS

ENGLISH REVIEW DF TOUR SPORTSMANSHIP PRAISED A generous yeb critical appraisal of the strength and weaknesses of the 1935 New Zealand Rugby team which toured Great Britain is contained in the editorial section of the ‘ Rugby Football Annual’ for 1936-37. While pointing' to the lack of success of the 1935 team —compared, of course, with the remarkable performances of its predecessors of 1905 and 1924—the annual refers gratefully to the fine spirit in which the teams met and the happy nature of the tour as a whole. “ The New Zealanders were far too good sportsmen to accuse themselves by making excuses,” the editor says. “ They recognised their own weak spots, but they preferred to talk of the strong points of their opponents. The latter, for their part, preferred to think less of facts and figures than the excellent spirit, in which most of tho matches were played. “ The very few exceptions to this pleasant rule, it should be granted at once, were due to an excess of local keenness and the scarcity of good referees. The restraint of the Now Zealanders on these occasions was admirable. Indeed, of the whole party of 29, only two—one back and a torseriously offended against the rules. Calculated obstruction was the sin, and then was committed on only a few occasions. As some of the home sides offended by the a way in which they inserted the ball into the scrummage we should feel suitably humble in dealing with such delicate subjects. WING FORWARD RETIRES. “ The main point was that the tour was a happy one for all but the unlucky ‘ crocks ’ aud, perhaps, one or two others of the touring party who apparently could not justify themselves as players. One can only hope that even those unfortunates felt at home in the best sense of the word. And may one add without patronage that the management of the team, if not above ci’iticism, was above reproach. Mr Meredith was a man of courage and character, mostly invisible, butcharming. New Zealand, like Great Britain, however, is apt to ignore the value of strong captaincy on the field of play. . “ Broadly speaking, after a promising start at Devonport, which, however, proved a Pyrrhic triumph—in it two key men, Page, the first five-eighth, and Hadley, the hooker and soundest forward, were badly injured—the third All Blacks were in danger of losing much of the prestige that serves all touring sides so well. Happily, the disturbing and somewhat unexpected sight of tho so-called winging forward, operating as an extra scrum half, ended witli the second match. In answer to friendly protests the ‘ obstructionist,’ as Britain will always regard him, was withdrawn into the scrummage at halftime on each occasion. Undoubtedly this contributed to a pleasant tour. LIMITATIONS OF ATTACK. “ The next surprise was the decision to use the 3-4-1 pack formation when at least three things were evident : (1) that the theory of the converging shove to lock the front row was not applied; (2) that the exceptional weight of the South Africans, who often were able to ' walk over the ball ’ was not there; (3) that the 3-4-1 formation seldom was exploited as a quick-heeling machine. “ No less important was the fact that, with Page a casualty, the back play sadly lacked the essential straight running and drawing power at first five-eighths. Oliver conceivably might have remedied the defect, but he was used as a centre except against Wales, when he took the place of the injured Caughey at second five-eighths. Oliver was tho most constructive of the backs, but much of his work was wasted by having to make openings in the threequarters line instead of at five-eighths. Caughey, a runner with a fine stride, but liable to be suppressed by close marking , and heavy tackling, scored some first-class tries, but he was not a constructive player in the full sense of the words. Griffiths became the chief first five-eighths, and in defence was magnificent. His picking up of the rolling ball and clearing under pressure could hardly have been improved upon. In attack he sadly lacked the penetrative power and elusive brilliance of the old All Blacks—he was the mere shadow of a Hunter, for example. CONFIDENCE SAPPED. “ To bo fair, the bad period of the forwards early in the tour must have sapped tho confidence of the hacks. There were moments when the whole side played their part and then the backs of the third All Blacks showed form which was very good indeed. Griffiths in the end lost his place to young Tindill. who failed, in a new position for him, only from want of

experience. Tindill was chiefly feared for his drop-kicking. Solomon had his moments, but lacked confidence. Page showed himself to bo a penetrative runner, and New Zealand may well have been desperately unlucky to have had him injured beyond full repair.” Discussing the other backs, the editor says that Hart had the speed and polish, and, given more runs, must have scored many more tries, Mitchell was a strong and fine player who looked as if he should have been a centre but actually played all his best games on the wing, Sadler, the hero of the tour, was “dead game, cool, a splendid passer, and the possessor of a ■ slipaway that would have cost British teams many more tries if the All Black forwards had not' been held for most of the time.” THE OUTSTANDING PLAYERS. Gilbert was such an essential player that he and no doubt relished it,' in 26 out of the 28 games, the article continues. “He had the physique and the easy spirit to do so. Gilbert really was over tall for the position, but it was only one or two sides which realised that _ long legs cannot turn or kick as quickly under intense pressure as short legs. None the less Gilbert was a superb catcher of the ball and . mostly a sound touchfinder and place-kicker. Sometimes, too. he showed a fine sense of attack. “ Broadly speaking, the touring tehhi triumphed over a general situation that did not make things too easy for them. The outstanding players were Gilbert, Hart, Oliver, Mitchell, Sadler, and Hadley. The last-mentioned was not a dramatic player, but in many ways he was the complete forward from the British point of view. Perhaps, as the chief try-scorer, Caughey should be included, while the veteran Here was not far behind Hadley. Lambourne was another sterling front-row man. Manchester was a thorough sportsman as well as captain. Reid and several of the other big fellows each had their days-, and Mahoney, though he looked a bit too hefty for the part, turned out to be a highly useful occupant of the back row on great occasions. Hadley recovered from his injury just in time to help his fellows refind themselves in the scrummage. Slow heeling, however, tended to be a serious weakness.”