THE SPRINGBOKS’ TOUR.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 698, 10 January 1922, Page 5

THE SPRINGBOKS’ TOUR.

REVIEWED BY T. B. PIENAAR.

HIS OPPOSITION OF N.Z. STYLE AND TACTICS.

Pietermaritzburg,' Nov. 1. Mr T. £>. Pienaar, the captain of the South African Rugby team that recently toured New Zealand, has contributed to the Natal Advertiser a comprehensive survey of the itinerary, with criticisms of the play and players.

The Springbok captain commences :—“Much could be written about the New Zeaanders as a people and about their beautiful country, as these appeared, to the critical eyes of their Dominion cousins. Suffice it to say tha/t we were much impressed by . the latent possibilities of fhat outpost.of civilisation in the far Southern Seas, and are firmly convinced that she is destined to play in the near future as important a part in the great sphere of world politics as she has on the football arena.”

After dealing with the spirit of pessimism that prevailed on the team’s departure from Cape Town to face the world-famed All-Blacks, Mr Pienaar goes on to say:—

“The members of tbe side did not say much about tbe matter, but they felt it all the more keenly. Had it not been for their splendid loyalty, unselfishness, co-operation, and a spirit of do or die, a different, and perhaps dismal,, tale might have been tol’d about the 1921 tour. Still, it was gruelling hard work to fight an uphill fight all the time, and to keep smiling while trying to convince a sceptical public that our ability had been under-estimated. To that spirit of determination, in all the men, alone is due our great measure of success for Dame Fortune frowned more often than she smiled upon us.

THE STRAIN OF THE .STRUGGLE.

“Again, judging from some South African newspapers received during the torn*, there was a disposition at heme to distract the men at the helm. The committee was criticised, from a distance of eight thousand miles, for its selection of team,s was gibed at for cabling for reinforcements and was severely hauled over the coals For daring to suggest to the Board the names of the recruits required. The utter futility of such criticism needs no answer. Thee best reply would be that contained in the well-known American yarn: ‘Don’t shoot the man at the piano; he Is doing his best.’ In the match In Sydney against a New South Wales team—much under-rated, be it sajd, both in South Africa and New Zealand—no fewer than seven men were more or less seriously injured, necessitating an enforced rest from football in their cases of a period ranging from three to six weeks, and, in one instance, that of Basil Siedle, for the whole tour. When, on the top of this, de Koch was badly injured in the first match in New Zealand, our cup of ill-luck was full to the brim. Had we been able to obtain those two recruits from home, our own anxiety would »have been much lessened. As it was, we had to carry on with fourteen forwards and thirteen backs. And those forwards on whom fell the brunt of the struggle can bear eloquent testimony to the arduous nature of football in New Zealand.”

“But, in spite of all adverse circumstances, we were successful beyond our most sanguine expectations. True, we may not have done much that was sensational, but—let me stress the point—there Is neither time nor place for the sensational in New Zealand football. But the New Zealanders paid us tribute after tribute for the hard and determined nature of our football, and for the greatness of our defence. We wei'e called the greatest defensh'e team that had ever visited the Dominion, and we thoroughly deserved the appellation. Only thirteen tries were scored against us in the nineteen matches we played In New Zealand, a record that may well stand for all time. The captious critics may remark, ‘But we sent you out there to attack, not to defend.’’ To which I shall reply, ‘Go out there yourselves and fight a New Zealand team on its own soil, a team that is filled with the consciousness of its own prowess and flushed with great achievements of the past,” and if they do not eat humble pie on their return, well I shall! reasons of success.

“The most natural question that will now be usked is: To what do you attribute your success ?’_ Frankly, it is one that is most difficult to answer. First and foiemost, I should place the wonderful team v-nrk of the men—not necessarily on omh of play but-In their association with one another. If e\ei

there was a happy family, tliis team ws one, despite some rumours to the contrary in New Zealand during our stay there. “Another contributory factor was the superiority of our style of play. I say this after having given the matter due deliberation and careful thought, although well do I know that I may bring down a storm of criticism on my devoted head. Last, but not least, was the success made of his job by our manager, Mr H. C. Bennet.”

After dwelling on the from displayed individually by the Springboks, Mr Pienaar goes on to say: “At full-back we were very well served. Our three-quarters as far,as attack was concerned, were probably the weakest factor in the team, buf then we were unfortunate in regard to the wings. Our centres were very fast, but were afraid to take undue risks, with the result that their play was somewhat too orthodox. On the defence, however, our threes were especially good. At scrum half we were excellently served. On the forwards, as we expected, fell the brunt of the work, and they emerged from the ordeal with flying colours', in fact, they dominated nearly all the games in New Zealand, At the outset the New Zealand critics were none too enthusiastic about our forwards, as they maintained that we kept the ball too close, that we would never be able to last the pace, that our scrum formation was too clumsy and old-fashioned, but before the end of the tour they sang a different tune..

“In the line-out we did very well, while our general loose work was of a very high order. I am aware that I may have aroused a suspicion in the mind of the South African public that the attack was to some extent sacrificed to defence. Let me disabuse hem of that idea. There were too many old experienced footballers in the side ever to forget the old axiom. “Attack is ever the best defence.” But remember we had been called the worst defensive side that, had ever left our country. Every caandid person will admit that he was over "■wed by the tales of the prowess of the All Blacks, and the members of our team shared in that feeling. They felt that New Zealanders; were the best in the world, and that they were up against the stiffest proposition of their lives, and therefore it behoved them to be doubly careful to avoid any shattering blow that might destroy the moral of the side.

“By the time we had played the Wellington match, the unofficial test, n game, by the way, that no critic in New Zealand had tipped us to win, we had worked out a clear-cut scheme of defence that was wellnigh perfect. For obvious reasons, I cannot here divulge it, but I can assure the critics that it was almost impenetrable. Teddy Roberts, the Wellington captain, and football idol of New Zealand, said to me after the game : ‘What puzzles me is how we never get through ; whenever we went for an opening one of your men woulcl be there.’ That game w on—to the amazement of all New Zealand —our minds were at rest. We had set ourselves to solve a very difficult problem, and had succeeded to uor complete satisfaction. We had proved that the best provincial team in New Zealand could not only be held, but decisively beaten, arid henceforward we were at liberty to develop our attack in whatever way we desired. FAST WINGS. “South Africa has always prided itself on its fast straight running wings. Let it keep on pinning its faith to them. Orthodox it may be, but, to perpetrate an Irishman, the New Zealanders are just as orthodox in their heterodoxy. It is stereotyped always to cut in and never let the ball out to the wing ? Our scrum is too old-fashioned—hence our forward methods too orthodox, again in their opinion. That may be, but cur scrum formation is infinitely more mobile than theirs ; if one formation fails in a. game, we may adopt three or four others. If their’s fail, as fail it did on many an occasion, what have they to fiall back upon ? Nothing. Again, the wing forward, with seven forwards in the scrum, is, according to them, the only possible enlightened way of playing. Is it. Why, then, did we, after benefiting by past exeprience, simply ignore the wing forward, and depend on our solid straight-shoving eight to beat them, as we did ? No, the fault with the New Zealand footballers is that they have hitherto always been top dog, and their methods have, therefore, triumphed. But it is a well-known football axiom that aa side plays only as well as its opponents allow it to play: consequently when their forwards met their match, their scrum formation was shown up in its true light. After opining that if the wing forward is allowed to rbam the field unfettered and untrammelled —a mat-

ter for the referees—the knell of Rugby football is sounded, Mr Pienaar goes on to say: “Those All Black tactics and styles of play that sounded so formidable to ,our uninitiated ears were not nearly as terrifying when viewed at close quarters. Good, hard players, they certainly are, • but not such world-beaters as they were boomed to be. Admittedly their standard of play was not so high as of yore—the Great War had seen to that —but we were equally affected by it. Their back play has languished owing to the over-exploi-tation of the forward, and the wingforward. All their backs seem to do is to cut in or to kick high and charge down. The All Blacks are splendid opportunists, and the side making the slightest error is in danger. Their forwards follow up very fast, and depend on thee opposition to make a slip. But as for a general attack, that seems to be sadly lacking. Boot, boot, hoot on to the oppsing backs, rattle them* and slip through. The wing forward is a past master at this. But it does all seem so haphazard, so devoid of generalship, sol acking in those beautifully executed movements to which we are accustomed. Effective it is, but spectacular —Well! 'ldo not decry our late opponents, they are formidable, but I veiw with quiet confidence the result of our meeting them on African soil, provided that our Board sets its house m order in good time, and see to it that it will not be caught napping.” AMENDED RULES. “As for the amended lules, which we saw at Auckland, they, to use a colloquialism, left us ‘stone cold. The game to us seemed to degenerate into a scramble, interspersed with aimless kicks up and down the field, that led to nothing and nowhere. Rugby rules are good enough os they stand at present, bar some slight modifications, provided they are carefully administered. Let New Zealand eliminate the wing forward and it would soon regain that spectacular Rugby* the loss of which they ard bewailing So much to-day.” Mr Pienaar concludes by saying that South Africa must take a leaf out of New Zealandfs book in regard to encouraging the young player.