ALL BLACKS’ WIN

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 14 November 1924, Page 5

ALL BLACKS’ WIN

CAMBRIDGE DEFEATED.

DESCRIPTION op the game.

hard won victory, . IJP 1 ® Blacks defeated Cambridge, one of the most redoubtable teams in Britain, by the narrow margin of 5 points to nil. The fact that some of\ Britain’s greatest players failed to cross the All Blacks’ line speaks volumes.] BY CABLE— PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT m." ™ ."LONDON, Nov. 12. T , . e All Blacks defeated Cambridge University by 5 points to nil. lii© JSew Zealand team was Full-back.—Nepia. .. Three-quarters .—Hart, Brown, Robilliard. Five-eighths.—Nicholls, McGregor Half.—Mill. “ ' Wing-forward.—Porter, forwards.—lrvine, McCleairy, West, White^ S ° n ’ Brownlie, Cupples and

The attendance was 7000, The game i n a drizzling rain, which had the usual effect in cramping play and preventing certainty in handling the hall. . “ Though the All Blacks had the advantage m weight, the Blues in the early part of the match carried most or the scrums. This was no, great advantage to them, as they indulged in loose, ineffective passing, and were verv dilatory in getting to the ball. Play was chiefly in centre field, but was poor m character. The Blues had a slight advantage in straggling forward rushes. One of these .looked dangerous, but vrn ia ’ a B rea k dash, stopped, it. Mill put in a serviceable run which qame to nothing. The battle, between the forwards was or a most strenuous description, but- the New _ Zealand hacks wer© below their usual form, and were often caught out of position. Of the two the ’Varsity defence at this stage was sounder.' Once more they looked to have a chanoe, when Devitt ran .through all '•kc opposition till Nepia tackled him. White and Cupples then led a forward rush by the Blacks which regained tne lost ground. The team display, however, was unconvincing. McGregor spoiled a possible chanoe of a trv by over-kicking. “ After the interval the home forwards struck their best form, notably that of bcott, Macmyn and Tucker. After fifteen minutes’ hard struggling Young (Cambridge) misdirected a pass, and from the resultant scramble Mill dived over the line. Nicholls easily convert6d.

The All Blacks’ stamina began play was now mostly in the Blues’ territory. Following a Bines’ brilliant, forward rush Nepia hid to force down. Bowe Harding and Walsh, (the sprint champion) put in a spectacular run, but kicked to' the line when approaching Nepia. Porter broke through, but Douty sent the ball back wfch a great lack to;the centre flag. The Blues frequently broke away from the line-outs and splendidly controlled forward rushes. Robilliard was ' wea k on the wing. "• - Mill and Nicholls were the only, consistent backs. Richardson,. Brownlie and White were the beet forwards. The AH Blacks’ cohesion was faulty, notably among the backs. McGregor was slow in passing out, and weak in handling, but the worst feature was the All Blacks’ failure to stop their opponents’ rushes. The game was remarkably close in the most , trying conditions. ‘There was no further score, and the game ended in the AH Blacks winning 5 points to nil. -

Sir-James Allen wans jjresent. The result caused a surprise and some sensations. - The game emphasised the All Blacks’ weakness in adapting themselves to sodden grounds. Their only score was due to Young’s wild pass. The forwards were individually capable, but weak collectively. Cambridge had easily the best of the struggle. HARD GAME, THROUGHOUT. The stern fight which the Cambridge University team gave the All Blacks is featured in most of the newspapers. The Daily Chronicle says that eight hefty young undergraduate forwards stood up to the All Blacks in the manner of an international pack. Reuter’s correspondent, commenting on the match, says Cambridge gave the New Zealanders a hard game from the start. Both sets of backs indulged in frequent passing movements, and the Cambridge line was in jeopardy on several occasions, but the home defence stood the onslaught well. The AH Blacks were up against keen tackling, and were seldom able to run far, but allowance should b e made c,n account of the slippery turf. In the latte/r narfc of the second spell the visitors’ defence was severely tested, 'the Cambridge forwards doing great work, despite the slippery ball.

COMMENTS ON THE RESULT

(By “Spectator.”) It is a truism to say that as a general rule bad weather conditions level down to some extent any team. In rain on a sodden ground no, team, however good on a dry ground, can handle with certainty, and therefore: to a large extent the result is partly the luck of the play and partly a test of physical fitness. One striking example of this will be called to mind in the third test between New Zealand and the Springboks. There, if ever, condition carried our team through /a gruelling contest. It is evident from the report that while in the first spell the young ’Varsity' men, overweighted but undaunted by the prowess of their opponents, which might easily have exercised a strong adverse influence, gave them a struggle which is probably the keenest they have had so. far on the tour. The forwards beat our frontrankers for the ball on most occasions, but apparently it availed them little, for they could do nothing with it. One would naturally expect good combined play from a team such as the ’Varsity, who should have many chances of playing together. Whether the backs would have done much better on a dry ground it is difficult to say, but Young, tlieir international half, was unable tc, make much of the possession of the ball, though he apparently had several good men behind him. According to the report a misdirected pass, so easy with a slippery ball, gave Mill, a noted individualist and always ready to seize such an c.oening, the opportunity and over he went. It was. however, not until well on in the second spell that this happened, and their .supporters must hav-c felt relief, especially when Nieholls converted—a difficult 'matter under such conditions. It was one of the matches, somewhat like the 1905 team result against Swansea, in which the win was very narrow, and it is

natural lo expect one or two of these. Actually, however, it is somewhat disconcerting to realise that the forwards, whom most considered much the stronger section of the team, were mere often than not beaten by a magnificent pack, who. no doubt were actually inspired to play almost above themselves. Ihe report is somewhat inconsistent in saying that “stamina began to tell in the second spell, and play was mostly in Blue territory,” and immediately to talk of “brilliant forward rushes” ; “Blues frequently broke, away, and splendidly controlled rushes’ ; “game, remarkably close.” It looks, reading between the lines, as though oujr team had the game of the tour on a wet ground, and were lucky to win. The forwards beaten time and again, and though they were not quite, the best selection, were net far behind the best available. The backs, apparently, were disorganised as far as attack was concerned, owing to the failure of one of the insides. Tlieir defence was naturally severely tested, through the. strenuous attacking of the opposing pack. But it must have been good and sound to keep out these keen and eager ’Varsity men. It is but natural to expect that “the result caused surprise and some sensation,” though both ’Varsities were expected to give the team a great struggle.

London 'Counties is tipped as being another good test of form and cornlC tion. One can only hope that conditions will be favourable, so that the team which can play the best fast and open game will win. The All Blacks seem to be enteiring a stratum of hard, keen contests.