THE ALL BLACKS

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1924, Page 3

THE ALL BLACKS

AGAINST CAAIBRIDGE. THE G A.M E DESCRIBED. AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CARLE ASSOCIATION. SECOND SPELL. LONDON, November 12. Aler I lie interval the home forwards struck (heir best form, imlably Scull, AlaeAlayu and Tiickei. Alter fifteen minutes of hard struggle. Young (Gainbridge) misdirected a pass and from resultant scramble .Mill dived over the line, Nicholls easily converting. All Blacks ‘ ; 5 Cambridge 0 The All Blacks' stamina began to toll and play was now mostly in the Blues territory. Following a Blues brilliant forward rush Xcpia had to force down. Rowe I larding (the Welsh sprint champion) put in a spectacular run hut kicked to the lino

when approaching Xepin. Porter broke through, hut Doiil.v sent the Imll back with a great kick to the centre flag. The Blues frequently broke away from the line-outs end splendidly controlled their forward rushes. Knb'dlinrd was weak on the wing. Mill and Xecholls "ere the only consistent hacks while Richard son and Brownlee and White were the host oT the forwards. The All Blacks' cohesion was faulty, notably among the backs. McGregor

was slow in passing out and weak in handling, but the worst feature was the sides 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: All Blacks Cambridge R

Sir Jiiuies Allen, the High Commissioner) was present. The result caused surprise and some sensation. The game emphasised the All Blacks’ weakness in adapting themselves to sodden grounds. I heir only score was due to Young’s wild pass. The All Black forwards were individually capable, but "ere weak collectively. Cambridge bad easily the best ol the serums. PR AISE FOR LOSERS. LONDON, November 12. The stern li,. r iht which Cambridge University gave the All Blacks i.s featured in most of the newspaeprs. Ihe ‘‘Daily Chronicle” says: ‘Eight hefty young under-graduate forwards stood up to the All Blacks in the manner of an international pack.” LONDON. November 12.

Reuter’s correspondent, commenting on the inatc-li. says: “Cambridge University gave the New Zealanders n hard game from the start, both sets of backs indulging in frequent passing movements, and the Cambridge line was in jeopardy oh several occasions. but the home defence withstood the onslaught well. The All r,lacks were up against keen tackling, and they seldom were able to run far. but an allowance should he made on account of the slippery turf. In the latter part of the second spoil, the visitors defence was severely tested, the Cambridge forwards doing great work, despite the slippery ball.