FOOTBALL.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 244, 5 July 1928, Page 1

FOOTBALL.

AUCKLAND DEFEATS WAIKATO. By 23 Points to 12. Waikato enthusiasts received a rather pleasant surprise on Saturday. Nobody was optimistic about the chances of Waikato defeating Auckland. Most followers of the game regarded the match as a certainty for the city side. The one thing that was in doubt was the number of points. A difference of 25 was rather a conservative estimate and there were many who thought that the score at Hamilton would be surpassed. But everyone received a surprise. Waikato were beaten but they were not run over. The mischief was done in the first half. The Waikato team was a collection of units ; the forwards were playing as individuals and the centre backs were not tackling their men as they should have done. With a 14-points’ lead by Auckland at half-time it seemed almost a certainty that Waikato were in for a big thrashing. But in the second half there came a change over the game. Waikato began to play together. The forwards put up a great fight, more than holding their own. The backs settled down and did what they ought to have done in the first half. And Waikato scored 12 points to Auckland’s 9. There was consolation in that.

The game was far from a brilliant one. The ground was heavy but not to the degree that impaired the back division. Territorially Waikato had an even break with the Aucklanders. What told was the speed, cleverness and the up-ball game of the Auckland team. They scored because they managed to have the extra man at the end of the chain or because they drew the defence to the flank to inpass to the centre.

The teams were: — Auckland (blue and "white). —Fullback, Butler ; three-quarters, Falwasser, L. Hook, Minns ; five-eighths, Badeley, Paewai ; half-back, Jeffries ; wing forward, Fletcher ; front row, Palmer, Finlay son ; lock, Wanoa ; side row, Batty, Cathcart ; back row, Knight, Anderson. Waikato (yellow, red and black). — Full-back, S. Thomas ; three-quarters, Anderson, J. Vosper, P. Quin ; fiveeighths, R. Kemp, J. R. Fitzgerald ; half-back, J. Tuck ; wing forward, L. ■ Kay ; front row, F. Thomas, Bourke ; lock, P. Courtr.ey ; . side row, C. Christie, C. Cameron ; back row, E. Holmes, J. Bonham.

It was not long, before Auckland opened the score. A back movement sent Falwasser away, and, drawing Quin and S. Thomas, he in-passed to Badeley and the latter went over. Butler failed to improve. Auckland 3 Waikato , 0 Auckland kept making the game open. Once C. Cameron intercepted and made a grand opening but his pass was dropped. A great tackle by S. Thomas saved a score by Minns. Anderson, trying the rover game on the blind side, dribbled from his own 25 right through all the Auckland backs for the ball to go out at the Auckland 25. It was a very pretty piece of dribbling but no one supported him. The Auckland backs were tricking the Waikato insides and from a movement the ball went out to Minns, who was downed by the Waikato full-back, but not before he had sent a pass infield to Anderson to score from. Butler converted. Auckland ■, 3 Waikato 0 Waikato had a number of chances to score from penalties but neither Quin nor Thomas could put the ball over the bar. Vosper cleverly beat Hook with a cut-in but he was cut off from his pass to Quin. Auckland forwards took a hand and with a very fine rush swamped the Waikato defence, Finlayson scoring. , Auckland H Waikato 0

Kemp miskicked, and Anderson (Waikato), taking the hall, put in a strong run hut was unsupported. The

Waikato backs, Thomas and Quin in particular, were making the mistake at this stage of kicking too much to the open instead of keeping to the touch-line, a game which suited the Auckland backs. The last score was a penalty goal kicked by Butler, leaving the score at half-time:— Auckland 14 Waikato 0 The second half opened with Waikato attacking. Vosper, dropping his paes, Paewai came through and the Auckland backs set up a great attack. Kicking by Fitzgerald allowed Waikato to gain ground. Waikato were heeling cleanly at this stage, and Tuck, working the blind side, sent Quin away, who when blocked threw infield -and C. Cameron gathered to cross the line.. Quin failed with the kick. Waikato 3 Auckland 14

Waikato became persistent, but the backs, who were getting more of the ball, lacked penetration and their handling was often faulty. From a movement Auckland counter-attacked. Minns dropped his pass and Anderson snapped it up and went very fast down the line to in-pass on reaching Butler to Courtney, who scored —a ;ood movement. Quin again failed with the kick. Waikato 6 Auckland 14

Waikato continued to h-ve the better of the game but their attacks lacked polish. The forwards were putting up a hard fight and the Auckland pack were having a strenuous time, A free kick at the 25 was taken advantage of by Quin and another three points we.-e added to Waikato’s score. Waikato .... 9 Auckland 14

The forwards took up a strong dribbling rush, Holmes doing some fine footwork, but Auckland met attack with attack. The backs broke through and Hook made a good opening and let Minns away, the three-quarter just evading Thomas’ tackle to score at the corner. No goal resulted.

Auckland 17 Waikato 9 In the last quarter Auckland were soon attacking and a great bout of passing among backs and forwards terminated in Minns throwing infield, where Jeffries took the ball and scored between the posts. Butler’s kick missed. Auckland 20 Waikato 9

Waikato rallied, and the forwards began to take a bit of control of the game, preventing the Auckland backs having a roSrtgage on the ball. Anderson, getting possession from an Auckland rush, ran to the centre, and then, kicking back to the line, followed fast, forcing Butler into touch in his own 25. Waikato gave Auckland a taste of in-and-out passing on the far side of the field and a very pretty movement gained ground. From the thick the ball came out to Anderson, who ran down the line. When blocked he threw in and Fitzgerald made an opening to pass out to Vosper. The centre had a clear run for the line. Just near the comer Paewai overhauled and pushed him as he dived. Vosper struck the corner flag, but the referee ruled a try, holding that Vosper had touched down prior to striking the flag. No goal resulted.

Waikato 12 Auckland 20 Play livened up and there were flashes of good play. Paewai intercepted and beat S. Thomas. Quin caught him and the ball went across to Falwasser, who had apparently a clear run in. S. Thomas suddenly appeared and dropped the wing three-quarter, who had sent on to Hook. Anderson came fast from the other wing and got Hook. It was a great save. Waikato rallied and Auckland had to defend. Converting defence to attack, Auckland forwards and backs combined in a great attacking movement. Finally Paewai made an opening to let Falwasser away, who scored. No goal resulted.

Auckland 23 W aikato 12 Waikato made a great effort to score again but the defence held and the no-side whistle went with no change in the scores. Mr. E. C. Stretton was referee. Notes.

Once more it has been demonstrated that there is good material in the Waikato. What is needed is the coaching and training. What gave Auckland the game on Saturday was their ability to take advantage of chances. Certainly Auckland did not show up as well as they did at Hamilton, but the Waikato forwards were a harder proposition to encounter after they got rid of their stage fright and settled down to their game. The match was in two parts. In the first half Waikato were a collection of units. But in the second half the team pulled itself together. The forwards became much more aggressive, the tackling was sounder and the Auckland backs began to find out that they were unable to fool their opponents as they had done in the earlier stages of the game, and when drawing the defence they very coolly swung the attack. The backs were getting more chances because the ball came out oftener from the pack. And generally there was a very great dif-

ference in the play. The Waikato forwards were the mainstay of the attack. They stuck to their task well. They were not so clever as their opponents in the upbail game, but they fully held their own with it on the ground and were Auckland's masters in the thick work. Bonham was a great hooker, but it was doubtful if Holmes is the mate he needs. Holmes is a good forward but whether he is the proper companion for Bonham is questionable. The forwards all played well. Courtney and Holmes were especially good in the thick work. C. Cameron was about the best on the loose, but, on the other hand, he has not yet dropped into the thick work and has to learn to dribble. Still the promise he gave in sub-union matches was continued in the big game.

The most unfortunate man on the ground was Kay, the Waikato rover. He was thoroughly out of his place. A good pack forward, he was lost most of the game under the conditions it was played. It was not his fault that he was played where he was; it was his misfortune. Playing under the Auckland rules with the imaginary line through the centre of the scrum, Kay got penalised from the start and then he hardly knew what to do. He was a wing forward without a job, whereas what was needed against Auckland was a fast rover, who could become an extra back. And it was this unfortunate selection that had such a bearing on the game. Practically Auckland played eight backs to Waikato’s seven, and that was the key note of the trouble in the first ha: f. Tne Auckland rover worked in with the backs and more than once was observed to go to half-back, Jeffries going out as an extra five-eighths. To Kay the ball must have been like the “ elusive Pimpernel,” everywhere but where he was. In the second half he became mostly a forward and was l often seen putting his weight into the loose scrums. He strove his best, but the fact remains that he was not suited for the task confronting him. The backs were better than they were in Hamilton, but the absence of combination showed up. In the first half the insides got badly rattled because they found that there was always an extra back in opposition. But this did not excuse some of the weak tackling, or the way the Auckland centre slid by his opponents. In the third quarter the backs had a number of openings, but their passing was too much across field, and in some instarices the handling was not good. Whether this was the fault of the recipient or the giver of the pass was not patent.

Tuck played a sterling game at half, and with Anderson shared the honours as the best backs on the Waikato side. The five-eighths were not impressive. Kemp was sound in defence, but Fitzgerald was very patchy. More has to be seen of Vosper. He was very much at sea in the .first half, and not to be wondered at. For l a young player to have two such experienced backs as Paewai and Hook

supporting coming at him time and time again, or having the reverse pass put in action was a hard task to stop. The trouble was ahead of Vosper, in that the five-eighths allowed the Auckland insides too much room, which was supplemented by the absence of a rover. In the second half he showed better form. He passes well, gets off the mark quickly and can cut in. His weakness was his defence. His tackling was not vigorous and he does not support his other backs in defence as he should do. He is a young player, Saturday was his first big game, and he is distinctly promising. More will have to be seen of him to say whether his position is centra or second five-eighths. Anderson showed very much improved form over his Hamilton game and was much more aggressive. He was the pick of the threequarter line. Quin was as safe as ever, but lacked the dash on attack. S. Thomas was sound in tackling and his rush stopping was very good. His kicking was not so good as his Hamilton game, bi t his general play was far ahead of that of Butler.

Matamata 15, Putaruru 6. The above game, played at Putaruru, was of a scrappy nature, and wholly disappointing as a sample of good Rugby. Matamata owed their victory largely to their experience and the speed of their backs. The home team was short of six original selections, while Matamata lacked Vosper. The teams lined out as follows: Putaruru (red). Fullback, R. Dunlop; threequarters, F. Brown, Ballot and Penny; five-eighths, Morton and Waretine; half, Nuku; rover, Belcher; forwards, Dunlop, M. Brown, T. Brown, Hodge, McClelland, G. Brown, Schofield. Matamata (black). Fullback, Stewart; threequarters, Story, Brown and Kneebone; five-eighths, Egan and C. Fausett; half, L. Fausett; rover, Woods; forwards, Abraham, Thrupp, Ayres, Hayes, Fiutey, Ensor, Devey. Referee: Mr. A. Ecklund. Matamata had first use of the wind and worked the kick-off low game well. After a short attack the reds worked back but were penalised, and the kick at goal failed. Bullot missed an opening through failing to take a high pass and Fiutey and Story attacked. R. Dunlop cleared with a mg punt, but the reds were again penalise<}, but the ball failed to rise.

The reds now had a turn, the forwards playing well in the loose, but Stewart drove them back. Hodge and Belcher returned and led a 40 yard rush, but Egan saved when matters looked dangerous. Brown and Story worked back and from a penalty Stewart goaled. Quarter time: Matamata 3, Putaruru 0. With the wind the • reds attacked hotly. Following a couple of frees to the reds, Morton made a nice opening, but his pass went astray. From a further free Belcher made the scores equal. The blacks worked to the Putaruru end and from a scrum Fausett served Egan, who cut through and served Ensor, who had followed from the ruck. The latter beat several tacklers easily and got over. The kick failed. Matamata 6, Putaruru 3. Waretine ran across and then fooled the opposition with a dummy and let Brown away. The latter was too confined,’ however, and was pushed to the touch line after a 20 yards run. Waretine again dummied through but his pass went astray. From a free Belcher missed an easy kick, and later Ensor and Devey being penalised Bullot goaled. The score at half-time was: Matamata G. Putaruru 6.

The black forwards attacked from the restart, but Waretine intercepted and gained ground. A foolish crosskick by a red forward let Egan away, and Brown securing served Story, who got across. L. Fausett failed to convert. Matamata 9, Putaruru 6.

From a free Stewart missed a shot at goal and kick and rush tactics developed for some time. From another free the blacks attacked and Egan, Brown and Story handling the latter fended off Penny in great style and outpaced thp opposition to score a good try. Stewart failed with the kick. Matamata 12, Putaruru G. Devey was penalised, but Egan returned well and the black forwards worked to the home 25. Here Egan

missed an easy shot. Penny raised the hopes of the home supporters by dashing down the left wing, but was bundled amongst the spectators at the flag. The ball shot across following a free to Matamata, and Bullot securing under the posts tried a drop with three men on his right facing Kneebone. Story put in a great solo run and from some quick passing Brown got across. Matamata 15, Putaruru 6. Bullot was penalised for lying on the ball under his own posts, following a forward rush by Matamata, but Stewart failed. The game ended shortly afterwards with the scores : Matamata, 1 penalty goal, 4 tries, 15 points ; Putaruru, 2 penalty goals, 6 points. Comments. The better side wen on the day’s play. Only in loose dribbling rushes did the home team beat their opponents, and after half-time they played as a beaten team.* Once Penny roused hopes with a dash down the wing, and just following this bit of play the reds had another chance when Bullot dropped at goal and missed—with an opening made, two men on his right and only Kneebone to beat.

Despite these two flashes, however, the reds looked the inferior side, and it was only the bright play of M. and G. Brown, Belcher, McClelland and Dunlop in the loose that redeemed the side in the later stages. It was disappointing that six changes had to be made in the home team, and with Bullot full-back and McDonald at centre a much better showing might have been made in view of the team’s work in the first two spells. The Matamata pack was superior in the line-outs and in passing rushes, but was not so good in the loose, though it supported its backs letter. Its packing and hooking could also be improved. At five-eighths there was also a weakness. Egan was inclined to run away fro: - his supports, and his “ Jimmy Mill ” cuts-in need careful planning beforehand with the forwards. One such movement came off, Ensor coming from the scrum well to take Egan’s in-pass, and, assisted by weak tackling, the movement ended in a score. Egan’s touch-finding in defence was very fine.

Story was easily the best of the backs—indeed on the field—and on Saturday’s form he must be considered for Waikato. Stewart-at fullback was safe but was perhaps inclined to try too much three-quarter work.

The Matamata team as a whole appear much more solid than Waipa and give the impression that they would be a fine side if they were given shed work. On Saturday their tactics were had, the forwards being overworked and Story starved. The home team were not anything like as impressive as against Waipa. F. Brown, with a good centre to run him into position, might shine, but at present he has no love ‘for tight work. Penny, but for one bad break when he went high to Story, did all that was required, if he was not outstanding, while Bullot and Morton did the donkey work in great style. The hotter the mixture the better they liked it. The latter ju«t spoils great play by banging -on too long. Wharctinc was always dangerous on attack, but Nuku is not «"ited at half-back. He might do better as first five-eighths as feeder to Wharetine.

Dunlop at full-back is a trier every time, and kicks hard on ooc : on. but does not inspire confidence The pack as a whole played well, es'u chilly in the loose, being much faster lhan the visitors. Tnute Brown, as kick, has not touched last year’s form yet, however. The tackling of the t- m as a whole was weak, though M -on and Bullot did all that was nst- m this direction.

COMPETITION TABLE. The positions of teams in the Putaruru Rugby competition are as follow:

*Arapuni won from Tokoroa by “default. SATURDAY’S RESULTS. Inter-pro vineial. Auckland 23, Waikato 12. Sub-union^ Matamata 15, fPutaruSu 6*. , > Hamilton It Cambridge 3. Ayde *Cup. Matamata St Morrinsville Results. Seniors. Terriers 40, Tatuanui 6. Kereone 14, United 3. Third Grade. 1 High School 11, Kereone 0. WAIKATO RUGBY UNION. Committee Meeting. A meeting of the management committee of the Waikato Rugby Union was held in Hamilton on Friday evening. There were present:— Messrs. T. B. Booth (chairman), W. Cliffe, W. Udy (Hamilton), C. McIntyre (Morrinsville), B. Chapman (Putaruru), A. Yardley (Matamata), T. Cooper (Referees’ Association), C. Speight (treasurer), T. W. Thompson (secretary) and T. Clarkin Jlife member). Waikato v. Taranaki. Arrangements were finalised for the visit to Stratford to play the Taranaki union, on Thursday, July 12. It was decided that the Waikato team leave Hamilton by motor on the .Wednesday and return on Friday. Match With Bush. * Tbg Bush union wrote that owing to being unable to get enough players away it wag reluctantly compeliSil to abandon its northern tour, and \ .-therefore would be unable to meet .jjWaikafQ this season, h The King Country enquired for a thatch oh July 14. ■" It was decided to accede to the request of the King Country union, and ±o work the match on the return from . Stratford. Mr. P. Quin was appointed manager, j • . . ' r ” Finlay Cup. A motion was proposed by Mr. Cooper, and seconded by Mr. Yardley, that the holders of the Finlay Cup at the beginning of the season be ineligible for a challenge that same season. An amendment was proposed by Mr. Mclntyre, seconded by Mr. Chapman, that the matter he deferred until next meeting. There was a general discussion on the question, and it was’ thought that the rules were vague on the matter under review. Rule 10, however, gave the management committee of the Waikato union power to settle any matter not provided for. The amendment was defeated and the motion carried.

Raglan Request. The Raglan sub-union wrote asking for _a match for the winners of its senior club competition. If the team had to travel the request was made that expenses should he allowed. The letter also stated that in the event of Rag-, lan representatives competing in a Finlay Cup match the sub-union would require half the gate.—Consideration of the matter was deferred until next meeting. North v. South Match. The New Zealand Rugby Union advised that a match between the representatives of the unions classed B of the North and South Islahd would be played at Palmerston North on August 4, and invited nomination of players. It was decided that the matter of nominations be left in the hands of •the selector. Patetere Protest. The Patetere protest in connection iwith. the match against Walton, in •which it was alleged that a player scored after the ball had gone out of Clay, was considered, and'it was de’Clded to recommend to the Matamata

sub-union that the match be replayed. Matamata Sub-union. In dealing with the correspondence regarding the Moore appeal, it was explained that the Matamata subunion had reopened the case, but had not notified the Waikato union of its decision. It was pointed out that all suspensions of players should be notified. It was decided to write to the subunion pointing out that it should have advised Waikato of its decision. Sub-union Matches. Permission was granted for subunion matches, Hamilton v. Cambridge, Putaruru v. Matamata, and Matamata v. Waipa. “BLACK SATURDAY.” * New Zealand’s Defeat. A m Sunday was a sad day for New Zealand. There were possibly many who thought that the South Africans I would win, there were probably more who were doubtful as to the result, but -no one dreamt of 17 points to nil. Such is the game. And it has to be admitted that on their own style of game the Springboks are the masters of the All Blacks. But played under New Zealand rules it is quite • possible that the score might bavq been reversed.

It is useless to say that the All Blacks is not a good team. It is. Possibly with the exception of a few men in the backs it is doubtful if it can be improved on from the view point of the game here. But then that is not South African conditions. And there is the rub. The crux of the whole matter is that the variation of rules has altered the New Zealand game, and we have developed a type of player peculiar to the fast open game played here. The African tactics are not hard to follow. The forwards kept the game tight until into the New Zealand 25. The backs found the touch. And this may be expected as a certainty that the South African backs are infinitely better kicks than our backs are or will be on the trip. Length kicking has become almost a lost art in this country. It leads to the point that uniform rules are needed. We have amended our rules. We believe they make for a brighter game. It may be so. But the other fellow has a different opinion, and we are placed in the position of having to take him on at his own game. And we paid the penalty on Saturday for our innovation. Apart from this it would be interesting to see the teams which played on Saturday meet under the New Zealand rules.

The two potted goals of Osier are likely to lead to a revival of dropkicking in New Zealand. And as it has been forgotten so possibly in the future will there be such a revival as to become an abuse. There are certain reasons why drop kicking in South Africa is a much more reliable process than in New Zealand. The grounds there are mostly dry and hard and the bajl is dry. In New Zealand with wet grounds and a heavy, greasy, slippery ball drop kicking is a very different thing. But there is room for improvement in this section, and if Saturday’s defeat does nothing else than attract attention to it, then some good has come out of evil.

Whether any great importance Is to be attached to the South African’s papers wails about the style of game is very doubtful. South Africa played to win. And they won. The average South African is just as proud of the football prowess of his land as the New Zealander. The essential point was the victory. And to the South African the brilliance of the game would have been nothing if his side had lost.

The game itself only emphasises the time-old axiom of Rugby that possession of the ball is everything. The South Africans Beal! the New Zealanders for the ball in most of the scrums. And therefore they were able to control the play.

P. W. D. L. Pts. Putaruru ... 5 3 2 0 S Arapuni* ... ... 5 3 2 0 8 Pacific ... 5 1 2 2 4 Tokoroa* . ... 5 0 0 5 0