BOYCE CUP.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 346, 10 July 1930, Page 8

BOYCE CUP.

Matamata 17, Cambridge 0. The Matamata junior representative team retained possession of the Boyce Cup by defeating Cambridge on Saturday by seventeen points to nil. The game was played in drizzling rain which continued almost without cessation throughout the game, and in consequence the ball became leaden and the ground quickly cut up. In the circumstances the home team handled the ball in an outstanding manner, and were full value for the points scored even though one try reulted from a scramble. At no period of the game was Cambridge really dangerous, though on a couple of occasions the home team was hard pressed on its line. FINLAY CUP. Season’s Fixtures. The Finlay Cup draw was conducted by the Waikato Rugby Union on Friday and resulted as follows: July 12.—Cambridge v. Waipa. August 9.—Holders v. Morrinsville. August 16.—Holders v. Matamata.' August 30.—Holders v. Taupiri. WAIKATO RUGBY UNION. Management Committee.

A meeting of the management committee of the Waikato Union was held on Friday night, Mr. W. Fraser presiding. Delegates were present from all the sub-unions, while Messrs. F. Lockyer and Walsh (Thames Valley) and Mr. A. E. Rice (King Country) attended to .discuss arrangements for the visit of the British team. The latter gave rise to considerable discussion, consequent on the abandonment Of the Thames ValleyKing Country match, . which would have given the selectors the opportunity of seeing both teams in action. It was eventually decided that Waikato play a match with KingCountry at. Te Awamutu on July 23 (Wednesday). Failing King Country being able to field a team that day, Mr. V. Meredith (Auckland) is to.be asked to report on King Country play in King Country-Auckland B game. It was decided to play the Combined Unions (Waikato, Thames Valley, King Country) v. Britain game at Rugby Park. The Hamilton sub-union submitted a scheme for the erection of a temporary stand and filling, at an estimated cost of £240. The work will include the removal of the dressing shed some yards further back. The Waikato Union decided to donate £SO towards the cost of the work, and to make application to the New Zealand Rugby Union for assistance in connection with the erection of a stand.

Consequent on a complaint by the Morrinsville sub-union the Taupiri delegate gave an assurance that no players residing in the Morrinsville boundaries would be played in future. School footballs were distributed at the meeting, the Matamata union being granted five and Morrinsville three. PEACE CUP. Matamata Last. The following draw for Peace Cup match dates was made on Tuesday by the Hamilton Rugby Union:— July 12.—v. Rotorua. August 9.—v. Taupiri. August 16.—v. Morrinsville. August 30.—v. Waipa. September 6. —v. Te Aroha. September 13.—v. Cambridge. September 20.—v.- Thames. September 27.—v. Matamata. The holders of the cup are Hamilton, and all matches will be played on the Hamilton ground until the holders are defeated. Unless an arrangement can be come to for an earlier date, or unless some team drops out, it is extremely improbable that Matamata will be a competitor for the cup this season, as it is practically impossible to field a representative team so late in the season as September 27.

THE SECOND TEST. A Narrow Win. Britain’s Bad Luck. Though New Zealand evened the position on Saturday, the honours of the game went to the defeated side. To play with only fourteen men for from ten minutes before the half time, to lose the scrum half and have to replace him with a forward was a tremendous handicap. To break even with tlieir opponents as far as actual scoring was concerned was as great an achievement as New Zealand’s win.

The game must have been a dour (as the wireless announcer called it) hard one. New Zealand apparently kept the game to the forwards in the earlier part and Nicholls must have used the line consistently to the advantage of his forwards. In the second part New Zealand opened out more freely, and it seems that either fortune was unkind to them or there was a lack of finish, but many of their efforts were a “ case of so near and yet so far ” from the coveted score.

I ' The most extraordinary, and from a New Zealand view point welcome, thing of the match was the wonderful display of Corner at halfback. On his game against Waikato Corner did not look like an All Black half, ' and his play of late has been so mediocre as to cause Auckland en- ; thusiasts to be doubtful of the wisi dom of his selection. On Saturday he is heralded as the best back on the ground. Is it that Corner is one | of those players who the greater the I game the better the form; is it that lhe is an in-and-out player, with j his good days and his poor days? Only further matches will show. But on his play on Saturday the selecti ors are justified in saying they have found a great half.

! “ Drop Kick,” writing in the Wellington Evening Post, comments: — i Although the New Zealand team’s performance was considerably in ad--1 vance of that at Dunedin it was evident that there was room still for more improvement. The inclusion of Corner and Nicholls in the backs ' made the rearguard distinctly better, ] and, whereas the enterprise at Dun--1 edin was almost solely on Great | Britain’s side, the New Zealand division showed initiative in good measure on Saturday. The really disappointing feature from New Zealand’s standpoint was the inability of j the forwards to perform in the man- ' lier that has been usual with those ' stalwarts when put to the test. They were not suited by the sticky j ground, and are bound to go better l on turf that is firm. But in the Brit--1 ish pack they met a force of the calibre which had been expected 1 when the British team was made known before setting out on its tour. ' It has taken the British forwards a long time to settle down to play in j line with international performances lat Home, but they found their feet ! properly on Saturday, and were a ' very tough order all the way. There was early evidence of a j very appreciable improvement in the New Zealand rearguard, and of a , more systematic policy having been i worked out with a view to minimis- : ing the danger from the opposing j division of fleety and sure handling | backs. While the New Zealand backs | made plenty of play, however, there was a further improvement by the British forwards to an extent not altogether bargained for, and in this New Zealand encountered a big obstacle. By judicious kicking the backs nursed the forwards, and they were able then to use their strength when it was most needed. Even so, the British pack carried off the honours of play amongst the forwards, except that New Zealand held a distinct advantage on the line out. In the scrummages New Zealand did not get quite so much of the ball as the visitors, but enough to give the backs ample opportunities of operating to a far greater extent than at Dun-

edin. The players who were probably most worthy of meritorious distinction for their performance on Saturday were Nicholls, Corner, Nepia and Porter on New Zealand’s side, and Beamish, Rew, Jones and Aarvold among Great Britain’s men. In the vastly-improved operations by the New Zealand backs Comer played his part of the contract very ably. For a first appearance in Test football the Auckland halfback did remarkably well; in fact, he was one of the best backs on the ground. He showed any amount of initiative, sent his passes out well, and kicked with accuracy when necessary. His defence, too, was particularly sound. There was no more able back, however, than Nicholls, who proved J that he is still a genius. His influence was always apparent, and his

ability revealed in many ways. For the part he played it would not be too much to say that it was Nicholls’ match. The try which Oliver scored was a splendid illustration of Nicholls’ strategy. New Zealand’s were swinging into action ard the right flank when Nicholls suddenly changed direction left, caught the whole of the British team off its balance and let Oliver across for a great try. Spong was not the same shining light as in ether games. This was due to the excellent manner in which Porter guarded him. In this respect Porter gave great service to his side as the limitation of Spong’s activities reduced the effectiveness of the British rearguard, in which defensive play was of a higher order than that of attack.