FOOTBALL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8743, 18 February 1907, Page 4

FOOTBALL.

The African Team. I Could We Beat Them? I The end of the South African tour, | says the London 1 Times, has been_ the I occasion for one question to be uuiyer- j sally asked. Would the South Africans beat the New Zealanders ? It is not a question which can be answered in a monosyllable; and obviously, the | record of the New Zealanders is quoted in all the replies which the putting of the question produces. The Now Zealanders played 32 matches in the British Isles. Of these they won 31, and, in their solitary defeat by Wales, victory depended upen the decision of the referee given in very difficult circumstances. The New Zealanders scored 830 points, and only 39_ were scored against them. Also, their fix- j ture list was a rather more notable one than that of the South Africans. The South Africans played in all 28 matches. Of those they won 25, they iSst two, and they drew one. Against their opponents they scored 553 points, and those various opponents scored in all 79 points. Statistics, therefore, rather suggest the superiority of the New Zealanders. But statistics in this case are not as safe as a guide as they often are. The correct answer to the question, “ Would the South Africans beat the New Zealanders ? ” is, “ That all depends on how the referee controlling the match interpreted the rules of Rugby Union football.” It was at times difficult enough before the New Zealanders came here to decide exactly when one or more players were off side. The New Zealanders made it increasingly difficult to do so ; and they also raised the rather unforeseen question of obstruction in a lamentably practical way. The practice of the wing forward with its attendant manoeuvres had been already condemned in New Zealand. That it was nevertheless exploited with success in England cannot be doubted. Hard, indeed, is it to say how much the New Zealanders owed to this peculiar institution, or how often the man playing in the position in question ought to have been penalised for obstruction. The New Zealanders were splendid football players, regardless of the particular formation which they chose to adopt. But in one important particular they were never seriously tested, or, rather, they were never seriously tested in it until, stale and tired at the end of their tour, they went into Wales. There they played five matches. They were beaten once, and four times they had to fight hard for a narrow victory. Ihe exact value of their defence it is difficult to gauge. Side after side who played against them concentrated on making the margin of victory of the New Zealanders as small as possible. Neyer was there a real whole hearted attempt made to risk everything in order to attack these players and force them for once to be the defenders. So the New Zealanders were allowed to play their own game, and their game, par excellence, was attack. The Briton learns slowly, but by the time that the South Africans reached England he had mastered his lesson. Before the new Colonials had been a

month in the country-they were called on to ward off strong counter attacks deliberately instituted. It is a matter of history how well they emerged from the ordeal. A match between the South Africans and New Zealanders,

were such, a match possible, would indeed be a groat event. Forward no doubt the advantage would lie with the New Zealanders in any conditions; but behind the scrummage the great resource and variety of the South African players would probably compensate for their slight inferiority in the pack. But vietory or defeat would depend upon the point of view of the referee. If he could see nothing amiss with those New Zealand methods of play with which all persons interested in football are now acquainted, then indeed the South Africans might be beaten. But were it otherwise, as, indeed one imagines it well could be, the South Africans might prove their right to bo considered the best exponents of Rugby Union football who have yet been seen. And few jealous of the honor of a great game would regret their victory. In the one real essential they have still an unbroken record. Their habit of offending but seldom—and then by accident—against the letter of the law is the result of a determination to uphold the spirit of the law at a 1! times, Their code of etthics leaves ; nothing to be desired. They are the most generous of opponents, and even in moments which might fairly be considered moments of temptation there is never a tendency on their part to lower the moral standard of play for which they are so justly famous. The comparision which is proverbially odious cannot always without affection be avoided. It would be idle to pretend that the New Zealanders, great as was the admiration which their extraordinary skill excited, engendered in England the same feeling of respect which the South Africans have engendered. The latest visitors have successfully appealed to the best feelings of the sportsmanlike community. They have done more than that. They have proved without preaching that the greatest possible skill is consistent with the fairest possible play, and it is to be hoped thst the lesson taught will bcfVery pra:tically learned. In certain parts of England and Wales foul and unfair play is not repressed as sternly as it ought to be, and applauding crowds still rate slimness as smartness. Even if official action is not taken to improve matters, it is to be hoped that the example of the South Africans may have already done something to raise the tone of public opinion whore it needed raising. They, leave behind them only feelings ef gratitude and admiration. They have played the game.