A Critic in the Crowd

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 153, 19 September 1927, Page 10

A Critic in the Crowd

His Impressions to a Friend

Dear Tom, — Auckland has been carrying all before it in Rugby this year, so I thought you might like to have a few impressions of the match against Wellington to-day. It was a good game, too onesided perhaps in the second spell to be really interesting, and marred by atrocious weather. Although we arrived at 2.35, the stand was packed, with exception of the front seats. It looked a cheerless prospect for us, with the rain beating in and the seats dripping wet.

A SUN newsboy proved our salvation. We bought up as much of his stock as could be purchased with our limited supply of coppers, and started to make ourselves comfortable. It’s really wonderful how a newspaper will keep out the wet, and we kept dry right through the game. One venerable old bird (judging by his wealth of face fungus, he was Auckland’s dinkum

“oldest inhabitant”) informed us in funereal tones that it was “the worst winter for nigh on fifty years.” Nobody contradicted him. Now for the game. Although Auckland won by 21 points to 3. the score was 3-all at half-time; Auckland made the mistake in the first half of trying to play a back game under well-nig. impossible conditions. A curtainraiser had made a frightful mess of the ground, and a pushball interltide made things worse. WOULDN’T GO DOWN

Up here, they are very fond of the fast, open game, and they are prepared to sacrifice the last shred of defence if only they can throw the ball about. Well, it didn’t pay against Wellington in the first spell. Time and again, the passing was broken up by Lance Johnson and Mark Nicholls, and then Auckland’s besetting weakness was glaringly revealed. The backs, with the exception of Sheen, simply wouldn’t go down on the ball. McManus. the half, was a bad offender in this respect, and so were Berridge and Lucas. These players are brilliant on a dry day, but the wet finds them out. Ces. Badeley, our best wet weather back, would have been a big help to Auckland to-day, but for some reason or other he was left out of the team. In the second spell, Auckland altered its tactics, and played to its forwards. For the first quarter of an hour, the Auckland pack lost half a dozen chances through booting too hard, and Wanoa, a short, girthy Maori, weighing 15 stone odd, Batty, whom you know, and Cathcart, a strapping young farmer from down the Waikato somewhere, all might have scored, if they had kept the ball at their feet. Gradually, the forwards “took a tumble,” and used their feet better. Then the scores started to pour in. One of the best tries resulted from a beautiful cross-kick by Sheen to the forwards, who pounced on it like a pack of wolves, and tore across for a great try. Berridge was kicking beautifully, and he landed several nice goals. BEST ON THE GROUND

Sheen was the best back on the ground. You remember the game he played in the match, Auckland v. All Blacks last year? Well, he was even better to-day, and saved Auckland time and again. Paewai, at fullback, was also very good, although inclined to stand too far back at times and wait for the bounce.

Hook, on the wing, didn’t get many chances, but he is the makings of a real champion. Funny that last year I wouldn’t hear of him as a wing. I reckoned then that he was a great fullback being sacrificed because of the shortage of threequarters. I’m inclined to revise that opinion now, although, of course, there’s no saying how good he might have been at fullback. Lack of weight is his chief handicap, but he is very game, and “gives it a go” from any position. He is also one of the few Auckland backs who go low for their mam Lucas was not very impressive. He doesn’t like the mud, although he is a cracker-jack on a fine day. Berridge wasn’t too happy either, and if he wants to get into the All Blacks, he will have to start and make up his mind to go down to rushes, and brush up his passing. He is rather an awkward sort for a wet day, the “dead spit” of that chap Tilyard, whom you will remember as having played against the Springboks. Still, I have seen Berridge play some topping games, and as he is young, he will improve. GOOD AUCKLAND HOOKERS

Batty was the best of the Auckland forwards. He revels in the mud. In the scrums, Auckland got about 70 per cent, of the ball. “Swin” Hadley has filled out a lot since you saw him last year, and tips the beam at over 13 stone. He and Palmer ought to have a royal chance for the Springbok tour, but I suppose they won’t choose both. With six selectors, it generally results in a compromise between the different provinces, and in this case, it’s a pity, as they are two of the best hookers I’ve seen for years. How good, then, might Angus Finlayson have been? In club football here last year, we al-

ways reckoned he was the b e st hooker in Auckland, but this season he had an attack o f scarlet fever, and that put him out of the running, although they were making the same old mistake of playing him in the pack, and not in the

front row. You would ha Vi

xou wouia nave been disappointed in Knight. He seems to have gone back, and is not the forward he was 12 months ago. He will want a lot more than reputation to get past the McKenzies’ eagle eyes this year, although I have no doubt that when the trials are on, he will be playing much better.. At his best, he is a top-notcher. Keene was very solid as rover, and if Cliff Porter has a doubtful knee, as is reported, Keene will be hard to keep out of the North Island team. Assuming that we can count Lucas, Paewai, and Batty out of the candidates for the South African trip, we still have a pretty useful list of probables and possibles. Sheen, of course, looks a certainty, and next to him, I think, Hook, Hadley and Knight have the best chance. Next to these. Keene, Palmer, and

perhaps, Cathcart, in the forwards, and McManus, Butler and Berridge should get a. game in the trials. Butler is unlucky to be on the bank this year I think he is as good, at fullback, as anything we have available in the North Island for the trip to Africa.

OVER-BOOMED? I didn’t see much outstanding in the Wellington sid* 1 . Lance Johnson was very solid at first five, and Mark Nicholls very Jieady at second, al-

though, as you know, I have always considered him a much over-boomed player. I am afraid we will have to suspend judgment on Kilby and South. It was disappointing not to have seen them under reasonably good conditions. Kilby did one or two good things, but he saw so little of the ball that it was impossible to form a satisfactory opinion of his play. Pringle looks to me to be playing pretty good football, and it’s just possible that he may manage to achieve this year what he missed in 1924. Shearer, too, they tell me, has been playing great football this season, but as a general rule, I subscribe to the old theory, “They can’t come back.” There are exceptions, like old Ned Hughes, but, as a rule, it’s better to be looking out for those who are coming on. Frank Sutherland refereed the match, Eind, candidly. I wasn’t altogether thrilled. He was rather too “pernickety” for a.„wet day, and hasn’t got Bill Meredith’s knack of “gingering up” a game. Further than that, he wasn’t on the spot on several occasions when it is possible a try may have been scored. All the same, his rulings were very sound as a whole, and it must be remembered that he had a pretty hard game to control. The worst feature of the match was the number of stoppages for all sorts of tiddleywinking little things. First,

somebody would want a new pair ■ pants, then somebody elsq would want the Zambuk men to fish a few pounds of Eden Park mud out of his eye. These delays were most annoying to the wet and shivering fans on the bank, and I’m with a raucous-voiced gentleman on the far side of the ground who demanded to know why “the bally game couldn’t go on,” while things were attended to on the side-line. THE WHY AND WHEREFORE Auckland has had a remarkable record this Ve.ar. Certainly, nearly all its matches were played at home, but its record of ten wins and no losses is one that would take a lot of beating anywhere. No doubt, you will be wondering what is the cause of this extraordinary reversal of form, considering that the team is much the same as the one you saw last year. It wasn’t very impressive then, was it? The answer is Vin Meredith. What Norman McKenzie has done in Hawke’s Bay, Meredith has done up here. You remember the brilliant Auckland teams of 1923 and 1924, when Meredith was in charge? The “heads” in Wellington treated him pretty shabbily over the All Blacks’ tour of England, and in that season up here, there was a lot of club feeling in evidence, which resulted in Meredith going out. However, this year, they got him back .again, and he has made a wonderful difference to things. It has been, a

boom year for Rugby, and Meredith is the man who deserves most credit for it. He is at present in Samoa with the commission which is inquiring into the rumpus up there. If he gets a fair run this year, he ought to be manager of the team that goes to Africa. P.S. —I hear to-night that Angus Finlayson turned out for one of the League teams to-day. We are lucky to have so many good hookers up this way, but he will be a big loss all the same. RIVAL VARSITIES A DRAWN GAME Although not of a very spectacular nature, the annual game between Auckland University College and Victoria University College, played as a curtain-raiser to the representative game on No. 1, produced a very even go. The result, three points each, was a very fair indication of the game. Conditions were far from favourable and although Auckland occasionally made strenuous endeavours to open the game up, back play was practically out of the question. The visitors were the first to register points on the scoreboard, Ramson, the visitors’ first five-eighths, who was

conspicuous throughout, getting across after a hot offensive by the visiting

forwards. Auckland’s try came as the result of good following up by Bradanovich, who pounced on the leather as it rolled across the line. The latter player was consistently in Lhe picture, always figuring prominently in any back play that was going. He was well supported by N. Jenkin, the

pair being responsible for most of Auckland’s offensive play. Brooker, Miller and Stone were the pick of a very even pack. In the visitors’ rearguard Foden proved a very useful type of wing. Possessed of a fair turn of speed and handling well, he was always dangerous. Of their forwards, who were slightly overshadowed by the home pack, Martin-Smith, Claridge and Burns appeared to be the most outstanding. Considering the adverse conditions, little fault could be found with the work of the two custodians, NobleAdams (Victoria) and Blakey (Auckland). The latter, in particular, handled well and made few mistakes.

TECHNICAL COLLEGES HAMILTON V AUCKLAND A match between the Hamilton and Auckland Technical Colleges was played as the first curtain-raiser to the big rep. game at Eden Park. From the kick-off. the Hamilton forwards seemed to have the better of the game. With a steady rain falling the backs on both sides found it difficult to handle the ball. From a forward rush Stuart crossed the line for Hamilton. The kick failed. The half-time score was: Hamilton 3 Auckland 0 After half-time, Auckland’s forwards kept on pressing Hamilton, and at times were dangerously near Hamilton's line. Although Auckland did its best to get on terms with its opponents in the closing stages, the game ended without any further score. Hamilton 3 Auckland . . 0 The outstanding players on the field Acre : Blow and Warren (Auckland), I and Stuart and Bodaian (Hamilton).