Tight and Heavy

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 413, 23 July 1928, Page 6

Tight and Heavy

Forward Game Against Thames

Saturday’s Rep. Rugby

DESPITE tlie fact that two representative fixtures figured on the bill-of-fare offered at Eden Park on Saturday, the football provided was not up to the usual representative standard. The principal fixture was the Auckland v. Thames game. Although more even than the scoring, 20 to 6 in Auckland’s favour, would indicate, it was not a spectacular game, the Auckland*baeks being kept out of the picture until near the concluding stages. The curtain-raiser played between Auckland B and South Auckland provided patches of bright play, but good concerted movements were rare.

Although opposed to a comparatively weak team of backs the Auckland rear division by no means shaped well. Certainly in the final quarter they unfolded one or two characteristic movements, but only when the tiring Thames forwards permitted them to do so, and even then they were more or less the result of individual enterprise. As was the case when the representative team met. Otago last year, the side showed that agairfst hard, closepacking forwards it is not seen at its best. At half-time Auckland had only registered six points, and at one stage later in the game the score board read Auckland 9, Thames 6. Throughout the game the Thames packmen had been playing a solid vigorous game, and had succeeded in spoiling most of the Auckland back movements by fast breaking-up and solid tackling, and it was when they tired that the Auckland backs asserted themselves. With the assistance of one or two good tackling backs to fight out the last quarter, Thames would not have been very far behind when the final whistle sounded. INSIDE BACKS BOTTLED The Thames forwards lost no time in getting round the scrum or in bursting through the line-outs when Auckland obtained possession, and on many occasions they were successful in bot-

tling up the inside movements. Against forwards who keep the ball close Jeffries showed that he does not possess sufficient speed in whipping, the leather out to the backs playing deep. Time and again Jenkin and Falwasser were hemmed in and lost possession. The passing was far from good, Falwasser dropping the ball at one stage of the game twice in succession. Even Lou Hook, who is usually safe, was responsible for one- or two misses.

Although Albert Falwasser shared the honours with Lou Hook for the most enterprising play shown, it is evident that he Qnds it difficult . at times to suppress his individuality, and tune in with the other backs. Nevertheless lie can be very elusive when he wants to? and on Saturday made some excellent runs. It is essential, however, that he be closely followed. When L. Hook received possession he generally turned it to good account, but in common with the remainder of the threequarter line did not get many opportunities until the last quarter. Both Minns and R. Hook acquitted themselves well, particularly the former, who showed considerable resource in attempting to develop any opportunities that came his way. Paewai played a safe game at fullback, his fielding and kicking leaving little to be desired. Walter Batty was unquestionably the leader of the Auckland pack. There was hardly a loose rush in which he did not take part, and his footwork was excellent. Anderson was another useful forward who was always up on the play, and mention must also be made of Palmer and Angus Finlayson, who were compelled to bury themselves for the greater part of the game in the hard, tight' stuff that had to be m&t. Although not called upon to do a great deal of spoiling Keene played a useful general game as rover, devoting most of his time to the forward' play that dominated the game. The Thames backs were not extensively employed as a medium of .attack and were not impressive. Whatever passing rushes were attempted

generally proved indecisive, both tries scored coming from forward play. The tackling of some of the backs wjis hardly as good as that of the forwards, who would have been saved quite a lot of hard work by sound defensive backs.

Cameron at, fullback was never very certafn, although on several occasions he found the line well. Dufty and Gorbey, the two five-eighths, shouldered the bulk of the wo«k among the

backs, Dufty being the best back on the side. Wilcox at centre threequarter, also played a useful game. SOLID FORWARDS The Thames pack served a very useful purpose in providing the Auckland forwards with a taste of the style of play that will be encountered in some of the Southern centres to be visited shortly. The visiting forwards evidently set out with the intention of keeping the play tight, and they achieved a fair measure of success. The influence of Morgan Hayward, the 1908 All Black, was plainly to be seen in the style of play adopted by the Thames packmen. A remarkably even lot, they kept on the ball from whistle to whistle, and their tackling was hard and determined. Although 19 years have passed since he first represented Thames, Hayward showed that he is still as good as many of the young ones. Lomas, the 1926 All Black hooker, was the outstanding forward of the seven, and he was ably supported by Smith and Brunton. G. Pollock, who is more of the wingforward* type than a rover, was always up with the play.