Mark Nicholls Defended

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 454, 8 September 1928, Page 1

Mark Nicholls Defended

FATHER WRITES TO THE SUN

IN a letter to the Editor of The Sun, Mr. Sydney Nicholls of Petone, answers criticism of his son Mark on the latter’s play during the South African tour of the All Blacks.

The letter is as follows: “I was surprised on opening your issue of Monday to note the paucity of your editorial on the great Rugby occasion. “It is very rare for a Rugby writer these days to form a definite opinion based on sound premises and stick to it —the absence of any definite opinion of your own on the outcome of the tc*sr is all the more reason why you should have reframed in the hour of victory from your rather obvious reference to an Auckland writer’s well-informed and sensible articles. ‘“You would be better advised, also, to have waited and been on the safe side—as you thought you were with the ill-natured editorial before publishing in your Friday’s issue under the heading, “A Forlorn Hope,” the following paragraph in your paper about my son almost at the very time he was walking on to ‘old Newlands’ for his vindication:— “With Lindsay and Carleton on the injured List Lucas was assured of a game at centre. In regard to Nicholls, the selection committee practically had no option but to include him in the side. Both players are regarded as strong attacking men. Nicholls more than once was described by overenthusiastic Rugby writers as the brains of New’ Zealand Rugby. South African critics still acclaim him a football wizard, but against strong opposition he has done little on the present tour to justify that high regard. In the past two seasons the Wellington man has shown that he does not appreciate the heavy defensive work that often falls to the lot of the inside men, such as rush-stopping and tackling. Even if attack is the best form of defence, someone in the five-eighths line will have to stop rushes when the hard-packing Springbok forwards break through. That someone will probably be Lance Johnson.” “Everyone can be wiser after tbe fevent. It takes good men accurately to forecast what is likely to happen along the course of a long football tour

and to rise above criticism on the field. might have struck you, too, that there w*as some merit in South African °Pinions—they have always been emphatic New Zealand would lose half a doze n matches—their only error in derail Was claiming the second and fourth tests for Africa. And above all they w ©re right about Mark Nicholls, despite your own ill-natured criticism. He only once on a beaten side on t°}tr. ‘^S.—Mark was also damned wath

very faint praise in your editorial. In fact, your very objectionable reference to him only accentuates the unfairness of Friday’s criticism.” [Portion of a paragraph in this letter referring to a writer on another Auckland newspaper has been deleted. —Sp. Ed.] MISSES THE POINT Mr. Nicholls starts by completely missing the point. The "rather obvious reference,” about which he writes, had nothing to do with any other Auckland writer’s comment on the tour, but was directed at the publication in another Auckland newspaper of what purported to be a private message from Africa, referring to alleged dissension in the team. In respect to this, Mr. Nicholls may have noticed that the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union has asked the N.Z.R.F.U. to hold an inquiry, and Mr. T. Fletcher, a prominent member of the New Zealand Rugby Union, has also supported Hawke’s Bay’s stand. As far as Mark Nicholls is. concerned, the mere fact that he kicked three goals in the final test does not necessarily prove that he is a great player. As far as the South African papers are concerned, it may be remarked that we in New Zealand know Nicholls better than they do in South Africa, especially as Nicholls played in only one test (the last) and the opinions expressed by African critics as to his ability up to that stage was necessarily based largely on his form in lesser matches (which Rushbrook’s brilliant record show to be not quite a reliable guide), and the reputation which preceded him to Africa Mr. T .McNab, who was with the touring party till after the second test, and who has now returned to New Zealand, says that on his play in Africa up to the stage, Nicholls nad been very fairly treated. CLEVER, BUT NOT SOUND The view of The Sun’s football writer that Nicholls is not sound on defence is based on a close acquaintance with his play for several seasons past, and one need only refer to the AucklandWellington match at Eden Fark last year to say that for all his cleverness as an opportunist. Nicholls is not a sound player, especially against strong forward opposition. „ Mr. Nicholls also misquotes The bun in his reference to “A Forlorn Hope, and goes on entirely to misconstrue the purport of the paragraph in question. The heading was “Forlorn-Hope Spirit, and it had no reference to Mark Nicnolls at all, but was clearly explained m tbe paragraph: — "Under the circumstances this is about the best team that the All Blacks can turn out. From a defensive point of view It is not the best team, but paradoxically its weakness may be its strength. The odds are undoubtedly in favour of South Africa, but in Hugby there is a strong psychological effect about the forlorn hope feeling tnat often induces a 15 to play as men inspired.”

Finally, as another instance of the misquotations and inaccuracies in Mr Nicholls’s letter, it may be pointed out that Mark Nicholls Played m three matches which the All Blacks did not win in Africa (second game v. Capetown Clubs: fourth game v. Transvaal; and tenth game v. Northern Districts). According to cabled reports, Nicholls played in all three matches. Incidentally, he did not play in the return match against Transvaal, which the All Blacks wpn and in which the inside combination of the New Zealanders was a big factor In the reversal of the previojis result,