ALL BLACKS’ TOUR

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 459, 14 September 1928, Page 10

ALL BLACKS’ TOUR

Amazing Differences of Opinion Shown in Reports of Matches The football critic of THE SUN, who has analysed the reports of the All Black tour, match by match, draws attention in the following article to some remarkable discrepancies in the various reports of the tour.

PERHAPS one of the most unfortunate features of the All Black tour just ended has been the absence 6f

reliable comment cabled to the New Zealand Press. Only l'rom other sources is reliable information now coming to hand to dissipate wrong impressions created in regard to several of the All Black men. Two or three men in particular have been very unfairly treated, and in justice to them expert opinion extolling their play must bo published. Strang appears to be one player whom the cableman, in his advocacy of the claims of Nicholls, has very unjustly treated. Tlis highest praise for the Timaru boy was bestowed after the first game against Orange Free State: “Strang, who played first live-eighth when McGregor was hurt, showed excellent football, varying his play nicely.” A higher estimate of Strang s work in that match was that of the English critic, Mr. F. M. Howard, who wrote as follows in the “Cape Times”:— “Strang was magnificent; he played easily the best game of any All Black five-eighth so far seen on the tour. In attack he was full of dash and quick-thinking; he handled faultlessly and he made some splendid openings. In defence he was übiquitous, and his relief-kicking proved as accurate as it was invaluable.” CRITICS COMPLETELY AT VARIANCE Reporting on the second test the cableman stated that “Strang was the weak link in the backs.” This is opinion that unfortunately was read by practically every Rugby enthusiast in New Zealand. But they had no opportunity of reading the opinion of F. M. Howard, a critic of note, who stated that “besides having the honour of scoring the winning points Strang became easily the most dangerous attacking back on the visitors’ side" —the only one in fact, with Dailey, to cause the Springboks real anxiety. Another correspondent, H. B. Heartland, sporting editor of the “Johannesburg Star,” stated that in the second test “Strang was the outstanding figure in the back division. Snapping up opportunities, he was always exercising ingenuity,” which certainly serves to confirm Mr. Howard’s opinion. Stewart is another who has received scant notice in the cabled reports. Strangely enough, both Stewart and Strang are close friends and Stewart, who is a member of the selection committee, is stated to be a staunch Brownlie adherent. THE “LOOSE HEAD"

In attacking the selection of Stewart as loose head rover for the second test the cableman stated that “in the few matches Stewart has played in this position, he has caused the breakdown of many movements, frequently getting in the way of the five-eighths. In the match against Northern Provinces, his handling was palpably weak. Playing him as rover will probably tend to weaken the New Zealand test team." Following the game he stated that “playing Stewart as ‘loose head’ did not make any real advantage, as the Springboks got two to one possession from the scrums.” This statement, however, was flatly contradicted by Phil Mostert, the Springbok captain, who, as a hooker, was certainly in a position to know. “The All Blacks,” he said, “had used the loose head in the scrums and, as a result, had got the ball more frequently. Stewart’s coming up on the outside of their front rank caused us a lot of trouble. We could not wheel the scrummage nor secure the loose head throughout the first half.” Throughout the tour, says Heartland, the outstanding forwards were Stewart, McWilliams, Hadley and Hazlett. From the same writer, it is also discovered that in the last test Maurice Brownlie “played like a man inspired.' and was chaired off the field by his admirers. Bald mention in the cable states that he again produced h*s “usual fine test football.”