“Mystery Man ” of the All Blacks?

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

“Mystery Man ” of the All Blacks?

What is Mark Nicholls’s Standing? Ex-Rugby Team Manager Joins Issue Says Nicholls has not had a Fair Spin Various Phases of Tour Discussed The Attack on Brownlie.

IN a letter to the Editor of The Sun, Mr. J. A. Cameron, manager of the New Zealand Army Rugby team in 1919, criticises the reply of The Sun Sports Editor, with reference to a letter from Mr. Sydney Nicholls. Tlis letter is as follows:

“I feel sure that there will be many keen Rugbyites like myself satisfied that you have given neither Mark Nicholls nor his illustrious father quite a fair spin. ’ “First and foremost you misconstrued the final sentence of Mr. Syd. Nicholls's letter. He states: ‘He (Mark) was only once on the beaten side.’ "Your reply to this reads, ‘finally, as another instance of the misquotations and inaccuracies in Mr. Nicholls’s letter, it may be pointed out that Mark Nicholls played in three matches that the All Blacks did not win (second game v. Capetown Clubs, fourth game v. Transvaal, and tenth game v. Northern Districts)’. Even after conceding you the advantage of the drawn game at Kimberley v. Northern Districts, you apparently overlooked the very first sentence in the laws of the Rugby Game, which say, ‘The Rugby game of football shall be played by fifteen players on each side.’ "In the case of the Transvaal and Northern games, why did you not state that the All Blacks had only fourteen men for the second spell in both? Mr. Nicholls was therefore quite right in his contention that his son was only once on the beaten ‘side.’

“If further proof of the unfairness of your distortion be required, it surely appears in your article of Saturday, headed, ‘Respect for South Africa,’ in which was published the following paragraph: ‘ln view of Nicholls’s fine performance in the last test there will always be cause for reasonable grounds of regret that he was not played in at least one of the others, but at the same time it must be remembered that Nicholls played in three of the five games that New Zealand did not w!n, and that he did not then show himself at a gesture to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.’ Kindly note (a) that there were six games which the All Blacks did not win; (b) that they were not defeated ill all those games to which you refers VICTORY FROM DEFEAT

“Do you know of any player in Rugby history—Osier or Cooke included —who could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat when the opposing side had a marked superiority in getting the ball, and who was supported by only thirteen instead of fourteen comrades (as Nicholls was in two of the three games) ? It does not seem right that your Sports Editor should have deleted any part of it before commenting on the remainder. The only justification for comment would have been on the completed letter, because The Sun had already had its say in ‘The Forlo»n Hope’ article and in the editorial. On the strength of one game (the AucklandAVellington match last year) you say ‘that for all his cleverness as an opportunist, Nicholls is not a sound player, especially against strong forward opposition.’ Do not Mostert, Van Druten and Co. constitute such opposition? What player—-excepting Sheen —in the 1928 All Blacks showed any better international form than Nicholls in the Auckland-Wellington game? You say that Mr. T. McNab, who was with the tourists until after the second test, states that on his play up to that stage Nicholls had been fairly treated. But how does that affect South African opinion that Mark’s omission from the third test was inconceivable?

“Having lived four years in Africa after the war, including . the period when the 1921 Springboks Were selected, I can assure you that the South Africans are as well able to judge the merits of a player as anybody in New Zealand. You also stated that ‘the mere fact that Nicholls kicked three goals in the final test does not necessarily prove that he Is a great player.’ Did not the cable report of that game definitely state ‘that apart altogether from his goalkicking Nicholls was the presiding genius’?”

Transvaal) Finlayson was ordered off, and in the other (against Northern Districts) Kilby had to go off injured. The ordering-off of Finlayson was in the fortunes of war, just as in the game at Twickenham in 1924, and as for the Northern Districts match Mr. Cameron conveniently overlooks the fact that Northern Districts also lost a man in the second spell.

There is no need to go back into Rugby history to quote an example of a player “snatching a game from the jaws of defeat.” In the return match against Transvaal (in which Nicholls did not play), the scores in the two games made the All Blacks an 11-points better side. It is not for one minute suggested that this improvement was entirely due to Nicholls’s absence, but it has some significance, and it includes the additional fact that the match was won in the last six minutes of play by a brilliant try on the part of Johnson, and this in spite of the fact that Transvaal (according to the cable) dominated the scrums “on two out of every three occasions.”

Tripped on this point, Mr. Cameron conveniently hedges behind additional qualification about “fourteen men.” Will he give any credit at all then to Maurice Brownlie as a match-winner in 1924 when the All Blacks played a man short in the forwards practically right through the game against England ? MR. CAMERON’S BOOMERANG

Mr. Cameron’s reference to “unfair distortion” is not without its jiumorous side when one looks into his own letter. Like Mr. Nicholls (the letters are remarkably similar), he carelessly misquotes “Forlorn Elope Spirit”), goes on to say: “On the strength of one game, you say . . . Nicholls is not a sound player, etc.” Mr. Cameron’s memory obviously needs a little refreshing. This is what was actually written: The view of THE SUN football writer that Nicholls is not sound on defence is based on a close acquaintance with his play for several seasons past. As an example of Mr. Cameron’s playful habit of setting up propositions hedged round with qualifiications, attention may be drawn to this sentence: — “What player—excepting Sheen in the 1928 All Blacks showed any better international form than Nicholls in the Auckland-Well-ington game?” Mr. Cameron must know that it is only clouding the issue to talk about “better international form.” It was an inter-provincial match, and judged by those standards, both Johnson and Rushbroolc, in addition to Sheen, gave better displays than Nicholls, Johnson especially being frequently called on to tackle men that Nicholls had missed. If Mr. Cameron is not satisfied with Nicholls’s form in this game, let him think over the Hawke’s Bay-Wellington match at Napier the previous season. UNRELIABLE CABLE REPORTS Mr. Cameron quotes the cabled reports of the final test that Nicholls in addition to kicking three goals, was the “presiding genius” of the match. Just how reliable these reports have been is indicated by the fact that many of them have been flatly contradicted by subsequent African comment, on which Mr. Cameron appears to set some value. Further than that, Mark Nicholls has received a good deal of publicity on this tour at the expense of other players, notably Strang and Johnson. In this case, if the detailed

report is closely read, it looks as if Dailey deserves more credit than Nicholls behind the All Black forwards.

The only evidence to support the view that Nicholls was the “presiding genius” is a melodramatic announcement that “Nicholls appeared to direct the storm which for the greater part of the game raged near the Springbok line.” “The storm that raged round the Springbok line” was the All Black forwards, headed by Brownlie, Finlayson, McWilliams, Hazlett, Hadley and Swain, and it is safe to say that it needed no directing with M. Brownlie in charge. If Brownlie was so unpopular in Africa, it is rather strange that he was carried off shoulder-hign after the match. THE REAL POINT AT ISSUE And this brings us back to the crux of the present discussion. So far, Mr. Cameron has been answered on his own line of argument. It may not be out of place, therefore, to draw attention to the fact that both Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Cameron have drawn many side issues into the original point at issue, which was the question of the fairness or otherwise of an anonymous article published in another Auckland paper and broadcast over the rest of the Dominion. ,

Incidentally, Mr. Cameron is father concerned at the deletion of a portion of a paragraph from Mr. Nicholls’s letter. One hastens to assure him that the only deletion was a -eference to the opinions expressed by another Auckland writer on the tour, and

which was quite foreign to the argument.

The publication of a malicious attack on the captain of the All Blacks and serious charges of dissension in the team is, however, a different matter. .Mr. Cameron has built his letter up round half a dozen queries (most of them hedged in by fantastic qualifications). Having dealt with these, one may ask Mr. Cameron a couple of questions in return, both straightforward and having a direct bearing on the original point at issue, which both ho and Mr. Nicholls have evaded. (1) Does he or Mr. Nicholls agree with the malicious attack on M. Brownlie, already referred to? (2) Does he support the view that there was a conspiracy to keep Mark Nicholls out of the team? CORRESPONDENTS’ VIEWS The above answer will also serve as a reply to a letter from “South Auckland,” who expresses surprise that the sports editor of The Sun should publish “such buncombe,” and that “Nicholls’s play in the 1924 tour alone should be a sufficient answer to your silly remarks.” F. J. Keogh also disagrees with The Sun, but is more temperate in his views. He says: “I don’t want to class Nicholls as a wonder, but he has earned all the praise that is coming his way for saving New Zealand from having to take second place on the world’s Rugby ladder.” “G.M.” thinks that Nicholls is a greatly over-boomed player, b;ut considers that on his day, his kicking makes him a match-winner.