STRATFORD v. TUKAPA

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 452, 21 June 1937, Page 3

STRATFORD v. TUKAPA

Notes On The Players (BY “GRANDSTAND.’’) The outstanding Stratford back was J. Ross, who did an immense amount of work well, both on attack and defence, and he shaded J. Sullivan, Tukapa’s centre.

The wings, V. Robson and R. Cuff, rather surprised Stratford’s supportters, who had not agreed' with the selectors' decision to- include the latter instead! of Rowlands. There was no serious mistake on the part of Cuff, who may be said to Wave justified his inclusion.

G. Lehmann was patchy in his play, and Rost 1 suffered sometimes from wild passes. P. Collins played his usual safe game, his line-kicking gaining much ground. He Appeared to stand rather far off his half. This, gave the opposition more time to break up the Reds’ passing runs, and also put greater strain on Cruickshanks, whose responsibility in the position wlas enough for a young player. However, he is not likely to repeat the mistake of running into the scrum, and putting his men offside, as the side paid twice at a penalty. Experience would seem to be all that is required for his development into a serviceable halfback.

L. Dodd, at full-back, was cool and safe, and mhde a good job in the position. Hit- line-kicking was well judged and he tackled successfully on the few occasions he was called upon to do so.

The outstanding forward on the ground was P. Fattier, who played his best glime in Stratford this season. His thrusts and speed were worthy of interprovincial play. His try wav due to a solo effort after outpacing his co-workers.

Though R. Young played very well and scored Stratford’s first try, R. Clarke ranked next to Fastier in the opinion of many of the spectators. Clarke was to be seen in nearly every forward movement and started several passing runs for the Rods. His versatile display was up to his best in the past, showing that he is in grelat form. * * * E. Smith iv a splendid forward, and it was unfortunate that he should have had to retire as the result of a knock on his bandaged knee. There wlas some criticism of his Habit of dropping back and interfering with the work of the back division, which, however, may have been overlooked had he not emphasised his fault by several weak moves.

Hinton was going as hand at the finish as lat the beginning, and was a real thorn in Tukapa’s side in the closing stages in which he got close to the line. He if! one of the Reds’ most useful and reliable forwards.

Butcher, L. Clarke, and B. Davey were .prominent at odd times throughout the game, and did their share of the battling. They made a fine support, and can always be depended upon to be close up in any of the loose work. * * * The honours of the game rest with the forward division, whose success in withholding the ball from their opponents was exasperating both to the Blues and their supporters. In the line-outs Stratford invariably secured, the advantage, while there was no holding them when they were fairly going in the loose. ■ The Blues could best testify to their seriousness in dealing with any opposition. Tactics played a big part in the victory for the Reds. * * *

Tukapa strove hard to avert defeat. The crowd were held in a state of expectancy that one of their bright, snappy movements would be staged at any time and finished successfully. But they were not allowed to do anything of the kind. The Brown-Wallace-Sullivan combination seemed to be as good as ever, but Sullivan was so well marked that he could not get out into the open, and he resorted to kicking down-field instead of giving his wings more passes. Both White and Hanover are speedy. They made very few mistakes, and deserved more chances Broughton did not play up to expeetations and was not the assistance to the Blues that he had been in past occasions. ** . * The Blues’ pack stood up to the Red® very well, but at time,, were hopelessly pushed aside. O’Dowda G. Sullivian, J. Gardiner, and W. Sanger were the most prominent of the forwards.