A FAREWELL MESSAGE.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 September 1921, Page 3

A FAREWELL MESSAGE.

SPRINGBOKS’ MANAGER INTERVIEWED. WHERE NEW ZEALAND LOSES OUT. INDIVIDUAL v. THE TEAM. "We cannot understand why New Zealand claims the championship of the world,” remarked Mr. H. C. Bennett, manager of the Springboks, to a Dominion reporter, in the course of a farewell message to New Zealand. “It lias,” he continued, “tickled us immensely. We always maintain that until New Zealand beats us she has got no right to the championship, and vice versa.” Mr. Bennett went on to express, on behalf of the South Africans, their hearty appreciation for the way the people of New Zealand had treated them, throughout the whole tour, and, questioned about the possbiility of a return visit, he said: "There is no question about it that New Zealand will receive an invitation to visit South Africa very shortly. I am not, however, in favor of a programme being laid down at present, as to when these visits between the two countries should take place.” What do you think of New Zealand’s style of play? the reporter asked. “We are convinced that our style is better,” was the reply. “I will refer first to scrum formation, which is the main thing. We are in this connection all satisfied that our style is the more elastic one, and we can vary our tactics to a greater extent than the New Zealand formation allows. Secondly, I think that, apart from the style and methods of play, there is not much to choose between the forwards of South Africa and New Zealand, but I do think that on the whole our back play is better than New Zealand’s is at present.”

THE ROOT OF THE EVIL. Coming on top of the condemnation of the wing-forward by Mr. Bosword, manager of the New South Wales team which recently toured the Dominion, added interest is lent Mr. Bennett’s comment on the same subject. “There is.’’, he remarked, “no doubt about it that the latitude allowed to your wing-for-wards does adversely affect your -back play. The wing-forward is a spoiler, purely and simply, and he is allowed to play too much off-side. We feel that this could be remedied by referees under existing rules, for if he is kept on side he would not be such a spoiler.’.’ Another weakness? queried the reporter.

“Well, your backs seem to play too much according to instructions issued prior to the match by coaches and trainI ers. It seems, for instance, to be a set idea here that the first five-eighths must make the opening, and that if he can’t he must kick, it is only where he makes an opening that he allows the hall to get out tt> the wings. If these tactics were varied during the course of the game it would naturally set the opposition thinking, but where, the same ' old. set rules are followed it is quite easy for a set of good defensive backs to upset any move, on the part (J the five-eighths to make an opening. Every opponent knows exactly what is coming. Another negative feature of the practice is that it tends to destroy a team’s initiative. A further recult of your formation and general style of play is that naturally you must encourage the individual to the neglect of team work. SELECTORS CRITICISED. “To put it broadly, one thing that struck us in regard to your selection of teams is that you seem to select a 1 man because he is a brilliant player, 1 irrespective of whether he can play well in any one position or combine well with the team generally. When we select a team we look more to the team as a whole rather than individual brilliance.” Mr. Bennett, continuing, cited several instances in support of his crticism of the New Zealand selectors’ methods, and one case in point mentioned .by him was thstft of a member of the All Blacks’ rearguard in Saturday’s match. 1 Interesting reference was next made I by. Mr. Bennett to the interpretation of . certain rules during the tour. “1 don’t think,’.’ he said, “that we have been , treated quite fairly in this country. We came out here knowing that we were up against different interpretations of the rules as we played them, but at the shme time we have tried to play South African football. There are certain offences which are treated more seriously in New Zealand (han they are in South Africa, and we have been criticised in almost every match without any excuse being made, for us. Nearly every criticism of us has contained reference to illegal play in forward rushes and loose scrums. Our forwards, it is said, are always getting off-side. We have all been criticised as if this was done delibenutely, whereas it is due real - ly to the differences in refereeing in South Africa and New Zealand. Our difficulty is that while you allow your wing-forwards to play off-side, and generally give them considerable latitude, your referees are very, very strict in regard to off-side in a loose rush. We have never been given credit for these differences in methods. We have simply been accused of illegal play.

DEFINING A TACKLE, “The same thing can be said in regard to hanging on to the ball. We contend that your referees do not give due consideration to the definition of a tackle. A man is not tackled unless he is so held that he can’t play or pass. Yet we have been penalised very often for hanging on to the ball when the player has been held, but not tackled according to the strict definition. These, are two of our grievances in thi.v respect..” Mr. Bennett had a warm word of praise for the sportsmanship of the New Zealand public. Never had he encountered such enthusiastic supporters of* Rugby. “Wo have, never had a visiting team* in Sputh Africa that has raised the enthusiasm that the Springboks did in New Zealand,” he remarked. “We as a race are perhaps more phlegmatic than you are, but we do look upon/ R-ugby as our national game.” u