Winston McCarthy Sums Up

New Zealand Listener, Volume 35, Issue 897, 12 October 1956, Page 7

Winston McCarthy Sums Up

Extracts from three talks recently broadcast in "Sports Digest"

OU know, we all did so much look forward to the tour of the Springboks, didn’t we? Apart from smarting under the seven defeats of 1949, we had come to the stage where we felt that the time had come for us to decide whether or not it was worth our while to keep on following the gameremembering, of course, the defeat we suffered at Auckland last year in the final Test with the Australians. And then, all keyed up for the tour, we suffered a terrific panic. Were we good enough? We couldn’t be. The Springboks were invincible. . . And so it was with beating hearts that we sat and waited for the opening stanza-the match with Waikato. I doubt if we realise even now just what New Zealand owes to Waikato and the tactics adopted that day. For generations it has been accepted that South Africa was the be-all and end-all in forward play. And yet on that day a provincial team-one that had struggled for years to be accepted as a firstclass province, and on finally succeeding, had defied the rest of New Zealand in defence of the Ranfurly Shield -decided to do the almost impossible: take the Springboks on in the forwards. Waikato kicked off, and as Pickard stood out by the left touchline to take the ball not one, but eight Waikato forwards, took him, ball and all. The ball was rucked, Bullock kicked ahead, Buchler slipped in going for the ball. Again the whole Waikato eight were on the ball. A quick heel, Ponty Reid on the blind side, and winger McDonald was over in the corner for a try within the minute of the kick-off. From then on there was nothing the Springbok

pack could do against the Waikato forwards. It seemed as if they were bewildered — and I honestly think they were. Desperately they flung. the ball around from set play, prying the defence here, prying it there. But the moment the ball hit the ground they were again faced with that menacing Waikato pack. The writing was on the wall even then, though few if any of us knew it then. . . It wasn’t until after some half-dozen matches that it finally dawned on me that the Springboks had lost their greatest art, one in which they were wordperfect for years, the art they had taught the world-control of the game forward. How could this have

come about in such a — Rugby stronghold? In 1949 the battles between the Springbok and All Black forwatds were titanic. Seven years later the Springboks were astonished at the vigour displayed by New Zealand forwards-such a change in seven years. . . In 1949 practically each of the four Tests was a grim, dour affair. The gigantic packs clashed and clashed again, but from the spectators’ oint of view it was not inspiring ugby. After the All Blacks had left South Africa there were murmurings,

and the murmurings grew louder until they reached the ears of those in authority. There were two men in the Western Province who controlled the destiny of the Rugby teams in Capetown and Stellenbosch , . . men who had distinguished themselves as Springboks. Both of them were backs, and both had tasted the delights of open Rugby in the tour of New Zealand in 1937. They were a medical man, Dr. Louis Babrow, and a Doctor of Anthropology from Stellenbosch, Danie Craven. Even though these two great players knew the value of controlling the game forwatd, they hankered for the spectacular. So it was that in 1950 at the end of the season the two Universities played an exhibition match, with nothing at stake, against a side from the other Capetown clubs. The order was to toss the ball around. Both sides did so, with the result that the spectators went home drugged to satiation with the exhilarating spectacle. "This is what we want," they said. "Give us more of it." The next yeat a Springbok team went to the British Isles. Only in Wales did they strike packs who could foot it against the best of the Springbok tradition. And then came that match against Scotland, when the Scots were humiliated by a 44 to nil defeat . .. of the nine tries scored seven were by the forwards. After subduing the Scottish pack the Springboks ran riot and did as they pleased, the forwards running with the backs, and so on. In the five Internationals played on that tour 21 tries were scored-14 of them by the forwards, seven only by the backs. The writing was on the wall. The next season an Australian team visited South Africa. Australia has never gone in for sustained forward play, and that suited the emancipated Springbok forwards down to the ground,

The first Test went to the fast-moving backs of Australia, but there it ended. Thete was still sufficient old-fashioned forward play left among the Springboks to get an initial advantage before opening out. Last season the British Isles team was in South Africa. Despite the write-ups about the grand forward play, I am inclined to take the view shown in the films of that tour. Thére was little or no rucking, and Springbok forwards and backs romped around all over the field. It was most spéctacular, but there was a definite air of unsoundness about it all. And so the Springboks went on to Australia this season before coming to us. Again little rucking, again a lack of robust forward play, "You will beat New Zealand," they wetfe told. And in that Springbok team were only thtee forwards who had been brought up under the South African rigid rule of "scrum, scrum, scrum" -Chris Koch, Jaapie Bekker and Salty du Rand. The others were mainly made up of brilliant handlers and runnérs. Why should they expect the play to be any different here from what it was. ‘in other countries? And then came the shock of those eight Waikato forwards going in as one man. The shock reverberated through-. out the Rugby world and was échded and re-echoed in almost every match from then on. And as if that were fot sufficient, the Waikato backs 'played-to a set plan... to keep the ball behind the Springbok forwards. . . Not satisfied with that, Don Clarke at fullback turned on a.most immaculate display. ,He fielded, kicked and tackled like a veteran, despite his 22 years, But one kick of his meant much towards the winning of that game . his early attempt at a penalty he placed the ball on his own 10-yard mark. Later in the (continued on page 24)

McCarthy Sums Up (continued from page 7) tour some of the Springboks asserted that that kick of Don Clarke’s was a psychological one so far as they were concerned. As he was placing the ball for his prodigous kick they said to themselves: "Just a country hick showing off to the crowd." But as the Clarke kick soared higher and nearer their eyes nearly shot out of their heads. As the ball passed just outside the posts with plenty of clearance they all gasped in astonishment, and word was quickly passed around to be careful not to infringe anywhere within the region of half-way. With Mooloo bells: and forwards and Clarkes the Springboks surely had a fill of Waikato. They were told by well-wishers: "Don’t worry. You won’t strike forwards like that again in New Zealand." I’m sure they would have liked to have got hold of some of those well-wishers after the game against North Auckland and buried them head down in the Waikato mud. .. * Ce ms There was one very big thing that came out of the Maori match. The Springboks were tremendously elated over that victory-tremendously. They felt that at last they had struck the form they had been striving to find the whole tour. But they still disregarded the fact that their forwards were not playing as they should. "Today," they

told me, "we played as we played in South Africa. That is how Rugby should be played." It would have been useless to have told them that the Maoris were too poor to be believed. . . I well remember mentioning to some of our pressmen and supporters that night that the Maori match had lost the final Test for South Africa. They were like children in their exuberance. But still more, from their point of view they had gained an exalted opinion of Peewee Howe as a fly-half. . . I am sure Dr. Craven was over-ruled in the selection committee. He was too acute not to have seen what was so obvious, However, there was still a match to play before the Test, that against Counties at Rotorua. Many rumours had cireulated as to what was going to happen to Kevin Skinner in that match. . . Well, nothing did. . . I am of the opinion that had we not had Skinner to anchor the front row in both the third and fourth Tests we could not have won. .. ® * * What have we learned from the Springboks of 1956? Early on Dr. Craven told us he intended playing open football. He added a rider to that, though, when questioned as to whether that was to be the policy of the team for the tour. And you will remember that the rider he added was "if it suits us." The Springboks had good forwards, but I feel that they at no stage were (continued on next page) =

a true Springbok pack as we knew | Springboks packs to be. Their backs were brilliant, and scored some of the loveliest tries you could wish to see. But how often after some feat of extraordinary brilliance would we see the expected try not materialise through either the brilliant player hanging on too long or tossing out a pass that you would frown at a schoolboy for. And it didn’t happen once-it happened dozens of times. And so it was, or so it seems to me, that the astute Danie, sensing the strength of New Zealand forward play, coupled with the strange reluctance of most of our players to run with the ball, trumpeted out the clarion call for more open play. If he could get our players to attempt the same type of Rugby they played the advantage would all be theirs. They were used to itwe weren’t. But the New Zealand selectors knew the answer, and our Test teams played to their instructions: Don’t give the brilliant South Africans a chance to play their own game. Were they wrong? What would we do if we were the strategists? Play to our opponent’s strength or his weakness? There is only one answer if you want to win, and I’m sure the selectors wanted to win-and they did. What would we have said had they instructed the All Blacks to toss the ball around willynilly and we had lost? ... But one lesson among others the Springboks did teach us: When you get the ball run with it and run hard, Pin your ears back and use your speed. It is something we just do not do here in New Zealand. I know a lot of that depends on the speed of getting the’ ball away from the base of the scrums and rucks, and I would advise all budding halfbacks to make that their Number 1 objective. Practica through the summer to get the ball away in one sweeping movement off the ground, and the farther you can get it the better. I know the cry is that the ball doesn’t come out quickly enough. It comes out of our scrums just as fast as it does from the Springbok scrums, and they manage to get it away all right. And so we won the Tests. The most discussed tour of all time is over with the All Blacks triumphant-a complete reverse to 1949. There we had brilliant backs, but the Springboks evolved a plan to make them innocuous. This year they had brilliant backs and our selectors just reversed the compliment. They were praised in 1949 for out-thinking us, This year, with just the same tactics, we are accused of playing stodgy football. There doesn’t seem to be any justice. The cry is now for open Rugby. Let us have it by all means, but don’t let us make the same mistake as the Springboks and in our excessive zeal for what is termed open Rugby disregard the Number 1 in all Rugby: Get control in the forwards first. Open Rugby by all means-but not at the expense of sound Rugby.