36: Tabloids rear their heads ahead of England
Modern All Blacks visits to England have become predictable in the pre-tour media they generate; the haka should be done away with, the All Blacks have lost their aura, and they will find the referees less lenient toward them.
All of this is designed for local consumption and to boost the home sides. But in 1924-25, the vast population of London had only heard about the deeds of the tourists. Their game against London Counties on 15 November was the 18th of their tour and the first chance for the rugby public of the capital to see for themselves.
Although some newspapers had reporters at games earlier, few attended every game. The 'tabloids' as they were most recently called, but the 'penny dreadfuls' they were known as in their day, didn't miss their chance to attempt to outdo each other in their bids for a 'scoop.'
Lifting had no place in lineouts in rugby in 1924 (The Sketch)
The People had nailed its colours to the mast from the outset, with its writer noting the All Blacks Māori war cry as something 'we could well do without.'
Mr Taylor does not lead his South African cricketers on to the field with Zulu catcalls.[1]
However, his observations on the basis of one game inspired false hope.
The result shows us that our football is not going to be trampled in the mud as it was in 1905, and I am further of the opinion that we shall score our share of victories before our visitors return to New Zealand...I cannot see that our visitors are world-beaters.[2]
In reaction to the wave of criticism, especially as many of the later games were played within easy travelling distance of London, the Auckland Star said from the start of the tour, the All Blacks had been subjected to criticism from 'several of the London daily halfpenny papers which, taking all things into consideration, must be regarded as quite unreasonable.'
While not wanting to see the All Blacks glorified, they should expect any criticism to be fair.
For the benefit of those who are inclined to take the remarks seriously, it might be recalled that the appeal to prejudice of a section of the London press, by way of cleverly written sensations, has not been uncommon of late years in other spheres than that of sport.
The British distrust of the motives of 'foreigners' makes this a safe string to play, and the success of the New Zealanders at rugby in Britain is bound to have evoked a widespread desire to see them chastened, as all growing boys of the empire must at times be chastened.[3]
The same had been the case in 1905 when the 'war cry' was offensive, the wing-forward game was not wanted in England, the All Blacks' passing was regarded as crude, and the forwards were sluggish. Yet, the home-based newspapers in the counties were more generous and acknowledged the All Blacks as clever and formidable, similar to the more regular writers from the Fleet Street broadsheets like The Times and Daily Telegraph. Claims the All Blacks were guilty of tripping opponents were scotched because it was an offence rarely seen in New Zealand rugby.
So far as this section of the critics is concerned, the guests of the English Rugby Union [sic] have certainly been well tarred...But our experience so far of his judgment has led us to the belief that the London critic, even if an accepted authority on music, art and the drama, has his limitations, and he must not be hurt if New Zealanders, incline rather to smile than be distressed over his fulminations.[4]
The People, got in on the act after the first London Counties game whe saying , it was surprising five All Blacks had not been sent off and adding,
I saw repeated instances of unnecessary charging, tripping, hacking, tackling the man when he hadn't the chance, kicking on the ground, slinging fists, obstruction, and two or three sharp practices in the play itself. This sort of thing will do English rugby no good.[5]
The paper then claimed the All Blacks were so astonished at the criticism they immediately met and the tactical movements, especially the spearhead and scissors attacks, were reviewed.
Gordon C. Jones of the Poverty Bay Herald provided an interesting perspective. He reported on the latter stages of the tour and commented on the People's initial attack on the All Blacks.
This Rugby expert, who has himself 'played Rugby – good hard Rugby,' was appalled at the breaches of the winning side, and indicated that if justice had been done, at least five All Blacks would have watched the latter stages from the side-line.
By a coincidence, I happen to be aware that the expert who covered the match for the paper was doing his first trial as Rugby correspondent, having been transferred from the news staff to [re]place a very famous old International whose services were no longer available. The New Zealanders are understood to be doing their best to bear up under the weight of his displeasure.[6]
Yet, Daily Telegraph writer Col. Philip Trevor said the All Blacks won 'handsomely, brilliantly, and deservedly.'
New Zealand reporter R.A. Byers-Barr visited The People, supposedly on behalf of the team.
He told The People,
We must admit that at times at Twickenham we showed a little unnecessary vigour, but some of the London forwards were not too particular in their methods.[7]
Barr explained the role of the wing-forward and said if he was guilty of playing off-side, British referees could quickly stop it, but it was accepted as part of the game. He added that New Zealand played under different laws due to the variations employed as a counter to rugby league. He also took issue with the insinuations that the All Blacks were not amateurs but added England, in organising the tour, had refused to pay an allowance of the type British touring teams had received, and many of the All Blacks would be out of pocket as a result of the tour.
He also said that all Blacks were especially annoyed by the attitude in Scotland.
You must remember that many of our players have looked forward for years to the privilege of playing on British grounds which are to them sacred soil. And so we are very hurt at what we think is the stupid attitude of the Scottish Rugby authorities.[8]
Various newspapers got in on the act. Typical were comments after the Wales Test.
The Sporting Life and Sportsman:
What cannot be forgotten, however, are many incidents of obstruction, the actual hitting of one player by another, threatening gestures, and deliberate hacking that occurred for some twenty minutes in the second half. It was altogether regrettable, but one side was equally to blame with the other.[9]
The Daily Mail:
It was from first to last a very hostile match. The players came on to the field with grim, set faces, no friendly banter every passed between them. No one ever smiles...It was also a brute strength match...Many strenuous, fiercely keen games have been seen at Swansea, but surely never before had human bodies been picked up and thrown about with such force as was the case on Saturday...Fortunately, no serious damage was done to anyone, but it is certain that most of those who played will be black and blue all over for a week. The All Blacks are too strong, too hard, too agile to be afraid of a 'rough house.' They accepted, with zest, the challenge which the Welshmen had apparently thrown down. They won easily in a battle of strength, just as they won easily when it came to a battle of speed.[10]
The Daily Chronicle:
It was not a pleasant game to watch – in fact, there was a good deal one could take exception to...Rugby is not a parlour game, but it is not supposed to include wild and dangerous kicking. As far as this went, it was '50-50' with both sides. I do not think the New Zealanders covered themselves with glory, in spite of their 19 points victory.[11]
Athletic News:
For twenty minutes or so of the game it was a question whether this was a Rugby match or whether the light-weight, middle, and heavy-weight boxing championships (all-in) of the British Empire were being decided...We saw New Zealand forwards and Welsh forwards mixing it badly-one was just as bad as the other-and we saw one of the Welsh backs up to tricks that are only legislated for under the powers possessed by the referee. Colonel Brunton would have been justified in sending more than one man off the field, but perhaps he took the less provocative course in issuing cautions.[12]
The Evening News got stuck into the All Blacks' scrum after the Combined Services game with comments made by 'A Rugby International.'
He claimed the New Zealand hookers Quentin Donald and Bill Irvine stood back five yards from the mark, and after their five men packed behind them, they then charged at the opposing scrum, which, in the process of forming, was driven back, giving the All Blacks the mighty first shove. Rugby International said to counter this action; the English team should move up to the New Zealanders' hookers and go down against them before their five supports had packed down. He said the referee may check the English side and require them to return to the mark, which would once again give the All Blacks the advantage of moving forward by the time the mark was reached. The home team should not be disadvantaged because the All Blacks forwards were slow to get to the scrum.
The Times took a different view, noting that at the after-match dinner, General 'Tim' Harington[13], who believed sport moulded character, paid tribute to the All Blacks' spirit and capacity for team work.
In the circumstances, it is rather ironic to reflect that the activities of the referee in Saturday's match have been seized upon by the less generous and more parochial-minded of the All Blacks' critics as further proof that the basis of their play lies in deliberately foul tactics.
To those who have watched them in most of their matches, and notably those in those most trying encounters in South Wales, anything more monstrous or, rather, ludicrous could hardly be imagined. One feels convinced that the men of the Services, whose own sportsmanship is above suspicion, would resent the imputation that a referee's whistling necessarily imply the worst form of original sin...The present New Zealand team is by no means perfect, but the players whose offences are frequent enough to be accounted deliberate can be counted on one or two fingers. Ill-informed and merely spiteful criticism of their methods merely helps to cloak the offenders and so serves no useful purpose.[14]
Former All Black E.E. 'General' Booth said the referee, Mr Potter Irwin, was unduly severe on the All Blacks. He adopted an attitude of teaching the visiting novices the game's laws. But when New Zealand got its game going, he proved too slow to keep up with the play. Booth said some parts of the press misinterpreted the tourists' keenness for being a 'win-at-all-costs' attitude.
This intentness seems to be misconstrued and hence the trouble. It is part of the New Zealanders' stock in trade to force their mode of play on the other side. This forcing of play seems a new feature over here.[15]
Brigadier-General Kentish, DSO, who was secretary of the British Olympic Association, said the All Blacks' displays were 'amazing'. Their most wonderful achievements were accomplished 'without losing anything whatever of their reputation as sportsmen'.[16]
Dr S.P. McCallum, a pre-First World War New Zealand Universities rugby representative and a special War Rhodes Scholar, who became an academic of Hertford College, Oxford, took up the All Blacks' cause in a letter to the Sporting Life and Sportsman. His patience regarding the criticism of the side had worn out.
However, it is not the criticism itself, but the spirit in which a great deal of it has been written, that has exasperated beyond patience one who knows and loves both his own country and England – an exasperation, I may say, which had never been produced by your admirable paper, or by those which do not depend upon catch headlines for their circulation.[17]
McCallum pointed to a rival evening newspaper which ran a story, 'Secret of All Black Scrums' by 'A Rugby International' which laid out all the tactics and manoeuvres, with their respective penalties outlined. This was done...
presumably to catch the eye of the one unfortunate man in forty millions who will have to referee. And all this is for a public which has just begun to take up Rugby and whose knowledge of the game is hardly sufficient to detect the absurdity of criticism such as this. Let some of these papers which attack the sportsmanship of this team give a little more space to the real reasons for the quality of New Zealand Rugby, and show a little more readiness to accredit to a very British country the attributes which we like to claim as the birthright of all Britishers. To a great many of us this visit is more than a mere 'Rugger' tour: the result of a few matches is of infinitesmal value compared with its value as a strengthening of the Imperial connection.[18]
It was all grist to the publicity mill as the tour built to its climax, the Test against England scheduled three days into the New Year.
NEXT ISSUE: London Counties for the second time
[1] Frank Mitchell, The People, 14 September 1924
[2] ibid
[3]Auckland Star, 18 November 1924
[4] ibid
[5] The People, reported in New Zealand Herald, 18 November 1924
[6] Gordon C Jones, Poverty Bay Herald, 31 December 1924
[7] Ron Barr, The People, reported in the Pahitua Herald, 7 January 1925
[8] ibid
[9] Sporting Life and Referee, quoted in The Press, 8 January 1925
[10] Daily Mail, 1 December 1924
[11] Daily Chronicle, 1 December 1924
[12] Mercian, Athletic News, 1 December 1924
[13] General 'Tim'Harington, Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff in the latter stages of the First World War until 1920. At the time of the All Blacks tour he was GOC Northern Command and was later Governor of Gibraltar during the Spanish Civil War.
[14] The Times, 15 December 1924
[15] E.E. Booth, NZ Truth, 31 January 1925
[16] Brigadier-General Reginald Kentish DSO comments published New Zealand Times, 3 February 1925
[17] Dr S.P. McCallum, Letter to the Editor, Sporting Life and Sportsman, reproduced in Temuka Leader, 12 February 1925. (Dr McCallum, from Ashburton, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship in 1920 after he served in the First World War with the NZ Army)
[18] ibid