Given the glowing praise for the forward play of the 1923 All Blacks especially among the critics around New Zealand, concerns were not so great about the forwards selected for the 1924-25 tour but it was a different story for the backs.
Forward reaction
The main concern surrounded how the 2-3-2 scrum would stack up against stronger British and Irish packs.
Jock Richardson was regarded as being on a pedestal by himself in the Invercargill trial, but in the inter-island game in a beaten South Island pack he showed his worth by being the best forward on display.
He toiled like a demon in the pack and when the ball came out he had to get out and do work that should have been part of the backs' duties. He has as much pace as any back in the country and when he gets under way he has to be stopped. He is no easy man to stop and the poor unfortunate that is unlucky enough to run into him is not too ready to go looking for a second dose. If New Zealand has produced any better forwards than this fellow 'Tackler' wants to know who they are.[1]
After the Invercargill trial, NZ Truth's rugby writer Tackler felt 'Son' White was going down hill, but he retracted those thoughts.
He is still a fine forward and one of the very few we have at the present time that knows anything about dribbling. On more than one occasion he went through half the North team with the ball at toe, but when he lost it, there was never any one at hand to carry on. Another thing – nobody would ever dream of saying that White is not honest.[2]
Another view was the side was stronger and faster than the 1905-06 side.
The best forward of all is Maurice Brownlie, whose great all round play in the loose marks him as a forward without peer in New Zealand Rugby. Other great forwards are [Jock] Richardson and Cyril Brownlie. The rest are extra good.[3]
Tackler forecast that if Maurice Brownlie produced the form he showed in the inter-island game in Britain, the rugby audiences would 'go into raptures over him.' But he felt brother Cyril, while a fine forward, had a bad habit he needed to drop quickly.
He is inclined to go for a man when he has got rid of the ball. This can easily be mistaken for dirty play and at Home he will find himself in hot water if he should come at it. Drop it once and for all is the writer's advice.[4]
And the writer got in an early word to suggest that while wing-forwards were included in the team, they were different in their method when compared to Dave Gallaher during the 1905-06 tour.
The wing forwards, Porter and Parker, are exceptionally good men...Porter fills the role of rover perfectly. He gets everywhere where the opportunities are greatest or the trouble thickest. He is adept at opening the game for the backs or leading the forwards. Parker is not quite as good, but he has a remarkable turn of speed and is a useful player in his position.[5]
Concerns over the hookers chosen reflected the way Quentin Donald and Bill Irvine were out-hooked in the inter-island game. There was no lack of ability away from the scrum, but in their basic duties they did not impress.
They were chopped out at the barrier rise and never at any time did they get up in the running of the hookers' handicap. As toilers in the open they were there all the time and in this work they are worth their places. Still, when two hookers aspiring for All Black honours are beaten time in and time out for the ball there is more than something wrong.[6]
Among the forwards who missed selection The Evening Post's Drop-Kick [Rex Hornblow] felt the unlucky players were loose forward Laurie Knight of Auckland, A. 'Nugget' Pringle (Wellington) and Jack McNab (Hawke's Bay). Lock A. 'Len' Williams (Otago), like Pringle, played with an injured leg and had the better of Read Masters but still missed out. Moke Belliss shone in 1922-23 and was regarded as the best forward in the country and a favourite of many to tour. But in his trial game he was out-gunned by Porter.
Back reaction
Reaction to the 1924-25 team's backs centred on the choice of only one fullback - George Nepia, and the absence of halfbacks 'Ginger' Nicholls of Wellington and Auckland's Dave Wright.
Drop-Kick [the pen name of Evening Post rugby writer Rex Hornblow] said not having a substitute at fullback for Nepia was a concern. In his most recent outing before the announcement of the side, Nepia looked like a five-eighths trying to adapt to fullback rather than a specialist in the role.
He also queried why five five-eighths were named, surmising that Mark Nicholls may be seen as a second string for Nepia.
Halfback was a position of contention with no outstanding players showing out. Wright was seen by many as the best of those during the trials but was not chosen. 'Ginger' Nicholls' omission was a disappointment.
Unfortunately his one display in Wellington was not equal to his fine performance in Wanganui. Neither Mill nor Dalley are equal to Nicholls at his best, and Dalley must be considered lucky to get in at all.[7]
Jimmy Mill regarded as a controversial choice at halfback for the tour. (Archives New Zealand Reference: ACGO 8333 IA1 1349 15/11/17721)
The NZ Free Lance said Nicholls' omission was the 'real blot' of the selection.
I have had a speaking acquaintance with all the halfbacks in Wellington – aye, in New Zealand – for the last thirty years – and I am prepared to say that, given the equal opportunities, Nicholls would give a showing that would bear favourable comparison with any of them...As to those competing with him – and who have been preferred before him – Mill is too much of a solo player to be an ideal halfback: he works the blindside to attack on his own instead of keeping the men behind him going; Wright has given excellent exhibitions for Auckland, but he failed to rise to the occasion the time I watched him with a critical eye; and Dalley, on tour with Canterbury last season, was not in the same village – let alone the same street – with Harry Nicholls.[8]
Bert Cooke, who played with Wright, didn't agree with many critics. He based his comment on seeing Wright and Jimmy Mill competing in Auckland's 1923 Ranfurly Shield challenge with Hawke's Bay, a game they lost 5-20.
Jimmy Mill got two tries for Hawke's Bay by brilliant initiative close to the line. Open side or blind side, it came all the same to Jimmy. Don Wright was our half, a great player; but despite the agitation the following year to send Wright away with the 1924 team, Wright wasn't the equal of Mill. I am not decrying Don Wright in saying that, because Don Wright was a very fine half; but Mill in my opinion was the top, the best half I have ever seen or am ever likely to see. When he left the base of the scrum on one of those blindside wriggles of his, it was 'Goodnight.' You could chalk up three points straight away.[9]
NZ Truth believed a good decision was made with Nepia when moving him from the five-eighths after the Auckland region trial.
At five-eighths he was not worth notice, but on the Monday, as fullback [in the Te Mori Rose Bowl game], his display was the only bright feature of an otherwise drab affair. Coming to Wellington for the Possibles-Probables game, he went one better and played brilliantly. Again in the North-South game he was ever the central figure, and in the last trial he also played magnificently. Nepia is a fullback who will electrify the bankers at Home.[10]
'Five-Eighths' in The Dominion said veteran player 'Tabby' Wynyard, a member of the 1888-89 New Zealand Native team, rated Nepia as another Billy Warbrick.
Nepia is just as full of life as Billy Warbrick was in his best days. Warbrick was never at rest. He was always on the move, and what a great fullback he was! He never waited for the fast English three-quarter backs to come to him. He used to charge straight for them, and lift their feet from under them. Frequently he would come up instead of kicking, and join in with the backs in passing rushes. Nepia reminds me very much of Billy, and the Dannevirke [sic] boy is the best man I have seen in the position since Warbrick's day.[11]
Regarding the wings, NZ Truth,said 'Gus' Hart lived up to the praise that preceded the Wanganui trial.
He is the most promising winger seen for some time and had he a little more weight he would be almost ideal for the position. He is green yet, and here is where a coach would come in. He is inclined to be a bit wild when he is held up and he could with advantage practise a centring kick. He will find this invaluable.
[Fred] Lucas is another winger who could do with a bit more beef. He is a heady player who has only one fault – that of pulling up when he gets within striking distance of his vis-a-vis. He who hesitates is an old axiom, and Lucas should remember it.[12]
The selection of [Alan] Robilliard has met with a lot of adverse comment, but most of it is not justified. This boy has brains, and a bit of brawn, too, and if he does not come back the equal of any of the other wings I will be surprised. Granted as of yet he is nothing to write home about, but one bit of play that he was responsible for at Christchurch showed he has the ability. In that game, his side was attacking hotly on the goal-line. A scrum was ordered and Robilliard was on the blind. He could see no opening there if his side hooked, so he swung across and took up a position between the half and the inside five-eighths. His anticipation was correct, for the ball came his way and over he went. Perhaps only a small point, but it showed an active brain.[13]
Jack Steel had been criticised by some writers for not being the player of old.
They err, for he is. In the Christchurch game he showed he was, and the two tries he scored were typical Steel efforts. Jack has only one fault – he is just a chunk too cocksure. Every player needs to have confidence in himself, but to be over-confident is just as bad as being a little windy. At times, Steel takes play too nonchalantly, and nine times out of ten he pays the penalty. He will have to drop this now he is going Home and do the business as it should be done. [14]
[Note, Bill Dalley said Steel's ability to run hard along the sideline and bounce defenders off was down to leaning in as he ran and hitting defenders hard.]
[Karl] Svenson is not an ideal centre but at present he has few equals. His attacking capabilities are not of the best...In his football so far he has been called on to fill all sorts of positions in all sorts of games. As a consequence, he is a jack of all trades and master of none. On defence there is not a better man in the team.[15]
[Handley] Brown's inclusion was another good reason to have a coach with the side. The ball was at his toe in regards to his future.
He has all his football before him and what he has shown us so far is good. He wants coaching, for he is at the age when his play can be made or marred.[16]
The writer expected Bert Cooke to return home as the best five-eighths seen in England for years.
Neil McGregor had the benefit of two games, in Invercargill and Christchurch, to thank for his selection.
He was an instant success. The first time he got the ball he showed his quality, and all day kept on showing brilliant form. He gets off the mark like a shot, has a side-step that is a fooler, and possesses a fine burst of speed. He is (unless this match was his day out) going to be an acquisition to N.Z. football.[17]
Mark Nicholls was considered lucky to have been among the first 16 selected, especially after his display in the inter-island game.
Mark is a first five-eighths, and on his shoulders a lot will descend. He will be called on to do the work that either spells success or ruin to attacking play. He should be able to do this, for he has a fine burst of speed over twenty-five yards, and that is the part it is wanted. Nicholls is also a straight runner, and such players are scarce nowadays.[18]
[Lui] Paewai was described as the weakest man in the backline. The writer felt he must have arrived in Wellington in a coach drawn by a regiment of black cats because he had a charmed run.
With the exception of the third Test last year, he has shown us nothing to warrant him being given a place in the All Blacks...He is the weakest man in the backline and it cannot be denied.[19]
