9: All hell breaks loose after Auckland loss
Govt. pressure sought over selection
As impressive as the finale to the All Blacks' 1924 Australian tour had been, especially a 10-try 38-8 win over New South Wales, in which Cliff Porter ran rampant, scoring three tries, the critics in New Zealand were unimpressed.
This despite the fact that under modern scoring it would have equated to a 58-10 win, and could have been worse as only four kicks at goal, from 18 attempted were successful.
New Zealand's critics hadn't caught up with the opinion of Australian G.V. 'Jerry' Portus, who covered the tour for the Sydney Mail. The former Rhodes Scholar, who played for England while at Oxford, said the All Blacks won more than the series.
They have left behind a record of clean, sparkling football and a considerable debt of gratitude. They can look back on this short preliminary tour of New South Wales with a good deal of satisfaction from many points of view. It has discovered them to themselves, and made them a team instead of a side, which they were on arrival. No observer could fail to be struck with the difference between their first and their third matches. Gone were the misunderstandings, the over-runnings, the lack of anticipation which characterised their back division in the first Test match. Gone also was that curious inability to put the finishing touches on forward scoring movements.[1]
Centre Handley Brown runs in to score, with five-eighths Mark Nicholls in support. (Howell Collection)
But after seeing the side lose to Auckland 3-14, the day after their return, the critics pounced, despite the extenuating circumstances George Nepia had mentioned and which Bert Cooke and Read Masters backed up.
Returning from Sydney on the old Manuka we had a shocking trip, no one being allowed on deck for two days. In the middle of this tossing, we got a wireless message that we were to play Auckland the day after our arrival. Imagine our feelings! Some pretty terse comments on the New Zealand Union were made. The boat got into Auckland on Tuesday night, and our cot-cases staggered ashore. Some of them were still staggering when they took the field at Eden Park next day, before a highly-critical crowed which had not yet got over the unforgiveable sin of our being whacked in the first 'Test' at Sydney. Luckily, I was not required to play in this game as I had hurt my shoulder in the last Test at Sydney.[2]
So bad was the criticism after the game, that Jock Richardson was still talking about it 70 years later. The worst comment came in the New Zealand Herald from 1905-06 forward George 'Toiler' Tyler. Richardson said that after Tyler's comments every win in their unbeaten tour, the players would comment, 'There's another bloody nail in Tyler's coffin.'
Tyler's comments are listed.
The weakest team New Zealand has ever had; weak in scrums, weak on defence, and lacking in pace, sums up the present All Black team after the match on Eden Park yesterday.
The scrum work was such that out of 23 scrums the All Blacks hooked the ball only six times. Though there were some good forwards, good scrummers were lacking. The way in which the pack buckled when the weight went in showed that there was something wrong with the formation. There will have to be a great improvement if the team is to be a success, but it is doubtful if material is there for a first-class combination. The weakness in defence is emphasised by reference to the scores that have already been registered against the present combination compared with the original All Blacks. The latter, in 31 matches in Britain, had only eight tries scored against them, while the present All Blacks already have 11 tries against them for five matches. Three tries were registered against them in the first half of the game yesterday.
The method adopted in selecting the team was wrong. Only 25 members should have been chosen before the trip to New South Wales, and when weak links had been found other players could be selected to meet emergencies. It is a shame that men like Paewai, Mill and McGregor should be chosen, while such players as Johnston (Wellington), Kirwan, Wright, and Matson (Auckland) were turned down. Matson is about the best back in Auckland this season. Any of the four players mentioned would strengthen the defence. Another fine player who has been overlooked and passed by is Lomas (Auckland), a first-class hooker and a good forward. In each of the three matches he has beaten Irvine. But the greatest injustice of all is the exclusion of Wright. He undoubtedly is the best halfback in the Dominion, and is the ideal type.
In addition to the weakness of the forwards in scrumming, the backs yesterday were lacking in initiative on attack, and their defence was weak. Their tactics were monotonous and ineffective. Notwithstanding the display of yesterday, there are players in the Dominion qualified to form a good team. It has been suggested that a coach should be sent with the All Blacks; but players won't listen to a coach. We never did. A man like J. Moffitt should be included to strengthen the scrums and educate the pack.[3]
Tyler's dismissal brought to mind the words of the late English cricket writer Martin Johnson, who famously said of the England cricket team, 'Can't bat, can't bowl, can't field' before they went on to win the Ashes in 1986.
'The sense of despair among the rugby public was not helped when Christchurch-based selector H.E. Davis told The Sun in Christchurch that the manager of the team in Australia, E.A. Little, sent a telegram to his fellow members of the NZRU management committee after the Auckland game. He suggested that Auckland halfback D.H. 'Don' Wright[4] should be added to the team. Unofficial reports in Wellington and Palmerston North, where the All Blacks beat Manawhenua 27-12 on their way from Auckland to Wellington, confirmed the other selectors had been asked for their opinions.
Of the Palmerston North game, Cooke recounted the misfortune that became loose forward, Andrew 'Son' White.
'Son' White collided with a goalpost and knocked himself out, but he was the sort of man you couldn't kill with a sledge-hammer, and he was alive and kicking when we got on the train for Wellington half-an-hour after the match.[5]
NZRU chairman, and manager of the team to Britain, Ireland and France, Stan Dean confirmed Little's telegram would be considered by the management committee on the following Monday in Wellington, just before the team sailed. However, he said an extra player would have to be approved by The [England] Rugby Union which was covering the tour expenses.
That Monday meeting proved to be a classic.
The Dominion said strongmen on the NZRU management committee proved to be A.C. Kitto, T.A. Fletcher, C. Mullaney, and Ted McKenzie, who was a selector and committee member. They stood by the selectors' original choices 'and prevented the extraordinary attempt made to include a player who had failed to win his place.'
At the meeting, selection chief Ted McKenzie said George Tyler's criticism was regrettable and that he was satisfied the team would answer all of Tyler's criticisms. Dean then left the meeting to attend a function in his honour. Little was nominated to be chairman in his absence; he lacked a seconder, and the job fell to A.C. Kitto. They considered the minutes of a meeting held on Saturday evening. That meeting had been called after representations to the NZRU by Cabinet Minister and future Prime Minister J.G. 'Gordon' Coates, who had an offer on behalf of citizens of Auckland to subscribe 500-pound expenses should Wright be selected to join the side.
McKenzie and Fletcher said the meeting should not have been held. Mr Wylie responded that it was held because representations had been made to the Prime Minister on the matter. Dean and Wylie had called the meeting at Coates' request. Notices had been sent to each member, but Fletcher said he never received one.
Wylie said: "We called the meeting in all good faith to discuss the matter. The suggestion was made that, if necessary, the selectors should be called to Wellington to consider it. I am sure those present cannot object to anything that took place. The whole thing was a clear-cut issue. There was no hole-and-corner business. Everything was above board. It was unfortunate that Mr Kitto, Mr Fletcher, and Mr McKenzie could not be present. After it was done, we could have called a special meeting for Sunday. It was called for the betterment of the game. Some of us may disagree. Whether we disagree or not, I fail to see that any member of the committee has any complaint at the meeting being called."[6]
Kitto asked who had called the meeting, and Wylie responded, Coates and the Prime Minister, Mr Massey. Kitto then asked what they had to do with it?
McKenzie said: "They may be good at politics, but they may have to improve themselves at football."
Wylie said the PM was entitled to consideration and any member who failed to consider that lacked responsibility. The selectors were contacted, and their replies were received before the Saturday meeting. Fletcher claimed the meeting suggested Wright should be sent. Wylie and Hornig disagreed. Fletcher then said it was Coates' view that Wright should go. Wylie again disagreed and said it was unfortunate that Little should have mentioned any names in his telegram.
McKenzie said the whole issue seemed like a 'pull' from Auckland.
He added: "I am very surprised to see that a section of the committee should have done this. It only goes to show what might have gone on had the selectors not stood up to their action.
"On receiving the communication I got in touch at once with the other six selectors, and, with one exception, they are all opposed to the proposal. That decision was conveyed to the New Zealand Management Committee and they still go on – or a section of them – with one idea, to satisfy the people in Auckland. Nobody can deny it."
Wylie then contended that McKenzie's claim that the selection committee was opposed was incorrect.
"Mr McKenzie: 'I beg pardon. I said with one exception.
"Mr Wylie: 'There was more than one in agreement with it.'
"Mr McKenzie: 'You don't know anything about it. I have the telegrams here from the selectors to prove what I say.'
"Mr Wylie: 'It is unfortunate that we did not take this meeting in committee.'
"Mr McKenzie: 'I want it in the open. I want the people of New Zealand to see how things have been carried on.
"Mr Wylie: 'It is unfortunate for your fellow selectors.'
"Mr McKenzie: 'Not at all.'
"The chairman: 'There is nothing before the committee.'
"Mr McKenzie: I have all the selectors' telegrams here, and am prepared to hand them to the Press.'"
Wylie and McKenzie were at odds over claims of it being a 'hole and corner business,' and McKenzie refused to withdraw his comments. The committee discussed what had been involved with Mr. Coates.
Kitto closed the discussion and said he took it that the committee had every confidence in the team selected to general agreement, although Wylie added, 'We always did."
A day later, Coates made a statement. He said that at 10.30 pm on Friday, some men in Wellington visited his office and asked if he would deliver a message to members of the NZRU management committee who were travelling north to the All Blacks game in Palmerston North the following day.
The message said the men in my office had telephone communication from Auckland with a request to place before the committee a proposal to include D. Wright of Auckland in the team and those Aucklanders would pay all his expenses.
None of these gentlemen could make it convenient to see the management committee next day on account of their going to Palmerston North, and they asked me if I would formally deliver the message. That was done in the teams of their request without any embellishment or qualifications.
I have to thank the management committee for listening to the request, and several of those who interviewed me expressed appreciation of the fact that the committee had taken into consideration, and had not treated it lightly.
As far as I know, the Prime Minister knew nothing at all about it. These people merely asked me to convey the message in terms of the communication that had been received from Auckland. The gentlemen who were travelling North, said: 'Very well, we will consult the selectors.'
It is unnecessary for me to remark that I hold very strong views that the management of sport should be entirely free from any political or Government control, and that it should be left entirely to those who have been elected for that purpose.[7]
Backing Coates' claims was P.F. McEvedy in a letter to the editor of The Dominion.
As one of the party who waited on the Hon. Mr. Coates on Friday evening last, I desire to endorse everything he has said on the matter. The facts, as stated by him in his reply to the accusation of political influence are accurate in every detail. The Prime Minister was never approached and I can definitely state knew nothing of the matter. Political influence was neither sought nor expected. The time to accomplish anything was limited. The Hon. Mr. Coates was interviewed in his capacity of a private citizen and a keen football enthusiast, with the the knowledge that he would probably see some members of the Management Committee in Palmerston on the Saturday, and so place our views before them at the earliest possible moment. We make no apology for our efforts to secure Wright's inclusion in the team. Our desire was to see the strengthened where Press reports recorded a weakness. Auckland was not alone in this movement, and our efforts were prompted solely in the interests of New Zealand football. My chief object, however, in this letter is to assure the public that political influence never at any time entered into the movement. P.F. McEvedy.[8]
The Auckland group ended their bid for Wright's inclusion when it was reportedly learned that 'Ginger' Nicholls was the official replacement halfback.
Fletcher continued the correspondence through the Evening Post editorial columns, saying several management committee members were disgusted at the lengths gone by those who wanted Wright included in the side. They knew who was responsibile in Auckland as they had approached the All Blacks to join them, but they had declined.
Every conceivable avenue seems to have been exploited to get Wright into the team, and the fact that all these back-door methods have come to nought is, at any rate, one thing to the credit of the New Zealand Rugby Union.[9]
NEXT ISSUE: Legends have their say
[1] G.V Portus, Sydney Mail, 23 July 1924. Professor Portus became an Australian rugby selector in 1934. While at Oxford he was a double rowing blue and was captain of the English Test rugby side in 1934.
[2] Bert Cooke, NZ Observer, 6 August 1936
[3] G.A. Tyler (1905-06 All Black), NZ Herald, 24 July 1924
[4] [4] D.H. 'Don' Wright played 21 games for Auckland from 1922-26, two games for Auckland-North Auckland in 1923-24 and was selected for New Zealand's 1925 tour of Australia.
[5] Cooke ibid
[6] The Dominion, 29 July 1924 NB: all comments from the meeting were recorded by The Dominion
[7] J.G. 'Gordon' Coates, The Evening Post, 29 July 1924
[8] P.F. McEvedy, Letter to the Editor, The Dominion, 31 July 1924 (McEvedy, was born in Southbridge and attended St Patrick's College in Wellington before studying medicine at Guy's Hospital in London. As a player he toured New Zealand with the 1904 British team and the 1908 Anglo-Welsh before returning to Wellington in 1909. He was a member of the NZRFU management committee in 1911-12 and 1914-18 and president of the NZRFU in 1934.
[9] T.A. Fletcher, Letter to the Editor, The Evening Post, 1 August 1924