New Zealand rugby enjoyed one of its most notable years in 1921, not just because of its hosting of the first Springboks tour, but also because every rugby union was involved in games against touring sides.
Not only South Africa toured, but also New South Wales, which, because of the lack of rugby in Queensland, was essentially the Australian side. Some unions had to prepare combined sides, notably Auckland-North Auckland, Nelson-Marlborough-Golden Bay-Motueka, West Coast-Buller and Manawatu-Horowhenua, but everyone benefited from the exposure, if not financially.
And by the time the NSW visit was well underway, New Zealand was bubbling as a result of the All Blacks' win in the first Test against South Africa in Dunedin.
Interest was high to see if the All Blacks could assert the public's commonly held belief that they were the best in the world by claiming the series when winning the second Test.
Before that could be achieved, the Springboks headed back to the North Island to recuperate and rethink their plans ahead of the second Test to be played in Auckland.
Heading back to the North Island after the first Test loss, New Zealand rugby was busier than it had ever been.
The Springboks left Dunedin by rail bound for Christchurch and another crossing on the inter-island ferry, a much more subdued overnight trip than their earlier experience. They were headed for Palmerston North where they were to play the combined Manawatu-Horowhenua side. The home team had been in camp for a week with their coach James Ryan, the captain of the successful New Zealand Army team in Europe and South Africa in 1919. They warmed up for their international game by beating a Wellington B team by more than 50 points. Ryan's message to his players ahead of the big game was basic, 'Marry the ball, and stick to it'.[1]
It wasn't the strongest South African combination in the wake of their Test loss and knowing they had another combined team, Auckland-North Auckland, next up. South Africa scored a try 10 minutes into the game after the halves Mannetjies Michau and Sas de Kock combined well to give centre Billy Sendin the chance to make a strong break in midfield to allow Sarel Strauss to score wide out. IB De Villiers, who was playing fullback with goal-kicking duties, had already missed two long-range penalty goal opportunities when he also failed to convert the try.
With South Africa leading 3-0 at halftime, Ryan told his players,
Now, you're holding the ball; make sure that you grab every man who puts his hand on it.[2]
Scrum penalties started to mount against the Springboks, and at one stage they handed the ball to referee H.J. 'Bert' McKenzie, of the Wairarapa rugby clan, to feed it into scrums. While the home forwards offered their backs little ball to play with, the backs demonstrated their mettle with outstanding tackling to contain the Springboks and Ryan's methods worked as the tourists were unable to score again in the game and the home side, while unable to score themselves, were able to keep the margin to three points. Home captain 'Harry' Jacob, a Military Cross recipient from the last days of the First World War, believed the combined team's forwards were superior to the Springboks, and if they had played at their best, they had the winning of the game.
The Manawatu Standard
commented:
Throughout, the game was of a fast and open character, more like the Rugby of a decade ago than the present-day tactics, and in this the referee helped as far as possible by applying the advantage rule judiciously. Of the local men, it is sufficient to say that each and every one thoroughly justified his inclusion in the team. Though hard-fought, the game was played in a good spirit and only on two occasions were players cautioned for rough play. This fine spirit was not the least bright feature of a wonderful game, with which everyone expressed the utmost satisfaction.[3]
From Palmerston North, it was back to Auckland where, before their game,
the Springboks were recipients of presentations made by the Auckland branch of the South African Veterans' Association. They presented manager Harold Bennett two statuettes made from kauri gum. The first was of a Maori woman with a child on her shoulder and the second of a Maori man. They were mounted on polished wood with a slab of petrified kauri gum between them and enclosed in a glass case. Each member of the touring party received a small replica of a football carved from kauri gum and showing the words, 'Kia Ora'.
In Auckland, the combined northern team proved not as effective in containing the tourists who ran up a 24-8 win. South Africa took the game to the home side through their scrum, their 3-2-3 formation denying the northern side all but some scraps to play with. They were helped by the fact that it wasn't until the second half that Taffy Townsend was penalised, and then several times, for picking the ball out of the scrum. According to the Auckland Star, only Wally Clarkson, Bill Zeller and Gerhard Morkel 'measured up to New Zealand international class'.
Thirteen minutes into the game Townsend cleared the ball quickly to centre Clarkson, who in turn fed wing Zeller who beat several defenders to run round behind the posts to open the scoring. Townsend sidestepped home halfback Stirley Crawford to feed Zeller in for his second try, early in the second half. A lineout break by Clarkson saw the Springboks attempt to move the ball left and right with both Zeller and Attie van Heerden stopped close to the line. But the pressure told, and from another ruck, it was Zeller who crossed for his third try. A near length of the field try followed when Clarkson, Strauss and van Heerden combined with van Heerden scoring. From the restart, the Springboks moved back into the northern side's territory and it was Zeller who was on the end of another rush to cross for his fourth try.
Zeller, on the wing, was always brilliant when the ball came to him, his fielding, handling, kicking and running being of the best class. Royal Morkel was literally a tower of strength to the African forwards in the lineout, and [Nick] du Plessis and [Mervyn] Ellis were good all round men, but generally the Auckland forwards showed to better advantage on the line and in the loose…The Auckland backs were generally outpaced, and they got little chance to show scoring ability, but their tackling was poor all round.[4]
The New Zealand Herald went further in describing Zeller's game.
Zeller was the pick of the South African backs, and played one of the finest three-quarter games ever seen in Auckland. He is particularly speedy, fine at side-stepping, and handles the ball excellently.[5]
The home finally managed a try of their own after a dropped goal went astray from Kaipara forward Charles Fletcher, an All Black tourist to Australia in 1920 who never played a game due to an injury suffered before leaving New Zealand. He recovered the ball and passed to five-eighths Len Weston who gave centre Karl Ifwersen the chance and he scored. South Africa had the final say however, when Jackie Tindall got past Crawford to score behind the posts.
Auckland's backs were under some disadvantage, a point the South African management acknowledged. They had been playing under variations of the laws in their bid to compete with rugby league, but the laws applied in the game were the international laws of rugby. This point was also noted by The Star which said the excellence of the South African line kicking was well above the New Zealand standard, although the tactic had its detractors among the home crowd. Both manager Bennett and captain Theo Pienaar felt the performance was the best by the Springboks on tour. Bennett said they were worried they might be beaten by Auckland but on the play they showed he felt they deserved their win. Pienaar said 'one would have to go far to see a better exposition of the game'.
Nine days after playing the touring New South Wales side and going down 3-29, Bay of Plenty lined up against the Springboks. Putting on a much-improved defensive display, Bay of Plenty held the tourists to 9-17. It was a game in which the Springboks suffered at the hands of the referee, Wanganui's L Meuli, who pinged their infringements hard. But when the South Africans managed to get their passing game going, they were able to beat the home defences with Jackie Weepener scoring the first try of the game. Home wing David Borell, who had been a much-discussed inclusion, landed two penalty goals to give the Bay the lead, but a Roy Morkel dropped goal levelled the score.
When van Heerden was on the end of another backline break he had the speed to score and give South Africa a halftime lead of 11-6. Roy Morkel and Billy Sendin both scored unconverted tries in the second half. Just before fulltime there was home reward when halfback Ernie Montgomery won the ball, passing to Joe Kororiko, who passed on to former New Zealand league Test cap George Iles before Borell received the ball to score.
The Bay of Plenty Times summed up the win,
The superior weight of the Springbok forwards told throughout. They did not hook from the scrum but using their weight walked over the ball repeatedly, and their backs were quickly in motion. The weight and speed were irresistible and the Bay team put up a really good performance.[6]
All attention returned to Auckland and the second Test. E.E. Booth pointed to concerns with the All Blacks' continued devotion to the 2-3-2 scrum.
It is an interesting feature that both South Africa and New South Wales at present playing in New Zealand adopt the 3-2-3 formation usually. Both teams are getting most 'possession' in scrummaging. Personally, I believe myself [sic] that an organised pack 3-2-3 with specialised places, and coached in weight application, can beat the 2-3-2 for securing the ball. New Zealand is wholly wedded to its style, and never even tries other methods.[7]
Conditions at Eden Park could not have been better for the game which was played in front of a record crowd for New Zealand, all of whom attended the game without knowing who would be in either side, the teams only being announced on the morning of the game. Significantly, it was found South Africa had dropped Townsend and chosen Meyer. But the initial shock was absorbed when the wing adapted quickly to the first five-eighths role and unleashed several individual bursts during the game. They also decided to field a fast pack to take advantage of the conditions, although they were still 12 pounds per man heavier than the All Blacks.
South Africa had stated before the game that they hoped Teddy Roberts wouldn't play at halfback ahead of Ginger Nicholls, but Roberts was included.
South Africa scored first, when Tank van Rooyen headed a breakout by the forwards, the ball being moved to the three-quarters. Clarkson beat several defenders before putting Sendin in with Gerhard Morkel converting from wide out. Rather than utilise their superior weight in scrums, South Africa opted for a kicking game, plugging the line and turning back the New Zealanders who enjoyed a slight, but unprofitable, advantage in the loose.
Springboks fullback Gerhard Morkel lands a conversion in the second Test at Eden Park.
At their first chance to score, courtesy of a break by Roberts and a pass from first five-eighths Ces Badeley to centre George Aitken who worked the ball to wing Percy Storey, it took desperate cover from Clarkson to prevent a try. But Roberts combined with Moke Belliss in another burst to the line and from the scrambling play that followed forward Andrew McLean drove over to score. Mark Nicholls converted from the sideline, the ball rebounding over after hitting a goalpost. Unfortunately for New Zealand, breaks secured by Roberts were undone due to handling errors by Badeley allowing the Springboks to take advantage through the midfield. In the second half, the home backs struggled and it took decisive defensive bursts by wing Jack Steel to deny certain tries for Zeller and Clarkson. Roberts vindicated his selection time and again, not only on attack, but also in defence. Nicholls missed a penalty goal chance from near halfway and when the Africans achieved another breakthrough, Gerhard Morkel received the ball on the run to land a dropped goal from 40m out. New Zealand tried to recover but it was South Africa who were denied tries for Meyer and Sendin when overexcitement resulted in spilled ball.
Aitken said afterwards:
The Springboks made it a tight game, and beat us forward, but among the backs there was little difference. Both backs played a crowding game, keeping up among the forwards.[8]
It was to prove Aitken's last Test for the All Blacks as he was dropped for the third Test, not being included among the 'preliminary selection' named after the Test, to travel to Wellington to go into camp to train before the third Test. The players named were: Backs – Kingston, Evans, Steel, Ifwersen, Ford, Markham, Algar, Roberts, H.E. Nicholls, Mark Nicholls; Forwards-Donald, Fogarty, Duncan, McLean, Moffitt, Richardson, Belliss, West, Turnbull and Fletcher.
Lock Jock Richardson wrote later the result was a shock to New Zealand's rugby pride.
Without the shadow of a doubt the win had been well earned. All the ball went to the visiting backs, and on the day van Heerden's pace would have been invaluable. The big man on the New Zealanders' side was certainly the half Roberts, who starved for the ball, got his backs to work from odd chances in the loose. In the tight work the green forwards excelled, and the fact that the black pack stood up to the work is very high praise. Taken one by one the African backs were very sound and [Billy] Sendin was brilliant at times. The biggest honours of the day went to the man who might be accorded the Olympic crown for full-backs, Gerald [sic] P. Morkel.[9]
Tokkie Scholtz recalled that after New Zealand scored their try the crowd became excited and encroached yards onto the field in the second half.
Once Zeller, on the wing, had a clear run for the line, but found himself amongst the crowd. Naturally he stopped, thinking he was in touch, and so an excellent chance went begging. There was, however, no further scoring and we won on our merits.[10]
Another view of the game was provided by an unnamed New Zealand correspondent for Sydney's Referee. He wrote the game was notable for three incidents in a contest in which neither side could be classed, 'a great international team.'
The first was the try scored by Sendin. It came after Meyer, playing halfback for the second time in his career, made a break up the centre of the field. When tackled, van Rooyen secured the ball to feed it out to Michau and Clarkson who gave Sendin the room to score.
The second occurred when Zeller broke clear along the sideline and looked to have a certain try when Roberts came across the field in cover to execute a tackle that stopped him in his tracks.
The tackle was such a solid one that Zeller was bereft even of initiative for the time being as he was lying on the ground but six inches short of the goal-line, and had only to lift the ball up to put it over and score the try. But while Zeller and Roberts were on the ground, Badeley came along and quietly picked the ball as it was lying in the crook of Zeller's arm, and, putting in a short run into touch and safety.
The third incident was the potted goal by Gerhard Morkel, the South African fullback. A hard kick by a Springbok forward was stopped by Kingstone, and as he started to make his run before kicking the ball, he slipped, and two South Africans were on him before he could recover himself. For a second or two the ball lay quietly, and then it started moving towards the New Zealand goal. The players were converging on the ball from all quarters, and Steel, for safety's sake, gave it a boost that sent it to the dead ball line. The scrummage ordered for the West Coaster's act was carried by the New Zealanders, and the ball dribbled out to Morkel, the visitors' fullback. He was between the 25 and half-way lines, close to the touch-line, when he got the ball, and running infield a few steps, he let go with the right foot, the ball sailing fairly and squarely between the goal-posts, and high up over the centre. It was unexpected, but was nevertheless a fine exhibition of how points can be scored if the man behind the ball has a hefty and well-directed boot.[11]
The incident that led up to New Zealand's try was not of the standard of the three mentioned, but it is worth drawing attention to here. The New Zealand backs had moved well together in unison, but Meyer sent them back with a good kick, which Kingstone equalised when his chance came to return it. Then from a scrummage Roberts went away on the blind side. His pass to Storey was well made, the Timaru man getting up a full head of steam. After he was accounted for, and another player on each side had handled the ball, it lay on the ground dangerously near the South African line. McLean, Bay of Plenty's representative, grabbed it, and with a dive worthy of a swimmer, shot over the chalk-mark.[12]
The writer said South Africa played a strictly orthodox game, of a type seen in New Zealand 20-30 years earlier.
They seem to be obsessed with the idea that the only players who should score tries are the outside wing three-quarters, forgetting for the time being that every man in a Rugby 15 is part and parcel of a scoring combination, and should be given the opportunity of putting a score opposite his name.[13]
Co-coach Alex McDonald said he was disappointed with New Zealand's back play and while Roberts had been 'magnificent', the weakness was in the centre where support for breaks was lacking. The NZ Times said all critics appeared unanimous that if the five-eighths had gone in straight and tackled their man, they would have broken up the Springboks' combinations before they got going, and the New Zealand tackling had been weak.
In assessing the backs the NZ Times critic said:
At fullback Kingston had a tremendous amount of work, and did it very well, but he made a couple of bad mistakes in the second half, when the Springboks nearly scored. Steele's [sic] work was hampered by the close attention that the Africans paid him. Nevertheless, he executed several pieces of clever individual play. Storey also played below his best form, and suffered, like Steele, through not being fed. Aitken was weak in attacking from the centre, but showed better in defence. Mark Nicholls was another weak spot in the blacks' attack, though his defence was very sound. Badeley's play was most inefficient. Among all the backs, Roberts was the old Roberts, and was the idol of the crowd. He carried a double responsibility, and shone everywhere. The most thrilling moment of the match was when he chased Zeller for thirty yards, and dived from behind, bringing him down by the heels within a few yards of the line. The manager of the New Zealand Army team said it was the finest tackle he had ever seen.[14]
Some of the forwards fared a little better in their assessments:
Bellis played a magnificent game, and was always on the ball. His work on the line-out and in opening up an attack was very fine. Moffitt played a vigorous game, his best work being shown in scrum, ruck, and light play. Hughes was of very little use beyond hooking. Duncan played a very hard, useful game. West was one of the best forwards, and was especially useful in open play. Richardson was going well, although not at his best, till his eye was injured. Donald was a continuous source of worry to the Springbok halves, and added much to the strength of the forward rushes.[15]
The New Zealand Herald noted the inability of the New Zealand inside backs to regularly get into rhythm, but that didn't apply to Roberts.
Roberts played a fine game, displaying initiative in attack and sending the ball out to the five-eighths when opportunity offered. This in fact did not occur often, as the New Zealand forwards seldom hooked the ball in the scrum. Time and again, however, Roberts snapped the ball from the feet of the opposing forwards and proved a power of strength to his side.[16]
The Auckland Star also commented on Roberts' display.
When he had warmed up to it Roberts proved the most disconcerting problem the Africans had to deal with, his nippiness and constant variation of play frequently turning their attack, while his outside backs were given plenty of ball, and this was followed with further support by the ubiquitous Wellingtonian when they made mistakes.[17]
Mark Nicholls later added his view in hindsight of the second Test, offering a hint of why Aitken struggled.
I have often thought that this team that played South Africa in the second test of 1921 was 'pavement trained'. We trained hard every morning and in the afternoon we were allowed to walk our legs off on the pavements of the Queen City. No restrictions were placed on our liberty day or night and I understand that two members of the team did not arrive back in the hotel until the early hours of Saturday morning. Then Percy Storey had a very bad shoulder and our captain, George Aitken, was suffering from influenza – but both played. The playing of sick or injured players is much less likely to occur today for the supervision is a hundred percent stricter than it was in 1921, And it would be impossible for two players to come in hours after the stated retiring time the night before the match – and still play in the game.[18]
Booth said New Zealand accepted the loss but at the same time said the Springboks never received kudos for their progression as a unit. They were men of intellect, some of them highly intelligent, and that was reflected in their learning and improvement in their form. They had been under-rated by New Zealanders and their ability to adapt had been misjudged. His assessment of their style shows that little has changed, until most recently, in 100 years.
The style of play of the visitors is convincing enough, aggressive in fact, stubbornly thorough in its execution, yet it lacks much in spectacular value. It is not attractive – never attaining anything electric, thrilling or superlatively captivating. No one goes into rhapsodies of praise, or becomes demented with Springbokism. Still, Africa sticks to its pet theories, bunched rucks, strangled rugby, and so they go on winning. Their pet theory of bunching in defence one would almost suppose to be based on the 'block house' system, i.e., hold everything in check. They are the greatest defensive side I have ever seen in action, easily surpassing the best British, English, Welsh or Australian international teams. Yet they don't show as rush stoppers in the usual approved style, nor do they exhibit any marked proficiency or aptitude for long diving tackles round the bootlaces – 'a la American'. Still they hold nearly all opposition.[19]
Booth said the result would bring delight in Britain where the 1912 Springboks made such a fine impression. He acknowledged New Zealanders were generous in praising their success and the South Africans appreciated that.
The losses by New Zealand teams to both the Africans and Australians would have a beneficial effect in the longer team. "The draught may be nauseous but the result will be good, as next season will prove."[20]
Booth asked who, or what, was to blame for the loss? Whether it was down to the men involved or their methods, he said it was a fact the All Blacks lacked variety in their play and also subtlety and finished cleverness. He said while their methods may be better understood by opponents, surely there was still something of finesse and thinking that could deal with the issue.
New Zealand is up against a serious proposition, and it will require some ingenious scheme to outwit and outplay the visitors.[21]
He said the great New Zealand advocate in Australian rugby, James Henderson, had observed once that New Zealand rugby could always produce an extra touch when required. And that was what the country was hoping for before the third Test.
New Zealanders are like Welshmen in rugby – they never take a pessimistic view of their own affairs and think that they should beat all other nations provided the proper side is chosen. Adaptability is the hallmark of both the individual as well as the side in international contests. Changes are rapid and many. Master minds are at work. It is on this vital point the issue of the next game will be fought.[22]
Booth believed the significance of the third Test would be as great, if not greater, than the Cardiff Test of 1905-06.
It had been decided to give the New Zealand squad more time together, a decision he agreed with, and he felt the side needed more height, pace, youth and speed.
New Zealand will need to abandon some old traditional and customary modes and exhibit better combination and variety. Surely, all the subtle variations of New Zealand back play have not been tried? The most poignant faults in the New Zealand team are lack of thrustful and straight, dodge runs by the backs, and more assertive and aggressive style and methods throughout. It seems hard to realise that any set of New Zealand backs should stand off the usual lateral passing of the Africans and allow the ball to travel without serious hindrance right to the wings. What are the nippy central backs doing? Where [are] the usual man-to-man marking and tackling?
New Zealand must aim at tearing up this new-fangled African notion of smothering everything. The ball actually gets lost. Their tactics are based on their forwards securing control and exhausting their opponents in close, exhaustive scrummaging and rucks, and using their extra poundage advantage with effect. New Zealand must adopt all open play. Obviously long line-outs worry them badly.
Fast dribbling and open, short passing by the Black forwards is the best plan, and all New Zealand's play should emanate from speedy open forward play. This will prevent the peculiar methods of the Africans from finding expression.
The New Zealand forwards seem very poor at following up. In Dunedin, Bellis [sic] and [Son] White were the only two showing proficiency or even capacity to 'blaze the trail' and get G. Morkel.
Several of the pack, apart from injuries, failed to show international form or fitness. The New Zealand team have another failing worth notice – they have up till now seriously mis-rated the Africans. Optimism is all right, but when it involves overmuch depreciation the result usually spells surprise, if not actual disaster.[23]
All wasn't well in the NZRFU's tour management either. The Star (Christchurch) came to the support of the Evening Post's Dropkick who criticised aspects of New Zealand's approach. NZRFU chairman George Slade, and one or two others, took issue with criticism that followed the presentation of medals to players in the first Test, and to putting players in hotels rather than in training camps ahead of the Tests.
Yet, after the first Test the two players who were given medals were dropped, and after the second Test loss it was decided to put the All Blacks into a training camp before the third Test.
There had also been frustration from the press and public alike that the All Blacks and Springboks teams' for the Tests were not being announced until the day of the game. This had led to unofficial programmes being sold with inaccurate names and incorrect sides named in newspapers. And while not of concern to the public, the facilities for the press had been bad at every venue apart from Masterton. The Star hoped for an improvement at the third Test and warned, 'The public is too keenly interested in football to tolerate mismanagement.'[24]
Richardson revealed later that there was a feeling among the players that the selectors were influenced too much in their choice of players by the Wellington media. The choice of players had been affected by the way Wellington's pressmen had written up players from their union to such an extent that 'a wonder haze was in company with all their names', he said.
This reacted on the New Zealand Union executive and, as the power of selection was in the gift of that body, most of the personnel of which lived in Wellington, the sides chosen to represent New Zealand could not help being affected.[25]
He was especially critical of the youth of these players, just out of school and knocked around in their first season of play in 1920.
Many brilliant Rugby careers have been ruined by this worship of the 'brilliant boy' and more than one constitution has had a lifetime of repression.[26]
Whatever was right and wrong was set to be revealed two weeks on when the series decider was completed.
[1] Report, New Zealand Times, 18 August 1921
[2] ibid
[3] Manawatu Standard report, 18 August, 1921
[4] Auckland Star report, 22 August, 1921
[5] New Zealand Herald report, 22 August, 1921
[6] The Bay of Plenty Times, August 25, 1921
[7] E E Booth, Big Football, The Star (Christchurch), 27 August 1921
[8] George Aitken, New Zealand Times, 29 August 1921
[9] Jock Richardson, Southland Daily News, 14 March 1928
[10] Tokkie Shotz, contributor to The History of South African Rugby Football (1875-1932), Ivor Difford, The Speciality Press of S.A. Ltd, Wynberg.
[11] The Referee, 7 September, 1921
[12] ibid
[13] ibid
[14] 'Roberts the idol of the crowd', New Zealand Times, 29 August 1921
[15] ibid
[16] New Zealand Herald, 29 August 1921
[17] The Auckland Star, 29 August 1921
[18] Mark Nicholls, Weekly News, September 1, 1937
[19] E E Booth, Africa's Success, The Star (Christchurch), 8 September 1921
[20] ibid
[21] ibid
[22] ibid
[23] ibid
[24] The Star (Christchurch) 5 September 1921
[25] Jock Richardson, The Southland Daily News, March 24, 1928[26] ibid