Tempestuous might have been a word created with Wellington's Athletic Park in mind, pitched as it was on top of a rise that separated the capital's stormy southern coast from the more tranquil inner harbour.
As a ground it could provide sublime conditions on the best of days for watching rugby but, on its worst, it could be the most demanding of environments. That would be borne out many times in the future, most notably for the second Test against France in 1961.
September 17, 1921, was one of the worst days imaginable. All Black Mark Nicholls, who had been shifted from the five-eighths to centre for the third Test, knew the ground better than most. But that didn't give him any advantage on the day.
For 16 hours prior to the commencement rain had fallen continuously. Athletic Park was covered in places by large pools of water, and with rain falling throughout it was impossible to indulge in persistent passing rushes. But the game lost nothing by that, for the herculean struggle staged by the forwards was a magnificent spectacle.[1] (Weekly News, September 22, 1937)
Conditions at Athletic Park could not have been worse for the series decider. Rain poured for 48 hours before kick-off.
A scene from the third Test between New Zealand and South Africa at Athletic Park in 1921. (Otago Witness)
Former All Black and freelance columnist E.E. Booth caught the mood.
That soaked assemblage was one of the most good natured and best behaved crowds I have ever seen. There were dour enough too in feelings, a strong strata of doubt and apprehension ran strongly through their minds. Those South Africans were hard nuts. All good play received recognition. The actual play was both impressive and comic, football and water polo, hard and purposeful.
It was history being made and a stirring wonderful spectacle to behold the two greatest exponents of Rugby football locked in a clean, hard, orthodox sporting due. On that muddy hill the cheering from those thousands of drenched mortals was like a heavy sea breaking. Then on many dangerous occasions for New Zealand they were palpably dumb. The tension of feeling could be felt almost in the air. Commenting on the actual contest itself; the result fittingly represents the respective merits of both sides on the day's play. It was altogether a wonderful showing, due allowance being given for the climatic conditions, the state of the ground, and the sterling oppressive opposition offered by each side.[2]
Springbok Tekkie Scholtz said:
The ground was like a lake with an occasional patch of mud showing here and there like raisins in the poor man's Christmas pudding.[3]
All Blacks forward Jock Richardson said:
Not one in a thousand gave the Springboks a hope of victory on Athletic Park, Wellington when the ground and the weather were at their very worst. Clay, water, slushy holes and more rain to increase the discomfort.[4]
However, he believed the Springboks had learned plenty from their only provincial loss of the tour when they went down 4-6 to Canterbury in conditions similar to what they found in Wellington.
New Zealand were confident they would show the benefits of their decision to prepare for the series decider in camp at Days Bay and Nicholls backed that with his comments.
The All Blacks were put into camp at Day's Bay for 10 days prior to the great game, and never did a team take the field in such splendid physical condition.[5]
South Africa decided the conditions merited a late change in their backline's make-up. The much-awaited combination between Mannetjies Michau and Sas de Kock was unrealised as the management felt it would be better if Charlie Meyer was closer to the pack with de Kock sent out to the centres.
The wind was with the Springboks in the first half but it was New Zealand who did the early attacking.
Once they did get over halfway, the South Africans hammered New Zealand for 30 minutes but the home defences held.
Great deeds were done in the mud, the green forwards getting the ball with a consistency which was galling to the home backs and to their sodden and muddied supporters. [Attie] Van Heerden excelled himself in jamming in his opponents, his pace, snappy line kicks and anticipation of the ball leaking out from the mighty packs being of a very high order…[Alf] West, later to go on the 'Invincible' tour, collared like a man possessed; Richardson dashed on to the backs in never-tiring effort to bring play to midfield, and Roberts lined neatly and quickly to stem attacks that looked like charges of wild elephants from the Afrikanders' [sic] own hinterland forests. In the 25 remained these laurel crown hunters, and anxious were the moments. Half Michau was held up just on the line. [Phil] Mostert opened a movement that came right to fullback ['Nap'] Kingston. Attie Van Heerden grub-kicked a ball to within a yard of the New Zealand corner flag. And the line struggling that followed was immense! There never will be such a clash again; it was titanic; it was stupendous.[6]
There was a brief moment when New Zealand escaped to halfway, but they soon found themselves turned back and they finished the first half again on defence. Morkel got over the line but was turned on his back and could not ground the ball. Throughout it all, the rain had not eased.
It wasn't only the forwards who bore the brunt of the South African driving, Richardson said near the end of the half the South Africans opted to punt to drive the All Blacks back.
This punting was the greatest compliment that could have been paid to the deadly collaring of most of the home backs. The last act of the first forty-five was [Karl] Ifwerson's brilliant save when fullback Morkel had driven the blacks to defence.[7]
At the start of the second half, both sides sporting new jerseys, the South Africans went hard.
The solid phalanx of the green forwards went with uncheckable ardour directly into the twenty-five they had hardly seen during the forty-five minutes of the first spell. The forwards came down upon Kingston and a clever little mark by wing-three [Stan] Siddells saved a rout. Greens pegged away, and at the end of one memorable rush all the Springboks' forwards went over the line together to lose the ball on Kingston's very narrow force. [Nic] Du Plessis was taken on the much-desired line and only by holding him up was a try prevented. Roberts floored [Bill] Zeller whom Meyer had despatched on what had the marks of a sure try, and within a yard of the All Blacks' line the masses of brawn surged and struggled, [Jack] Steel getting hold of the ball and lining at his first flag out from danger.[8]
The game opened up more, especially for the South Africans, as both teams looked to secure the winning advantage.
With a quarter of an hour remaining, the All Blacks managed to pin the Springboks in their own 25, some hope being offered when Gerald Morkel and Michau each went for a high ball only to bump each other and see the ball fall clear and over the sideline. However, van Heerden was hand to clear from the lineout. Morkel was forced to ground the ball for a 25 dropout but the game soon ended in an impasse.
New Zealand went close when, in a chase to the in-goal, van Heerden looked to have got one hand on the ball to force it while his marker Siddells didn't believe he had and dived through to ground the ball causing the crowd to think a try had been scored. However, the referee said van Heerden had forced the ball. But Siddells afterwards claimed the South African had forced the ball with only one hand, not the two hands he believed the law required.
Then, just before the end, the All Blacks created the final scoring chance of the game. Roberts sent [Billy] Fea racing onto the ball. The first five-eighths linked with Ifwersen who decided to cut in when Steel was outside him with only one man to beat and what looked to be a genuine try-scoring chance was lost.
Neither side could score, the defence being superb. The astonishment of the big crowd was great when the Springboks played right up to the very best wet ground traditions of New Zealand. And thus ended a match which has been more discussed than even the 1904-05 solitary 3 to nil defeat by Wales.[9]
Scholtz was in no doubt that Gerhard Morkel had been a key factor for the Springboks.
He gave a magnificent display under the existing conditions, and I doubt whether those who saw this game consider [George] Nepia a better fullback. Gerhard never misfielded the slippery ball and his kicking to touch on that muddy lump bordered on the miraculous.[10]
Another view of his performance was provided in The Referee (Sydney):
The handling of the South Africans, collectively and individually, of the wet ball was remarkable…but the daddy of them all was Gerhard Morkel, the fullback. His arms were like carpetbags – the ball simply fell into them – and his line kicking was grand to behold, although it turned aside many of the New Zealanders' best efforts. Some people said he was not really tried out, because he was given such a lot of room to manoeuvre in, and they thought he would have failed against a really fast team of New Zealand following forwards. But he gave a brilliant exhibition of clever fullback play.[11]
Booth said New Zealand's physical fitness proved superior as the South Africans were wilting during the final stages of the game. They had been helped when Mellish suffered mud in the eye that forced a long stoppage allowing the big Springboks to regain some breath. He felt that if extra time had been played the advantage must have gone to New Zealand.
The Auckland Star summed up the New Zealand backs.
Kingston, at full back, gave a much better exhibition in the second half, his handling and kicking improving. Steel's play was always characterised by determination, while Siddells on the other wing also justified his inclusion. The weakling of the three-quarter line was Nicholls, while neither Fea, Ifwersen nor [Teddy] Roberts showed any inclination to get down on the ball. Ifwersen at times did some clever work, and New Zealand were unfortunate on one occasion in not getting across when the Auckland player cross-kicked into the corner.[12]
Scholtz said the sporting attitude of New Zealand's crowds had been impressive.
In the second Test, which we won, we were literally carried off the field, and that was likewise the case in many of the country matches. We in South Africa pride ourselves on being good sportsmen – and I think we are – but we must bow the knee to followers of Rugby in Silver Fern Land.[13]
'Boy' Morkel, who led the side again, said:
We would have parted the best of friends with the All Blacks if we had won or lost. Now that the match is a draw, we will part better than the best of friends.[14]
The game was a fitting climax to a great tour by the greatest visiting combination New Zealand has ever received on its shores.[15]
While the New Zealand camp believed that their side would have triumphed in better conditions, Booth didn't agree. He listed his reasons:
1. Their superior cohesion, the natural result of their tour and mental application; 2 their speciality in securing points from the field by skilful place and drop-kicking; [Sarel] Strauss, G. Morkel and Meyer are all adept, and plans were actually made for Strauss in this match to pot; 3 their accustomed use of hard ground; 4 their tactics are based on fine weather conditions; 5 on their previous showings in dry weather their success in hooking, the bi-lingual advantage, their weight and pace exceeding New Zealand's. Also, we would have witnessed the best attacking link Africa possesses, that being the Trinity of Stellenbosch students, viz., Michau, de Kock and Meyer.[16]
The Referee's critic said New Zealand's outstanding weakness was its poor following-up, and that had continued through the three Tests. One of the reasons put forward for that was the strength-sapping job New Zealand's forwards had containing the heavier Springbok pack. That was backed by the evident inability of the New Zealanders on the break to sustain their bursts.
One person unable to attend the post-game banquet was the referee of the second and third Tests, Mr A C Neilson. A veteran of both the South African War and the First World War, he would have a long career as secretary of both the Wellington and New Zealand Rugby Football unions. He was in hospital, having been taken there as the result of suffering an injury during an incident in the game.
Once the game was held up while the referee 'had a bath,' having run foul of one of the players; he was injured in the head by the impact, and had to take to his bed after the match.[17]
Richardson said the incident occurred when Neilson got behind the New Zealand pack to see some handling in the scrum only for both packs of forwards to trample all over him.
The plucky gentleman recommenced after a breather, but the mud he carried with him was a sight.[18]
The New Zealand Times ranked Richardson the pick of the All Blacks' forwards, for his following-up and for his outstanding defence. [Tank] Van Rooyen was regarded as the best of the Springboks, and the best all-round forward on the field.
Richardson's summation of the tour was:
Taking New Zealand as they found it, they devastated the provinces and sat on the walls of the capital on even terms with what was adjudged the finest army in the Rugby camps of the great footballing Dominion.[19]
South Africa's van Rooyen was presented with a medal as the best member of his side in the game while wing Jack Steel was the best New Zealand player. Steel was also awarded another medal awarded by an English company for being the best all-round player in the series. Each member of the Springboks was presented with a New Zealand rug.
The Referee's special correspondent from Wellington asked if New Zealand had deteriorated, or had it met its match, and he said his answer to both questions was 'Yes'.
The New Zealand representative team of today is not as good as its predecessors of the past [sic], although there is sufficient ground to warrant the assertion that in a year or two a fifteen will be got together to carry on the standard of New Zealand football as established by the famous All Blacks.
We have placed this South African team on the pedestal they deserved, and undoubtedly their best fifteen would have been a match for New Zealand's selected under any conditions. It is said they want fine weather and hard grounds to show their possibilities. Be that as it may, they played a wonderfully good game under the worst of conditions on Saturday, and undoubtedly gave as much as they got.[20]
It was left to the most quoted South African on the tour, manager Harold Bennett to provide the best summation of the Test, ‘The best team drew,’ he said.
Next week: The tour's aftermath.
References: [1] Mark Nicholls, Weekly News, 22 September 1937
[2] E E Booth, New Zealand Times, 22 September 1921
[3] (Hugo 'Tokkie' Scholtz, contributed in Ivor Difford's History of South African Rugby Football (1875-1932), The Speciality Press of S.A. Ltd, Wynberg, 1933
[4] Jock Richardson, Southland Daily News, 1928
[5] Nicholls, ibid
[6] Richardson, ibid
[7] ibid
[8] ibid
[9] ibid
[10] Scholtz ibid
[11] Special correspondent, The Referee (Sydney), 5 October 1921
[12] Special correspondent, Auckland Star, 19 September 1921
[13] Scholtz ibid
[14] New Zealand Times, 19 September 1921
[15] E E Booth, New Zealand Times, 22 September 1921
[16] ibid
[17] New Zealand Times, 19 September 1921
[18] Jock Richardson, Southland Daily News
[19] ibid
[20] Special correspondent, The Referee, ibid