THE BIG FOOTBALL MATCH.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 348, 7 September 1889, Page 3

THE BIG FOOTBALL MATCH.

AUCKLAND V. CANTERBURY. Below is a full report (as telegraphed) of what may be considered the football match for the premiership of the colony (Auckland v. Canterbury). The play of Mr Arthur Rees, of the Gisborne Club, will be noted with interest by his many friends in this district: — THE FIRST TERM.

At the start, the play was sharp and decisive. Herrold and Braund were the first to show up with s piece of clean, pretty passing, which Wilson stopped in tho Canterbury 25. The C *nterbury forwards replied with a series of sharp bursts, and Evans coming through the scrum with the leather, transferred it to Lowry, who waa bowled over by Masefield just as he was looking dangerous. From the scrummage that was formed, Lowry at centre half secured the ball, and throwing to Hobbs, the latter whipped it across to Surman, the fast man of the team. Surman showed his opponents a clean pair of heels, and had got across the line when Warbrick tackled him, and threw him into touch in goal. This piece of play was so smartly carried out that not an official was in a po-ition to see if the ball had been grounded before Surman was thrown into touch. After an argument had been held by the umpires, captains, and {referee, a force down was declared. Following this Hobbs intercepted a pass, and went upto Warbrick, and in a hot rallying that ensued Wilson was handled in a manner that put him all abroad for some minutes. Indeed, it took a lot of the steel out of himfand for the remainder of the game there was an absence of his accu - tomedjdash. Itjwas about this time that Ree« sent jout swiftly to Masefield, who met with no opposition at all from Wilson, and very little from the Canterbury fullback, who seemed completely unnerved for the moment, and Masefield was allowed to pursue his course unchecked. When within half-a dozen yards of the Canterbury line, however, Hutton overtook him and brought him down, and a grand chance of scoring was lost to Auckland through a neglect to back up. This neglect in backing up was the worst feature of Auckland’s play ; the forwards followed up without the slightest psrtiele of dash, and consequently lost many opportunities, which might have been turned to profit. The play that followed Masefield’s run was of an exciting nature for a few moments, and Hobbs and Burman were kept at work in stalling off the attacks of Herrold, Masefield, and Jervis. Canterbury finally cleared their quarters, and Hepburn, Burman, Lowry, and Donnelly were instrumental in carrying ths play into the Auckland 25, Hefferman broke through the Canterbury forwards, and with McKenzie and Maynard made the beat rush of the day. Herrold and Jervis joined in, and a score was prevented by Canterbury forcing down. Following the kick out, Hobbs gave Burman a pass which had it been taken must have resulted in a score, as Surman was unmarked at the time. Then Lowry got the ball to Surman, who after running within a few yards of the line, kicked across to Cochrane, who had no. difficulty in getting across. Garrard failed in the kick at goal. For some considerable time after this, Auckland were compelled to play a defensive game, until McKenzie. Herrold, and Rees carried the play past the half-way. Bean and Ebert transferred it back again by very clever footwork, which was stopped just short of the Auckland goa’, and the first spell finished with the scores— Canterbury, 1; Auckland, 0.

THE SECOND TERM. The second spell was a mixture of fast forward play, good passing, and tedious line work. At first Canterbury had slightly the best of it keeping the play for some time in the Auckland quarters. Lowry, Hobbs, Surman and Cochrane made repeated attempts to get through the opposing backs, who owed the safety of their lines to their splendid collaring. Almost right in front of the Auckland goal Canterbury were allowed a free kick for a Auckland forward handling the ball in the scrummage, but Marshall made a very poor attempt at the place kick. Jervis, Herrold, Rees, Braund, and Masefield put in some splendid work, passing, running, and kicking in splendid style; but the forwards lacked life, their play at times being very weak. Several showed a tendency to wind (? screw) the scrummage, a game which lost them far more than it gained. Hobbs and Lowry, particularly the former, played magnificently for Canterbury. Hobbs seemed to be übiquitous, and his grand play in every department brought forth repeated cheering from the spectators. As the end approached Auckland infused more spirit into the play, and made most determined attacks on Canterbury’s goal. Herrold was stopped just short of the Canterbury line by Surman. Immediately afterwards Rees secured a pass from the line out, and it was only by the greatest of luck that Wilson prevented him from scoring. As it was Bees managed to pass to Masefield, who stood out by the touchline all alone, without friend or foe near him. Surnian’s great pace was the means of saving Canterbury, as ho caught Masefield just in time to stop a score. Canterbury carried the scrummage that was formed, but the ball going to Herrold, ho kicked it over the line and chased it. In falling he missed it, and, in missing, it lost Auckland’s chance of a draw, as <f no side ” was then called, leaving Canterbury tha winners by a try to nil. The play of the Canterbury team was a surprise to everyone, while disappointment was expressed over the Auckland display. Their backs were very good, but the torwards, though at times lively, on the whole were wanting in dash.

NOTES ON THE MATCH, Intense disgust is the only term that can be used to express the feelings of the mem* of the team at the result of the match. Ido not think I over saw Auckland play worse. They showed up better even at Napier. Canterbury certainly had a better team, and played up better than they have done tor soma time, but if’Auckland had played.in anything approaching the style shown in the Native match, they must have won. The forwarda, as at Napier, were the worst delinquents, though the backu were not free from blame. Qne o.r iwo of the former, especially Hobson, would persist in pick ing up the ball, in spite of the times they have been warned not to da so. Another very very bad fault vyas the slowness of the forwards in heeling ou Fj . They did not seem to be quite certain to heel out or to keep it in, some trying to do one thing the rest another. In consequence|of this, the half-backs did not have much of a show. Those who showed the best form amongst the forwards were Maynard, McKenzie, and Poland. During the match I often wished we could have bad Binney playing to spoil thniy Of the halves Rees was tha best, though I have seen him play in much better form ; but he was very badly backed up, Braund’s passing out was rather “ off colour,’’ and he hung on to the ball a great deal too muon. Masefield made some fine runs, one especially right down thp boundaay past everyone, but he tired, snd from behind about two yards from the Hr.?, Ka was very much off in hip kicking, and gave several marks in front of the goal, two of which nearly went over. Kiflriing did nnt show as good form as he did against the Natives. Jervis played very fairly, but be was inclined to leave, bis p!nct=; however, be certainly saved Auckland on several fwmfons. Warbriok’s kicking not at all good in the first spell, but he improved in the second. The passing of the Canterbury backs waa really tirst-claas, and quite oqr men. In fact the whole tefitn played a good combined gamei, THE DECISIONS OF BEFKRBH. With al] Auckland’s indifferent play they should have won the match, as Rees ‘kicked what appeared to me to be an unmiatskeable goal, and those who wore near him. and in a position to see, say that.the ball went fully three feet inside the post., Masefield got over the line once, but was pushed back into play again. Our said he steadied the ball but the referee said •> No." The Ohrietohurob umpire never waited for an appeal t 0 hold up hie atiok, but put it „ p on evary possib , occasion, and when ha did so it Baß s l mo »t a moral-the went, jha climax, as far m the referee w aa concerned, came when he H»ve a free kick about two yards in front of the goal, beoaqaa som,, o? iftc Auckland forward, pvarran the ball in fhs aeruiil, lae ’ aitfrnpt ai goal, however, was a failure,

SHABBY TREATMENT. The onlookers were the most partial crowd I have ever seen, cheering every piece of play by Canterbury, and also when any Aucklander happened to be thrown, but there was dead silence if Auckland did a bit of good work, and if one of them happened to throw one of the local players, the crowd hooted to their hearts’ content. The team are generally very much disgusted with the treatment received here, and say it is the shabbiest they have ever received. The reason Walker took O’Connor’s place was that the latter had a bad leg. THE NEWS IN AUCKLAND. The tidings of the result of the match did not reach Auckland till about 7 15 o’clock. At that time there was a crowd of gome 200 persons anxiously awaiting the news outside the Herald office, and when the long expected wire arrived, and its contents were made known, a groan burst from those assembled, and almost immediately ail x quietly left the streets, apparently too disappointed to discuss j the matter. Amongst the footballers the disgust was very deep, and it is felt that no future success of the team can make up for Wednesday’s disaster.