Postmortem

[?]ugby Union Football

[?]N Fiji

m From Our Own Correspondent SUVA, July 6. |7ITH the arrival of the Maori ■ Rugby team only a month I away, inquiries into the state [ Fijian Rugby are going on in all Tections as a result of the debacle f Auckland (Fiji lost, 3-39) on By 3. frhis Auckland calamity com etely overshadows the triumphs of le Fijians in Australia because — f put it bluntly—Australia is a pee where Fijian Rugby teams go [something like a sideshow of an :tremely profitable nature, whereas jian Rugby prestige in New [aland is something that has been larded jealously.

It may be asked why all the com btion over one match at the end Ia string of brilliant successes in exhausting tour. The answer is at the Fijian teams which toured kw Zealand in 1939 and 1951 [rried on the tradition of success lilt up by cricketers and athletes, id now—well, look what’s hap ned! A large New Zealand crowd, ed by reports of the excitement [Australia, paid to see a crashing Rew Zealand Rugby people were f more staggered than all the ople in Fiji who spent the after on of June 3 glued to their radios hear the new VRH Suva rebroad st Radio New Zealand. The dis pointment tinged the team’s jmecoming next day—there was jt even the usual triumphal drive rough Suva, although that may fve been because the day was nday. There was a brief Fijian remony of welcome at Laucala ly and that was all.

Perhaps some members of the im felt and resented the curious • of reproach that seemed to lanate from some sections of their n people. (Nobody expected the (ian team to beat Auckland at the iw Zealand national game, but body bargained for such a imendous margin of loss and such poor showing by the tourists). At < events, the returned team, play l a Suva-Rewa team on July 6, nt down 6-9 after a deplorable hibition. knd that touched off the in merable post-mortems and in ests. For the failure of the team Auckland there was the sound cuse that the Fijian players were nuinely tired after 17 matches in o months in four Australian ites. Further, through an excus le oversight, they had only short rigs in their boots, and that meant lot of disastrous slithering in ickland ground conditions. Lastly, the words of Ratu George ikobau (coach and Government

representative): “We were beaten by a much better team playing solid New Zealand Rugby.”

So far, so good, and if only the margin of points had been half what it was, there would have been little Fijian emotion over the defeat. But that does not get over the team’s debacle at Suva which, in a sort of chain-reaction, had caused a turning of inquiring Fijian eyes towards the whole Rugby Union set up.

For years there has been a quiet Fijian agitation for more Fijian say in Rugby Union affairs. There is Fijian representation in the Fiji Rugby Union, but a great deal of the talking is done by Europeans.

Some of those Europeans hold Fijian confidence at every point others do not. And of the others

some at least are alleged to be I in their union positions mainlj their sense of their own importai It is generally contended that blunders have been committed t the best of intentions over the cent tour. There is strong Fi and European support (out: Union circles) for Ratu Gee Cakabau’s contention that 17 / tralian matches imposed too he a task on the touring team.

There is also bitter comment the stress laid on the profit c sideration, with which is bound the claim that the unfortur Auckland match was due to error of judgment rising from handsome bait (£NZ500) offered Auckland.

Sourest of all sour notes has fc struck by the venomous commen a few Australian newspapers.

Sydney commentator has car more bitterness in Fiji than a body since another Sydney c« mentator alleged without foundat that the Queen left the State 1 at Suva because she was worn by her first day in Fiji.

There is any amount of evide at Suva, most of it contained letters written by independent A tralians, that the refereeing in A tralia was not always above proach and that such “incidents” led to press attacks on the Fiji had been caused by flagrant p vocation. This contention was c; firmed by Ratu George Cakobau.

July 4, when the team receivec civic reception from the Mayor Suva, and again when the team T entertained by the Rugby Union dinner at the Grand Pacific He On both occasions Ratu Gee used the word “provocation" v great deliberation. And on to occasions the team manager C W. E. Goodsir) said emphatic; that the Sydney press had made' exaggerated fuss over “incider and that most of the spite ca from a writer who was not invi to certain of the Fijian teai Sydney occasions.

Editorial Note—From th«.

Australian Angle

It is hard for anyone outs Fiji to believe that a matter Rugby Union football could assu such an important place in scheme of things. But that is li it is in Fiji.

Nonetheless, it seems to us tl; if our correspondent’s views general, the whole matter is bef treated with undue sensitiveness particularly the Australian angle.

It is true that the Fijian tearm 1954 did not get such a good Pn as the tourists of 1952. There w* several reasons for this —the EngK League team was touring at t same time, and League, and r Union is the Australian game; t Fijians were no longer the teresting oddities that they weref

952 and (but this is only hearsay) ;he management were alleged not 0 have been so encouraging to iessmen in 1954 as in 1952.

None of the reports on the Fiji rames that we saw —and we thought ee read them all —could be called 'venomous” as such reports go. [Tiey were just the sort of thing hat one can read in the papers any iaturday evening during the foot iall season —and mild, indeed, to he things that were said about the isiting Englishmen and the Aus ralians who opposed botji Fiji and he UK teams.

'lt was generally agreed, in Aus ralia, that when the Fijians became bugh or tough they had good Bason and that the Australians had >d the way—probably because they tad decided that it was the only ray of getting anywhere against he Fiji giants, anway. [The Australian people and the aistralian Press are tough nuts to rack; they can raise their idols of he moment to dizzy heights of dulation and then cast theip down nd dance on their necks: bouquets ne week; kick in the pants the jext. Anyone who has the slightest ensitiveness naturally finds this lard to take. [The Fijian tour in 1954 was en irely successful; the tourists left he country leaving the best feelings f goodwill behind them and with

heir popularity unimpaired. Cer

ainly they are now regarded as Dotballers, rather than as “Fuzzy ruzzy Angels”—a hangover from he war-time sentiment engendered y the natives of New Guinea. And rom the point of view of Rugby Ihion, this is probably a good hing. 1 There have been no post-mortems are. The Fijians came, they

played good football, they provided entertainment for thousands of fans, they produced handsome pro fits for the Union. Everyone is happy. That is Australian sport, yesterday, today and always founded on the premise that you can dish it out, but you also have to take it. Not “nice?” Maybe not; no Australian ever pretended that it ought to be.