One century on: The All Black Invincibles depart on their famous tour

By Lynn McConnell *

One hundred years ago today, one of the greatest All Black teams set sail for a famous tour of the British Isles, France and North America. On 29 July, 1924, the side that would become known as The Invincibles boarded the steamship Remuera and set off on a voyage that would carry them to Pitcairn Island, through the Panama Canal and across the Atlantic Ocean to a series of 32 matches. They would win all of them. In his Silver Fern Sports Substack, historian Lynn McConnell tells the story of the lead-up to the Invincibles' departure.

As the months counted down, issues still surrounded the 1924-25 tour. As late as April 1924, debate remained whether the tour should proceed, despite New Zealand Rugby agreeing to it on 8 November.

There were concerns that New Zealand would not benefit financially from the tour, as opposed to the bonanza the 1905-06 Originals achieved for New Zealand Rugby's coffers. However, this reflected the policy of reciprocal tours, with New Zealand standing to benefit from the proceeds when foreign teams toured the country. The net profit to the NZRU from the 1921 Springbok tour was around 7170 pounds.

Some were concerned that Australian rugby would suffer because the All Blacks would not undertake a tour, although that was settled with New Zealand sending a side to help celebrate the 50th Jubilee of the game in New South Wales. Other critics were concerned that around 60 players could be involved in trials who were not selected and may be tempted to play league instead.

For those who were looking forward to the tour, there was a move from Wellington Rugby to have all games in New Zealand played under international laws before the team left with the idea of getting players more attuned to the different legal applications.

Quality of backs the main concern

Whichever stance was taken, the main interest from a playing perspective was selecting quality backs.

The tour manager, and future chairperson of the New Zealand Rugby Union, S.S. 'Stan' Dean, had managed the All Blacks to Australia in 1922, a series NSW won 2-1. He said the forwards were magnificent but received no support from the backs on attack.

As a truth, the display of the New Zealand backs throughout the tour was distinctly disappointing. The inside backs - five-eighths and centre three-quarter- were weak, lacking cohesion and any semblance of finesse on attack, with the result that the wings, Steel and Ford, whoever it happened to be, were starved for the ball. With two inside backs like Fea, of Otago, and Ifwerson, of Auckland, there would be a different tale to tell. Steel got few chances as a result.

Mark Nicholls was not brilliant at five-eighths, but he played a solid game. His place-kicking was a feature, and he was the most successful in the long lost art.

The 1923 panel of Alf Griffiths (Wellington), Walter Drake (Canterbury), E Parata (Horowhenua), and Donald Stuart (Otago) was replaced as a start in the selection process. Initially, at its management committee meeting of 16 January 1924, the NZRU, after considering a variety of submissions, decided upon former selector Vin Meredith's suggestion that a sole selector should choose the side.

A month later, a series of seven trial matches were approved.

Trials begin with an early controversy

The selection cull began with the 10 May trial in Auckland won 18-9 by the sides from the Auckland districts over those from the Central and Eastern North Island unions. Newcomer Bert Cooke scored two tries in the win. Cooke came to light in 1923, but in a brief sighting of him while playing for Auckland's Grafton Club and the Auckland team, during a year in Auckland, Mark Nicholls returned to Wellington and told All Blacks selector Alf Griffiths:

"I've seen the best footballer - in his position - that I've ever seen in my life. He's a beaut! New Zealand has never seen a better one."

A notable incident in the trial was the treatment of Waikato back Alf Thompson, who was named among the reserves for the trial. He was on the sideline, ready to replace Vic Badeley, who received an injury that would preclude him from All Blacks' selection. However, after a lengthy delay, the selectors put Karl Ifwersen on when he had only attended the game as a spectator. The crowd had been raucous in wanting Ifwersen, a former league player, as the replacement despite the fact that no reinstated players would tour. A Waikato Union official at the game protested the move, but the selectors and president of the NZRU attending the game ignored his appeal.

There can be only one motive assigned to the inclusion of Ifwersen in the team to replace an injured player - that is so that Auckland might be avenged on Hawke's Bay for previous defeats. It was not sporting tactics; we will dismiss it at that, and wait and see what the New Zealand Rugby Union say about it.

NZ Truth asked why Ifwersen was played in the trial, especially when he attended the game knowing he was not required?

"All know that Karl Ifwersen is a reinstated Leagueite. He is thus debarred from going to England. That being the case, why was he played in a trial? Unless the governing body changes its mind (and present appearances are all against such a happening), Ifwersen hasn't Buckley's chance of getting into the 1924 All Blacks.

"He has played in a trial game, however, and with himself not having a chance he has kept out another player who may have had one. Who knows, but what the emergency picked for the day would not have made a brilliant entry into big Rugby? We have had such cases in recent years - Steel was the one back in 1919. In writing this I am not laying the blame at Ifwersen's door. I know for a fact that prior to the game Karl had not the slightest idea he would be called on to don a jersey."

The fault lies with the selectors who were in attendance. They should have seen that there was present at least one forward and one back emergency who was eligible for the tour, and they should have insisted on the picked emergencies taking the ground when occasion arose."

However, Vin Meredith explained to the New Zealand Free Lance that the selectors named Ifwersen to cover the five-eighths and centre in the replacements. But he declined because of the NZRU policy of no reinstated former league players being included for the tour. However, he was convinced to play because if he didn't, then other players' chances might be affected. A problem arose when the compiler of the match programme included only two emergencies. Thompson was only ever intended to replace an injured wing three-quarter. The writer also claimed that Ifwersen had never been disqualified because the Auckland Rugby Union had never asked the NZRU to disqualify him.

Nepia emerges at fullback

The Te Mori Rose Bowl game was not originally on the scheduled trials list, the annual Māori inter-island game. (The NZRU awarded it retrospective trial status at its meeting later in the week.) In this game, George Nepia forced his way into consideration for the tour. It has been claimed it was the first time Nepia played in the position, but Bert Cooke said he had played fullback for the Hastings sub-union in Hawke's Bay. Cooke said:

"The Te Mori Rose Bowl match was a great game, and Nepia simply couldn't do a thing wrong. From that afternoon it was evident that a new star had arrived."

The Press Association noted after the Northern Division's 18-8 win that Nepia, playing for the Southern Division, had 'a great game, his handling being perfect, but he was somewhat wasted at fullback.'

In one of the most significant selection brainwaves in New Zealand's early rugby history, selector and former All Black, N.A. 'Ranji' Wilson approached Nepia afterwards and said he knew how difficult it was for him playing his first game at fullback.

He said that if I could get down to Wellington early, he would arrange for Billy Wallace to go over a few points of fullback play on the blackboard on the Thursday.

"So I turn up at Wellington on Thursday and I'm introduced to Billy - I'd never met him before, a really nice man, a true gentleman - and we go up to Victoria University to a lecture room and he tells me all about fullback play," Nepia recalled.

"He says, for example, that when I've caught the ball and [am] preparing to kick for touch, to kick the ball towards where my forwards are and not away from them because it can save them up to 50 yards running across from one touchline to the other and they'd appreciate it. He also showed me about positioning myself on the field and how to read play developing and anticipate the opposition's moves. On the Saturday I went out playing for the Probables against the Possibles and couldn't do a thing wrong. Everything I did came off as I wanted it."

Porter makes his mark

The trial of the Wellington region teams on 16 May was transferred to Wanganui. The Wellington-Horowhenua-Bush Districts-Wairarapa combined team won over the Wanganui-Manawatu-Taranaki-King Country side 15-13 in a game that saw wing-forward Cliff Porter outshine Moke Belliss, to be rated the best forward on the ground.

The outstanding player of the match was Porter. He played a splendid game, clean and hard, and quite overshadowed his vis-a-vis Belliss. Belliss was inclined to rely too much on tactics which are not required of our reprentatives in England. Porter played the ideal roving game, being always on the ball, while also very sound in defence. It will be remarkable if he is overlooked in future selections.

H.E. 'Ginger' Nicholls and Mark Nicholls were the dominant inside back pair, even managing to pull off a move that saw 'Ginger' pass to Mark between his legs for the latter to drop a goal. Among the forwards, A. 'Nugget' Pringle had the best game. On the opposing side, lock Ian Harvey, who had been selected ahead of Jim Moffitt, was regarded as one of the finds of the day. Quentin Donald also made his mark before suffering a kick to the head. Taranaki backs A.H. 'Gus' Hart and Handley Brown impressed among the outside backs.

* Read more