HOCKEY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 139, 14 June 1932, Page 12

HOCKEY.

SOMERVILLE LEAD. WESLEY HOLD SHORE. ST. LUKE'S BEAT 'VARSITY. With the official announcement of the personnel oE the New Zealand hockey representative team to visit Australia next month, the trial game, in view of the selection of the Auckland representative team to defend the shield against Waikato next Saturday, and the usual club games, which included the seconds series of matches connected with the second round of the senior competition, there •vas plenty to claim the attention of hockey enthusiasts at Remuera last •Saturday afternoon. Although the names of the North Island members, thirteen nit of the sixteen necessary to complete tlie New Zealand team, were common property during the week, the remainder vas not available until Friday night. The seven Aucklanders included in the team vere in operation last Saturday, and their play was watched with more than ordinary interest. It is gratifying to Auckland to have secured seven places in the team, it seems as if the visit of the University team to Wellington had some bearing in the matter. The selectors in Wellington saw Ray playing in the inter-'Varsity 'ournament, and one of them remarked f Auckland possessed better forwards than Bay they must be champions, so the necessary steps were taken to have Bay included. In the selection of the Auckland team to meet Waikato it will be noted that two members chosen for the New Zealand team are reserves, giving places to Eric and Clive Watts. The three senior games were staged \arly in the afternoon to enable the practice match to follow, and notwithstanding that the draw did not bring the leading teams together, the matches were fairly 'closely contested. Wesley gave North Shore a big shock, and the latter were extremely lucky in being able to register i draw. There was only a margin of two goals to one in the struggle between St. Lukes and University, and then the students were not at full strength. Somerville secured a victory over Mount i'.den by five goals to one, but the score iaidly indicates the trend of play. EFFECTIVE SHOOTING. Although Somerville opened the game ». itli a couple of goals, IVlount Eden were not dismayed, in fact, it acted as a sort of toilic for the browns, and at times they had jtist as much of the open play as Somerville. It was the skill and finishing touches Of the Somerville van that was mainly responsible for the fairly extensive goal crop which accrued before the end of the game. In the second spell Mount '"den fared better territorially, and after the restart held Somerville on the defence tor quite a long period. During one of their onslaughts on the Somerville citadel the Mount Eden forwards indulged in an exceedingly fine piece of combined work, and had they possessed a good shot the Somerville goal was almost at their mercy. Their work in the circle was shocking. True, they did not seem to be fortunate in the run of the ball, nevertheless, they dallied too much. Both Clark and Fletcher nullified good runs by dallying too long before shooting. On another occasion M. Jones put the ball on each side of the goal from a couple of , corner shots. On the other hand the shooting of the Somerville forwards was more decisive and with one or two exceptions very accurate. The best forward on the Somerville side was K. Watts. C. Watts played well at inner left and Wellbourne was invariably dangerous on the left flank. Hedges was the I'ick of the halves. Smith and Gardner experienced no little trouble in dealing with the Mount Eden attacks. At times Wail was called upon to smother shots from the opposing van. The Mount Eden team underwent some rearranging during the game, but the forward line was most effective when Ash and Fletcher took a hand in the advance. The halves were only moderate, the burden of the defence falling to the full-backs, Logan and Mainland, and the pair had an immense amount of work to accomplish, especially in the : early stages.

WESLEY'S MISFORTUNE. So far Wesley have not tasted the fruits ot' victory, but went very close when they administered a rude shock to North Shore. Last year's champions were extremely lucky to have escaped with a draw, and even after due reflection, some of their supporters still claim a moral victory. Altnough play was conducted at a good pace it was not a good exhibition of hockey. There was plenty of individual work, but on the whole the game lacked combination and despite the efforts of the Shore, vanguard, which comprises three of the New Zealand team to go to Australia, the Wesley defence was able to cope with the invaders. The green forwards were in fact a little more successful than their more formidable rivals, although it must be remembered that North Shore were handicapped by playing one short. Among the Wesley backs Michel and Burton played a prominent'part in shattering the Shore attacks. Fleet was also very active and in the forward line Kiff ~nd Slaney were the most prominent. The Shore; forwards did not receive their customary support, therefore the attacks were not so well sustained. On the day Reid was the pick of the quintet, •while the two Anthonys were also responsible for a certain amount of progress. The halves experienced a busy time, Storx.v being the more reliable. Allen shaped the better of the two full-backs. JUST MISSED. St. Luke's got under wuy in fine style from the initial bully and gave the students' defence a severe testing. Two goals were rattled in and St. Luke's appeared to have mastered the situation. Just when the spectators anticipated a one-sided contest, the students struck their game and for the remainder of the play had a good share of the aggressive work. The blues were unfortunate in not leaving the field with honours even, only the tick of the timekeeper's watch robbing them of a goal. A penalty corner had been gained and before the shot could be taken half-time was called. The even nature 1 of play in the second spell was borne out by the failure of both teams to score. St. Luke's deserve their win and played better tactics throughout. With the reds a better understanding prevailed and it was their combined work that caused the opposition trouble. This was in marked contrast to the students' efforts, where individual work proved conspicuous. The : main fault lay with Bay, the centre- , forward. He attempted too many solo runs, leaving the rest of the line starving.. If the ball had been passed out the opposing backs would have been drawn and thus, enabled a return pass for the inner forwards to obtain their objective. The individual effort on the part of the centreforward was useless against the speed of &t. Lukes rearguard. Ross was the best of the students' front line. He played a most unselfish game and passed the ball about freely. His showing suggested a trial as centre-forward. ~ Broun comes next, but he should have been given more of the ball. N. Wilson, in the halt line, made many fine clearances, but was weak in tackling. Broun claims half-line honours, much of his intercepting being very sound, especially with the reverse stroke. Robinson proved very safe at full-back. Crawley settled down well in charge of the net. After the second goal, one that should have been stopped, his efforts left little to complain about. Vipond was St. Luke's best forward and his efforts deserved, a score. Broun had plenty of chances on the right wing, but was somewhat patchy. The line, however, did not work, as-it should, have with'suchgood supporting backs. McLeod, centre'nalf,. proved equal -to all demands, while T. Clark fully upheld his reputation. T. Clark was the best of the full-backs, and the manner in which he covered his partner is a practice that Williams should also adopt.