HOCKEY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22444, 4 July 1938, Page 14

HOCKEY

CANTERBURY BEATEN BY INDIAN TEAM

VISITING SIDE’S FINE DISPLAY

BRILLIANT PLAY ON HEAVY GROUND

r . On a ground that was very soft and wet the Prince of Manavadar’s hockey team beat Canterbury by 4 goals to 0 in a game that rose at times to brilliant heights. The performance of the Indian team in the circumstances was a meritorious one, for the playing area Boon became churned up and in the later stages it was almost impossible to make the hall travel any distance, and the players of both sides were greatly handicapped when trying to give or take passes. The visitors were too good in most departments of the game for Canterbury, and one can only imagine what their display would have been like on a hard and fast ground. Their forwards were fast and their Btick-work and passing were features of the'game. The manner in which they took the ball in the air and tossed it to one another was a treat to watch. Their positional play and tactics were also outstanding. The halves were always reliable, their wonderful anticipation being a feature. They kept their positions well and they used the scoop shot to a greater extent than is usually-seen in -local games. The-backs also were very safe, working in well with their halves and with one another. , The Canterbury team played well and *was by no means disgraced. Canterbury was beaten by the superior tactics of the Indians, who had an answer to all the moves the home side made. In the first half the forwards were inclined to crowd one another; but .as the game progressed they improved and some of the rushes- near the end had the visitors hard pressed ■to clear. The halves-went well against the clever play of the Indian forwards, but they were sometimes found out of position. The backs came through a-heavy afternoon’s work with credit several times making brilliant interceptions. The Indians had much the better of the • game in the first spell, scoring three goals, but in the second half the game was more even, only one goal' being added." Clever Indian Forwards It is hard to single out any Indian forward for particular brilliance. All were good. The two wings, Shahabudtiln and Fernandez, were fast and often initiated several bright passing movements. Sultan Khan appeared the most dangerous, but both Abdul Latif and Ahmad Khan were up to the standard set .by the others. ■ .The halves, kept the Canterbury forwards quiet, and they made few mistakes.’ A feature of their play, in fact of the team’s play was the manner in which they passed back when it was quite -to be expected that the ball would be given to the forwards. Often too, a forward would pass back to a half who had a better chance of finding an opening. Shahnoor Khan, at centre, was always to the fore; but he received excellent support from both Shafat Khan and Lajpat Rai. The backs. Gurnarain Singh and S. M. Hus-sain-,-had a fine understanding of one' another’s play, and both were good on'defence and covering up when necessary. B. Abrahams, in goal, did not have a great deal to do, but he was equal-to all. occasions, and was not afraid to come out of his goal to smother an attack. Canterbury Forwards-Play Well Like the Indians, the Canterbury forwards found the ground conditions difficult. Nevertheless they gave the Indians some anxious moments, and on one or two occasions were unlucky in not scoring. N. V. Bowden, right wing, and .R. C. Rusbridge,. inside right, were the most prominent, and often made good runs deep into Indian territory. A. F. Norman, centre foralso played well, but early in the game B. D. Duffield was crowding him, a fault that was remedied later in the game when Duffield showed some fine stick work. C. V. Walter oh the left wing did the little he, had to-do in fine style. T?be halves had a big job in stopping the Indian forwards. D. G. Loader, at centre, was outstanding. He kept his position well and was adept at intercepting when the visitors started passing rushes. W. J. Bowden was another who played well. In Sultan Khan and Fernandez he had two forwards who took a lot of stopping, but he hung on tenaciously. T. B. Burtt had not the work that the others had, and in consequence was not so prom-

ipent. Both R. P. Thomson arid S. Bowden were a reliable pair of backs,-their » defence being first-class. Bowden appeared 'the more prominent, but he had much more work to do. H. Barnhill, in goal, came through the after-

noon with credit. He had a lot of work ! to do, and he made several good saves, but he appeared to be rather lucky in not having to defend at, least two • penalty' bullies. , The crowd, of about 10,000, was entertained before the big game by two basketball matches, and a gymnastic display by C. Buckett’s pupils. The bands of the First Canterbury Regiment and the Scottish Society played, a number of items.

t ‘ The Teams The teams were:— MANAVADAR .Goal: B. Abrahams. f Backs: Gurnarain Singh and S. M. Hussain. Halves: Shafat. Khan, ' Shahnoor Khan, and Lajpat Ral. Forwards: Shahabuddin, Abdul Latif, Ahmad Khan, Sultan Khan, and Fernandez. ■ , CANTERBURY / Goal: H. Barnhill. ‘ Backs: S. Bowden and R. P. Thornton. Halves: W. J. Bowden, D. G. Loader, and T. B. Burtt, • Fbrwairds: N. V. Bowden; R. C. Rusbridge, A. F. Norman, B. D. Duffleld, and C. V. Walter. ! ■ • ■ -' • The -play •Shahnoor Khan and Shahabuddin were first prominent lor the Indians, who immediately took play to Canterbury territory, but S. Bo’wden saved and sent Duffleld away. Free hits kept. Canterbury on the attack, but the Indians returned, and Shahabuddin. after a run on the right wing, scored with an easy shot from well out, after seven minutes’ play.Manavadar 1, Canterbury 0. . Sultan-Khan made a brilliant run of 50 Yards, and Barnhill had to stop a hot shot from a-corner. The heavy ground was upsetting the, Indian forwards, who were playing brilliantly, and ■ :Thomsbn had to save from a centre by Fernandez. W. Bowden put the Canterbury forwards in possession, only to have Qurnarairi Singh send them back. Passing from the Indian left ended in a scramble in the Canterbury circle, where Barnhill saved without, his stick in his hand, but Abdul Latif' was handy, andfae/netted easily. '. .Manavadar 2, Canterbury 0,

The Indians kept up the pressure, and after Barnhill and S. Bowden had stopped shots from Sultan Khan and Shahabuddin, the last-named scored his second goal. Manavadar 3, Canterbury 0.

Rusbridge put Canterbury on the attack, but clever play by the Indian halves and forwards put them on the attack again. Burtt stopped Ahmad Khan and N. Bowden gained ground on the right, but lost control. Canterbury kept up the pressure, and was awarded a penalty bully for obstruction against Hussain. Duffield took the bully, and after winning missed the shot at an open goal. Rusbridge and N. Bowden led the Canterbury forwards in an attack which found Abrahams safe. Loader and Burtt stopped an Indian attack, but Shahabuddin got away, and his centre found Barnhill safe, and play was in mid-field as halftime came, with the score still Manavadar 3, Canterbury 0.

Canterbury attacked on the resumption. and a shot by Norman from a corner just missed. Soon after, Fernandez and Abdul Latif, combining beautifully, beat the defence, and Abdul Latif scored with a good shot. Manavadar 4,' Canterbury 0.

Fernandez and Shahabuddin kept the home side defending till Rusbridge and N. Bowden relieved, only to be beaten by clever defence by Hussain and Gurnarain Singh. Control of the ball in the mud was now difficult, both sides being affected. W. Bowden and' Rusbridge gave Canterbury a chance, which Abrahams blocked. Norman and Walter had another good chance, but could not beat Gurnarain Singh and Abrahams. The Indians, had a turn on attack, shots by Fernandez and Ahmad Khan just missing. Norman again put Canterbury on attack, and Rusbridge . and Duffield- were trying hard to score. The Indians cleared, and play ranged up and down field, both goalkeepers- having to save shots. Play was in Indian territory when the final whistle came, with the score: Manavadar 4, Canterbury 0. Professor Jagan Nath and Mr C. S. Bellamy were the umpires. ’

TEAM FOR FIRST TEST

NEW ZEALAND SIDE CHOSEN

The selectors, Messrs W. Newsham (Auckland), E. G. McLeod (Wellington), and C. C. Holland (Christchurch), have chosen the following players to represent New Zealand against the Prince of Manavadar’s hockey team in the first test at Christchurch on July 23: ’

Goal: L. Hart (Manawatu). Backs: D. S. Wilson -(Wellington) and F. S. Clark (Auckland). Halves: W. J. Bowdea. (Canterbury), T. B. Burtt (Canterbury), and L. Watson (Auckland). * Forwards: R. Watchman (Poverty Bay). R. C. Rusbridge (Canterbury), R. Roughton (Auckland), M. Brown (Wellington), and L. A. Best (Nelson),

ENGLISH WOMEN’S TEAM

EASTERN SOUTHLAND BEATEN

£THE PRESS Special Service.]

GORE, July 3

Played before an attendance of several thousand, the women’s hockey match between England and Eastern Southland provided the finest exhibition of the game yet seen at Gore. The game, won by England by two goals to one, was marked by brilliant play by both teapas, with England a shade better in attack and defence. The pace set was exceptionally fast During the first , spell fortunes fluc-tuated-for: 20 minutek until the English combination told, ‘ and O’Donoghue opened the scoring. In the- first few minutes of the second half the English forwards completed a brilliant effort institgated by DoWling, who passed in to West, who netted. . Soon after this Eastern Southland scored from a scramble near the English goal, Sherriff netting. In the final stages play was very even.

IN OTHER CENTRES

(PBBSS I.BBOCIATTOH TBLZOBAWS.)

WELLINGTON, July 3, Women’s hockey results are:— Senior A V Poneke 4, Technical Old Girls B 0. College Old Girls 2, Hutt United 0. . Hutt Valley 8, University 1. _ , Technical Old Girls A 2„ Training College 1.

Men’s Hockey, Senior A Grade Karori A 4, Technical 2. Hula A 6, Wesley 0. ’ Karori J 3. 5,. .University .2. Hutt 5, Wellington 1.