CANTERBURY HOCKEY TEAM

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 28002, 23 June 1956, Page 3

CANTERBURY HOCKEY TEAM

IT would be unfair to be too critical of the Canterbury hockey team in its display against Otago early in June because the match was played under very difficult conditions. The ground was thoroughly saturated and even the hardest of passes did not always reach their destination. These conditions did emphasise, however, the fact that the team was not sufficiently fit. Since it is impossible for the team s full potentialities to be realised unless the highest standard ot physical fitness is attained, it is obvious that a much more vigorous training programme requires to be undertaken.

The forwards played reasonably i well as individuals but lacked combination. The whole team is in need I of intensive coaching in passing. In this regard there is sufficient potential | ability amongst most of the players for the level of performance to be greatly raised by concentrated application of such coaching and practice. During the season. IVL. McKinnon has revealed sufficient speed and dribbling ability for his club to justify his retention on the right-wing. He must, however, give more attention to the accuracy of the short pass, to combining with his inside forward, to the movement into the gap and to the Indian method of cutting infield after beating the opposing half. At inside 7 right. N. Hobson is the most constructive of the forwards and uses his stickwork intelligently. He does not endeavour to draw opponents out of position often enough, and he frequently endeavours to use the through pass when he is too far away from the gap. This results in the pass either being intercepted or in opponents reaching the ball as soon as his team mate for whom the pass is intended. I. D. Armstrong showed some penetration at centre-forward. This quality is necessary for this position, but so is

the ability to build attacks and distribute the ball judiciously. Armstong has never really developed his passing ability and it is probable that his opportunism would be of more advantage to his team if he played at insideleft. In this case he should contribute a greater share of back tackling than he does in club hockey. J. Kiddey gives the dual impression of possessing considerable potential ability and of being retarded in the development which might have been expected of him. He can be very impressive in the circle and he certainly scored an excellent goal against Otago from an awkward position as well as netting two goals from penalty corners through a heavy, muddy circle. He is another who might profit greatly from intensive coaching in short passing, an especially vital need if he is to be retained in the inside-left position. G. Howard on the left-wing possesses speed and some control of the ball. He made the most of a * rather poor display by his opposing

right-half in the Otago match and played unselfishly. He needs to improve his stickwork in close play and the direction and timing of his passes. In general the forward line has sufficient ability to justify the belief that it might be welded into a strong combination if it receives intensive enough coaching. . At centre-half. M. Wall is a greaUy improved positional player although he was not always back on defence with sufficient speed in the later stages of the Otago game. His stickwork is of great value, but his passing is erratic. It is in the feeding of his forwards and in the making of openings for them that his weakness lies. This particular weakness is fairly general throughout New Zealand hockey. Neither of the wing halves, K. Cummins on the left and B. Murray on the right, were of a representative standard. Both must improve their passing and retreat on defence with greater speed. Murray was rather hesitant in his play against Otago and did not always lend sufficiently close support to his right flank forwards. At the moment, Canterbury is not strong in half backs and it is difficult to understand why, the exi nf fho on mo anri

perience. knowledge oi me game positional play of J. F. Mann are not being used. Mann’s stickwork is limited, but so is the stickwork of most local half backs. His cover defence and support of his forwards are well ahead of most candidates for half positions. If the selector desires to persist with a younger player, then Murray fuHv merits consideration. J. Abrams played well at rightback against Otago. He was cool under pressure and trapped most accurately. His positional play was good but his task was made easier because certain Otago players hit the ball through to him with monotonous regularity. R. Rushbridge was far from convincing a? left-back. His habit of flicking the ball up and forward, instead of trapping it. was useless on the muddy ground and suggests a lack of close stickwork ability. Although he is

not reliable in tight play. He needs to give more attention the basic individual skills and to the theory of passing from the left-back position if he is to develop into a sound representative player. If L. Hobson, of Woolston, were to improve his passing, he might be well : worth a trial in the provincial team. D. M. Goldsmith was adequate in goal against Otago and made several good saves. He kicks powerfully when he keeps his head down and is improving. as a stopper. On current form he fully deserves his place. The team possesses the speed neces-I sary in the culmination of attacks, but I sacrifices control for speed in the l building of attacks, thereby giving itself too great a margin of error. A faster ground will accentuate this fault and Wellington province may prove more capable than Otago of taking toll of such errors. Nevertheless, this Canterbury team could improve considerably with insistent, good coaching.