Hockey Canterbury Beats S.I. Minor Associations

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28347, 5 August 1957, Page 7

Hockey Canterbury Beats S.I. Minor Associations

The score of 9 goals to 0 by which Canterbury beat the South Island Minor Associations* team was a true reflection of the manner in which the winning team dominated the play. Canterbury was almost continuously on attack throughout the match, the only interruptions being a few sporadic raids by the opposing forwards, whose lack of combination enabled the Canterbury defence to function efficiently and constructively. The Minor Associations* team suffered from several disadvantages. A number of leading players were in Australia with the New Zealand Country team. Those who did play had already taken part in a trial match between teams representing northern and southern districts of the South Island in the morning. Consequently the team was rather tired and handicapped in meeting opponents who were fresh. The playing surface at Williamson Park was rough and bumpy and appeared to worry the visitors more than the local players. Under these circumstances the match was no real test of the ability of the Canterbury team. Nevertheless it was quite apparent that Canterbury would still have. won even if the various disadvantages had not applied. The disparity in the technical skills of the opposing players showed this.

Failure to Tackle Possibly because of fatigue, the combined team’s forwards failed to back tackle and link with their defence. This factor, together with the failure of a weak half line, enabled the Canterbury inside forwards to attack through the centre with marked effect. In the second half Canterbury made little use of the right flank, although a number of thrusts down the left wing proved more valuable than should have been the case.

Against stronger opposition Canterbury will have to reveal greater ability in the use of its right wing, and will need to improve the timing and accuracy of the short passing among the inside forwards.

The thrust and determination of N. Hobson, I. Armstrong, and K. Cumberpatch proved too much for the opposing defence. Although they tended to bunch too much, their following in on shots at goal

resulted in many torrid goal-mouth scrimmages from which most of the goals were scored. They were well supported by M. McKinnon on the left wing, whose dribbling and passing showed intelligent discrimination.' T. Crossen had few chances to show his speed on the right wing, but he did enough to justify his selection. In the half-line M. Wall and R. Gillespie picked up most of the attempted clearances from the opposing defence and gave their own forwards a liberal supply of the ball. Both played well, particularly Wall, whose positional play was very good, and whose passing was greatly improved on earlier form. J. Abrams was a cool and constructive right back, but Canterbury will have to strengthen the left back position. R. Rusbridge does not possess sufficient stickwork to cope with the needs of this position, and is forced to make far too much use of the sideline. In this match Gillespie covered him very well. K. Mortimer appeared to be a- safe goalkeeper, but was not seriously tested.

Lack of Combination The Minor Associations’ team lacked combination, and the ball control of the players was not sufficiently developed for them to break up the Canterbury attacks. L. Quinton, in goal, was right out of form and lacked his usual determination and judgment in kicking and rush stopping. He had a difficult day because of the ability of the Canterbury forwards to take the ball in close, Q. Taylor was a doughty defender at left back, and much of his defensive play would have been of greater value if his forwards had retreated more quickly to collect his clearances.

The only forward who made any real effort to assist the defence at times was D. Maurice at inside-right. Maurice made a number of determined dribbles on attack, but had little success in feeding his right wing, D. Hales. Hales made a few promising breaks, but was generally well marked by Gillespie, who deserves credit for increasing Maurice’s difficulties at Inside-right. Goals were scored for Canterbury by Armstrong (4), Cumberpatch (3). and McKinnon (2).

Umpires: Messrs M. Newton and W. Morris.