HOCKEY CHALLENGE SHIELD RETAINED BY CANTERBURY, 1-0

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28963, 3 August 1959, Page 6

HOCKEY CHALLENGE SHIELD RETAINED BY CANTERBURY, 1-0

Canterbury staved oft a most determined challenge from Wellington at Williamson Park on Saturday, and retained the New Zealand Shield in a match which was characterised by the tremendous speed at which it was played from start to finish.

That Canterbury won by one goal to nil was a result mainly of a belated probing of a weakness in the Wellington defence, caused by I. Kerr, at left back, playing far too close to his halves. The Canterbury right-wing, D. James, made a number of very fast dribbles into the area behind Kerr, and Wellington experienced considerable difficulty in halting these attacks. Eventually and almost inevitably, a crashing tackle on the left side was the sole desperate recourse available to prevent James from shooting in a very favourable position, with only a badly placed goalkeeper to beat. Kerr was the offender, and he was promptly requested to defend a penaltj bully, which J. Abrams won for Canterbury. Good Stickwork Lacking A serious effort had been made to provide a level surface, and it was unfortunate that the ground was sufficiently heavy to cut up during the match. However, it was never uneven enough to prevent good stickwork, and the lack of this skill was not the fault of the ground. It was due to the speed at wmch most of the players were determined to operate. As a display of hockej technique the match was most disappointing, but there was an air ot grim determination emanating from both teams, and the very evenness of. the struggle afforded interest to all who held partisan views

Wellington had the better of the first halt, and might easily have gained a winning lead if its forwards had been skilful enough to make the most of the few opportunities whicn a tight Canterbury defence afforded. In tne second spell Canterbury gained a slight edge without in any way achieving a definite superiority, and the shield was held more by sheer determination than by teennieal skill against a team which refused to admit deteat until the final whistle had blown.

Canterbury relied far too much on its left flank and on attacks through the centre, and its limi’.eo success in exerting pressure upon Wellington in theoe directions was due to the efforts of K. Cumberpatch at inside left and J. Kiodej at centre forward The latter was closely marked, but by some dett passing at times he kept attacks going. When the attack was switched to the right, Canterbury immediately threatened and troubled the Wellington defence, and this was attributable almost entirely to the speed of D. James. N. Hobson, at inside right, did not have a successful day as an attacking player, out his back-tackling was always of great value. Like most of tne forwards oi both teams he was obsessed with the desire to use the through pass. This was constantly being made by both sets of forwards while they were travelling at a speed far tn excess of what was required, both for controlling tne pass and deciding wnere to place it. Hence tne tactic merely degenerated into a fast push downfield where the ball was promptly accepted oy fast-moving cover defenders. Percival Outstanding

'Y,’ Perc t va l. at inside right tor Wellington, was not only trie best forward on the field but also the outstanding player of the match His stickwork was very good, hu dribbling well controlled and difficult to stop, his passing thoughtiu; accurate, and probing, and his backtackhng relentless. His speed was all the more effective because it was related to control, and he lent grace and dignity to a scene winch was Otnerwise madcap and helter-skelter With one other forward of his ability Wellington, would have won. Although there was no such forwarci J. Smith, at inside left, dribbled with some skill, and it was a snrewo move to transfer this half-back to tne forward line m an effort to strengthen the attack. Unfortunately for Wellington. B Willis, m spite of all his speed and hard running. could not elude the defence m nis rignt-wing position, and Vi I Mathieson. at centre forward although revealing promising ball’control, was too young and inexperienced tor such a match, while G .uclntyre was obviously out of hiclass.

it. Lapworth was very steady m i defence at centre half, and 'gavel his forwards reasonable support with passing which wac honest rather than subtle N. Crisp on the rig.it neld ms own with the Canterbury ieit wing, T. Thomas, and gave him no latitude, and B. Johnston at lett halt was prominent on attack, although his cover defence suffered 'Z? c , a J L ' ,e Ot . Kerr ' s faulty positioning With no left back to hold up the attack. Johnston did not always have sufficient time to get back on defence, but he never ceased trying Kerr s Play wat sound enough when ne had the ball, and he covered ins partner well when the attack t was fi^ iVe K re . d on t,ie fa '«de of , U ’ but , h ? "as not as prominent as usual tn switching play to Through being so far un- | held ne was too close to the Canterbury screen of forwards and « v « t 0 haV R .a Cllannel available lor the crossfield pass. E. Tvnan at ri Sht back, played well in the hefna na t h ' S trappln S and passing : being very steady, but he faded .in tne second half when his passing (lost strength and accuracy Enough j was seen of G. McGregor in goal I to support the favourable reports I which had preceded his appearance m th,s game, but neither goalkeeper was severely tested. The cover de- . fence of both team* was to<| good

for forwards who kept pushing the ball through to it. R. Harris made some bold sallies "rom the Canterbury goal and kicked with power, but the best defender was L. Lloyd, at right-back. His trapping, passing and tackling were equal to all • the tests. J. Abrams was not as prominent as usual at left-back, but he was confronted with Percival for much of the time, and Percival had the better of it. E. Barnes played a <olid game at centre-half, being better on defence than attack. He uoes not yet possess sufficient stickwork for his position, but an improvement in his covering was rising. At right-half, K. Thomson showed some useful stickwork, but ...ust improve his side-stepping from left to right. At times he covered well on defence, at times he was absent. He made several skilful dashes into the forward line, and was playing to instructions in doing so. R. Gillespie on the left was the best of the halves, mainly because of his success in checking Willis Although the Canterbury forwards improved in the second half, f. Thomas was not able to make much progress on the left-wing, and it was mainly the experience ol Kiddey and Cumberpatch which enabled their team to force Wellington on the defensive for long periods. The nature of the game fully justified the selector’s reliance upon more mature players, and it was these two who were mainly responsible for Canterbury’s tardy switch to its right flank Cumberpatch’s back-tackling was valuable to his team.

The failure of the forward lines made defensive play easier than it should have been, but this was not the only attacking breakdown. Neither of the half-lines ever looked likely to make play for its forwards, or to give them the ball after drawing opponents and manoeuviring for position. The Indian criticism that New Zealand players lack sufficient skill in holding the ball was amply demonstrated. and defences will continue to dominate matches until there is greater concentration upon la-'er-to-nlayer passing. The through pass will then be more •ifecu e as a surprise move. Its prominence as the main method of progress in this match merely '(firmed its uselessness when every olayer and every spectator is continually and justifiably anticipating it. Towards the end of the game Percival made two splendid dribbles deep into Canterbury territory in a desperate attempt to save the day. but for all the speed and hard running which had gone before there was not a colleague up with him. and his sterling efforts were expended in vain. The Auckland forward line is not likely to be as obliging as some of the Wellington vanguard. The umpires were Messrs I. C Rowe (Wellington) and W. Morris (Christchurch).