HOCKEY Auckland’s Challenge For Shield Fails

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28999, 14 September 1959, Page 7

HOCKEY Auckland’s Challenge For Shield Fails

Canterbury retained the New Zealand Challenge Shield on Saturday by defeating Auckland, 2-1, in the final challenge match of the season. The score in no way flattered Canterbury, which had much the better of the territorial exchanges for most of the match, and once again the localjtlayers finished strongly, being in complete control when the final whistle blew. Auckland attacked persistently at the start of the game and scored an early goal, but the general nature of the play was reflected in the fact that the Auckland goalkeeper, J. Gordon, was obliged to make a number of excellent saves from point-blank range, while his opposite number, R. Harris, was seldom presented with such difficulties. Williamson Park was hard and fast, but the surface was rather bumpy in places. Nevertheless the ground was not unsympathetic to food stickwork and correct technique, but these qualities were generally sacrificed in the interest of speed, especially by many of the Auckland players. There was far too much hard and aimless hitting, and poor passing prevented the teams from retaining possession of the ball for more than two or three transfers at the most Canterbury improved these deficiences to some extent in the late stages of the match and achieved some success in holding the ball at a time when its possession was vital to Auckland. A further fault was the excessive us of the scoop shot by both teams; and on no occasion did this spectacular levitation lead to a threatening attack. As was expected the Auckland defence was not as sound as that of Canterbury. The visiting halves and backs did not possess sufficient stickwork to provide their forwards with opportunities, and much ot the defensive play was of a scrambling, spoiling character. The Aiickand forwards were expected to present problems to Canterbury, and their performance had been awaited with interest. The match did not, however, reveal any unusual ability on their part, mainly because the team concentrated its attack on P. Bygrave, on the left wing. Since Canterbury was playing to its right flank with greater persistence and purpose than in any previous match this season, the contrast between the two attacking media was very obvious. The match was signed, sealed, and delivered to Canterbury tong before the final whistle blew. Fine Play by Abrams At left back J. Abrams rendered Canterbury great service. His trapping, Stickwork, and passing were of a high standard, and he was one of the most skilful players on the field. L. Lloyd, at right-back, was uncertain in the first haif, but intercepted and trapped well in the second spell and showed some flashes of good ball controL R. Gillespie, on the right, was the best half on the field. He was equally sound on defence and attack, and he gave good suport to his right flank forwards in his best display of the season. E. Barnes was a tireless centre half, better on defence than attack, but his improvement in the task of assisting his forwards was again apparent. P. Clark, on the left, shows some ability when he relies on calmness and control, but at times he falls into the error of trying to emulate the methods of the bustlers.

On the right wing D. James was not as successful as usual in trapping his passes, but he received enough of the ball to demonstrate the natural advantages of the right-flank attack with a number of determined

dribbles deep into the Auckland defences. N. Hobson crowned a successful season as Canterbury captain with his best game in the shield series. His back-tackling was of great value throughout the match, he dribbled well, and held the ball skilfully at times. He combined well with James and Gillespie in the late stages in keeping close control over the play, thereby denying Auckland possession when time was running out on the challenger. J. Kiddey was as thrustful as ever at centre forward, and came close to scoring several times by cleverly eluding his markers. The left flank pair, K. Cumberpatch and M. McKinnon, played unselfishly and fully co-operated in the general plan of maintaining the play on the right flank as much as possible. Their back-tackling was most valuable, and McKinnon combined well with Kiddey in seizing upon a breakdown in the Auckland defence to score Canterbury’s second goal with a smart piece of opportunism.

Auckland Defldencies ,The score might well have been greater if Gordon had not brought off a number of good saves in the Auckland goal, and his performance covered up certain deficiencies in the Auckland defence. Both Auckland backs. M. Rendle and B. Whineray, relied on hard-hitting, first-time clearances, and both' were fortunate at times in getting away with speculators. Their fly-hitting suggested a certain lack of confidence in their stickwork. The Auckland half-line was not a happy combination. D. Chatfield experienced great difficulty in containing the opposing right flank, and his stickwork was not equal to the pressure which Canterbury brought to bear in his area. R. Goulding was relatively anonymous at centre-half. He made a number of good interceptions, but his cover defence was not consistent, and his passing lacked accuracy. He made little effort to feed his own rightflank forwards. G. Buxton, at right half, saw little of the play on attack, and was always in the difficult position of having to assist the defence with the play on his left. Consequently his failure to reveal his bej| form was not entirely his fault, but there were lapses at times in his covering of his backs and he was sadly out of position when Canterbury scored its second goal.

G. Swift, on the right wing, saw so little of the ball that the only comment on his appearance must be to emphasise the folly of Auckland’s tactical plan in adhering so rigidly to its left flank. At inside right G. D. McGregor was in a similarly unenviable role. He was continually chasing passes which were directed out of his reach, and must have covered many miles in racing downfield to support Bygrave’s dribbles. Most of this running was in a lost cause, since the centre passes at the end of these dribbles were conspicuous by their absence. A. Hayde made a few fast breaks down the centre, but these dashes emphasised the futility of long, solo dribbling against a competent defence. There was little apparent effort on his part to combine with his other inside forwards. M. Wallan revealed touches of good stickwork at times and might have been a more serious threat to the Canterbury defence if Auckland had used its right flank as a medium for feeding the left in the later stages of the attack. There was certainly no doubt about P. Bygrave’s speed on the left wing, and he used it to the full in gaining long stretches ol territory. However, the problem of returning the ball to the circle against a defence which knew where to go and which was always receiving the ball on its forehand was never solved, and the very great number of Bygrave’s incursions underlined the fact that speed alone does not win hockey matches and that the left-flank attack is the least effective method of breaking a competent defence. Bygrave might easily have been more useful to his team if he had been used imore sparingly and with greater discrimination. The match was a lesson in a few basic, strategic principles. Canterbury used the right-flank attack, Auckland used the leftflank attack, and Canterbury won going away. Auckland scored when a goal was awarded as a result of an infringement in a penalty bully, and E. Barnes and M. McKinnon scored for Canterbury. The umpires were Messrs R. Crane (Auckland) and W. Morris (Christchurch).