Merits Basketball CANTERBURY NARROWLY WINS ZONE TOURNAMENT FINAL

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29235, 20 June 1960, Page 14

Merits Basketball CANTERBURY NARROWLY WINS ZONE TOURNAMENT FINAL

Apart from the West Coast players, there was little evidence of fitness ini competitors at the Canterbury zone men’s indoor basketball tournament, played in Christchurch this week-end. Teams competing were Mid-Can-terbury, South Canterbury, West Coast and Canterbury.

Canterbury beast West Coast by a slender margin of eight points to take major honours, but it was only in the game against Mid-Canterbury that the Canterbury players struck anything like representative form. Their lack of practice together was most obvious and it was undoubtedly the core of experienced players who brought them through to the final win. /

Scores were.— West Coast 46, South Canterbury 36; South Canterbury 46, Mid-Canterbury 43; West Coast 64, Mid-Canterbury 36; Canterbury 79, Mid-Canterbury 26; Canterbury 62, South Canterbury 48; Canterbury 54, West Coast 46. MIO-CANTERBURY v. CANTERBURY

Several new players were tested in this game ana with the South island championships only throe weeks away, the Canterbury selectors have been given much to think about. Only four of the 11 men who were tried during this game really came up to standard as scorers. Serious consideration will have to be given to bringing more height into the front Une, irrespective of ability to match every department of opposition play. In the defensive positions, however, things look much more rosy, with good play by R. Burnby, A. Berzines, K. Baker, and H. Fox. It was the use of a full court man-to-man that upset Mid-Canterbury to a great extent, with Burnby and Berzines breaking fast from the back Une to feed W. Smith in the pivot. The Mid-Canterbury team was caught out of position time and time again, and Smith, P. Fox, and R. Entwistle got through to the hoop to score 45 of Canterbury's final total of 79 points. Good screening from Entwistle twice aUlowed the young B. Gardner in, but his ability to vary his play left a lot to be desired. This also applied to P. Ward, although both may weU have been nervous.

Even though the final margin was greatly against them, the Mid-Can-terbury players did not let Canterbury have everything its own way. Their defence, once it had settled down, proved that Canterbury's one great weakness is in its forward rebounding ability. In the second half many of Canterbury’s points came from gathering in the loose ball. S. Bermett top scored for Mid-Canter-bury with 6 points, and good set shooting earned four points each for Rout, Shea, and Storrier. The absence of folding was a really good °f thls , allowing for fast, flowing play. SOUTH CANTERBURY V. CANTERBURY

With a lot of height aU round, it was obvious that Canterbury would not have this game aU its own way. South Canterbury has had coaching in the man-to-man game, and it stood the side in good stead throughout this game. In the early stages, fast breaks came from both teams, only to break down at the critical stage because of poor or careless passes. A little more experience allowed Canterbury to tempt the opposition into fouling. In this it was successful and it was foul shooting of a very high standard that won this game in the nnisn.

°f South Canterbury, opened the scoring with a nice leftln - Canterbury came back with throe good set shots from R. Entwistle and A. Berzines, who was at this stage proving himrnnrt° ne u? f On the court. His rebounding in particuwas of a high standard. W. Unwin and B. Cox, of South Canterbury. were forcing their way through the Canterbury defence as on ’ an °' wbile many of their shots were a bit raeeed they scored enough to make Canl er i»a7 W w rk^hard to“ aintato Smith was on trial in the centre for Canterbury, and was doing a good job, but found tut usual scoring pos tions were not ° P "V a3 , u,ual - When thehalfh wbistle *« nt Canterbury was dow P. °R e Point and its lack of combination called for some changes °* control and one « ttfo When McGarry fouled out for ?° utb Canterbury he was replaced Mr < n»^F hore ’ » nd Cox came to for Ramsay. in the Canterbury team u H ' v ox replaced D. Waple and his brother, P. Fox, came in , f . or Tunnicliffe, and this was how N.?M yed ? or the rest ot th e game. Neither team gave anything away but Canterbury, improving under the control of H. Fox to the extenL that , it was made to drive continuously for the hoop, took more shots, some of them iiu. . well out. This forced the South Canterbury team to come out after the ball and left room for the

Canterbury forwards to drive through to the hoop wbore they were fouled continuously. P. Fox shone in this department and scored 96 per cent, of his free throws as a result. Smith, too, was made to drive and concentrate more, and consequrotly scored 18 of his 86 points at this stage. Both Entwistle and H. Fox took every opportunity to try for set shots at thjls stage and were successful enough to assure Canterbury of a 16-polnt win.

CANTERBURY V. WEST COAST The game was lethargic, ragged, and at times rough for the Hirst eight minutes, with not one Point scored. A practically new front line and an all-too-loose half-court man-to-man by Canterbury allowed the West Coast in time and again for bucket shots in the keyhole. West Coast hurried its shots too much »nd Canterbury gathered in the loose ball to break down the court to score enough to give the side a five-point lead. N. Saunders, of West Coast, went on a scoring spree at this stage and netted four quick goals. But P. Ward and Entwistle retaliated With some good set shooting to nullify his efforts. Ward got three good breaks at this stage but was,hammered down at the basket, failing to score from the. penalty shots. Both guards, Burnby and Berzines, But in a nice set snot each, while lie Coast team could not get its shots away. A tight man-to-man maintained by Canterbury, which led by nine points at half-time. B. Gardner and D. Waple failed to strike scoring form and were replaced early by P. Fpx and Smith. Entwistle at this stage was scoring well but was fouling a lot in the centre. With 15 minutes to go the game again became lethargic. Berzines, who up to this stage had played another good game, tired and was replaced by H. Fox in the guard line. West Coast scoring then became negative. Opportunities were missed, and some fast driving from Canterbury caught the West Coast wilting a little and fouling too much. With 12 good points to his credit Entwistle fouled out and was replaced by Waple. With a few minutes to go Baker came tn for Burnby in the guard line and proved himself able to handle man-to-man. At one stage the West Coast was within three points of Canterbury but was unable to maintain the pressure and fouled continuously, allowing Canterbury to win two of its three games with a high penalty shooting average.