LETTER BOX

Press, Volume C, Issue 29554, 1 July 1961, Page 5

LETTER BOX

India v Canterbury Hockey

“Your reporter gave his usual incisive analysis of the hockey match but I did consider that in his commendations of the ability of K. Thomson, he appeared to disregard this player’s propensity for dribbling into his forwards. Many times this happened, and each abortive attempt to drive through caused confusion among his own forwards: and with the inevitable interception or breakdown, his backs were left to cope with the Indian centre-forward, who had an unhampered passage down the centre. I thought, too, that he might have commented on the Canterbury captain not changing his forward line during the second half. With Hobson himself obviously fatigued, with commensurating loss of ability, and Armstrong so ineffectual in the centre, it would have been wise if Hobson had moved to the less onerous position of centre-for-ward. but still in a position to lead the team: moved Read to his club position of inside-right, Armstrong to left-wing, and the ebullient McKinnon to inside-left. These moves would have still enabled the plan of play to be continued but with more verve and very little loss in execution.”— R.H.C.

“I agree with ‘R.H.C.’ that K. Thomson showed a tendency to dribble too far. but I adhere strictly to my opinion that he was easily the best half on the ground and the finest centre-half in New Zealand.” says our hockey writer. “Although the Indian inside-forwards appeared to make headway with good dribbling, they only scored once through the centre and Thomson’s cover defence was of a high standard. His dribbling did not prevent his retreating in time to meet these commitments. With regard to the rearrangement of the Canterbury team, I think that it might have been advantageous if this had been affected before the match had started. I hope that ‘R.H.C.’ agrees to the same extent.”

“It seems to me that TB. Fair” has viewed the game between the Indians and Canterbury from a superficial rather than an analytical point of view.” our hockey writer says. “His statistics take no account of the nature of the opposition, or of the sequence of matches in the respective itineraries. As far as ground conditions are concerned it may be recalled that the 1958 CanterburyPakistan match was played on an inferior surface to the one in the recent game at English Park. “I am well aware of the rankings of current Indian players, and I regret for the sake of hockey generally that the Indian Hockey Federation has felt obliged to call upon the services of players whose standard does not attain that of past Indian teams. ‘B. Fair’ is entitled to draw his conclusions from the match. Mine at least are consistent with the critical views of many former Indian internationals who are concerned with what they assert to be a decline in Indian standards. As for experience at the Olympic Games. I can only affirm that the hard hitting and speed-at-al.l-oosts methods of modern Olympic teams are doing more harm than good for the game. I saw the 1956 Games and the glamour of the great occasion was not sufficient to hide the mediocrity of most of the matches. I suggest to ’B. Fair' that he thinks in lerms of technique when examining future games. This would certainly be fair to former great players who taught us the standards by which we can judge today.”