HOCKEY Canterbury, Auckland Draw In N.Z. Shield Match

Press, Volume C, Issue 29621, 18 September 1961, Page 15

HOCKEY Canterbury, Auckland Draw In N.Z. Shield Match

i ii At amson Park on Saturday Canterbury survived the fourth challenge of the season lor the New Zealand Hockey Shield when it drew with Auckland. Neither side scored. The ground was firm and fast, and although inclined to be bumpy in places it was in good order for stickwork and control.

In the first half Auckland had the better of the play, its forwards exerting pressure on the Canterbury defence by ’means of fast dribbling. They managed to force a penalty bully which was not converted.

After the interval Canterbury succeeded in keeping the ball on its right flank for long periods, and Auckland lost its former initiative. Neither forward line appeared likely to break through the respective defences, but the possibility of a sudden goal maintained interest in the outcome until the final whistle.

Canterbury did not produce its best form. It was often sluggish in movement so the bustling of the Auckland players met with some success. However, Auckland did npt appear to have any plan of attack and in the second half its efforts to snatch a winning goal were too often confined to solo dribbles by the centre-forward, who was isolated through the failure of his colleagues to move up iin support. This was brought about because the Auckland defenders persisted in repelling Canterbury attacks by long l hits through the centre of the field at a time when many of the Auckland forwards had come back into the defence. The game was characterised by much hard hitting, and so many of the hits were directed straight to opponents that sustained movements were rare. One of the forwards in the match received the ball 27 times, but was successful on only four occasions in transferring it to another member of his team, and one of the halves who had possession 52 times made 16 valid passes. With both teams experiencing such difficulties in retaining possession. the play was decidedly scrappy, and most of the excitement derived from individual breaks based on solo dribbling. The Auckland team contained several young players Who lacked experience in shield hockey. They were lively, vigorous and keen, but insufficiently constructive to break a Canterbury defence which leaned heavily on the play of its two backs. The teams were:—

Canterbury.—K. Mortimer; J. C. Abrams, W. Browne: A. Patterson, E. Barnes, R. Gillespie; B. Judge, N. H. Robson (captain), I. D. Armstrong, W. Thomson, T. Thomas.

Auckland.—J. Gordon; B. Whineray (captain), J. Free; J. Anslow. R. Goulding, G. Atwell, K. Wagstaff, N. Heard, N. Hayde, M. Wallan, B. Rogers. Both goalkeepers, Mortimer and Gordon, acquitted themselves well. Each made several good saves, and their kicking was powerful and well directed. Gordon was particularly good in the latter respect which was a product of his considerable experience in goalkeeping. Abrams and Brown were the rocks on which most Auckland attacks foundered. Their task was made easier because of the many long hits which were sent to them, but their trapping was sure and their clearing, for the most part, strong and well directed. They covered each other sensibly and their tackling was always well timed and determined, Abrams being especially effective in this requirement. At right-half, Patterson had a busy match in his efforts to form an effective triangle with his right flank forwards, Hobson and Judge. These three were closely marked, and aU experienced a torrid afternoon from the backtackling of Wallan and Rogers and the spoiling play of Atwell. Both Patterson and Hobson endeavoured to hold the ball to draw opponents and to ensure accurate passes, but they were given less time than usual to manoeuvre end their intentions were more often foiled than not.

They did, however, keep the ball in their area of the field during the second half for long enough to rob Auckland of possession and time for its exploitation, and they deserve credit for endeavouring to avoid blind passing. .Not often did Judge elude Atwell, but he made one very good break towards the end of the game which had Auckland scrambling hurriedly in its circle. At inside-left W. Thomson made several neat and useful cross-field passes. Good Defence Apart from some misdirected clearances Whineray defended well for Auckland, his covering of an inexperienced partner being most valuable. The halves were more impressive on defence than on attack. Anslow made several dribbles on the right at considerable speed, but his passing was not good<

In the centre Goulding showed some appreciation of control in his play with many neat touches, but he. too, often experienced difficulty in finding his forwards. Atwell did well in hampering Canterbury’s advance on its right, and for this reason his contribution was a most important factor in Auckland’s challenge. He had a tendency on attack to send the ball beyond his forwards towards the Canterbury half or back.

In the first half Wagstaff escaped from his marker on several occasions and took the ball to the Canterbury circle. It was unfortunate, therefore, for Auckland that he saw so little of the ball in the second spell.

The Auckland attack was hampered by lack of experience in the inside-right position, and Hayde at centreforward, although making some determined dribbles, could not hope to break past the Canterbury backs by dribbling alone. The determined and persistent back-tackling of Wallan- at inside-left created difficulties for Canterbury, but Wallan was also subjected to the same treatment by Hobson with whom he engaged in a severe duel throughout the game. Wallan showed some good close control of the ball at times, but he had to do too much fetching and carrying and seldom received the ball near the circle in a position from which a quick break and a shot could be made.

There was a considerable amount of vigorous left-side tackling amounting to barging and body play at times, and in this regard Auckland ■w’as the chief offender. The speed of the Auckland players and their quickness in tackling worried Canterbury, many of whose players lacked sufficient stickwork to evade such bustling. The umpires were Dr. E. Harvey and Mr A. D. Holland.