HOCKEY South Island Beats North, 4-1, By Better Combination

Press, Volume C, Issue 29633, 2 October 1961, Page 8

HOCKEY South Island Beats North, 4-1, By Better Combination

The South IsteDd hockey | repr«en<atives bea£ the North Island by four goals j to one on a fairly dry, fast ground at Williamson Park on Saturday. The winning team pat. sessed far greater aombinaI tion and the general standard of its stickwurk and passing was supesiw to that of the I northerners. For these reasons, and on the run of the play, the score was a fair reflection of the merits of the teams. The North Island side did ■ not fuMy represent the present strength of North Island hockey because of the fact that a number of leading players were not available for selection. The opportunity was taken to introduce several representatives from minor associations with the result that the North lacked the experience, development and sophistication of the South. The pressure South was able to exert throughout the ’ game prevented the North I from achieving a ponstrnctive policy, and forced it into spasmodic attacks whose efficiency was too often limited by lack of combination. Nor was the North defence as well organised as that, of the South, whose positioning and covering were better planned and executed. ■ The South forward line B was the most competent comI bination seen .in Christchurch I this season, apart from that I of the Indians. This was due I to the shifting of W. ThomR son to centre-forward, where I he played far better than at I inside-left in previous games. I and the transfer of J. StirI ling. For good balance. I swift footwork arid skilful R. ball control, Stirling and .W.

Pereiv*!. the North ineide--1 right, ware by for the two i best forwards on the field. The teams were:— south Isleaa.—l.. Quinton: >. C. Abrams. W. Browne; B. . Gillespie. J. Cu'len B. Barnes; B Jutin. N- H Hobson («»p- ■ tain). W. Thomson. J. Stirling, ! Xorth” IslandK. Henson; B. Turner (captain), I. Free; C. ■ Robertson. B. Doble, R. Lap- ' worth; W. Mills, W. Percival, t K. Percy. W. Brasting. T. - Blake > Quinton blocked efficiently [ and kicked powerfully in ths South coal, and appeared to be ithe better of the two custodians. His counterpart, Henson, had ; a more difficult task because < he was opposed by the stronger t forward line and played in the > weaker defence, but his block- ’ ing was not as reliable as that - of Quinton. The South backs. - Abrams and Browne, tackled > with their usual resolution, and > their understanding in cover- . ing each other was of great ; value. Both were judicious in I using short passes, but Abrams t was rather inaccurate in the > first half with his longer passes, ’ although he improved considerably later. s J. Cullen had a rather mixed . day at centre-half. His pos- ; itional play was good .but he ■ was inconsistent in his trapping ■ and passing. He initiated many t movements with neat place- > ments. but his game was marred ' by too many weak passes whose lack of power seemed to be ■ caused by a failure to move > into a balanced position from f which to deliver the ball. E. . Barnes provided useful cover ’ defence at left-half, and was ' not severely tested in marking Mills, who lacked experience , in seeking gaps and did not • possess sufficient stickwork for ■ representative hockey. 1 Gillespie’s Best Game t At right-half R. GiUespie ! played his best game of the . season. He was always in , position when required to cover : his backs his trapping was good. • and he combined efficiently . with Abrams. His stickwork . and passing showed improvement. and he was the most ; successful of the South players 1 in feeding his right-wing. On . the day he was the best half on the field. Judge had a stern duel with Lapworth, the North left-half, who marked him closely. He was handicapped by Hobson's failure to get the ball to him, and most of his chances were provided by Gillespie. He showed some ability at times io beat an opponent on the forehand, but he needs to develop skill in moving on the left-hand side of his marker. He should eliminate the present tendency to slip the ball past the latter and to run through him in seeking to retrieve It. Hobson’s passing lapses were influenced by severe backtackling from the North and by some lack of mobility in evading such attentions. Thomson showed skill in trapping and passing at centre-for-ward. His performance was quite promising, and was assisted by a weakness, which persisted throughout the match, in the North centre-half position. Stirling played a very lively game at inside-left. His backtackling was good, and his dribbling quick and elusive. His only weakness was a tendency to send some of His passes to the right too far ahead of his own forwards, thereby allowing the opposing defence to reach the ball first. Nevertheless, he looked the most competent in-side-left in New Zealand hockey this season. Surprising Weakness Surprisingly, the North was weak where it should have been strong. At right-back and later at centre-half. Turner played a most disappointing game. His approach was most casual, and an apparent lack of eoncentra-

tion seemed to be the reason for his feiiure to produce the stick - work of which he i* capable. Hie passing w “ equally haphazard in a team which could ill . afford to waste the bell. With . two strenuous seasons of test ; hockey behind him. Turner may . be suffering from Maleness. Free gave a better perform- d ance than when playing for I . Auckland in Christchurch a . fortnight ago. his tackling being . better timed and his passing lees , generous to hia opponents. Al- , . though inexperienced, he shows I potential ability. Lapworth was r the best of the halves by reason i, of greater experience and i solidity. Doble appeared to be . unused to the tempo of a game i I of this nature. He shows some 1 . flashes of stickwork. but seemed ■ to require more time than was > available in executing It. Hence . be was often bustled into scrim- , I mages In which he lost possession. Robertson wo useful at I times on defence, but had few ’ I opportunities for attacking ploy- . His stickwork needs further det veiopment if his play is to imi prove. i The main burden of the North ■ attack was borne by Percival. < In a weak forward line Strug- j I fling against a strong defence Percival had a very difficult 1 I task, and these circumstances I . limited his achievement, but his ' . skilful dribbling and easeful I 1 control greatly enhanced the 1 ; performance of his team. He j , saw too little of the ball in the i second half, but that was be- 1 . cause the initiative had been j ; wrested from his team by the 1 ; South. His goal was the pro- I . duct of anticipation, quick j thinking, and speedy movement, j ; At centre-forward, K. Percy | ' made a number of thrusting solo ! ; dribbles, his play being very 1 ; vigorous. His passing was too | : hurried for accuracy, with the ; ; result that most of the passes i were collected by South players, i The South Island goals were s scored by W. Thomson, J. C. I > Abrams. N. H. Hobson, and B. • Judge, and W. Percival scored i for the North Island. r The umpires were Messrs H. , A. Ostler and B. Lloyd.