Two Now Unbeaten In Women’s Hockey

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30752, 17 May 1965, Page 14

Two Now Unbeaten In Women’s Hockey

The third round of the Canterbury women’s hockey competition was played on firm, bumpy grounds. Harewood overwhelmed Aranui, and Rawhiti defeated University, making these the only two unbeaten teams. Results:— Harewood 5, Aranui 0. Carlton 1, Digby's 0. Hinemoa 2, West 1. Rawhiti 3, University Points.—Hare wood 3. Rawhiti 3, Carlton 2, University 2, Aranui 1, Hinemoa 1, West 0, Digby-s 0. Harewood v. Aranui Harewood looked very dangerous in this’ match and thor ough’.y deserved its handsome win. Aranui, to its credit, did not give up and made Harewood work for all its goals. The Harewood defence handled the Aranui attacks competently and also managed, to start attacks by using sho.rt. quick passes to their forwards. J. Murray trapped soundly and used good stickwork to elude the oncoming forwards. All the defence followed this pattern of giving the pass accurately before the busting Aranui players made the tackle. This was made possible by the wiMingness of all the forwards to work hard to get into unmarked positions. In spite of this strong defence it was the forwards who were most impressive, especially L. Rutledge. Many openings were made by her fast and elusive runs, often from defensive positions. L. Harrow and N. Motz both worked well to launch attacks through the centre. Aranui tried to combat the strong breaking forwards, but the rearrangement of the defence was not the answer. A stronger concentration on cover defence would have been more effective. A. Ruston did a tremendous amount on defence, but J. Davis was perhaps the most enthusiastic; back tackling energetically and bustling the defence in an attempt to force it into errors. The goals were scored by L. Rutledge 3, S. Turner and N. Motz. . „ Umpires: Mrs J. Fifie.d and Miss J. Bowyer. Carlton v. Digby’s Scoring in the first minute Carlton imposed a handicap Digby’s could not quite over, come. In the first half both teams played constructively but in the second half play became scrappy and indecisive. The Carlton forwards showed improvement and went closer to showing their true worth in this game. They played with vigour and determination which meant that they could link more quickly with their defence. A. Giles plaved constructively, using penetrating runs to make openings for the other forwards. The defence was always strong and withstood the pressure of the vigorous Digby's forwards. L. Drummond tackled soundly and fed her forwards well. S. Comer led the halves on defence by her fast covering and decisive tackling. For Digby’s, B. Makinson again made many very fine saves and but for her Carlton’s score would have been greater. The defence worked hard to contain the fast Carlton forwards after the first break through. In the forwards a lack of combination meant that the attacks fell down after a strong break had been made. The goal was scored by G. Phillips. Umpires: Mesdames McGregor and Gray. Hinemoa v. West Hinemoa owed its 2-1 victory over West to superiority in the forwards, who made attempts to play as a unit. At times there was combination and short passing which revealed serious weaknesses in the West defence. J. Croucher was again the spearhead of the attack and her accurate passing posed an insoluble problem for West. K. Morris showed improved form at left-half and R. Black was in good form in goal. However, too many defence players tended to run with the ball instead of passing to their forwards. West, although it made desperate efforts late in the game, owed its loss to complete lack

of combination in the forwards, who relied far too much on long solo breaks and too little on passing. Their failure to link with their hard pressed defence was also a contributing factor in their loss. Goals were scored for Hinemoa by J. Croucher and N. Coup. A. Eastwick scored for West. Umpires: Mesdames Gray and Alston. Rawhiti v. University Rawhiti owed its win to seizing opportunities in the weaknesses in th£ University circle, willingness to exploit deep defence, a fine performance by A. Rouse at left half, and to dubious defensive tactics. Territorally, University had the advantage, but in the first half Rawhiti made commendable efforts to play its right, and opportunism in the circles enabled it to score three goals. H. Walker, at left inner, played also as an extra half-back and she was largely responsible for returning play to Rawhiti’s right, where J. Hayes was a constant threat. A. Rouse was University’s chief stumbling block and her interceptions, covering and passing were of a very high standard: Unfortunately the Rawhiti team resorted to illegal tactics, there being too much body play and obstruc. tion. One of University’s main weaknesses was the faulty positional play and covering on deep defence by the back's. A. Colville and P. Anderson continue to show improved form in the halves. A pleasing feature was the return to form of the forwards who spent most of the second half on attack. J. Paget was a threat on the right wing and F. Whitehead’s elusive dribbling and hunting of the ball set Rawhiti a problem to which they had no constructive answer. Rawhiti’s goals were scored by A. Schimonski, N. Cunningham and J. Hayes. F. Whitehead scored for University. Umpires: Miss Beale and Mr Hurst.