WOMEN’S HOCKEY Harewood Certain Of Winning Competition

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30830, 16 August 1965, Page 8

WOMEN’S HOCKEY Harewood Certain Of Winning Competition

Harewood emerged a certain winner of the Canterbury women’s hockey competition when it defeated both Hinemoa and University on Saturday. However, it had some rather uncertain moments against the depleted University team, finally winning by two goals to one.

Two rounds were played during the day and the drizzling rain and muddy playing fields did nothing to encourage bright hockey.

Results were:— Digbys 1, University 0. Harewood 4, Hinemoa 0. Aranui 5, West 1. Carlton 3, Rawhiti 0. Harewood 2, University 1. Digbys 7, Hinemoa 0. Carlton 12, West 0. Aranui 4, Rawhiti 0. Points are: Harewood 13, Carlton 10J, Digbys 7, Aranui 7, Rawhiti 6i, University 6, Hinemoa IJ, West liHAREWOOD v. UNIVERSITY Unexpectedly, the University team tested the competition leaders, and to a certain extent prevented Harewood attacking by keeping the ball on the right. The Harewood forwards lost their combination because of the energy and spirit of the whole University team. In the first half there appeared to be some cracks in the Harewood defence, but in the second it tightened up.

J. Murray and G. Saunders, although harrassed continually, managed to wrest control from University in the vital last few minutes. R. Scott at right-half played an attacking role to good effect, and L. Watson always worked well in the centre. As in the morning game, the backs for University were sound and reliable, trapping very well at crucial stages. S. Walter was a tower of strength in the centre, using stickwork to evade oncoming players and making strong clearances on defence. HAREWOOD v. HINEMOA

In this match Harewood enjoyed much possession and territorial advantage, but goals were elusive because of the muddy conditions. In the second half, particularly, it was kept out by its own errors and Hinemoa’s fortitude.

The two centre-halves, L. Watson for Harewood and J. Capstick for Hinemoa, both played well and were responsible for initiating many attacks. Both teams’ forwards relied on individual breaks, and this paid off for Harewood because they had the more decisive forwards, L. Rutledge and N. Moty. DIGBYS V. UNIVERSITY

This match developed into a tense struggle between the Digbys forwards and the University defence. The inexperience of the University team allowed the winning goal to be scored minutes from time. Digbys main avenue of attack was through the left-wing, B. Turbott, who made many strong, fast runs. V. Fleete worked hard for opportunities in the centre, while S. Riches exercised some control over the central area. For Universtiy, the backs, L. McAllister and J. Hickford, were a strong pair, both tackling soundly, eluding tackles, and passing well. ARANUI V. WEST This game was closer than the score would indicate, but West failed to capitalise on the chances it did create. The difference lay in the willingness of the Aranui forwards to shoot strongly, even from unbalanced positions. In the Aranui defence, F. Patterson was always sound, trapping and tackling well under pressure. A. Ruston, as usual, covered assiduously and cleared strongly if the backs were beaten. In the West team, the backs E. Q. Fiet and K. Wilkinson, were particularly useful for clearing any loose balls but unfortunately their defensive work was wasted as they were offered little support from their halves. The most successful forward was L. Feldes who dribbled skilfully and passed intelligently. CARLTON v. RAWHITI Carlton, although not having a monopoly of possession, always looked the more dangerous team and in spite of the number of goals scored, made some delightful breaks into the circle. The Rawhiti team concentrated on safety first tactics, using the back line frequently to relieve pressure. A lack of mobility in the defence meant that the covering was inadequate. D. Eddy used her speed well to cut infield to link up with the attack and played in a way reminiscent of her peak performances. A. Howman and A. Giles used the quick break from just outside the circle effectively. The best of the Rawhiti forwards was H. Walker, who bore the burden of most of the dribbling. The Rawhiti defence, as a whole, kept out the Carlton attacks with commendable dedication to first time clearances.

DIGBYS V. HINEMOA As the score indicates, Digbys was far superior in this match against Hinemoa, perhaps suffering from reaction after its attempts to hold Harewood in the morning game. The condition of the field at this stage, obliterated most signs of skilful, constructive hockey. Although Hinemoa tried to stem the tide of the mounting score its efforts were nullified by the speed and fitness of the Digby’s forwards. B. Turbott and V. Fleete ran strongly and used every opportunity for a shot at goal. CARLTON v. WEST From the opening whistle, Carlton gave notice of their intention to attack through fast backs, utilizing probing passes. At no stage did West do more than admire the skill and finesse of this forward line. Lack of an organised defensive pattern made it impossible for a line of five forwards combining well, to be stopped. All the Carlton forwards played well, exercising ball control at speed. Their halves supported them very well because all three moved quickly onto the line of a misdirected clearance. ARANUI v. RAWHITI The younger Aranui players stood the pace of the second game better than did Rawhiti. The lack of fitness told against Rawhiti when the players were needed back on defence.

One player who remained fresh all day was J. Davies. She was still toiling hard at the end of the second game.

The willingness to hunt for opportunities in the circle again was a deciding factor.

B. McNaughton and F. Patterson handled the speed of H. Walker and J. Hayes with little difficulty but they were aided in this by Rawhiti’s neglect of the use of quick changes of play.