Impressive Wins In Women’s Hockey

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31120, 25 July 1966, Page 6

Impressive Wins In Women’s Hockey

Canterbury overwhelmed Ashburton in a senior women's hockey match at Ashburton on Saturday. Canterbury won, 13-0, and such was its superiority in the second half that it might well have scored another half-dozen goals.

Canterbury’s form was impressive, but it is a pity that the opposition it has met so far has been so weak, for games such as these are not an adequate preparation for the K cup tournament. Canterbury’s play showed greater reliance on quick accurate passing, sound covering on defence, and concentration of attacks on the right flank, varied with short passing among the inside forwards.

Ashburton’s failure to provide close marking on defence contributed to the success of Canterbury’s attacks, while their inaccurate passes provided the Canterbury defence with a feast of the ball and enabled them to mount new attacks on the Ashburton goal.

B. Makiinson had little to do in Canterbury's goal, whiile J. , Murray, at right back, although ; not trapping as soundly as ' usual, was responsible for providing her right flank forwards with accurate, well-timed passes. M. Bruhns and G. Saunders, who played at leftback for one half each, both covered well and the<ir passing was most constructive.

S. Comer, at centre-half, played a vital role In her team's success. Her skilful stickwork and accurate pacing were of a very high standard and her goal was a fitting reward for a fine game. At left-half, A. McKenna was extremely sound, providing quick covering on deep defence. wh:‘le her support on attack and ab?Jity to transfer play to the right seriously embarrassed the Ashburton defence.

J. Paget and J. Capstick, who shared the right-half position, both tended to play too far in- ! field on attack, giving their opposing left-wing too much latitude, but they did provide useful support for their forwards.

The forward line was most effective as a unit because the emphawi* was on parsing rather than on so’, o breaks, and their quick shooting and following up in the circle were equally effective. Their main fault was s'lownes's to retreat to link with their defence once an attack ■ had been repulsed. This could prove costly against stronger 1 opposition. i A. Gi’les used her speed and anticipation to advantage on the right-wing and was the spearhead of most of the attacks. At right-inner, L. Rutledge played a fine, game. Unking quickly with her defence and passing most constructively to her other forward. Her controlled dribbling provided her with one goal and paved the way for several others. J. Davies was always a threat in the j circle, and 11. Walker switched play back to the right in mid field while her shooting in the circle was deadly. Both leftI Wings, B. Turbott and'S. Cowles, were lively on attack and their passing was accurate. It is to Ashburtoifs credit that it kept fighting back. But lack

of strategy on defence allied with some extremely inaccurate pas&ing contributed in no small measure to the severity of their defeat.

J. Wright, in goal, had a most unenviable job She received little support from the rest of her defence and often had to cope with Canterbury’s attacks almost single-handed. However, she made some fine saves. At centre-half S Wil-son had a busy day. She retreated quickly on defence and her pas-sfimg was more accurate than that of most of her colleagues.

Roth wing-halves. A. GuXferd and G. Collard, tended to mark the inner* rather than their wings and they wore very »!ow to cover. Thus the Canterbury forwards received far too ir. jch room in which to manoeuvre.

The best of the forwards was S Lowe on the left-wing and she made some strong breaks. However, she lacked support and this limited the scope of the Ashburton attack.

Canterbury's goals were scored by H. Wa’ker (7), J. Davies <3), L. Rutledge, S Comer and S. Cowles.

Noth withstand; ng the comparatively large score, the form of Canterbury's other entry in the national K Cup tournament was most unimpressive. It beat Ashburton B. 7-0.

Slowness to move to the ball and lack of anticipation were major faults, but allied to these were poor trapping, inaccurate passing and the inability of; many player* to pas® the ball to the right. Exceptions to this were both backs, L. McAllister and D. McKinnedl, who covered each other well, tackled soundly and passed accurately to their forwards. L. White at right-ton If showed speed to the ball and was responsible for most of the passes the right wing received The other halves passed the ball j left far too much and M. Poul-i sen played so far infield that at i tiroes she looked like an extra back.

The forwards failed to coin bine and many movements broke down because of delay in passing and Inaccurate passing.

With such a surfeit of ball on the left it was fortunate, that M. Healey and A. Howman were able to nasa the ball back to the right. something that singled them out from their' other colleagues in the forward line.

The Ashburton team was not 1 very impressive either, but oir the occasions when the. forwards did make a break they made the pa®se,s early and at time-s this caused some embarrassment to the Canterbury defence. The Canterbury forwards would have done well to follow this example. Ashburton’s best player# were A. Doig at left-back who tackled soundly and G. Green at righthalf who-se close marking made her a thorn in the side of the Canterbury attack. Canterbury’s goal# were i scored by A. Howman <3). N. Mofz (2), R. Kuskis and D. Eddy. Other Results ! Canterbury Secondary School® (beat Ashburton Secondary ' Schools, 4-3. Ashburton Primary School® S, • Canterbury 0.