Carlton, Rawhiti Lead In Women’s Hockey

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31363, 8 May 1967, Page 11

Carlton, Rawhiti Lead In Women’s Hockey

With two wins each, Carlton and Rawhiti share the lead after two rounds in the senior women’s hockey competition. Results:— Carlton 5, Aranul 2. Rawhiti 2, Digbys 2. Harewood 8, Burnside 0. Hornby 2, University 1. Points are: Carlton 2, Rawhiti 2, Harewood I, Hornby 1, Digby’s 1, Aranul i, Burnside i, University 0. Carlton v. Aranul In a disappointing game, in which neither team displayed convincing form. Carlton beat Aranul by 5 goals to 2. For Carlton the only person to play to her true form was J. Wilson, in goal, who blocked and covered soundly and whose clearing was timely and forceful. The rest of the team appeared lethargic and unsound trapping in the defence caused them to be badly bustled at times by Aranui’s fast forwards. At left-half, A. Geddes showed improved form, her covering being of particular value to her team.

The forwards were disappointing both as a unit and individually, their trapping being unreliable and much of the midfield passing Inaccurate. The best forwards were the left flank pair, D. Eddy and A. Howman, who were responsible for most of their team’s penetration. G. Phillips displayed opportunism in the circle.

Aranui’s most dangerous forwards were J. Davies and S. Cowles, who used their speed to advantage, but the forwards were not an effective unit because of a tendency to bunch when on attack. A. Ruston was her team’s best player because of sound trapping and passing and some extremely vital cover-defence. She was well supported by F. Musson at right-back. But the rest of the defence tended to panic under pressure and rushed tackles enabled Carlton to take advantage of the resulting gaps. Carlton’s goals were scored by G. Phillips (4) and A. Judson; S. Cowles and G. Davies scored for Aranui. Horn v. University Although Hornby displayed much improved form. University

was very unlucky to lose. It had a distinct territorial advantage lor much of the game and subjected the Hornby goal to considerable pressure. Hornby’s winning goal was from a penalty corner awarded for an infringement which occurred some distance outside the circle.

Hornby’s forwards gave a sound display of trapping and passing, and their attack was based on a combination of quick passing among the inside forwards, M. Bennet, W. Everest and J. Millard, and on strong runs down the right wing by B. Tate later in the game. A. Brusewitz, at righthalf, was very mobile and this enabled her to make many interceptions and to provide close support on attack.' M. Condick tackled sound and S. Cusdln had a busy time in goal and made some good saves. Not for the first time University showed an inability to score goals. The forwards, led by J. Timms, J. Pryor ■ and L. Flddes, combined in effective short-passing movements which enabled them to spend much time in Hornby’s circle, but inaccurate shooting and lack of anticipation cost them many goals. The defence displayed Improved form with quicker covering and more decisive tackling, and L. McAllister and J. Fright were a sound pair of backs. A. McKenna’s passing was of its usual high standard and J. Wells, at right-half, provided useful support on attack. Hornby’s goals were scored by W. Everest. L. Fiddes scored for University.

Rawhiti v. Digby's Rawhiti displayed improved form and Dlgbys was rather disappointing in this match. Rawhiti’s forwards combined well In some effective short passing movements, and the strong running of the wings, J. Hayes and N. Hansen, enabled the team to exert considerable pressure on Digby’s goal. H. Walker at left-inner backtackled tirelessly, and her switching of play in midfield was effective as it exposed some hesitant covering in Digby’s defence. A. Rouse at centre-half broke up many of Digby’s midfield attacks, and J. Paterson

provided useful covering. J. Mober in goal made some strong clearance,. Digby's was weakened by its policy of playing its two most effective forwards. B. Turbott and R. Fowler, on the wing, where they were wasted through a lack of service from their inside forwards. The forwards also lacked the penetration necessary to take advantage of scoring opportunities. M. Healey, at left-half, covered well and D. McKinnell at left-back showed less Inclination to rush her tackles and as a result was able to check a number of Rawhiti attacks. The rest of the defence tended to commit itself in the fact of Rawhitl's attacks and as a result was often easily bypassed as Rawhiti proceeded to the circle.

Rawhitl’s goals were scored by M. Reid and J. Watson. D. Quin scored for Digby’s. Harewood v. Burnside The Harewood forwards gave a most impressive display: a combination of quick, accurate passing in the midfield area, strong running when the initial break had been made and quick, accurate shooting and followlng-ln once the opposing circle had been reached. L. Rutledge was a constant threat because of her skilful dribbling and infield passing and she received good support from L. Bayliss at left inner who backtackled effectively and passed well, and from S. Turner on the right wing. In the defence S. Lynch and M. Poulsen made some good midfield Interceptions, while J. Smith at right-back made a welcome reappearance. her tackling and covering being of a high ,tandard. Burnside tried hard, but lacked the experience to cope effectively with Harewood’s attack Its main weakness wa, the failure of its cover defence to advance to meet an attack early. G. Falloon at right-back tackled soundly, but she lacked support and once she was beaten the Harewood forwards were able to advance unchecked until they reached the circle edge where the rest of Burnside’s defence had gathered. A tendency to try to dribble the ball out of the circle instead of using clearing hits added to their problems. M. Mouat at left-inner was her team’s best forward. She made some good breaks on attack, but her main value was tireless backtackling and linking with her hard-pressed defence. Harewood’s goals were scored by L. Rutledge (6), J. Seebeck and M. McCarthy. Lower Grades Results of lower grade games were: Senior Reserve. Teachers’ College 9, Christchurch West Old Girls 0; Cranmer 4, Digby’s 2; Shirley 2, University 0. Second Grade.—Carlton 5, Dental Nurses 0; Aranui 2, Linwood High School I; Teachers* College 4, Burnside 0; Rawhiti 5, Hinemoa 3. Third Grade.—Digby’s 4, Burnside 3; Shirley 6, Hagley High Schoo] 1; Harewood 3, Belfast 2; Rangiora 4, Aranui 0. Fourth Grade.—Burnside B 3, Christchurch West Old Girls 2; Digby’s A 4, Rangiora 1. Fifth Grade.—Shirley 1, Hinemoa 0; Rawhiti 3, Digby’s 0; Belfast 5, Christchurch West Old Girls 4. Primary Grade.—Rawhiti 8, Hornby B 0; Hornby A 4, Christ* church West 1; Aranul 3, Belfast 2.