Leading Teams Draw In Women’s Hockey

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31381, 29 May 1967, Page 8

Leading Teams Draw In Women’s Hockey

The leading teams, Carlton and Rawhiti, played a scoreless draw in the Canterbury women’s hockey senior competition on Saturday.

AU games below Senior A were cancelled because ol bad weather, but the grounds were in good order. Results:— Carlton 0. Rawhiti 0; Harewood 3, Hornby 0. University 3, Burnside 1. Diflbys 2, Aranui 1. Points: Carlton 3L Rawhiti 3), Digbys 3, Harewood 2, Aranui li, University 1, Hornby 1, Burnside i. CARLTOM v. RAWHITI Although the Carlton forwards played below their best form, their defence was tight enough to cope with a Rawhiti forward line, which was superior to Carlton's on the day. This was a close game with both teams having many chances, and a draw was a fair indication of the run of play. The display by Carlton’s forwards was disappointing. Not only was their trapping unreliable, but they lacked anticipation, while a tendency to delay their passes enabled the Rawhiti defence to stifle them.

A. Howman and D. Eddy were the best of the forwards because they concentrated more on trapping and passing than their colleagues did. A. Judson on the right wing saw little of the ball, which was unfortunate because . Carlton's attack appeared to be much more dangerous when this avenue was exploited. ' S. Comer played very soundly at centre half, her trapping and passing being of great value to her team both on defence and attack. S. Thompson at right half provided vital covering on deep defence, while both backs, M. Bruhns and L. Drummond tackled soundly and broke ud many Rawhiti attacks. J. Wilson made some good saves in goal. The Rawhiti forward line made every effort to concentrate , play on its right flank, where the combination of M Reid and J. Hayes was most effective and sorely troubled the Carlton defence. Sound trapping and quick passing among the inside forwards, led by H. Walker, also proved effective in mid-field. However, close marking by the Carlton defence in the circle limited Rawhiti's scoring chances. In The defence. A. Rouse was Rawhiti's best player, breaking ud many of Carlton’s midfield attacks because of her anticipation, and providing good sudnort for her forwards on attack. J. Bellamy at right half showed improved form particularly with her passing, while J. Moher in goal made some good saves. In general, however, Rawhiti’s defence was not as well organised as Carlton’s, relying too much on rushed tackles and carelessly directed clearing hits. DIGBYS v. ARANUI I In another close game t Digbys scored the winning goal i on full time after a long period in which neither team could • gain a clear-cut advantage. B. Makinson blocked and I cleared strongly in goal, while D. McKinnell and P. Syme ’ showed improved form, coverl ing each other quickly and • showing less inclination to rush their tackles. M Healey was sound on deep defence and D. Quinn provided close support on In the forwards, B. made some forceful breaks at centre-forward and she received useful support from R. Fleming and R. Fowler, the left flank pair, although they were sometimes slow to link with defence. The Digby’s attack , was handicapped by the inability of the flank pair ’ to control the ball. D Aranui’s forwards appeared to e lack combination and although J. Davies and S. Cowles hunted ! the ball keenly there was too I much reliance on solo runs by I the Inside forwards. F. Thompj son on the right wing trapped well, used her speed to advantage and her centre passes were well timed and accurate. L Both backs, A. Rustin and F. i Musson, tackled soundly and r provided quick covering on ' deep defence, although the for- ’ mer’s absence from the half line meant that her forwards , missed the openings usually • provided by accurate passing ! on attack. J. Hart blocked well > in goal. . Digby’s goals were scored by R. Fleming and J. Hardie, while • F. Thompson scored for Aranui. HARSWOOD v. HORHBY The Harewood forwards showed improved form in their ! match against Hornby, particu- [ larly in their midfield play, and , as a result they were able to 1 maintain considerable pressure ‘ on the Hornby goal. Their main > weakness was a failure to move , quickly to loose balls in the ' circle and this undoubtedly cost them some goals.

L. Rutledge led her forwards with skill, and her combination with H. Rutledge at centreforward was most effective. L. Bayliss and J. Seebeck backtackled well and their midfield passing helped to expose defects in Hornby’s defence. On defence, L. Gad Sen at leftback showed good anticipation and this, allied with decisive tackling, enabled her to break up many of Hornby's attacks. M. Poulsen at left-half covered well and her passing was accurate.

Hornby made little real impression on the Harewood attack and although it did well enough on circle defence to restrict the Harewood score to three goals. Its clearing hits were ill-directed and enabled Harewood to make many interceptions. As a result the forwards’ chances were very limited.

Harewood’s goals were scored by L. Rutledge, H. Rutledge and L. Bayliss. UNIVERSITY v. BURNSIDE This match between two young and relatively inexperienced teams developed into a struggle for supremacy on the right flank and once University had established this it was able to maintain considerable pressure on Burnside’s defence.

J. Timms and J. Pryor provided University’s thrust on attack, combining well in midfield and making many openings for their inside forwards with their accurate and welltimed passes. Unfortunately lack of anticipation in the circle nullified a number of these movements.

A. McKenna dominated the midfield area, while J. Wells at right-half passed most con-

structively on attack. Of great value to the team’s strategy was the switching of play to the right flank by L. McAllister and J. Paterson. The main weakness was a failure to provide close marking in the circle and as a result the defence here looked very brittle. Burnside's attacks were built up around the speed and combination of their right flank pair, J. Mouat and A. Johnstone, who gave the University defence some anxious moments with their fast breaks. M. Mouat at left-inner back-tackled consistently, but a weakness was the failure of the forwards to shoot quickly once the circle was reached.

G. Falloon at right-back marshalled her team’s defence and seized every opportunity to direct play back to the right. The defence as a whole appeared sounder than usual because of quicker covering by the wing halves. S. Alleway provided close marking in the centre. J. Pryor, L. Fiddes and J. Wells scored University’s goals, and M. Mouat scored for Burnside.