N.Z. Hockey Squad Beats Canterbury

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31411, 3 July 1967, Page 6

N.Z. Hockey Squad Beats Canterbury

The New Zealand hockey squad played Canterbury at Williamson Park yesterday as a fiart of its preparation for the est matches against Australia later in the season. Although New Zealand won, 2-0, the trial was rather unsatisfactory. The trapping and passing of the Canterbury forwards were so bad that the New Zealand halves and backs were able to retrieve the ball rapidly and restore it to their own forwards.

Moreover, the Canterbury forwards were sluggish in seeking unmarked positions, making interceptions easier. Canterbury was subjected to continuous assault, especially in the second half, and its defence performed well. The teams were:—

NEW ZEALAND.—R. McPherson; R. Capey, I. Free, A. Patterson; J. Ans low, S. Maister, G. Atwell, J. Hicks; B. Judge, J. Christensen, K. Thomson, B. Maister, B. Rogers, E. Salmon, A. Maclntyre. CANTERBURY.—J. Monk; B. Turner, C. Ineson: E. Holstein, E. Barnes, P. Clark; D. Petherbridge, T. Burrows, W. Thomson, B. Aldridge, J. Borren.

It was announced that the New Zealand team for the first test against Australia In Christchurch on Sunday, August 13, would be selected from the above squad. A. Patterson was appointed captain, and J. Anslow vice-captain. In Canterbury’s defence, Turner and Ineson tackled effectively, covered their halves admirably, and repeatedly cleared the ball from difficult situations. Turner’s form was especially good, and it is more than doubtful that any of the backs in the New Zealand squad could have .done so well in similar circumstances. Some fine goal-keeping by J. Monk at penalty corners helped Canterbury. Little was seen of Macpherson In the New Zealand goal, and the backs were allowed the luxury of advanced positions and ample space. None played badly, but they were. not particularly constructive, nor did they demonstrate much stick-

work. There was more of the latter commodity in the halfline, where Maister’a feeding was consistently good. Anslow’a passing appeared to have improved. Skill Shown Thomson was played at centreforward, apparently in an effort to inject some thrust into the attack. He covered much ground, dribbled well and showed personal skill of a good standard. Much the same could be said of Judge, Christensen and B. Maister, although they did not rove so widely as Thomson. It was disturbing that the New Zealand attack seemed to be so opportunist in character, especially after the preparation over many months. There was a discernible pattern of right flank play, but little inter-passing amongst the inside forwards, who at times lost touch with each other. The high proportion of quick individual breaks and probes, and the infrequency of jluent passing movements made the task of the Canterbury defence easier, and Rogers was not impressive on the left-wing. A better feature was the liaison between the halves and the forwards, and it appeared that the forwards were leaning heavily on this support. The reaction of this New Zealand team to speedy, bustling methods could not be gauged in this match, but there were suggestions of frailty. The forward line may need Thomson, but, If so, his ability to hold a team together at centre-half will be missed. A general strengthening of the, left flank is also indicated. Atwell was the best player on this side of the field, without achieving international quality. Had the passing been generally more crisp, there would have been more snap in New Zealand’s movements. New Zealand forced many penalty corners, but failed to uncover the goal area, for which tight Canteroury marking and covering were only one reason New Zealand's goal were scored by K. Thomson and B. Baister. Umpires: Messrs K- Mortimer and W. Morris.