W. A. Thomson—his flippancy masks a logical hockey mind

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32661, 17 July 1971, Page 14

W. A. Thomson—his flippancy masks a logical hockey mind

(By

C. V. WALTER)

There is in his countenance the expression of the imp incarnate and in his play the whimsicality of Puck himself. He gives the impression of being the Mr Micawber of modem hockey, ever waiting around for something to turn up, but when it does he demonstrates a degree of mobility beyond the wildest dreams of that character upon whom Charles Dickens bestowed a curious immortality.

He can move with the ruthlessness and the singleness of purpose of any business tycoon, no longer Bill Thomson to his friends and critics, but W. A. Thomson Esquire embracing his opponents within a merger which utterly destroys their identity.

He brings a new flexibility to the meaning of schizophrenia. He is the official inside-right for Hagley Old Boys, his club; but for Canterbury any one of the five forward positions

will suit him, and he has played the half of an Interisland game at right-half with no loss of dignity nor of personal characteristic. He has a considerable wit and a mode of expression which are entirely his own, and his play cannot but be invested with these qualities, which were all that he had to nourish him when he endured the isolation of the reserve player throughout the Olympic matches in Mexico in 1968. This experience was New Zealand’s loss and a reflection of the persistence with which he has been under-estimated. He has the modest outlook of one who has lived in the shadow of others, but his own ability makes the acceptance of such a classification quite unjustifiable, because he is a very considerable player in his own right. For his club these past seasons he has carried the burden of the approach play and the role of the striker in match after match. Without him his team’s success would have been meagre indeed, yet his critics suggest that his work load is inconstant. For him hockey is an affair of logical progression in which

the unnecessary expenditure of energy is undignified and uncouth. When Canterbury has played the ball to him he has responded admirably; when it has neglected him he has used the respite to indulge himself in contemplative amusement. Thomson possess a highly developed degree of coordination and an excellent judgment of distance. He controls the ball easefully in his dribbling, moving it delicately and late, and he slips past opponents with an effrontery which suggests their acquiescence in a wholly permissive society. There is a sublime confi-

dence in these progressions, and no hint of hurry, for it is his personal right that all concerned should grant him the dispensation of adequate time. Herein is the source of that impression of youthful impertinence, and that incorrect estimation of his mobility. But the exertions of those who pursue him give a more accurate evaluation. On Canterbury’s left-wing in many matches on many occasions he has borne the ball to the circle in the minimum of time, has squirmed and slithered along the goal-line, and has fed it back to ravening colleagues pouring into the goalmouth in a fury of ambition and grateful collaboration. In a match in Nelson he discovered for himself a pathway, not apparent to any opponent, through the whole defence, with the goal at journey’s end at his mercy. It was typical of him that he refrained from shooting, but instead slipped the ball to another forward for the latter to add the final touch. At the culmination of success that imp of humour had still to be gratified. In the same match he essayed two penalty strokes, announcing to his

team his unorthodox theory that if the ball be propelled straight at the goalkeeper the latter will obligingly miss it. Since this is what the goalkeeper did on each occasion, his incredulous contemporaries are still blindly groping for scientific refutation of his outrageous assertion. Sometimes he hints at impatience with restrictions; that inhibition upon shooting for goal which demands accuracy is relegated to a minor requirement, and the ball is struck with such a blow that it has to be fetched from the adjoining suburb. Had it entered the net its subsequent flight would not have been visible as witness to the power of the hit. Only an imp would share his quiet satisfaction on these occasions. When he went to the London tournament in 1967 he was the most skilful forward in the New Zealand team. Its failure to score more than four goals in the tournament was not unconnected with its failure to use him at inside-right more frequently. However, his country’s neglect has not been repeated by his province, to its benefit. His sense of humour conveys at times a slightly flippant attitude towards- his own hockey, and is wholly deceiving, because it masks a thoughtful and logical mind which seldom wastes the ball and constructs much play for others to promote. Nor is it by chance that his ability, knowledge and experience combine to make him one of the best umpires in New Zealand.