Burnside has impressive win in women’s hockey

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32970, 17 July 1972, Page 16

Burnside has impressive win in women’s hockey

Burnside maintained its lead in the women’s senior hockey competition most impressively, when it overwhelmed Rawhiti on Saturday. The game between the competition leader and joint runner-up was the feature of the day, but Burnside had no trouble scoring eight goals. Other teams to win were Carlton and Harewood, and Aranui and University drew their scoreless match. Results: Bumside 8 Rawhiti 3. Carlton 1 Digbys 0 Aranui 9, University 0 Harewood 2, Cranmer 0 Points: Burnside 9, Carlton 7|, Rawhiti 6J, Harewood SJ, University 5, Cranmer and Aranui 4, Digbys 2J. Bumside v. Rawhiti: Two goals by A. Alleway and another by J. Phillips—combined with a successful other goal after a penalty bully by C. Cusdin—gave Burnside a handy, 3-0 lead at half-time. In the second half, the goals came regularly; not so much because Burnside had most possession, but because Rawhitrs defence put up little resistance when the Bumside forwards mounted an attack, and they were able to finish their moves. Further goals for Bumside came from Alleway (2), J. Allen (2), and Phillips. Rawhiti’s forwards battled on with little support, and their efforts were rewarded by three goals,—by Carroll, C. Huis ton, and M. Leech. The other two forwards. P. Rushbridge and J. Millard, gave good support. The defenders were often caught out of position, backs be-

ing square and the halves failing to provide any cover. Harewood v. Cranmer At times, this game Rowed at a good pace, and with constructive methods of play. Both teams made use of their wings, and this kept the game open. Both half-lines closely supported their forwards on attack. Harewood’s first goal was the result of a penalty bully, won by the inside-right, J. Fookes. Play ranged up and down the field for the remainder of the half, with no further goals being added. Both right wings, S. Howell and S. Wright, ran well and gained valuable ground for their teams on attack. Play in centre field tended to be more broken, with Harewood, in particular, playing its backs up field and breaking up prospective centrefield breaks early. The only goal of the half came from the inside-left, C. Schulz, who had directed the ball well during the whole game. Harewood’s left back, B. Telford, had regular success breaking up Cranmer’s attacks, and she passed well for her forwards. Carlton v. Digbys This game never reached a good standard of play, with the first half being far better than the second, which was scrappy. Both teams had chances in the first half, particularly Digbys, which held the territorial advantage for most of the half. Carlton’s breaks were mainly solo on the part of either wideforward, J. Wilson or J. Horton. Digby’s attacks were more unified, spearheaded mainly from the right. Play deteriorated and became bogged down by stoppages for infringements and errors in the second half. Carlton’s forwards, pressing harder, were often caught off-side, and both teams had trouble trapping. Feet errors were frequent. Carlton was unable to take advantage of several attacking penalty corners, but pressure

k gradually built up until C. Currie, ite centre-forward, hit the .ball into Digby’s net from a cross pass. * Aranui v. University > University had a feast of pos- ? session and territorial advantage J for most of this game, but no “ score resulted. Even a long series r of attacking penalty corners „ failed to give the desired re- ® suit. “ University’s trapping was exk cellent throughout the game. The 6 forwards passed the ball well, B received close support from “ their half-line, moved up-held as a unit, but didn’t finish off their i good field play. J Aranui used its centre-forward * S. Cowles, as its main attacker, ~ and she made some fast breaks ;» to University’s circle, only to find j herself alone and her efforts a wasted. In goal for Aranui, M. ! * Woodhouse blocked well and was not afraid to come out to meet “ a forward rush. W. Stock des fended well at right back, re- , maining steady under fairly conj stant pressure. " University forwards went well P on the whole, with D. Fiddes e distributing her passes well in the centre. The Inside forwards, L. Patterson and K. MacDonald, worked back consistently. R. B Ackerly was steady at left back, e with P. McDonald providing good a cover on defence.