Costly lapses by hockey defence

Press, 10 February 1982, Page 24

Costly lapses by hockey defence

By

KEVIN TUTTY

It will take a long time for the stigma of New Zealand’s 3-12 loss to Pakistan in the World Cup hockey tournament to be forgotten. It is the record loss that is remembered rather than the narrow losses to two of the higher-ranked teams—lndia and the beaten finalists, West Germany. But that is the price New Zealand has to pay for being a former Olympic champion on the receiving end of a humiliating defeat. The Pakistan game was a nightmare. The only thing that can be said in New Zealand’s favour, was that virtually every scoring opportinity created by Pakistan resulted in a goal. In the final against West Germany. Pakistan had probably as many chances, but either nerves, or a lack of concentration, spoilt some splendid opportunities. Another debacle followed the Pakistan game. New Zealand lost, 3-5, to Argentina, and with that result went a glorious chance of New Zealand finishing in the first six. Argentina eventually finished with the wooden spoon, and its success against New Zealand was its only win. It lost its six other matches. Those two games were a shattering illustration to the New Zealand players of howtight defences must be in international hockey. In both those games the defence failed to mark the opposing forwards closely and the consequences were savage. So in two games NewZealand conceded 17 goals, a disastrous tally for a team that in the past has been known for its solid defence. At the Montreal Olympics in 1976 New Zealand played the same number of games as the team in Bombay. The

gold medal team scored 10 goals and conceded nine. The team at Bombay scored 18 goals, but allowed 23 to pass it. Apart from the two dreadful results against Pakistan and Argentina, the New Zealand performance was commendable. In those other five games it scored 12 goals and conceded six. The for-and-against records of the other teams at the tournament tell a storyin themselves. New Zealand's 23 goals were the most conceded of the 12 teams, but on the credit side its 18 goals were surpassed by only four teams. Germany, for instance, an undeserving finalist, scored 17 goals, one more than it conceded. The Netherlands, the other top European nation, scored 21 goals and conceded 19. Those records demolish the belief that the modern European defences are more secure than those of the conventional Asian and Australian teams. \ Australia conceded the least number of goals (10) and next was Pakistan with 12. The tournament was a glowing advertisement for the old fashioned, but extremely effective attacking > methods employed by the Asian and Australasian teams. The leading goal scoring teams were Pakistan (38), India (29), The Netherlands (21), Australia (20), and New Zealand (18). So the message is clearly there for the New Zealand coach, Brian Ma unsell, and his co-selectors. The defence must be improved, but that , is more easily said than adopted. It was known before the

tournament that New Zealand lacked a class centrehalf. Keith Gorringe is an adequate centre-half at provincial level, but struggled at Bombay. He did not make his task easier by playing too far uptield. especially ‘ against Pakistan and Argen- ‘ tina. There was much airy-fairy , tackling in most games, with defenders committing themselves to tackles too early. In New Zealand on slower grounds, defenders can usttally survive on such tactics, but at the World Cup, on faster grounds and against ,I fast, skilful forwards, it was fatal. ' New Zealand has a four by' T India at-the end of next;-./ season, and in December i( will play in a 10-nation , tournament in Melbourne. . Before then it must find a new left-half, because Paul Ackerley, the captain in Bombay, has retired, and the ; likelihood is that Gorringe and Mohan Patel, will retire from international hockey, .’ too. Trevor Laurence will tie ’ overseas by the end of the season, so half the defence in ; * the next national side will probably be new caps. There is no obvious candi- T date for centre-half. What ‘ the selectors, and Maunsell, 3 will have to do is take a ; player and endeavour to ? make a suitable pivot of him. Not the ideal situation. ’ : One thing is certain. New ’ Zealand badly needs morale- ; boosting results, so it is imperative that the national team be well prepared when it meets India in New Zealand in September or Octo- ; ber. The emphasis on that preparation must be on the defence, because until the defence is improved. New Zealand is destined for further mediocre results.