association

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 288, 5 September 1928, Page 9

association

By

"Goalie”

WELLING! ON LOSE E.F.A. TROPHY.

AUCKLANDERS MUCH TOO GOOD

While conversing with Air. Phil. Neesham, manager and selector ol the Auckland learn, at the Basin Reserve last Saturday, before the start of the big game, one of those present asked: "Who are your star players. Mr. Neesham?” "They are all stars!” was the quick response. After the match, I realised how true that reply of Mr. Neeshain’s was. The Auckland team, which visited Wellington last Saturday, and so thoroughly defeated our representatives, was. I think, about the best that has represented I lie northern city for the hist halfdozen years. They certainly exhibited evidence of careful preparation, lor their play was so well co-ordinated that the Wellington defence found the utmost difficulty in breaking up their movements. In last week’s note's, I touched on two fundamentals of the game, which I thought needed more attention by Wellington players—ball control, and passing. It was just in those two particular that the Aucklanders most distinguished themselves. All Auckland’s three goals came to them as a result of most skilful play. A thoroughly sound half-back line supported an attack who played football without many frills, but with speed, skill, and energy to achieve its object by the shortest. possible route. These qualities rightly won them a well-merited reward. The Wellington defence could not cope with the splendid combination of the visitors, which was so conspicuous a feature of their play. It is the first time, so far as I can recollect, within the last half-dozen seasons, that T have seen the Wellington defence so completely broken down, the front line, if anything, was even worse, and only one player. Stark, of Diamonds was equal to the ocasion. But what could one forward do against such a magnificent defence? ' On the other side. Barton might have been useful bad he not been injured in the early part of the game. lie deserves great credit for staying on to the last. The Wellington inside forwards failed absolutely in the acceptance of a number of chances, lhe selection of Longbottoin in the place ot Leslie, as leader of the attack, did not meet with general approval. Still, Leslie, the week before failed against the Northern (Otago) defence in the Chatham Cup final, and I do not think he would have had a ghost of a chance of beating the better Auckland defence. Longbottom certainly was a failure, but the fault was not all ’his. The passes to him. through the halves especially, were made too high, allowing the Auckland backs time to tackle him. The Swifts plaver was always up, and ready. but on the few occasions he did get the ball he exhibited a lack of control and the skill to beat, a really good back. He is a really young player yet and it can hardly be expected, without experience, to blossom forth into a first-class centre in his first game. There is a danger in expecting too much from a centre-forward. He is inclined to be blamed for what is not all his fault and because goals are not forthcoming criticism centres round him. If the players on either side of him do not link up it is impossible for the centre-forward to function as he should do. Gymnasium training is all very well, but without field practice and plenty of-it that alone is not sufficient to knit a cimbination together sufficient to gain victory over a team of Auckland’s calibre. We have the players all right, who are enthusiasts for the game, too, but as I said last week, more attention to details is necessary if the standard of play in Wellington is to be raised to a higher level. The Wellington team’s play lust Saturday was probably too bad to be their true form. On Saturday next Wellington will have an opportunity to turn the tables on

Auckland. It will not be easy to do,’but I am confident that Auckland will have a much more difficult job on the second meeting ami it is just possible that the E.F.A. Trophy may make a return trip to Wellington. At the time of writing the team for the north had not been chosen, but 1 do not expect many changes. Fletcher I understand will not be available, so that Lucas or McVean will fill the position. One could suggest changes: Haines or Guest and Gibb as backs, McLeod as outside right, Findlay as right half, Rigby as centre forward; but it is doubtful whether it is wise to alter the team to any great extent at this stage. As already slated I hardly think the team on Saturday did anywhere near justice to themselves and with the minimum of alteration might on account of knowing each other’s play better, have a greater chance of success on Saturday than if altered too much. Basin Reserve Closed.

Last Saturday’s E.F.A. Trophy match marked the finish of the 1028 season at the Basin Reserve. There are still a few fixtures to be got through yet, the principal being the Challenge Cup draw, which is to be contested by Diamonds and Institute. On recent form Diamonds should have no difficulty in annexing this cup. The match will likely take place at Association Bark on Saturday next or it may not be until the following week-end on account of Diamonds’ players being at Auckland with the Wellington team. Resentment by Referees.

A letter was received by the Management Committee last Wednesday from the local Referees’ Association, which goes to show that the Referees’ Association is evidently labouring under a false impression so far as the Wellington Management Committee is concerned. First, the Referees’ Association reported having passed the following resolution: — “That this association resents the indiscreet cross-examination of referees who are before the W.F.A. committee, when giving evidence against a player, by individual members of that committee, and desire that the referee shall only be questioned on the facts as set out in his report.” The letter further said that, as pointed out by the Referees' Association, members of the committee of the W.F.A. were in the habit of attempting to discredit the referee’s charge, and continually interjected with questions about aspects of the game which had no relation to the charge. The committee was of opinion that it was nut going to help in the control of the game unless the Referees’ Association had more support from the Management Committee.

After the reading of the letter remarks were made about "the tall wagging the dog,” and that the W.F.A. had to see that both player and referee received justice. I have been present at the hearing of most of the eases which have come before the Management Committee this season, and in my opinion all the cases have been given a fair and reasonable hearing. In fact, the committee has had a tendency in one or two cases to go to extremes in their desire that neither player nor referee should be done an injustice. It is well within the rights of members of the Management Committee to ask any questions which define the exact nature of the offence, and whether there was provocation, for tile committee lias to deal out the punishment, and it is surely desirable that I lie punishment should til the crime. There is one oilier point—one I have raised before: The laws of the game leave questions of fact definitely in the.hands of the referee, against which there is no appeal. Striking, tripping, and other acts of misconduct are surely questions ol fact, and if this is admitted then the question for tbq Management Committee is not whether the plaver is guilty or not guilty of the offence, but the degree of punishment merited by the offence. Yet there is danger in this contention, for in a euse which was heard last week, when five players of one club wore reported, the W.F.A. took the view that the referee had made an error of judgment, and dismissed the charge.