THE CANTERBURY GAME

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 98, 27 April 1935, Page 22

THE CANTERBURY GAME

The opinion was freely expressed at the complimentary dinner to the teams after the Canterbury-Wellington match last Saturday that Canterbury should have secured a draw, if not a win. With that opinion "Vanguard" does not agree, holding, with,many others who saw the. match and are not afflicted with false modesty, that the Wellington men fully deserved their win. The score of 4-2 was perhaps a little flattering to the local eleven, but there was no doubt of their superiority over Canterbury. The idea that Canterbury should have won or drawn probably arose from the fact that throughout the game, and particularly in the second half, they held a definite territorial advantage. They did most of the attacking, and consequently a large share of public attention was focused on their efforts. But the result of the game speaks for itself. Though they hammered away at the Wellington defence for such a long'period, Canterbury's forwards were unable to break through more than twice, whereas Wellington, showing a greater readiness to snatch a suddenly-presented opportunity, notched four goals in the fewer attacks they made on Canterbury's citadel. In half lines, backs,: and goalkeepers the two elevens were matched almost man for man, but-Wellington had the upper hand in the forwards and that gave them the victory. The hero of the match was the Wellington centre-forward, whose performance in scoring all four goals for his side stamped him as a resourceful player and consolidated his claim to the position of centre-forward in the Wellington eleven. Two of his goals were the result of splendid individual efforts and the other two fell to him

I because of his skill and anticipation in following up the attack. r ';•; Patterson and Shankie; gave Janei solid support from the inside positions, but Watson and Cunningham on. the wings were not as prominent as their reputations. The halves, Hindle, Campbell, and Quirke, formed a first-class combination of youth ; and experience, and, worked well throughout the game. Much of the work of defence fell upon the rearmost trio, Hopper, Haines, and Turkington, and all acquitted themselves nobly. Individually they played without fault, and as a combination they exhibited an understanding of one another's play that would have done credit to an experienced club trio in the same three positions. ■ Craggs, the outside right, and Gordon, the centre-half, were the two Canterbury men who .impressed the writer as; being the best o£,the eleven.1 Craggs repeatedly worked his way up his wing, keeping his inside forwards well supplied with the ball, but they failed to make the best use of it. His feinting and his footwork were a delight to watch, and few who saw the match will deny that his goal,, the last of the day, was also the best of the day. Gordon displayed a "judgment and a general ability that compared well, with the same qualities in his vis-a-vis, the veteran Campbell. McMillan and Wilson, his fellow-halves, also worked hard throughout, and ' the forwards could not complain of not receiving the fullest support from them. Cawtheray, Lorrimer, and Mcßae did not have quite so much work to do as did their Wellington opposites, but they had a more deadly set of forwards to contend'with and their play was very sound. It was not their fault that Canterbury lost. The forwards, though good enough individually, did not impress greatly as a combination. They could do anything except the ultimately necessary thingpenetrate the Wellington defence. In conclusion, it may be mentioned that substantially the same Canterbury team that played here could not do better than make a 44 draw with the Christchurch Thistle team in a match played there on Monday.

Transfers this season have broken all records, both in numbers and in price. Aston Villa set the pace when they paid £11,000 for Allen, the Ports^ mouth centre-half, and ever since transactions have gone on between the clubs without pause. It is only: possible to give an estimate of the amount which has been spent, but I do not think it has been less than £250,000, says the London correspondent of the "Auckland Star." In the:case of the Arsenal alone, their new players cost them about £40,000, and at the present time they are in negotiation for another £10,000 man. This is,a nineteen-year-old Scottish inside forward named Walker, of the Heart of Midlothian. The other day they paid £6000 for a young Norwich City outside-right, Kirchen, although it was only two months ago that he was introduced into League football, and this and other transfers indicate how ready the clubs are to gamble. It also shows how scarce footballers are. The supply falls far short of the demands. All the buying and selling of players is regarded as an objectionable feature, and several suggestions have been put forward to restrict this commercial enterprise. One is that each transfer should bear a tax calculated on the amount of the fee. Another is that a club should not be permitted to spend, more than a fixed sum during a season. But it has been an unwritten law that the clubs should be free to manage: their own affairs, and I do not anticipate that any change will be made in the regulations. Besides, the system if in fay-

.WELLINGTON HAD BETTER FORWARDS