CANTERBURY RETAIN F.A. TROPHY

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 50, 27 August 1938, Page 23

CANTERBURY RETAIN F.A. TROPHY

3-ALL DRAW WOULD HAVE BEEN FAIEER SCORF

Though Canterbury beat Wellington by 4 goals to 3 in their game at Christchurch last Saturday for the Football Association Trophy, southern critics who saw the game have expressed the opinion that a 3-all draw would have provided a fairer indication of the run of the play. Canterbury had their turns on attack, but there were moments when their goalie and full-backs were defending desperately. Ideal conditions prevailed at English Park, and the football was generally exciting. Canterbury were to have played Otago today, both the F.A. Trophy and the Jones Cup being at stake.

Last Saturday's game was Canterbury's sixth success since it won the trophy from Auckland early in 1936. There were not many dull moments in the match. Many previous contests between the provinces have provided more classical features and better team work, but for fast action in which every movement promised exciting possibilities, Saturday's contest must rank as one of the most spectacular of the series. There was an obvious weakness on the wings of both teams and of the quartet the Wellington pair was the better. On the right N. Edmunds, a young player of great promise, provided many'bright interludes. His service to the centre was almost invariably acceptable and in direct contrast to that of F. Craggs, the Canterbury right winger, whose tendency to attempt to score a spectacular goal mars his game. In the circumstances it was rather surprising to find Edmunds almost completely neglected in the second spell. H. Janes, the Wellington left winger, was rather subdued before the interval, but thereafter he was the best I flank man on the field. Except for a

brief period in the first spell M. Burnand, the Canterbury left winger, was consistently disappointing. WARD AN OPPORTUjNIST. The visitors' centre-forward, R. Ward, is an opportunist of the Leslie type. He has the pace, but appears to lack the all-round adaptability, of the latter. Nevertheless, the third goal he scored for Wellington was the result of quick thinking two-footed y/ork. The Canterbury man, G. Smith, was perhaps more subtle and combined better. For this reason alone his tactics ranked him higher than Ward; G. Smith was given support by his partners, R. Smith on the left and D. Souter. The latter repeatedly demoralised the Wellington defence with his clever footwork and, |in the first spell correct positional play. Towards the finish he was inclined to take up a half-back position and thus broke the thrustful wedge which had proved so effective in the first spell. As an exponent of co-ordinated play R. Smith, the Canterbury inside-left, was without a peer. His elusiveness and concentration, in attack were aptly demonstrated in the scoring of Canterbury's first goal. There was not the same degree of co-ordinated play by the Wellington inside trio.. In this respect L. Heath at inside-right proved the more adaptable. His service was not always made the most use of and he was always prominent as an individualist. A. Longbottom did not couple up very effectively. POOR HEADING BY LOSERS. It was in the heading of the ball that Canterbury demonstrated a remarkable superiority. Seldom has Wellington sent a team south which has been less proficient in this important aspect of the game. Not only did the Canterbury men almost entirely monopolise possession of a dropping ball by this method, but the timing of the transfers constantly had the visitors in difficulties. It was in attack that the Canterbury half-backs shaded the visitors. In a measure the smart positional play of the forwards, was a contributing factor towards this superiority. Connecting up with the unmarked forward was made to appear effortless by its very simplicity. CONTRASTING HALVES. R. Boyes, the Wellington centre-hall, and M. A. Gordon, the Canterbury

[man, provided a lesson in contrasts. Whereas Boyes almost immediately parted with the controlled ball and dashed up into an attacking position, Gordon would, .draw the defence and leave the rest to his forwards. Gordon thus was able to cover up his centre and on the day he employed the better strategy. Although A. Wilson, the Canterbury left-half, is approaching the veteran stage, he has wonderful anticipation and he has the speed to give full play to his. tenacity. A. K. Gordon is a younger player but of similar type. In the first, half vparticularly he had the opposing wing very subdued. T. Hindle, the Wellington right half, was mainly responsible for Burnand's ineffectiveness, and his service to his forwards was seldom faulty. On the opposite wing F. Hazel provided his usual effective game. His worrying tactics did not suit Craggs. K. Yeoman, the Wellington right fullback, and S. Cawtheray in a similar position for Canterbury, were resolutely effective in defence. Perhaps Yeoman was not so spectacular in his clearances, but his service and interception were superb. The two left full-backs, S. Haines (Wellington) and A. McMillan (Canterbury) came through a hard day with flying colours. Both used their weight effectively though judiciously. P. Turkington, the Wellington keeper, and D. Mcßae (Canterbury) gave sterling displays, and neither made a mistake during the whole match.

It was an excellent contest through out. .