HOCKEY West Coast Team Lacked “Sting” and Combination

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 June 1950, Page 3 (Supplement)

HOCKEY West Coast Team Lacked “Sting” and Combination

Much was expected of the West Coast, representative hockey team in its first match of the season against Buller at Greymouth last Saturday, and, although it may have been unlucky not to have scored on at least two other occasions, it was apparent, even in the early stages of the game, that Buller was the better side. The Coast team lacked combination and there was little “sting” about its worjk. Some improvement will need to be made if the West Coast hopes of retaining the Mawhera Cup, when it meets Buller at Westport on July 15, are to be realised. Changes are necessary in the team? and with a match against a Nelson team early next month, it would be an appropriate time to try out a few experimental alterations. It was obvious that the West Coast team was playing to a set plan, but, When Buller successfully countered I it, there was no alternative scheme | brought into operation. It cannot stressed too strongly that it would be folly for any team to take the field without a plan of action, but, in the event of its failing, a second plan must be ready to be utilised. Coast Lacked Counter The Coast team’s downfall on Saturday was due, not so much to better play on the part of the Buller team, but to the fact that it had no counter to the visitors’ method of attack once its own had been effectively countered. Time and again the Buller inside and wing forwards cut through the Coast half line—through a “gap” between the centre and wing halves, and this “gap” remained open for most of the game. It was apparent, therefore, that the wing halves had been detailed to keep to the side lines in an endeavour to “bottle up” the opposing wing forwards. This was all right as far as it went but once the ruse had been discovered, it was easy for the Buller men to keep play to the inside forwards and draw the Coast full-backs out of position, thus leaving their own centre forward free with only the goal-keeper to beat. The effectiveness of this type of play is seen in the fact that three of Buller’s four goals were shot by the centre forward, A. Neighbours. On the day, the Buller team appeared to have a better combination, mainly because it knew its objective, but once the Coast team’s scheme had been upset, nearly all semblance of combination, as far as defensive work I was concerned, disappeared. The j home team was also at fault in other ways, chiefly in that the forwards | passed too “flat” and there was a lack of understanding between'the centre and inside forwards. . Half-Line Formation | The West Coast team’s better plan i of action may have been to play a “tighter” half-line formation on de- | fence, when it was apparent that the ’ inside forwards were not back-tack- j ling effectively. This would have en- . sured that the Buller inside forwards were properly marked and forced | play towards the side lines. It is well, known that, in hockey, it is far easier for a player to defend his own goal

area when on the edge of the circle and facing the side lines, than when he is running in from the side towards his own goal area. On the whole, the game was played at a fairly fast pace, considering the slippery nature of the ground, but not one player, either West Coast or Buller, stood out as a leader. The New Zealand player, I. D. Armstrong, who was making his first appearance since his selection' fof the New Zealand team, showed only flashes of his true ability, but he was too closely marked by the Buller centre-half, T. Eggleton, to be a real danger. When he did break away, however, the Buller cover-defence was always in position. Armstrong showed himself to be a player of class when he-scored West Coast’s second and last goal with a brilliant back-hand shot from a close range.

Few Opportunities

The other Coast inside forward, D. Maurice, was also well marked and received 'only limited opportunities, but he and Armstrong were combining effectively in the closing stages of the game when West Coast was almost continually attacking. There appeared to be a lack of understanding between the inside forwards and the centre,G. Williams, however, one occasion being in the first half when a goal was almost a certainty. The two wing forwards, A. Boustridgo, on the left, and R. Sumner, both took time to settle down but their displays were only workmanlike. Boustridge was at fault in the early stages when he attempted to flick the ball on the heavy ground but later improved and, towards the end, had established a working combination with Armstrong. Sumner did not receive many opportunities but redeemed himself when he opened the play for Coast’s second goal. Although there was a fault in the half line, the individual players went well, with the centre, P. Smith doing good work, especially on attack. At times, however, he was inclined to delay his passes for too long, thus allowing the Buller cover-defence to get into position. G. Eggleston, .-the right half, started shakily and missed some easy openings, but when he found his feet he did some good work.

Of the two full-backs, S. Henderson was perhaps the better although R. Mellett settled down later in the match and cleared well on several occasions.