HOCKEY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 10094, 5 September 1925, Page 8

HOCKEY

CAUSE OF POVERTY BAY’S FAILURE. . AN IMPARTIAL CRITICISM. (By “Shinpads.”) Having observed the performances 'of the Poverty Bay A hockey representatives during the recent tourna- ' ment the conclusion arrived 'at was i that the failure of the team to emu- ! late the success of past representa- ' fives of the Bay lay, not altogether 1 in their lack of combination, but in ' the fact that, though possessed of some kind of knowledge of the rudiments of the game, no knowledge ■ of the finer points was in evidence. . Individual faults were so numerous, j and so conspicuous, that the only possible conclusion was that the members lacked practical and .efficient tuition in the teams from which they were selected. As a whole they were exceptionally fast, and at times, the stick work displayed was brilliant. Unfortunately, with one exception, each seemed imbued with the idea that having captured the ball and wildly hit at it she could enjoy a siesta, while the other fellow did her host, to vanquish her opponent. On one occasion, when one of the halves so' far forgot herself as to follow up the forwards (who badly needed assistance) she was ordered to keep back in her place. Surely the 1925 hockey regulations do not require that the halves shall remain in the vicinity of the half line if their presence is needed in the circle! By this it is not meant to infer that at all and sundry times the halves should he in line with the forwards. It is* merely suggested that it would be in the best interests of the game if the halves were encouraged to help the forwards, and, if occasion demanded, allowed to score. 1 have known of an instance where, being hard pressed, the whole forward and half lines rushed, to the assistance of tire backs, leaving the field clear but for the opponents’ backs and goalie. One of the defending hacks' took possession of the ball, and instead of hitting it well up the open, field to be taken possession of by the opposing backs—as one Poverty Bay back did on Tuesday last —the- player took it up the field herself —her forwards and halves following in hot pursuit—passed the opposing backs, and shot a goal. Another feature of the Bay players was their ability as quick-change artists, Backs became forwards and halves become goalies with lightning rapidity. It is not' usual to change the positions of players while a. representative tournament is in* progress —such tactics being generally reserved for practice matches, but the Poverty Bay Hockey Association and selectors showed peculiar initiative in this respect.

The outstanding lesson of the New Zealand Hockey Association’s tournament, and Avhich it is to be hoped will not be lost on Poverty Bay, is that to ensure combination practice is necessary, but before a team can practice the selectors must do their work. This undoubtedly contributed largely to Poverty Bay’s doAVnfall. The other teams Avere on their Avay up to Gisborne before the Poverty ' Bay representatives Avere chosen! The result of ca'cii the first game Avas not encouraging. The local teams Avere selected on the Monday, and the first match, the Lady Carroll Shield, Avas played on Thursday. This Avas practically the first time the Poverty Bay team played together. The lack of comb bn i tie n avcs painfully evident. Then for the Saturday’s match the selectors made several alterations in - the team, the most noticeable being the transfer of Miss NeAvey from full-back to forward. Poverty Bay A met an easy team, on that occasion, the East Coa-st, Avho in a sporting spirit had entered to make up the number of teams necessary for two divisions. Poverty Bay A Avon, but the exhibition was not very creditable. Then on the Monday, further changes Avere made in the team. On this occasion Poverty Bay A met jßuahine, and from the outset the result of individual play and no cohesion apparent. After the first spell the position of some players Avere changed, Miss NeAvey, Avho had played admirably on the Saturday as bully, being removed to her old position at full-back. The result was disastrous. On Tuesday against a rather weak Eastern team, it.Avas decided to make further alterations, and no feAver than four changes Avere made. The result Avas that Poverty Bay A had to be content Avith a draw ! That briefly is the experience of the A team Avhich represented Poverty Bay.

j Every day the players nad to search i the paper to ascertain the team and j the position. Tlie material is ! present in Poverty Bay, the enthusiasm is here, but all this does not . compensate for combination.. The ■ reasonable course one would have j thought was to have selected a repre--1 sentativc team a month ago, for the 1 competitions had practically closed ) then. The executive of the Poverty • Bay Hockey Association knew that a i challenge had been received for the | Lady Carroll Shield, and also that { there was a good chance of having : the New Zealand tournament in Gis--1 borne. Some of the visiting teams 1 have, it is said, been playing together for weeks. They knew their places, kept them, and performed their allotted duties, everything running like ■ clockwork. The Poverty Bay A team . lost much through its players, but J more through the mismanagement of members or officials of the association, who in the first place acted foolishly in leaving the selection of I tho team until five days before the 1 tournament, and- even then -ould 1 persist in daily alterations until at length neither the players nor the i public knew what to expect. ! A brief resume of tlie ability (and ; lack thereof) of the various players 1 will bo of interest:

F. Hill. —Has obviously been made ’much of. Waits with superb nonchalance for the rest of the team to feed the ball to her. Rarelv attacks. Very swift and brilliantly tricky with the ball, but seldom passes it. Needs practice in goal

hitting. M. Te Ota. —Very fast. Good attack, and can hit hard. Good combination. Consistent. One of few

who can stop a swift ball. M. Winiat-a. —Too slow. Is inclined to give “sticks.” Loses her bead when pressed. P. Hopkinson —Weak. Needs -nroe. tico in hard hitting. Too excitable for rep. work. Jumps over tho .ball instead of stopping it. Only redeeming feature is her speed. M. Hepburn.—Very fast and quite tricky with the ball. Does not attempt combination. . A good player-?, if skilfully trained. At prevse'nt too much inc’ined’ to solo efforts—which does not tend to

good team wort. N. Eastwood.—Very fast. Persistent in attack. Attempts combination. Has one outstanding weaknessdoes not stop a swift ball and is inclined to speculate. Should be

in the forward line. O. Bilhatn. —Solid. Clean, hard hitter. Good attack.’ Can be depended on. Heady. _ . : , Iv. Matete.—Good hard hitter, j-IVut does not use hor head. Bad plnv to .centre .acrossopponents’ goal. ’ , -Nefeds■ training.' -■■■". Gr; ’ .V'standing features. :■/: v ; G. Newey. —Very safe. Good hard hitter. ' Consistent at stooping. Needs to place the ball. Several times centred at an awkward moment. Evidently a lightning change artist.

Mrs. R. "Woods. — Can always be depended on. Good hard hitter. When fonvards are hard pressed carries the ball up field herself. Uses her head as Avell as her stick. M. Forrester. Mediocre. Ahvavs there just after required. Needs to hustle some. K. Brown. —Another passenger. Can hit hard Avhen gets the ball. Too slow for rep. Avork. F. White. —Inconsistent. Lacks attack and is inclined to fumble Avhen bustled. Needs to practice stopping the ball —even ii it is sAvift. I. Fauchelie.—Quite fhst, hut not heady. Needs practice in hard hitting and stopping. Like previous player, speculates too frequently.