Sport and Pastime

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2729, 23 August 1923, Page 7

Sport and Pastime

HOCKEY. (BY “BULLY.”) A CRITICISM. (To “Bully.") Sir,—After reading your notes on hockey, in Thursday’s paper, 1 feel I should like to add a little criticism of the shield match with Canterbury, «.nd to pass some comment on your remarks. Now that the shield hasi been lost, I hope, the selectors have achieved what they have been aiming for, and trust, that, they, and not the team, will shoulder the burden of defeat. Surely by now they have learnt their lesson and until they cooperate more closely with club teams and pick men without prejudice .they may as well resign, for this continual chopping and changing a team around and especially a representative one, never has been and never will be, conducive to obtaining the best results, and I think wo might well follow in Auckland’s footsteps and have a sole selector —one who has the practical experience of the game, and not a side-line operator. No team ever has retained honours won; unless it has the practice, which is most, essential for good combination, and the shield game was a practical de-, monstratlon of what a marked superiority a trained team has over an, untrained one. No wonder Manawatu lost the shield, for they lacked the. necessary knowledge, that made Canterbury the smart team that it was. Wild placing of the ball and indiscriminate hitting by the players proved Manawatu’s downfall and the scopes fairly indicated the merits of the two teams. “Bully” speaks about the weakness of the half line. Never have I seen a worse one, Poster was a passenger along with Watson and left Bramwell to do their work as well as his own, this made things uncomfortable for Gerrand (full back), who came through the game with credit to his side; as he bore the brunt of the attack, with Burgess always handy. Cockrane as goal-keep-er knew more about the goal post than stopping a hot shot. A very incapable goalie. Why was Donovan omitted? The forwards gave a very feeble interpretation of forward play, and one wonders why G. Pitt was given preference to Tucker in the team, the latter is by far the better player, and the more dangerous forward in the circle, as he is a first class shot and very heady also having a greater turn of speed. J. Pitt has about reached the climax of his hockey career and should retire, in favour of younger players, as he was far below his previous standard and was never in the picture with Hostlck and Kyle. These players were at times brilliant, but were starved for the want of a better half line. This match was Indeed the worst exhibition of hockey, played by the local eleven, and the selectors, perhaps, feel proud of the result. They should be more alive to the interests of hockey in general and not listen to advice from those in the swim, but choose the players of the team on their merits. Unless this is done, hockey will (at least in Manawatu), bo a game 'of the past. May I ask what was wrong with Tucker, Webster, Knowles, Liddel a.nd Davey of the H. 5.0.8. Club? Have the exe-

cutive forgotten them? They are all worthy of consideration, and u was due to the selectors here that V. Tucker was not chosen as a New Zealand rep. to go to Australia for the N.Z. selectors were surprised to learn that his name was omitted from the list, and rightly so, for, as a player, he was well worthy of a place in that team. Wake up, Manawatu, hockey needs fostering, and the only way it can be done, is to give encouragement to the younger set by giving them a chance. —I am, etc., “CENTRE HALF.” After reading the above letter, “Bully” is moved heartily to endorse some portions of “Centre Half s epistle. He appreciates the expressed hope that the selectors themselves, and not the team, will lie on the bed that they have made. True, chopping and changing a team never did and never will bo conducive to the best results, and while, as stated, the selectors should now' have learnt to cooperate more closely with club teams, “Bully” does not -advocate the ap pointment of a sole selector, even though such a move may have acted admirably in the case of Auckland. The resason why Auckland has such a working combination was doubtless due to the fact that its sole selector—possibly through having already learnt his lesson —does not chop and change his team, and thus allows something like combination to eventuate. Very possibly, too, it is but a turn of fate that there is but one selector there. Two selectors, with a. knowledge of the evils of consta.nt change, might even effect still better results, for two heads are better than one, even if they are only sheeps’— which remark, “Bully” hastens to state, is meant for anything but a slur on our present selectors. It is undoubtedly this changing that has given Manawatu victories by individual play and not by perfect combined action, and while writing of Auckland. there rises on the instant in “Bully’s” mind the memory of the recent match here when Auckland juniors met Manawatu Juniors. The visitors won, which was incidental, but it was the conduct on the field by Auckland that arrested the attention of this scribe. Not a murmcr even when an alleged breach of rules seemed utterly unfounded, came from the ranks of the visitors from beginning to end.

In regard to the evidence of Manawatu’s lack of training—yes, and last shield match decidedly saw a poor exposition of the game hy Manawatu. The latter were unfortunate, in that rain killed one practice match, yet it is most painfully obvious that Manawatu does not train anywhere near enough. “Bully” feels that “Centre Half” is altogether, too decided in his condemnation of Cockrane between the posts. Why is the world so prone, so blind, so unjust, as to judge a man by his present standard, entirely forgetting his past performances in the light of an unlucky day, or a period of that “off-form” that sometime or other comes to every one. Cockrane is not a greased lightning artist, yet with the minimum of movement he makes a measured save. Of these latter he had made some really great ones, a.nd though commenting no further on this, “Bully” harks back to a word in the above letter —“prejudice.”.

Mr Tucker was spokesman for H. 5.0.8. in the recent rather warm argument over the manner of drawing the third round in the competitions. Mr Hostick shortly after took Mr Tucker’s place on the management committee, and the suspiciouslj minded, at the exclusion by the so-, lectors of Mr Tucker, Immediately raised a howl of “spite.” This is uncalled for and not “hockey.” “Bully” feels bound to remark that when a player is championed in such a cause, his txierits are generally a little magnified by those who champion him. Nevertheless, Mr Tucker . deserves more attention that he *s now getting. IN AUSSIE. Thirty thousand spectators witnessed the Test match between New Zealand and Australia at Sydney on Saturday week (says the Dominion ) when the New Zealanders were able to retain the “ashes” by two goals to one, a narrow margin certainly, but is is by such slender differences that big issues are often decided. The account cabled was, of necessity, brief, but It speaks plainly of a closely contested match. The great point, however, is that the New Zealanders are credited with “playing immeasurably superior hockey against a side greatly strengthened by the inclusion of Victorian representatives." The Australian team gave a great exhibition when they visited New Zealand last, and wielded the slick with great skill. As most of the representatives who played wero among the visitors here, and in view of the fact that six of the New Zealanders at present in Australia played In the same match at Palmerston North, the standard of hockey must have been of an exceptionally high order.