HOCKEY SEASON

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23130, 31 August 1938, Page 20

HOCKEY SEASON

LESSONS FKOM INDIANS WET WEATHER HANDICAP SUMMER PLAY SUGGESTED After seeing the Princo of Manavaclar's team twice in action, it is safe to say that it was a better balanced combination than the 1935 All India team. The visitors played much better in the test match than against Auckland. New Zealand played as well as it was able, but, in spite of the almost prohibitive conditions, the Indians were more brilliant than ever. This was undoubtedly due to the play of Abdul Latif and Feroze Khan, who were unable to take the field for the Auckland match. These players greatly impressed, and the forward line, with Shahabuddin and Fernandez on the wings, and Sultan Khan back at inside loft, was enabled to show its real form. If the ground had been firm, many of the movements would have had a better fate, and New Zealand must have been hopelessly outclassed by players who were masters in all the finer points of the game. A feature of the tour has been the, all-round ability of the team, with a few individualists to add brilliance. Shahabuddin and Fernandez proved to be really great wing forwards, with an elusive control of the ball and dashing speed. Their perfect understanding with their inside forwards was a revelation in tactics. Latif was the star of the line in the test match, showing wonderful speed and decisiveness in all his movements.

If the visitors' brilliance is the result of play on hard grounds, in consequence of making the sport both a summer and winter game, New Zealand apparently will have to adopt the same course, if it desires to produce players of the highest class. It was suggested at the complimentary dinner on Saturday that, seeing that India had now sent three teams to the Dominion, it was time that New Zealand considered sending a team to India. This could hardly be undertaken, however, with the standard of hockey at the present level in this country. Although it is true that Auckland managed to defeat the visitors, the Indians have made it clear that the type of hockey played in this country is entirely unsuitable for the fast grounds to which they are accustomed. New Zealand certainly has the players, but to send them away without any practice on the type of ground that they are likely to meet would be foolish.

Summer hockey would solve this problem and also improve the standard of stiekwork and ball-control, but it has serious competitors in the other summer sports. Clark, Roughton and Rowe, to mention only Auckland names among the test players, are claimed by cricket and would probably hesitate before giving up that game. However, as the need is great, some attempt should be made at continuing throughout the year, no matter how small the beginning might be. RECORD OF VISITORS COMPARISON WITH 1935 SIDE In comparing the goal records of the Prince of Manavadar's team with the 1935 All India side, the advantage would seem to rest entirely with the latter team, which scored 318 goals and had 28 recorded against it, compared with the figures for this year's side of 243 for and 19 against. It must be remembered, however, that there was a great difference in the conditions with which the two teams had to contend. Whereas the 1935 players had perhaps three wet grounds to plav on throughout the tour, the Manavadar side had at the most three dry grounds. When the effect this would have upon the scoring ability of the forwards is considered, the difference in results is greatly reduced. In addition, the 19 goals scored against the present team in 31 matches compares more than favourably with the 28 goals scored against the .All India team in only 28 games. Following is the record of the Prince of Manavadar's team:— Wairarapa, won, s—o.5 —0. Bush Union, won, 3 —l. Manawatu, won, 4 —o. Wanganui, won, 4 —o. North Taranaki, won, s—l. South Taranaki. won, 6 —l. Wellington, won. 12 —0. Nelson, won 7 —l. West Coast, .von, 11—0. Canterbury, won. 4 —o. Ashburton, won, 15 —0. South Canterbury, won, 2 —o. * New Zealand Universities, won, 2 —l. North Otago, won. 9—l. Fastern - Northern Southland, won, 11—0. Soutbland, won. B—o. Otago, won. s—l.5 —1. New Zealand, first test, won, s—l. I'eilding, won. 10 —0. New Zealand, second test, won, 4—o. Wairoa, won, 4—3. Poverty Bay, abandoned. Hawke's Bay. won. 11 —0. Dannevirke, won, 11 —1. Waipa, won, I —l. Auckland, lost. 4—5. Whangarei, won. 11—0. Rodney, won. 7 —o. Waikato, won. 10 —0. Piako, won. 12 —0 Rotorua, won, 24—0. Now Zealand, third test, won, 3—l.