ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22064, 21 September 1933, Page 4

ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

By Corner-kick. END OF SEASON IN VIEW With the . exception 'of the First and Fourth Divisions, all .other competitions have now been closed, and the complete table of results will be published in these notes next week. The two remaining games to be played on Saturday should provide some good football. The early game between Mosgiel and High School Old Boys constitutes the final for the Fourth Division Cup, these teams having completed the season, and being equal in points. In the First Division game between the two leading teams, Maori Hill and Mosgiel, the former requires to secure at least one point to give it the premiership for the season, and as both teams are well matched, keen and exciting play should result.

H.M.A.S. AUSTRALIA v. OTAGO The Caledonian Ground was in perfect condition, and excellent weather prevailed for the match between Otago and an H.M.A.S. Australia eleven. There was a large attendance of spectators, who were treated to a bright and interesting display of Association football. The large score in Otago’s favour was hardly a fair indication of .the, game. Undoubtedly the Otago team was superior, but the Niavy side was responsible for some nice forward play in the first half and was on level terms at the interval. In the second spell Otago wore down the Navy defence and added four more goals, eventually winning easily by 6 goals to 2. Whilst it cannot be said that the Otago team was an unqualified success, it is certain that in combination and team work the eleven was'superior to any that has represented the province in English Trophy matches this season. The improvement was most noticeable on the right-wing, which had been the weak spot in the Otago team. It was soon evident that Duncas and Chapman would combine well. Chapman, at inside-right, made many nice openings for his outside man, who responded .well with good wing play and accurate centres. The more Duncan sees of the ball the better he plays, and, although he has been a tower of Strength to Otago in the half-back line, it now looks as though a mistake has been made in not calling upon him to fill the out-side-right position. Chapman was a clever and _ penetrative inside-right, and his inclusion in the Otago team should never be in • doubt. He is the footballer for the important occasion, and this writer has never yet seen Chapman fail in representative fixtures. Davidson,’ at- insideleft, was also an improvement. His footwork was good, and his passing out to Skinner was well timed. Davidson is always aleft_ for a scoring chance, and is never afraid to have a-shot at goal. For the first time this season we had an example of Otago’s two inside forwards playing the proper game. In making openings and in forceful shooting both Chapman and Davidson were outstanding successes in Saturday’s match. Hooper played quietly, but in scoring three smartly-taken goals maintained his reputation. Davidson _ (2), Chapman' (1) added the remaining goals for Otago. Skinner, at outside-left, played his usual effective game. Much interest was shown in the appearance of M'Farlane (Old Boys) at right-half. Very quick oh the ball and strong alike in defence and attack, this player has played excellent football for hig club this season. However, in Saturday’s game he could not be considered a great success. He was 1 out of position too much, and was even seen at times covering Taylor at' full- 1 back. As a consequence he was not of much use in support of hi a wing men, although he shone out at times in quick recovery in defence. MTarlane is worth persevering with, but must show' a better appreciation of the wing-half’s duties to be a success in representative football. Baird at left-half gave a fine display; and is the best seen in the position for Dtago. Always up with the play, he supplied his wing with some good passes. Patton, at centre-half, played well, but wms too frequently robbed of the ball, and has been seen to much better advantage. The backs Taylor and Bayne were good wdth the latter the more steadier of the two. Wills proved a good goalkeeper, and made some nice saves. He does not, however, impress one as being as safe as M'Dougall. In the Navy side several fine players Were on view. The three inside forwards “Turner Samways, and Down—showed glimpses of good football, whilst Comersky on the right wing made good use of his pace. The half-backs were sound, and the defence of the full-backs Elleson and Cockburn was commendable.

AUCKLAND-WELLINGTON MATCH The game played at Auckland last Saturday week between Auckland and Wellington representative teams was for the Frank Campbell rose bowl, and not the FA,. Trophy as originally announced. The reason given for the change was that Canterbury had a prior right of challenge for the F.A. Trophy. Apparently no challenges are to be entertained by Auckland this season, as in a letter received at last week’s meeting of the local committee the secretary of the Auckland Association stated that the northern body was looking forward to having a visit from Otago early next season. The result of the Auckland-Wellington game resulted in Wellington retaining the rose bowl trophy, the score being 3 goals to 2, and confirms the opinion of local supporters respecting the merits of the two provinces. The Auckland team showed three changes from the team which defeated Otago for the F.A. Trophy, these being Gerrard in place of R. Stone at left fullback, Grant, replacing Jones at left-half, and Innes vice Glaister on the right wing. In the Wellington side, Jones, the centre-forward, wag the only player included in the team which played against Otago this season. The team was: Turkington, Mahoney, Laracy, M'Lellan, Longbottom, Hanlon, Niccole, Condon, Jones, Kershaw, Garrod.

A clearer conception of general tactics, more concise passing, and the ability to last better during the fast closing stages were, factors which gave Wellington a well-merited victory (states the New Zealand Herald). The Wellington side was well balanced with the defence, if anything the stronger. The visitors fully appreciated the importance of combined work, in which the backs did their part admirably. While fully occupied in holding the Auckland forwards, the Wellington backs never lost an opportunity of starting a counter move. It was the superiority of the visiting halves, in fact, which allowed Wellington to control the game 'for the greater part. But for the splendid defence of Gerrard in the Auckland last line of backs, .this territorial advantage would have resulted in Auckland facing a much greater deficit. While not as studied in their methods as the backs, the Wellington forwards were a fast-moving and eager quintet, their speed proving the greatest source of worry to Auckland. In contrast to their opponents, the ball was swung accurately along the ground, while the players moved into position with a fine understanding, which bad Auckland 1 bewildered on many occasions. _ Kershaw was in great form at inside-right, being responsible for some particularly subtle initiative work.

The outstanding display for Wellington was given by Longbottom at centrehalf. Early in the game he showed complete control of the opposition vanguard and used this hold to further his forwards’ attacks. In the second spell, when he was called upon more for defence, he again demonstrated marked powers of anticipation and excellent covering-up. He received splendid co-operation from Laracy and Mahoney who, by brilliant tackling, upset the intentions of Auckland’s two fast-moving wingmen, this being greatly instrumental in qiielling the activities of the whole of the vanguard. ' Seldom has an Auckland forward line given such a poor display as that on Saturday. While the ball, which was greasy, appeared to be hard to control, this was not sufficient excuse for the slackness of the passing and general paucity of thrustful methods. The fact that the wingmen were well held by the opposition appeared an unsettling factor, but the passing of the inside forwards, M’Millan and Dunsmore, was of a type which greatly assisted the Wellington backs in stopping Inncs and Kay. Spencer, too, failed to show that generalship which has distinguished his play in the past and very seldom was a dangerous agent.

Christie wag obviously lost against the speedy Wellington forwards and left a gap which the opposition passed through without undue trouble. Grant and Watson were earnest workers, the _ former getting the most results for his play. Gerrard has seldom had to contend with so much work, but his play suffered in no way. Anticipation was his greatest asset, and he frequently saved his side when the remainder of the defence had been torn to ribbons.