SOCCER

Southland Times, Issue 20225, 9 July 1927, Page 18 (Supplement)

SOCCER

(By “Pioneer.”)

The following is the itinerary for the remaining matches of the Canadian team’s tour:— July 9 (Saturday)—Versus New Zealand, at Wellington (third test). July 11 (Monday)—Versus Wairarapa, at Master ton. July 13 (Wednesday)—Versus Hawke’s Bay, at Hastings. July 16 (Saturday)—Versus Poverty Bay, at Gisborne. July 20 (Wednesday)—Versus South Auckland. at Hamilton. July 23 (Saturday)—Versus New Zealand at Auckland (fourth test). July 27 (Wednesday)—Versus North Auckland, at Whangarei. July 30 (Saturday)—Versus Auckland, at Auckland. RESULTS TO DATE.

Mangan Cup. Third Test to-day. Alterations in home side. All eyes on Wellington to-day. Opening round of Mangan Cup commences.

“Pioneer” extends heartiest congratulations to Corinthians on winning McDonald Cup. There will be only one game at Showgrounds to-day. Invercargill travel to Mataura. Corinthians were all over Mataura in the second half of their game last Saturday. Canadians played an unofficial match with Ashburton on Monday and ran out easy winners by 7 to 1. Turner made a welcome reappearance for the Canadians in the second test. Glowing accounts of Turner’s play were given to ‘Tioneer.” He is known among his team mates as “the wizard.” Southland fans missed another treat. The Corinthians-Mataura match last Saturday did not come up to expectations. The game was certainly hard and interesting, but science was conspicuous by its absence. Up till half time, Mataura held their own, in fact they were leading by 2 to 1, but they fell away in the second spell and Corinthians had it all their own way. Milne in goal for the visitors did not show a great deal of confidence, and although he has a good reach, does not use it to the best advantage. Valentine and Hardy had a strenuous day, but were overwhelmed. On many occasions when the pressure was applied they miskicked and did not protect Milne as well as they should have. The visitors’ half line were always in trouble, but they defended solidly. Sandy Todd received little support, but even so left his mark on the Blues’ defence. He scored two clever goals and was always a source of worry. Cullen showed improved form and dropped across some really good ones. Morrison for Blues had no chance with either of the two goals that beat him. He did a freeze in the second spell. Cathcart played his expected cool game and his play left little to be desired. The half line worked well and played up to their forwards in good style. They broke up the Dark Blue attack in no uncertain manner, and gave their forwards plenty of the ball. McMurdo was, if anything, a shade the best of the trio. All of the forwards played well, and their speed always had the defence guessing. They were quick to seize an opening. Dymock played a very fine game at outside left and there is no doubt he is in great form just now. The Invercargill-Rangers game, from a football point of view, was a farce. Both sides were at far from full strength and concerted work was at a premium*

The Invercargill backs had a very easy day and Gosling was seldom called on. Campbell at centre half found no difficulty in breaking up the Ranger forwards and he kept his own forwards well supplied. He placed the ball neatly and with Tourell offered a stout front.

Pinkney did a lot of good work, but his shooting was not of the best. Cathcart must learn to get rid of the ball sooner. He had many good openings made for him, but hung on too long, and was robbed or blocked, thus giving the defence time to race back and clear.

Kendall was a goer all the time, but his shooting also lacked direction. He combined nicely with Reddington and the pair were always troublesome. Reddington, shifted from the wing to centre-forward, was kept well fed, but he should have scored more often than he did. Some of his efforts were awfully weak and he was just a trifle too casual at times. He distributed the ball unselfishly and showed a nice turn of speed. Steel is a newcomer, but with a match or two should prove an acquisition. Coakley put a good showing in goal for Rangers, and made some clever saves. Maxwell and Scandrett at back got through a heavy day’s work, but they made many mistakes and were slow on recovery. Williamson was the pick of the halves, and he grafted really well. He has still a lot to learn about half back play however. C. Scandrett was the best of the forwards and was really the only one to cause the Invercargill defence any trouble. There is a possibility of an Australian Soccer team making a tour of Europe in 1928.

“The impression derived from the discussion with the representatives of the Czechoslovakian Soccer authorities is that a team of Australians will tour Europe in 1928 (says the Sydney Sun). It is intended to play matches at Prague, Vienna, and Budapest, in addition to which overtures are being made to the controllers of the game in Germany, Belgium, and France, with the object of arranging contests in these countries. Present indications favour the opinion that the tour will be undertaken. The Australian Association is laying its plans in connection with the European tour to enable a Soccer team to participate in the Olympic Games to be held at Amsterdam in May, 1928. The English Association will also be approached to arrange for a series of games in England between the Australian and the leading clubs. As it is expected that the English controllers will offer liberal financial terms, the possibility of the tour being definitely arranged is enhanced. THE SECOND TEST CANADIANS’ WELL-DESERVED WIN. COMMENT ON THE GAME. Commenting on the second test between Canada and New Zealand, a writer in the Christchurch Press has the following to say:— On the run of the game, undoubtedly the visitors deserved their win. In the half-backs and forwards more particularly they demonstrated a definite superiority in tactics, and in view of their previous meeting thie was a surprising feature. The destructive and constructive work of the Canadian intermediate line completely eclipsed that of the All Blacks, and it must be assumed, on the day, that the New Zealand trio were off their game. Possibly the lack of co-ordinated play on the part of their forwards was a disturbing element, but that did not excuse the many erratic and often wild transfers which featured the work of the New Zealand half-backs. Repeatedly the ball, in forward transfer, was directed right to the toe of an opposing defender, whose isolated position immediately offered him a leisurely clearance. Further, the New Zealand intermediates, ignoring the first essential of attack which their positions demanded, constantly fell back, and assumed the role of defenders. How different were the tactics of the visitors was forcibly demonstrated when their forwards were beseiging the New Zealand citadel. ITien they swung into action in close co-operation with their vanguard, and thus provided that extra penetrating power which so often had the New Zealand defence in difficulties.

Infinitely superior to their opponents were the visitors in ready acceptance of position and cohesive action. In attack the strategic interchanging of position of the forwards and the ensuing clever disposal of the ball was a revelation of predesigned and perfected tactics. It was surprising to find an intermediate of Jones’ calibre so often outwitted by the wily Gibson. Repeatedly the Canadian winger had the Aucklander guessing as to the destination of a transfer, and it was surprising to find the latter neglect the only generally recognised counter-defence right in front. In this respect Steere was superior to his confrere. He tackled robustly and without hesitation, but as a constructive unit he showed no outstanding aptitude. Tinkler, on the right, was a nomad. His propensity to wander was turned to good account by the opposnig winger, and often McGirr was obliged to fill a dual position. Generally speaking, the forwards were outclassed. Canada were the aggressors for three-parts of the game, not so much by reason of their penetrative power, but because of the inferior adaptability of the All Black forwards. In direct contrast to the Canadian sharp concentration when a clinching effort was in view, the New Zealand vanguard usually were spreadeagled when an assault on the visitors’ goal was in progress. The wingers failed to bore in on goal to assist in the clinching effort, and thus the inside trio were effectively dealt with by the hard tackling defence. Balk was a distinct failure at outside left in the first session. His display was of such mediocre quality that he was almost entirely ignored by Moon, the Canadian half-back, in the second half. Hislop did much to admire, and his elusiveness no doubt prompted Moon to transfer his attention to him from Balk. Spencer was progressive up to a point, but he lacked something in enterprise. He demonstrated this quality when New Zealand scored their one and only goal, but thereafter the trait was seldom noticeable. Newman and Innes were the most effective pair, and in them the visitors’ defence found a difficult problem by reason of their varied capacity.

The New Zealand defence was the outstanding department of the team’s play, and of the trio McDougall, in goal, was supreme. The two goals scored against him were a fending impossibility, for on both occasions he was unsighted at close range. His wonderful agility and uncanny sense of anticipation were alone responsible for the visitors not piling up a huge score. He dealt with high and low shots with equal ability, and his exhibition has probably never been equalled in any previous Test match. He was ably supported by Anderson and McGirr, and there was little to choose between the full-backs. They covered and kicked well, and their tackling and head work were always high class. Only in the defence did the All Blacks show a superiority to their opponents. The vanguard of the Canadians was uniformly good. At centre, Archibald demonstrated his ability as an opportunist, and he distributed the ball to either flank generously. On the left, Turner and Mulligan worked in unison. Their deft footwork and smart exchanges often had Tinkler in a quandary. But the most dangerous flank was that comprising Gibson and Davidson on the right. Their combined artistry and ball control always working in accord demonstrated wing play of an exceptionally high order. To these virtues may well be added a ready acceptance of position in launching a final assault on the opposing goal. None played better. Of the three half-backs, Brolly at centre was outstanding. His service to the forwards showed an extraordinary accuracy considering the conditions. The variety of his transfers to the unmarked man denoted a keen mentality. On the right Monaghan is an intermediate of the robust variety—a good spoiler who never hesitates to use weight. In this respect he played a similar game to his confrere Moon. At this point it is interesting to note that the visitors were penalised thirteen times as against

their opponents’ seven. In most of the Canadian breaches the intermediates were the culprits. Illegal use of the feet was the most pronounced fault, and unless this is remedied they are bound to strike trouble sooner or later.

The full backs, Crawley and Edmunds, were not overworked. They excelled in tackling and clearing, but it is useless to deny the fact that their defence is not open to criticism. That they may be effectively drawn to provide an excellent avenue to the net down the centre was repeatedly made manifest in Saturday’s game. Tait, in goal, in the little work he had to do, was not in the same class as his vis-a-vis. There was nothing difficult about the shot he let slip between his hands when New Zealand scored. The ball was obviously over the line, and the demonstration by the Canadians was ill-advised. Mr J. Stout handled the game with tact, and his decisions were always given promptly and without hesitation.

v. Taranaki Goals for .. 10 Goals against 1 v. Wanganui .. 7 0 v. Manawatu .. 6 0 v. Wellington o 0 v. Marlborough .. .. .. 11 0 v. Nelson .. 5 0 v. Buller .. 2 0 v. Westland .. 0 1 v. Canterbury .. 6 0 v. Otago 6 2 v. New Zealand .. .. 2 v. Southland 5 0 v. New Zealand .... .. 2 1 v. South Canterbury .. .. 6 0 Totals .. 70 7