HOCKEY Woolston Again Wins By Substantial Margin

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28269, 6 May 1957, Page 15

HOCKEY Woolston Again Wins By Substantial Margin

The second sound of matches Ip the Canterbury Hockey Association’s senior competition was played on Saturday in unpleasant overhead conditions and on surfaces which tended to cut up and become rather bumpy.

High School Old Boys showed considerable improvement after their disastrous start in the first round, and held Sydenham to a (jraw. The promoted Technical Old Boys' team gained its first victory, and Woolston secured a jecond substantial triumph at the expense of the most unconvincing University team in the last 30 years. The results of the matches were as follows:

Woolston 5, University 0. . Technical Old Boys 1, Harewood 0. Sydenham 2, High School Old Boys 2. HIGH school OLD BOYS v. SYDENHAM This match was evenly contested cn a ground surface which was in good condition tor the first half but which later deteriorated. Certain faults were common to both teams, the most obvious and possibly the most serious being too high a proportion of badly directed passes. The ball was wasted by hard and often reckless hitting, a tendency which has virtually become a characteristic of Canterbury club hockey. The finesse and ball control for which the province used to enjoy an enviable reputation in the past are now the exception rather than the rule. The drive for greater speed is reducing the level of technique and skill, and this match was another example of the general pattern of play which could appeal only to those who prefer robust tactics and have little leva for the skill and artistry of the game. The more experienced Sydenham team did not produce the form expected of it. The forwards showed spasmodic flashes of combination in midfield play, but lacked this virtue in their circle work where many of their errors were due to lack of coolness and the helter-skelter approach of current club hockey. The reappearance of W. Browne at left-back in the Old Boys team effected a marked improvement in its defensive play, but the team is still badly out of form and is not likely to recover until strict attention is given to correcting the bad passing. It was disturbing to see players having to stop so frequently and retreat to secure passes which they should have been able to take in their stride. It is paradoxical that the stressing of speed at the expense of skill often resulted in movements being slowed down because of the increased margin for errors.

In the Sydenham team M. Hall was prominent for a sound, steady game at right-back, while M. Wall at centre-half exerted a beneficial influence on his team by calm and intelligent methods. J. Pauling produced another sound game as goalkeeper. his consistenecy and quiet but effective methods being of considerable value to his team. At left back R. Rusbridge will continue to be a severely limited player until he masters some ability to use the reverse stick. Neither speed nor any other device can in any -way comCensate for lack of this basic element i stickwork.

At right-half B. Mairs trapped well but passed badly and tended to commit the grievous sin of fly-hitting when under pressure. On the left wing P. Snelling had an off day. mainly because he dribbled the ball too far before passing. -It was disturbing to note that two of the most experienced forwards, K. Cumberpatch and M. McKinnon, were among the more serious offenders in poor passing and indiscriminate hitting. The major improvement in the Old Bovs’ team lay in its defensive work. W. Boundy was in better form, and he and W. Browne received more adequate support from their halves than in the previous match. E. Barnes, at centre-half, remained cool when the pace became furious towards the end, and may become a very useful player with improvement in his stickwork. The negative aspect of the defensive play lay in the fact that clearing hits merely gained relief of a temporary nature, instead of initiating attacks by the forwards, who, handicapped by an inadequate service, were seldom impressive. However. I. D. Armstrong scored one very fine goal with a push shot, after beating several defenders. The Svdenham goals were scored by K. Cumberpatch and P. Cotton. Armstrong and P. Blyth scored for Old Boys. Umpires: Messrs P. Beere and W. Morris. WOOLSTON v. UNIVERSITY A very immature University team battled hard but without avail against more experienced opponents, whose rather erratic play, based chiefly on the panacea of speed, showed flashes of cleverness which the poverty of the opposition helped to make possible. In the Woolston forward line, N. Hobson had a field day, making many elusive dribbles, and only E. Jackson and E. Archer, the most experienced University players, were able to put any sort of curb on Hobson and Woolston’s right flank attack. D. James, at centre-forward, is showing some Improvement on his form of last season at times, and certainly looks more formidable when he relies upon stickwork. He is still inclined to be in too great a hurry. J. Kiernan was noticeable at times on the left Wing for some tricky footwork and stickwork and is making steady progress in this position. At centre-half, J. Abrams was prominent frequently, partly because of the poor passing of the University players, some of whom fed him with the ball with wearisome regularity. R ; Gillespie, on the left, was possibly Woolston’s best half and defender, being at all times cool and competent, and seldom wasting his passes, an example which many of his team-mates might emulate. The rest of the defence was seldom worried by a forward line which lacked penetrative powers, but there was little need for a rather excessive amount of barging and obstruction, of which W. Haskell, the University inside-right and its most able forward, seemed to be the chief vic“JO- At the moment Woolston looks the most convincing team in the competition, yet the impression remains that its potentialities are greater than its achievements. There is an air of frantic urgency about us play which is causing a neglect or sundry virtues, and which may Jet produce defeat through its own ror J rather than through any merit of the opposition yet to be encountered.

The older members of the University team. K. OCallaghan, E. Jackson, E. Archer, and W. Haskell, were head and shoulders above their colleagues. The side never funca team - its efforts being restricted to individual exertions. zV®. fam^ iar story of little stickand P°° r passing was very much in evidence. In addition, some *!L Piayei ? wer e not fit enough eir They strove will- . g and played themselves ™ a sta ” dstni . yet still failed to Ke suffi «ent ground for their 1716 halVeS > Wlth the Pnu-Si n Archer, were weak. G. cov U^ n the centre did not give WaS» support to his forback*^ ,as h ® coming far enough wi?n o defence. The only forwards were w?aek S T» mblance of Penetration ri?£ Haskell and A. Reid on the the 1716 of marking | and the competent hS2?i 8 J f *u Reid by GiUespie left thS rir™ a h °Peless task. In tn hi.. Cir £H? Tls t anc e s it was a tribute ? tha > he succeeded on Hu5SS ber occasions in posing «ten <te£ nd pr 2j len,! to ‘he Woolier <™^ nce ‘ Ther e is some scope team i? ln the University Practice is conlnd Mrr!! intellectual contte'l nSdf‘ Ven 10 the ‘heoreK Tl w-£22 I*ton 1 * ton «°»l* were ecored by B. (2, ‘ D - JamM < s >- “d

R U Ba P y reS: Messrs E - w - Rogers and TECHNICAL OLD BOYS V. HAREWOOD •.n^ te + », mat^ h , Was in the balance ™ final , whistle, the teams ery e , ven] y matched and playUs « al P att ern of current club , Both teams were vigorous . fit enough to maintain "I®, matc h s initial speed throughout, and capable of hitting the ball hard enough for raid and counter-raid to succeed each other with rapidity. However, many of these raids were stenie at their inception because of the lack of adequate build-up, which was too hurried to permit of attacking movements carried out by forward lines in formation adequately supported by half-backs positioned tor the attack s continued maintenance. Both teams lost opportunities through errors on attack, and if Technical had sufficient in hand to win the game. Harewood could reflect on some of its errors which cost lt T ♦u cha £ ce . of savin g the game. In the Technical team the Lloyd b £?J h ? rs Prominent for some stickwork, good positional piay, and commendable efforts to construct attacks by shrewd passing. Gardner was a dependable back, out the forwards did not combine happily, although they all contributed some good individual efforts at times The absence of Collins from the centre lor ward position weakened the line, although L. Taylor did his best to understudy the position. D T £® Harewood backs, L. Innes and B Pauli, were competent defenders Whose positional play and covering were sound enough. For the last lew seasons Pauli has been a valuable member ot the Harewood team without showing any marked improyement, owing to his continued neglect to increase his proportion of sound passes. He has a tendency at times to place his pass on his colleague s left side, which makes the receipt of the pass difficult. Another Harewood stalwart, P. Greenwood, was the best of the halves, and contributed a great deal of sound cover defence to his team’s effort. B. Murray was the pick of the forwards. Possessed of reasonably good stickwork, he always looks effective when relying upon it, but he gives the impression of some lack of confidence in his own skill by lapsing at times into bustling methods which neglect his greatest asset and lead nim into unnecessary errors. o „ Th ® ?. nly goal of th e match was scored by the Technical forward, J. Parsons.

u 'P pi res: Messrs K. Mortimer and B. W. Rogers.