Canterbury Deserved Its 5-0 Hockey Victory

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31079, 7 June 1966, Page 15

Canterbury Deserved Its 5-0 Hockey Victory

The score of 5 goals to nil by which Canterbury beat Otago in a representative hockey match at Williamson Park was a fair reflection of the run of play.

Canterbury should have scored more goals but teamwork was sacrificed for individual effort.

The ground was lively and gave the players an insecure footing; as a result poor trapping, passing and dribbling techniques were frequently exposed: Speed was attempted, control neglected. Canterbury asserted its superiority through more decisive trapping and passing, and a greater appreciation of the strategic and tactical requirements of the game. Nevertheless, some alarming weaknesses were exposed both on defence and attack. The Canterbury halfline was quite unable to impose itself upon the game; the wing halves were particularly lacking in the basic skills of trapping and stickwork. On attack Canterbury was unimpressive because individual effort was given priority over teamwork; dribbling had preference over passing.

The Canterbury goalkeeper was only once called on to help C. Ineson made an auspicious debut at left-back. He passed accurately, eluded opponents with ease, and lacked only a good reverse stick trap. B Turner trapped well and covered his partner efficiently.

C. Baldwin, at right-half, was hesitant in everything he did. His passing was inaccurate, and his stickwork lacked authority

S. Maister covered and trapped well but his passing was not always decisive. The trapping of E. Barnes at left-half led to embarrassing situations on defence.

The Canterbury forward line seldom moved as a unit, but when it did it sorely tested the Otago defence. B. Judge made some penetrating runs but failed to feed upfield, his shooting from narrow angles was most unproductive. J. Christensen worked hard and dribbled neatly at insideright, but suffered from much ill-conceived passing from his colleagues. T. Burrows, at in-side-left, made some subtle passes, back tackled assiduously, but lacked the footwork required to make his stickwork effective.

T Thomas dribbled Ineffectively. but scored a good goal. The Otago goalkeeper defended with great skill and determination; indeed, his efforts were vitally Important in keening the score within limits. D Page trapped and passed to the right successfully for much of the game. B. Milburn found Judge’s tendency to hold the ball of assistance. E. Sew Hoy was an ineffective centre half. His tackling was weak, he was slow to recover, and he was quite unable to restrict the activities of the Canterbury centre-for-ward.

The Otago right-half was seldom called upon to participate because both Canterbury and Otago endeavoured to neglect that area of the field. L. White failed to take advantage of Canterbury’s weaknesses in his area because his trapping was inconsistent and his stickwork extremely limited G. Sinclair, the Otago insideright, was the only effective forward in his side; he trapped well, dribbled with some skill, and back tackled enthusiastically.

M. Denholme was Ineffective at centre-forward, but the in-side-left, R. Williams, back tackled zealously and returned the ball conscientiously. On the left-wing P. Keddell squan-

dered the possession he did manage to get. The goals were scored by K. Thomson <2>, T. Burrows (2), and T. Thomas. Umpires: Messrs D. Denniston and B. Lloyd. The teams were: Canterbury.—J. Monk, C. Ineson, B. Turner; E. Barnes, S. Maister, G. Baldwin: B. Judge, F Christensen, K. Thomson, T Burrows, T. Thomas. Otago.—L. Bizet, D, Page, M. Rowe; M. Ramsey, E. Sew Hoy, B. Milburn; L. White, G. Sinclair, M. Denholme, R. Williams, P. Keddell.