HOCKEY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 894, 13 August 1910, Page 12

HOCKEY.

(By "Bullt-opp.") It would'have been a great thing, for Canterbury to have carried-off the shield, no doubt, but the better team won. The ground was not favourable for good hockey, but nevertheless the ganio was very interesting,' and at. times fast. Matters livened up considerably after the first goal, lor when Wellington scored per medium of Loader, Canterbury's play grew more spirited. At least half a dozen corner hits were awarded them in succession during the second spell, but they failed to get-the ball into the net. The tacticL of the Wellington forwards -on Saturday were superb, and the team as a whole was superior- to that which met and defeated Hawke's Bay. The effective manner in which Loader manoeuvred up the left wing and led his forward line deserves the highest praise. At last this magnificent' leftwing has earned distinction as a representative player. Ho deserved the .honour last season, but was unfortunately left out in the ... cold.'. The same may be said of Parton, right-iving. He also missel the selectors' eye last season. The selector seems to have done wisely in giving young players an opportunity to show their mettle. G. Davies, iuside-left (Karori), /has not played f*r a few weeks now owing to a. bad leg, and C. Strack was substituted. The latter and his brother George played together, the last-named being centreforward. It is questionable if G. Davies will get a chance again this season; and yet it would, seem to be a good move to try G. Davies and G. Strack together as soon as the former is belter. In, cases where a goal ■ is absolutely necessary to place his side in a winning position, he (Davies) is just the '. man to notch the point .by hook or by crook. . : Every forward played well last Saturday, but Loader is deserving of special mention. Owing to the greasy nature of the ground it would be hardly fair to comment extensively, on the relative merits of individual players. The local team had an.advantage over Canterbury by reason that they were more "at home' on No. 1 ground, Day's Bay. l Their half-, lino, however, was not so strong as Canterbury's. Of the local halves Campbell, centre, was tho, pick, the next in point of play being Thompson.'. Christie was fair. Hickson was easily the safest and mostworked full-back. Ashbolt, though playing well, has still-a tendency' to be sluggish, but should lose his surplus weight with a few more games. There were occasions when a goal in favour of Canterbury seemed inevitable, but just at the correct moment Hickson would secure the ball, block his man, and cloar his defence. . Time after time the spectators cheered Hickson for his tricky play ' L. Danes, in goal, well deserved'representatives honours. His saving was sound, and the goAl secured by Harrington, in-side-right (Canterbury), was obtained through no fault of Davies's. Tho Canterbury forwards were per-, sistent in their attempts to get..through the local back division, but they did not combine so well as the Wellington forwards. Eankin, right, wins:, was very good indeed. Featherstone, Hulbert, and Green were fair. The two lastnamed players made frequent and heroic at'tempts to eludo the'.local' half-line, but whenever they,, accomplished .this feat the -local hacks'were'in readiness' to check the onslaught. Goldsbury, right half, and Snell, centre half, played magnificent games. If only Wellington could bring its half-line up to a par with Cantcrr bury's what a .team the local eleven vou'ld then.be!- . . Throp, left half, did not get so much of the play as Goldsbury.- Nevertheless this fact does not indicate that Throp was weak. On tho contrary, he did all that' he was called ution to do very effectively. Of the. full-backs, Chambers, right, was the most prominent. '- f Luxtoni in goal, was perfect. His "saves" / were sensational.. Some extremely hot shots merely glided off his stickj and it was a treat,to,, watch his I magnificent "stopping." ■ > ■