HOCKEY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1485, 6 July 1912, Page 12

HOCKEY.

fßr "Bollt-off."] THE PASSING OF THE SHIELD. Why Taunt Canterbury? It's no use crying—tho milk has been spilt, and tho shield, lias gone south, but a healthy little review of the match will do no harm. In tho first place, our hockey brothers from tho south played a hard, vigorous game. Their play was marked by fire and sting, and their forward rushes almost always looked and meant business. They have been taunted with "rough play" and "unfair tactics," but these are not unknown in our own circles. Tho differenco is this, Wellington men have a very bad habit of turning their backs on tho attackers, and placing themselves between their opponent and the ball. On Saturday this was very noticeable, and to the attacking side it is always annoying; sometimes it happens accidentally, but, very, very often it is done knowingly. To the spectator on fho line it does not appear unfair, but to the player, keen on the ball it is baffling and annoying. Then, again, tho Cantabrians play on a much rougher ground than the billiardtable level at Day's Bay, and hence, possibly, their vigorous, hustling style. So much sarcastic comment on the southern's tactics hus been heard that a word in season is now opportune. Taking their play on the whole, ono can only conclude that they deserved to win' the match. Going on the Field With a Plan of Campaign, In days gono ly the Wellington men used to meet together, and discussions of general interest and profit used' to take place, but of late matters have been taken with a blithe light-heartedness that augured ill for our continued success. Our preparation" has been of. the scantiest.. The team has ,been picked, the members have met on the-field prior to the match, and tint was all there was to it. On Saturday two goals were shot'by Canterbury from corner hits. This is surely good play on their part, but what of the home tenm? When a corner hit takes place, the defenders should at least bo able to "tell" two men off, to "mark" each- of tho opposing side. But on Saturday, what did wo see? A crowd of defenders running in n mere mob, with no clean-cut end in view. Surely if tho game is worth playing, it is worth studying, and, certainly, representative teams should not go on to tho field with such slip-shod combination and tactics as ours proved to be. The Non-Success of the Selector Man. Even that does not sum up all our spots and blemishes. Faulty selection played a part, too. Loader was an injured man, and should never have gone on tho held—Birch would have performed much bettor. Then, again, G. Shack was absolutely wasted on the wing. Had he been playing "bully," he would undoubtedly have made use of many openings and opportunities which Andrews never looked at. Andrews should never have been picked, and he did not justify his existence in the representatives one jot. Tho half lino also seemed "scratchy," and none of them played up to form. Campbell seemed to slip about, whilst Parton and Thompson have a penchant for "playing about" with tho ball too much, before transferring to the forwards. A half-back's work is to feed his forwards, not to jugglo with tho ball. In tho fullback lino Baker did not 6eem to warm to his work till well on into tho second spell, and M'Eldowney, although 6afo enough at times, was never brilliant. Ho also has a pronounced habit of obstruction, and tho Canterbury men rightly resonted his methods. Dwyer (in goal) performed very creditably, especially in tho second half, when he stopped some very warm shots.

Wellington One by One. Tho following detailed critique of tho Wellington representative team, on thoir day's play against Canterbury, seems fairly warranted:— Dwyer (in goal) did all that was required of hiin, and played right'up to form. The goals which did get past him wore good enough to beat tho best. Baker (riglit back) did not come up to his fine reputation. Ho was effective at times, but his efforts were not of tho sustained kind. M'Eldowney (left back) was fair, but possesses litilo initiative- for "heady" work, and, as above mentioned, is prone to obstruction. Parton (right half) is a good player, and clever with his stick but does not rid himself of tho ball quickly enough. Campbell (centre-half) is our best player in tho position, but ho was off his form on Saturday. The slippery ground seemed to trouble him. Thompson (left-half) did not justify his inclusion. His rdace should have •been filled by Aickin. Loader (left-wing) is_ probably the best man in this position in Now Zealand, but, on Saturday, his knee was troubling him, and consequently he did not give of his best. Davies (lcft-insidc) played a hard game all through, and was always looking for work. He is fast and tricky, and is always worth his place. Andrews ("bully") is an opportunist. Goal-sotting (when the boll is given to him) ceems to bo his strong point, but ho is norw seen looking for work, and, in tho hard tussles, he always seams to he missing. ' C. Strack (inside-right) is a good worker, and thoroughly claimed his place in the team. He made several gcod runs, but those were nullified by tho weak centre. G. Strack (right-wing) is a good man nnywhero, but it is at "bully" that ho excels, and, to play him at rightwing is mistaken policy. ,Had ho been playing "bully" it is certain that the result would havo been different. The Winners Passed in Review. ' On tho winning side, Bellamy (in goal) gave a very fine exhibition. Ho use 3 both feet and stick, and he is really a brilliant man, • full of resourco oud very cool. G. Sherwood (right-back) proved an excellent defender, and helped his side out of trouble times without iiumbsr. W. Chambers (left-back) has played tetter games than ho showed on Saturday, but, nevertheless, he performed" very well. Duffiold (right-half) did not play up to

expectation, but was tricky with his sticl: at times. Throp (left-half), is a' strong player, but is a'fn a somewhat ronph player. Fe should have been ordered off the field on one occasion, Suoll (centre-half) was not quite up to . the mark, but is on the' whole a strong man to beat. Patrick (right-wing) had little to do, and what ho did "have, did not stamp him as a first (lighter. Hubert (right-inside) tilayed a really excellent game. His two goals were srjlondid efforts, and his present position fits him better than "bully," in which place be played last year. Harrington ("bully") was always on the ball, and monopolised tho play, to good account. He is quick and sure in the ciro I .'?. Gcllety (inside-left) was -the trickiest player on tho ground. TTarin,»ton's first coal was due to his fine play. Green (left-wine) must be written down as a failure. Ho did not keep his place, and was invariably flow with his "centres." It Is Well that the Trophy Should go Round. Now that the shield has gone, we can ecttlo down in undisturbed quietness to club hockey, and can only hope that tho next rcproseuativo team will be selected on its real merits. It is tho conviction of manv that had it been chosen on the actual form shown by players, tho shield would havo still been with ns. Howover, it is well that tho trophy should go round, and let us bono that our loss will really provo our train, nnd that, in tho future, representative teams will not take the field until they hnvo met together for training, and discussion of tactics.