WELLINGTON LIFTS N.Z. HOCKEY SHIELD

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 437, 20 August 1928, Page 7

WELLINGTON LIFTS N.Z. HOCKEY SHIELD

AUCKLAND OUTPLAYED VISITORS’ FINE BACKS There can be no denying that, all things considered, Wellington deserved its win over Auckland in the representative hockey match for the New Zealand challenge shield played at Remuera on Saturday. Although Auckland got just a little the better of the first half the visitors showed definite superiority in the second. Wellington must be congratulated on its victory. The final score of 2-1 was a fair termination to the hardest match of the season. The challengers owe their win more to a magnificent defence than to a brilliant quintet of forwards. Analysed, the run of play showed that the shield defenders had more opportunities because of a more enterprising forward line, but could do little in the face of the sterling opposition. It is many a day since Auckland has seen so fine a centre-half as E. McLeod, captain of Wellington. He was a team in himself. His anticipation was almost uncanny, and his stick was manipulated more with head than hand. Joblin and McGavin, his associates, were also master stickmen and fed their wingers like demons. The tactics of Wellington’s halves were to play hard up with the forward line, whereas it was painfully obvious that Auckland’s trio were for the most part too far away and often overlapping the fullbacks. On the day’s work there was no comparison. Auckland’s fullbacks, Williams and Gardner, battled valiantly, but were not too confident. Both earned applause for clever interception on occasions, but they were not up to the standard of Massey and Spiers, Wellington’s back men. Both goalies, Moore and Rankin, could not well have given better exhibitions. Both had to save several times. Some spectacular kicking was performed by the former and lusty and well-timed driving by the Auckland man. Steele appeared to be the best of Auckland’s halves, but even he was not faultless. Dallying proved costly more than once. All eyes were on Turnbull, centre, from Whakatane. It seemed to be the general opinion that he did not come up to expectations and measured with McLeod he was not in the picture. Over-indulgence in pretty strokes caused him to hesitate. To the centre must be ascribed the blame for the halves playing too far back. Cole, on the right, was steady throughout, but paid too little attention to Fletcher, who was starved. In consequence of this the main thrust of Auckland’s forwards was from the centre to the left. Eric Watts was hard up against McLeod and was closely marked. Clive was in a little better position, so it was surprising that a large proportion of Auckland’s offensive originated on the left wing through the agency of Philpotts. He frequently reached the circle, only to meet a well-nigh impregnable defence. Passing rushes on numerous occasions never got further than the halves. Auckland realised it had met its match as far as defensive play was concerned. Of Wellington’s forwards, Smallwood, on the left wing, seemed to be the most dangerous. He showed a fine turn of speed and centred well. Lusty, at centre, proved a good turning point and on the whole gave a convincing display. The goal-getters were Perrin and Robb. After the match there was some discussion as to whether Robb’s goal should have been allowed. It was asserted by Auckland and admitted by Wellington that someone kicked the ball just before it was worked into the net. Mr. L. C. Kent obviously did not see this.

ZANOL CUP MATCH

AUCKLAND’S GOOD DEFENCE The match for the Zanol Cup. in which Auckland, the holders, beat Canterbury, the challengers, by four goals to one, was chiefly remarkable for the performances of the backs on both sides. The forward play, on the whole, was disappointing. There was a surprising lack of passing rushes, and far too much spectacular hard hitting. Clark, playing fullback for Auckland, gave an excellent display of sound, defensive hockey, several times stopping the Canterbury forwards and breaking through them completely on his own. The Auckland forwards seemed to lack initiative when attacking and several chances were lost by their failure to push home an attack when inside the enemy’s circle. Their passing, too, was mediocre and few of them seemed to be able to take a pass cleanly. Jones, at inside right, played the most energetic game of the match, but not always with complete success. Hay, who scored three times, played a good game, and was probably the best forward on the field. The score of four to one is misleading. Canterbury’s forwards were better than Auckland’s, and the game was really fairly even. Canterbury would probably have won but for Auckland’s splendid defence. ith more practice together the Auckland team might 'have been irresistible, but as it was, their favourite method of gaining ground seemed to be to slog the ball the full length of tne field. Had the forwards done more dribbling and short passing, and not shown so much keenness to get r id of the ball, they would have Played far better hockey. The same faults, but to a lesser degree, applied fo the Canterbury forwards, although on occasion they displayed s_ome magpassing rushes and came within an inch of penetrating Auckland s defence.