No corrections yet
CLAREMONT'S STRENGTH. South Fremantle Well Beaten. Weaknesses in South Fremantle's play were revealed by the solid Claremont side at the Claremont Oval on Saturday. Chief of them were poor half-forward play, bad kicking and over-indulgence in handball. The best part of the match was the first quarter of an hour, when South Premantle's speed and smart groundwork brought the best out of Claremont, but when the home team settled down it was seen to have a gen eral advantage and there was little in terest in the second half of the match. The teams were: CLAREMONT.-Backs: Sutherland. Grieve, S. Moloney. Half-backs: Headon. O'Nell. Guth rie. Centres: Reid, G. Moloney. Lovegrove. Half-forwards: Heusler. Bermingham. Gibson. Forwards: SerJeant. Compton. Gath. Ruck: Reeves Edmeades. Hooper (rover). Nineteenth man: Baker (replaced O'Neill. Injured ribs. at three-uarter time). SOUTH PFRIMN TLE.-Backs: J. Mills, Chandler. Renfrey. Half-backs: Dodd, White, D. Dolg. Centres: N. Lewington, Jenkins, Mat thews. Half-forwards: Reynolds. Burkett,. Cole man. Forwards: Reilly, C. Lewington, Poole. Ruck: A. Richardson, Haskell. Truscott (rover). Nineteenth man: Gorn (did not play). UMPIRE.--. Owens. Winning in the ruck and having what benefit there was from the breeze, Clare mont was the more aggressive from the start of play, .but the forwards were troubled by a crisp defence and leading away from the goal had the inevitable result of spoilt chances. Showing great dash, South Fremantle took quick ad vantage of any error of judgment and Jenkins led several sharp thrusts from the centre. However, South Fremantle marred its work in attack with short, inaccurate kicking and exaggerated handball Claremont's all-round strength predominated .and when its forwards became smoother it went ahead to lead with 6.4 to 3.1 at quarter-time. South Premantle did better in the ruck in the second quarter, gaining the initiative, but it was very weak in the half-forward division. Burkett was taken into rack, interchanging with Reilly at centre-half-forward. Although it was not
so often within scoring range, Clare mont made better use of its opportuni ties. South Fremantle kept up the pres sure from midfield but found goals hard to come by and was only 65 to Clare mont's 9.5 at half-time. Claremont had a clear ascendancy in the third quarter. It attacked persistently against a tenacious defence, but much of its kicking to the forwards was too lofty for it to score commensurate with its superiority in play, although Reid showed what could be done with long, low passes to Compton. Guthrie replaced O'Neill (injured ribs) at centre half-back. Clare mont led with 15.11 to 7.7 at three-quar ter time. South Fremantle kept to its task with commendable determination, but, lacking drive in attack, made heavy weather of the play and at no stage threatened Claremont, which kept steady with a reserve of power and finished the fresher. Lovegrove, with a leg injury, went to a forward pocket. The closing stages were uninteresting and the final scores were: CLAREMONT .. .. 15.15 (105pts.) SOUTH FREMANTLE 9.13 (67pts.) Scorers.--Claremont: Compton, 3.5; Bermingham, 3.0; Gibson, 2.2; Heusler, 2.2; Hooper, 2.0; Gath, 2.0; Serjeant, 1.1; Reeves, 0.2; G. Moloney, 0.1; Love grove, 0.1; Sutherland, 0.1. South Fre mantle: C. Lewington, 3.2; Poole, 3.2; Reynolds, 13; Coleman, 1.1; A. Richard son, 1.0; Reilly, 0.3; Burkett, 0.2. For Claremont, Reeves played a fine ruck game, com?nating the play when he was on the ball. Headon was in top form at half-back and Reid and Lovegrove had command of the centre-wings. Hooper roved strongly and Gibson was another who was copsistentiy effective. Suther land was prominent in ruck and defence and O'Neill did very well at centre-half back, with Guthrie solid alongside him. Berminglham. Heusler and Edmeades also did good work. For South Fremantle, Jenkins took the honours in a duel with G. Moloney at centre that was the most entertaining feature of the play. Most of South Pre mantle's scoring moves came from him, despite his faulty delivery. Reilly, in ruck and attack, was one of the most reliable in the team and Rentrey and D. DoIg were outstanding in defence.. Although C. Lewington had little assistance, he showed his ability as centre-forward. Haskell, Mills and Reynolds did good work and Poole and White were the best of the others.