The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1898-11-06
THE FINE POINTS.
Critical Analysis of the
Game and the Plays.

Critical Analysis Of the
Game and the Plays.
The game between Harvard and
Pennsylvania at Cambridge, yesterday,
was in many respects one of the best
and most peculiar ever played on a
gridiron. 1t was fine game, in that
the defensive work displayed by both
teams was never exceIled in any inter-
collegiate contest. Such great strength
in this respect was unexpected, and in
consequence kept down the score.
1t was a queer game, because neither
team possessed the requisite ability,
by simply straight, hard foot ball, to
push the ball across the line. Penn
sylvania did not have that ability, as
was shown by her failure to score.
That Harvard scored was wholly owing
to the fact that her men were alert to
Tall opportunities and promptly seized
them, together with Burnetts ability at
place kicking. Harvard, as her playing
showed. was unable to score by simple
|
| shared Penn's fate of failing to score
| had it not been for the Offering OF OPP
portunities, which she promptly ac-
oepted.
| Viewed as game it was a contest of
good straight foot bail, in which trick
plays were almost wholly absent. AS
| it was, but one Of Harvard s-Dibblee
and Daly-double passes was success
full, while Gardner gained but once on
similar plays for the, Quakers.- -Penn's
triple pass plays were very dismal
! failures, and why Gardner kept on or
dering them or why Outland allowed
them, is a great mystery. That trick
plays did not work was because of the
excellent defense work of both sides.
1t is against the weak defensive team
| that trick plays count. Both elevenS
were very wideawalxe on defensive
work. This feature was far and away
the best of the game.
Another popularity of the great con-
test was that both teams gained the
most ground where they were. supposed
to be weakest. For instance, Harvard
did her best and most consecutive gain
| ing through a series of centre PUSHES
toward the end of the first half. Penn
scored her two longest gainst on two
runs around the end-one by Coonbs
and the other by big Hare. Harvard S
end running was very fast indeed. The
interference was mere paper, and again
and again did Folweu and Carnett
down Dibblee and Warren for losses.
The big fault with the end interior
enoe rested with Reid, who ran too high
and failed to put ont the tacklers. This
fault must be remedied before Harvard
meets Yale, or there will be another
such game between the crimson and
the blue as there was one year ago
next Saturday
-,.s.., f1.o h q
men of Harvard 8 center trio held their
| veteran oppoSites from Penn 1t was
supeFb work and shows the good re-
suits of the infinite amount of toll
spent on them by NortoA, Shaw, Lewis
land Bill Mackie.
OF course Harvard's superior punting
ability appeared and very strongly.
| Haughton outkicked Hare 10 yards on
each exchange without outl2icking his
ends, which Hare failed to do Dibble
and Laly made use OF these points in
/ running the ball back on punts so that
leach of Hare's kicks nStted Penn hard
Fly more than 25 yards, which is certain
lily very little gain.
I Another point in which Penn was
Every poorly prepared was in catching
iEpunts All of the backs work in this
Prospect was execrable. 1t was directly
Irresponsible for Harvard's first touch
/ down, which, coming within the first
/. minute of pay did more to win the
game than is generally supposed. The
i effect Of that first touchdown was great
indeed and seemed to infuse a Yale
i spirit" into the Harvard team.
Together with a weakness in landing
punts was coupled a lack of recovery
after fumbling and a weakness in fol-
lowing the ball well-a weakness never
before shown by a Quakertiap 1t was
in marked contrast with Harvard 5
work in this respect.
In short, it should be said right here
that PENIS loss of the game can be
attributed to three causes. First, to the
failure of the guards back" play to
gain materially without interruption;
I secondly, to PENIS inferiority to Har-
ward in the general Kicking depart
nent; thirdly, to her inferiority in the
minor points of the game above des-
cribed. These were of vital importance
in their results.
Harvard's defence for tho guards
back play was simple and yet effec-
tive. The scheme was to get at least
one man under 1t before the play
struck the line. There was a time ir
the middle of the first half and again
early in the second half when some
body failed to do this and the play wen
ripping through for big gains. But
finally the crimson forwards got to.
SGlieT do they StlOulQ nave earlier duC
stopped the gains.
Another reason why the guards
back" play was not as effective against
Harvard as usual was because Nc
Cracker was plainly cut of trim. This
man, who has made the play famous
showed the effects Of his batter;ng in
the game against Chicago last Satur-
day, and did not nelp out Hare. The
latter did the work Of three men and
was a badly used up player when he
left the field. That he stood up under
the work, is something miraculous and
4 stamped him as Hercules.
Right here it should be said in re-
spect to a team that depends on the
guards back formation, that If it does
not score during the first twelve OF
fifteen minutes of each half that team
Is beaten. The reason for this is sim
pie, because the play uses the same
five to six men in every rush. What
the effect of this continual pounding
|, on the same set of men, is best known
only to those who have had to bear the
brunt of continual service. There comes
A time, if this play does not get the
opponents on the rum 50 to speak, when
{ these men cannot gain, because Of sheer
exhaustion and lack Of snap. This was
very plainly shown in the last eighteen
: minutes Of the second half, when at
least every third play Of this mass for
nation was checked by Harvard for a
i loss. During the last eight minutes