The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-11-18

During the first half the formation plays
OF Indiana were very creditable. while the
left half OF Indiana's line outplayed the
right half of Illinc.s's line on defensive
work.
During the entire game the play was
mostly in Indiana's territory. and Illinois
came nearer reaching the coveted goal OF
the HOLSTERS than the latter did in adj
vancing the pigskin to the Suckers goal
line One time. during the first half, Hi
nois placed the ball within twenty yards
Of Indiana's goal, but this great advance
was mostly made on a punt, and Indiana
succeeded In working the oval back to
point OF safety. The second half was not
unlike the first, I'm regard to the position
of the playing. for most Of the time In
diana was fighting I'm her own territory 70
prevent the Illinois men from carrying the
pigskin toward the Hoosier goal Several
times the two lines presented veritable
stone walls to the advances CT their OPP
ponents, and after two unsuccessful at
sempts TO make the necessary gains by
hammering the line. the teams resorted to
punting.
The feature OF the game was the remark
able punting OF Pike, Indiana's right guard.
who fell back OF the line when called upon
TO punt the ball into the Illinois territory.
His work was marvellous. considering the
condition OF the field and the ball. Each
time the oval was passed 10 him for
punt he responded with a brilliant effort.
sending the ball spinning through the air
for from thirty to forty yards on each at
tempt Null did the punting for Illinois.
hut on the exchange of punts, which were
frequent during the second half, owing TO
the downpour OF rain, which made the
ball slippery. Pike gained five yards on
each exchange.
Another thing to be commended in the
work OF both elevens, especially that Of the
quarter backs, was the comparatively small
degree OF fumbling. The ball was wet and
Shiny and the players hands were wet and
slippery. but they held on to the pigskin
as IL II were dry and covered with sand
paper During the first half there were
two fumbles. but in the second half the
fumbling was more frequent. and about a
half dozen fambles were charged to each
team.
A HARD PROPOSITION.
II would be hard work to designate those
who did the most brilliant work for the
two teams, as all Of the men did their
snare toward holding the score 10 a tie.
But for Illinois the work of Lundgren. the
gritty right half. was wonderful. He was
called upon frequently to try and advance
the ball. and with but few exceptions he
bucked the opposing line for short gains.
being aided by the tackles and guards, who
tore holes through the Indiana line for
him. Chamberlain and Briggs also made
frequent short gains. and Stahl came in
for share OF the ground gaining. For
Indiana Sparks. Teeter, Clevenger and
Hawley were good on aggressive work,
while the others gave good interference
and tackled well.
AS mud hens and sea gulls both teams
showed up exceptionally well. There were
no accidents of q serious nature during the
entire game. which consisted of thirty and
Notwithstanding halves. But little time
was taken out on account Of men being dis
abled or shamming injury, both teams
played the game on Its merits. One feature
OF the work of both teams was the man.
ner in which the lines were held when the
ball was passed back for punt, preventing
a possibility OF the ball being blocked.