The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-11-28

beginning of the game. Catching the
Kickoff on their thirty-yard7 line, they
plonsea at the line for steady gains,
sometimes long, sometimes short, but al
ways sure. In less time than it took them
to do the same trick to Wisconsin Nov.
r. Mich1gan's warriors had shown the
leather across the line for their first touch
down.
During this time Minnesota seemed un-
able to solve the wolverine plan of attack.
Ihey fought desperately to stop the
plunges of Graver, Heston and Maddox,
but they fought without concerted action
and their tackling was weak, as it has
been all year. Time and again Michigan's
backs We're caught at, the, line only to
step from the arms Of the tackler and
plunge along for five Z. or tep additional
yards of ground. - 12S,'~ ~ -
- Line PIungIng Not Effective.
After that first touchdown Minnesota
braced effectively and from that time
| Michigan did not threaten Minnesota,s
goal by their line plunges. 49,. -.
Two more touchdowns were made by
Heston, both on long runs between tackle
| and end. Harris missed both tackles by
waiting for Weston to reach him instead
or running up, to meet the halfback who,
on the Slippery ground, was easily able to
dodge the gopher quarter. ans
Then in the second half. after Michigan
had been held for three downs on the
th1rty-yard line Sweley made a. pretty field
goal from placement. r. s. az. - =, -
That was the extent of. Michigan,s scor-
Ing. There is no question. that Michigan
on the seasons record must be ahead of
every eastern team, ea<cspt Yale and it is
very doubtful whether a Yale would have
any advantage over the great wolverine
eleven. Michigan not only played straight
football better than Minnesota, but. she
also showed a, wider diversity Of attack.
Her' tackling was better than that of the
Minnesota men, her team work was SUI
perior to that Of the gophers by 100 per
cent, her plays got off faster in short her
team played 70 per cent more football than
Minnesota
Experts Surprised. -.
Experts last night expressed their Won
der that Yost could ground his men so
thoroughly in the rudiments Of the game,
perfect the team work so thoroughly and
at the same time develop so varied an at
| tack as has been shown by Michigan in
her three big, games this year., ~ =: ::
| Giving Minnesota credit for playing a
wonderfully plucky game in the face Of
Overwhelming odds, however, it must be
admitted that Minnesota was not in
championsf ip FORM, $50, ..y
| The gopher eleven could have beaten
any championship eleven the west has
produced in the last six or seven years,
yet the work decidedly was not up to the
standard. The plays got away with good
| speed. but long waits ensued between the
| time the signals were given and the time
the plays got away. This gave Weeks
| plenty of time to place his men to. meet
| the gopher attack and he gagged the, d.
rection of Minnesota's plays In advance
| with great accuracy ~. ~.,<~ ~~<..... -
r,.-: IL. Not Enough Variety. = =.
| This brings up another point. Mime
sota's attack, it was made plain by yes
terdays contest, is not varied or diversi-
| fed enough to deceive a good defensive
team, and the direction the ball takes is
too patent to the opposing team to get
| the best results from the masses used.
| ; Yesterday those of the spectators who
| were familiar with Minnesota's play could
tell, In nine cases out Of ten, what gopher
player would carry the ball and what
point in the opposing line he would aim
for. That Michigan. was able to- gauge
the attack likewise, was shown by the
fact that Weeks In nearly all cases massed
his defense in tfesright spot to meet the
Minnesota offense. Minnesota moreover,
apparently had only three plays at. her
I command. - - s.. - , - 49,. 49,
These were right halfbaclS off Michigan's
right tackle, left half off left tackle, and
| fullback or tackle at the center. The
latter play failed to gain in six cases out
! Of seven and Harris had to fall back on
Van Valkenberg and Lafans or Irsfield for
ground gaining: -f ...t,. ..:-...s :
Gophcrs Who Didn't Make Good.
Individually some Of the go
pliers + were a disappointment. Van
Valkenberg and Iafaas were the
most conspicuous in this :: re-
spect Lafans' work on both offensive
and defensive was of the most mediocre
\ character. Van @Natkenberg failed to
gain ground with the consistency which
| characterized his work in the Wisconsin
game, but this was undoubtedly due part
| ly to the great tackling of the Michigan
backs and ends. On defensive Van
fell down hard and IT is due to his bad
work more than to that Of Rogers OF
! Harris that IIeston was enabled to get
| through for his long runs which resulted
4 in touchdowns. faF 4! Z. +-s$E
Irsfeld, who took the place Of ,Lafans
in the second half, played the best game
of his life and made on the. whole better
all around showing than any half back
! Minnesota has had this year. He gave
the tackles an dends splendid support or
the defense and outdid himself in carry.
\ ing the ball Once In sheer deportation al
the failure of any of the other men t
+ gain Harris sent Irsfeld at right tackle
five times in succession the stocky hall
back gaining his distance or more ever.
time. b 49,
FIynn's Fine Work
i Captain Johnnie. Flynn was another
4 star, breaking through Michigan's fine re-
peatedly and getting down the field OF
many occasions faster than the ends them
selves, fast as the latter were. It wa.
Flynn who was on deck. when Weekssfur1:
pled one of Knowlton's punrs,s to grail
I. the ball in nidair and race fora touch
Il down the only score secured by Minnesota