The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-11-08
ATTACK VS.. DEFENSE
Which Point of Strength Is More
Effective in Winning Football
Games Nowadays?
Winning Teams Possess Strong Of
fense-How Much Should a
Field Goal Count?

fense-How Much Should a
Field Goal Count?
Two much discussed but still interest
ing questions were raised last week as
result Of two football games, one in the
west and the other In the east. The
Michigan w isconsin contest at Chicago
afforded an opportunity for further talk
upon the relative merits Of offense and
defense in winning games. In other
words. given a team with fair offense
and an excellent defense, and another
eleven with fair defense and a powerful
attack, which would be victor?
Many instances could be cited In sup
port of both theories. 1t goes without
saying that the strongest teams have
owed their success to excellence in both
departments Of the game. Such were the
Wisconsin eleven Of 1897, the Michigan
team Of 1895 and the Wisconsin eleven of
1901. On the other hand the Chicago
team Of 1899, a championship eleven.
while great ground gaining team, was
only mediocre in defensive work. Iowa,
Pennsylvania and Cornell all crossed it's
goal line.
Again the great Minnesota eleven of
two years ago. though possessed Of one
of the most powerful attacks ever seen in
the middle west, was not above the aver
age In defensive work Nearly every
team 1t encountered was able to gain
ground freely against it. but it's scoring
ability more than made up for this weak
ness.
Defensive Teams Unlucky.
On the other hand. hardly single in
stance can be cited Of q weak offensive
team winning championship. Minneso-
ta's eleven in 1896 possessed a wonder
fully powerful line, and an almost impen-
etrable defense, being scored on by Mich
4ror fHrn 1,p1, ~ ct
part Of the gophers. and by Wisconsin
only after SiXty-eight minutes of the
hardest kind Of play. Lack Of scoring
ability caused this eleven two defeats
Wisconsin in 1899 also had strong de-
Tense. but little ground gaining power
In fact almost all history indicates that
a strong ground gaining team can be sue
cessful with a moderately strong defense,
while no defense, however good, will win
hard games If scoring ability is lacking.
The old baseball saying, 1.-THE best pitch
ing in the world won't win games unless
your own men hit the ball." finds paral-
lei in football.
The badger wolverine contest last
week did not throw further light upon
this question. 1t had been believed be-
fore the game that Wisconsin would show
up with perfect defense and moderate
ground gaining power, while Michigan
would display great scoring ability, but
little defensive strength.
This expectation was not realized
Michigan's offense was all that was
claimed for it, but Wisconsin's defense
! failed to equal her reputation in this re-
spect. On the other hand, Michigan's de-
Tense showed slightly more strength thar
had been expected, while Wisconsin's of
Tense was so weak that apparently Sec
ond-rate team might have stopped it
The badgers had only two men who dis
played any ground-gaining ability
Juneau as a runner, and Vanderboom as
plunger were the only men who carried
the ball for Wisconsin with any success
and these two only made their distance
q few times during the game, although
two of Juneau's runs were Of very re-
spectacle. length. Wisconsin may hav,
had other good men, but as none wer,
tried often, it is fair to assume that Van
derboom and Juneau represented tn
main ground gaining strength of tn,
. team.
Badger Defense Not Consistent.
On the other hand, Wisconsin's defens
was not consistently strong. The fac
that Michigan pushed the ball through TO
eighty yards in short-line plunges for
touchdown Immediately following tn
kickoff, proves this fact, in connection
with the way the badgers held at criti
cal times later in the game. That Wis
consin could stop her opponents insid
the five-yard line when a second touch
down was imminent, shows that Mich
CAMS offense was not irresistible; henc
that steady march across the field with
out check at the beginning Of the gam
Indicates that the badgers did not pu
forth their full strength.
In other words, Wisconsin did not sho'
her best defense until it was too late
The contest at Chicago cannot be take
as an illustration Of the relative merit
of attack and defense, for Michiga
proved quite as strong as Wisconsin !
the latter respect, while her offense wa
200 per cent stronger.
: Reduce Points for Field Goal.
The old question Of reducing the point
scored by a field goal was brought VI
though not so forcibly as on previous OF
casions, by the Princeton Cornell gam
in which the only scores were made (
two goals from the field, Princeton ge
ting both. It is generally admitted thu
1t is usually harder to push the ball acro
for touchdown by rushing than to drc
a goal or kick one from placement. I'll
a. first achievement requires more tea
work. more strategy, more general abb
4ty. It means that the offensive streng
of the team scoring the touchdown
greater than the defensive ability of II
eleven scored against. On the 9th
hand, a field goal is due principally to tt
skill Of one player. Scarcely a game
played in which the losing team does n
at some time get within thirty-fve var,
or less Of it's opponents goal line and
that distance drop-or place-kicker
even moderate ability may send the ov
over the goal posts. In short, team c.
often score by field goal where it h
no chance to make touchdown.
Results Of Games Affected.
a Instances where field goal affects Il
result Of game, while not common, q
Of frequent enough occurrence to bril-
KAMA IN ~ IN a n