Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-11-05
NJ. A. c. FAILS AGAIN
st. Johns Wins Once More
From Farmers, q too.
POOR TACKLING THE CAUSE
Aggies' Weak Defensive Work Al.
lows Annapolis Backs to
Gain at Will.
BY II. C. BYRD.

The eleven representing the Maryland
Agricultural College failed to break the
string of defeats charged up to 1t as
a result of its meeting with st. Johns
College team during the last five years
in it's game with that school yester-
day. and again went down before
that aggregation by the score of p to o..
The result was entirely unexpected, be-
cause, while it was realized that the
chances favored the Annapolis eleven, it
was the general opinion that close, well
| fought game would be the result of the
| NEE ting.
Whatever hopes the Farmers con-
| tingent had of winning before the con-
| test, they were entirely dissipated after
few minutes of play. it being evident
after the first kickoff that st. Johns
had the better eleven. St. Johns did
not appear to have advantage in weight,
but showed it's superiority in the general
style Of its offense and team work.
two or three minutes before the close
of the first, when the NJ A. c. team
played in form that would have given
1T chance to win.
The Farmers. because Of injuries to
several of their best men, were greatly
full strength. Three of the regulars
were absent from the lineup when the
game started, and the Places which
were filled by substitutes, were the weak
spots through which the majority of the
gains were made by st. Johns. An eleven
such as M. A. c. generally puts in the
field is more than handicapped when
1t has to play without it's regular line
up. because of the lack of capable SUBJ
stitutes.
st. Johns won the toss and chose the
kickoff. NJ. A. C. received the ball and
failed to gain in two rushes. Shipley
kicked to Clayton, and the st. Johns
halfback brought the ball back 10 yards
before he was downed. The ball was ST.
Johns in the middle of the field, and it
was then that that eleven began to show
| its superior strength. 1t steadily carried
the ball without faltering to NJ. A. C.'s
! 5-yard line, where the Farmers held
| for downs Shipley punted on the first
| line up to st. Johns 40-yard line. and
| from there the Annapolis team began an
other steady march toward the Farmers
| was carried over without much trouble.
Wilson made the touchdown, and Mellon
| missed the try for goal. 1t was not long
after NJ. A. C. received the @ick-off be-
| fore another tally was registered against
| 1t. After running the ball back 70
yards. Shipley showed poor judgmen,
| in his choice of plays, and tried for
ward pass inside his own 3O-yard
| line. The play was too risky, and II
proved so when st. Johns man grab
| bed the ball and ran 10 yards with It
| before being tackled. st. Johns scored
another touchdown within less than two
minutes after that, the ball being taken
across in four plays.
! There were two men who stood out on
the Aggies' team, and their brilliant IN
dividual work stood out above any OF the
other players on the College Park eleven.
Shipley and Kemp both showed some
great foot ball during the progress OF the
game. They were the only two men wEo
tackled as they should and the only ones
who seemed to have that aggressive spirit
which characterizes winning loot paii
teams. The other men on the Farmers
eleven managed to get in some good indl-
lvidual work during the afternoon, but
there was a lack of concerted action In
their play which precluded any posi-
bility Of them winning.
| 1t would be hard to pick the Individual
star of the ST. Johns team. Every man
played the lot that was assigned to him
and played it well. Clayton. who did the
kicking for the st. Johns team, out
punted Shipley by yards, and at the same
time was the main ground gamer for his
| eleven.
There were few times when the lanky
halfback failed to reel off few yards
when given the ball on the off-tackle play,
CARING play for years. Melville. at
quarter; Wilson and Mellon in the back
field and both of St. Johns ends got in
| some excellent work at different times
during the game.
Individually, it is doubtful if the st.
Johns eleven was much the superior of
the NJ. A. c. team. with the exception of
| two of the halfback positions. The
Farmers gave evidence of much potential
strength. which will probably be shown
more fully as soon as it gets its regular
men In the lineup. AS far as team work
! was concerned, the M. A. c. aggregation
did not compare with st. Johns. The
| Annapolis lads were better drilled and
| showed more versatility and q wider
| knowledge of the game.
| The lineup and summary: