University Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1908-1916, 1912-10-10
VICTORY BROUGHT
TIGERS NO PRAISE
Brewer Says Their Playing
Against Freshmen Yester-
day Was Very Ragged.
THE SCORE WAS 1910 @
Changes in Lineup Threat
ened After the Contest
First Year Men Fighters.


C. L. Brewer characterized the fresh
Varsity game yesterday, in which
the freshmen held the Varsity IS to 0.
Professor Brewer was speaking of the
Tigers work. not the freshmen.
Professor Brewer had promised the
rooters that if they went to the fresh
man game they would see the lineup
that probably would start the Ames
game October 10. He has changed his
mind, however, since yesterdays
game, and says that very different
lineup will work in the Ames game
if there is not a lot of improvement.
The freshmen played a remarkably
good game compared with their exhi-
bition last Saturday in which they
were defeated 80 to 0. Manning, left
half back for the freshmen, was very
effective in running with the ball and
easily had the best of the punting ar
gument. Moore, half back and cap
tain, was another freshman star.
knObel Played Good Game.
Rotten is not the term by any
means that could be applied to KnO-
bel, the Tigers mainstay in the back
field. He probably gained more
ground than all the rest of. the back
field. He made three touchdown. the
only scores made in the whole game.
Almost every other play was dolby"
through the line for substantial
gain. The majority of his gains were
for more than twenty yards. RIOTERS
are predicting that he will land
place on the all Missouri Valley team
if he keeps up his good work.
The Tigers showed very plainly
that they were weak in the kicking
department, not so much in punting
as in place and drop kicking. Shep-
ard was given a trial at place kick
ing yesterday in place of Thatcher,
who doesn't seem to be able to get
the ball over the bar. Shepard failed
in all three attempts at goals after
touchdowns. Turley made two at
tempts to drop kick, both from about
the thirty yard line, and failed in
both. The wind which blew across
the field may have had something to
do with the poor showing.
Shepard Did Well, Too.
Shepard went we'll in the backfield,
providing the only real thriller of the
game when he ran 80 yards on the !,
kickoff and was downed so close to
the goal that it was an easy matter
to put the ball over for touchdown
in two downs. He punted in his usual
form, which means that he was hard
to beat.
The freshmen started the game as
if they meant business. After kick
ing to the Varsity, they held them in
the center of the field. The Varsity
kicked and later recovered the ball
and pushed it down to the one-yard
line. 1t looked like an easy touch
down, but the freshmen were there
with the holding quality and the
Varsity lost the ball. The rest of the
first half was all in favor of the
Tigers and they scored at will.
The second half was somewhat of
a victory for the freshmen. for they
held the Varsity scoreless. They
threatened to score when Moore re-
covered tumble and ran to the
Tigers forty yard line. A forward
pass by the freshmen was successful
but a second was not and the Tigers
had the ball again. The reason why
the Varsity did not score in the sec
ond half was due probably to the fact
that they tried a great deal of open
work. Knobel was taken out in the
fourth quarter, and replaced by
Dunkel.
Forward Pass Didn't Work.
Both teams showed poorly when
they attempted to use the forward
pass. Only three successful passes
were made by both sides out of about
tried. The only time that
the freshmen made their downs was
on a play that should have been
forward pass. but which turned into
a half back run around left end
Lake and Turley alternated at
quarter. Turley is better kicker
than Lake but otherwise there isn't
much to chose between them. McWil-
liams is not recovering from his in
Jury as fast as it was expected and
It may lie between Lake and Turley
as to the who works in the first few
games. Everyone seems to think that