The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1914-11-16
Sporting Neus
SOME RESULTS ON
FOOTBALL FIELDS
How Predictions Came out-Many
Brattleboro Enthusiasts at Amherst
Williams Had Hard Time.

Having had the temerity to make pre-
dictlons on the outcome of football games
Saturday, and having had the privilege
OF witnessing one of them, we don't mind
saying that considering the off year for
predictions we came out of it pretty we'll
The Reformer predicted that Princeton
could hardly hope to develop punch
enough to beat Yale Princeton did not.
But the Tigers produced enough to scare
Hnkey into rushing his regulars into the
game in the last period to stave off de-
feat. Under the stimulus of the christen-
ing of the Tigers new stadium the
Orange and Black, in the last desperate
rally, crossed the Yale line twice in the
last period. but it was against an almost
substitute Yale team. An analysis of the
team work shows that Yale made II
first downs to II by the Tigers and
gained 29S yards by rushing to 145 for
Princeton. Seven forward passes for Yale
gained 60 yards, Princeton tried 10 and
did. not gain yard Yale averaged
gain 3of four yards on chAexchange of
punts. aa
Brattleboro enthusiasts were especially
interested in the Williams Amherst
game, and a large number of Amherst en-
! thusiasts were present from this town
4The Reformer predicted that Williams
ought to have an easy time in defeating
Amherst In this the prediction was
wrong Williams had all kinds of hard
time to win, but Williams was the better
team and won through ability to take ad-
Vantage of mistakes on the part of the
/ opposing team and in turn was scored on
through mistake of Williams star man,
Toolan, who fumbled after being tackled.
The Reformer predicted that there was
enough difference in the teams to allow
| Williams to win by at least seven points.
As a matter of fact Williams won by
eight. Amherst had been coached to put
Toolan out of the play and Amherst sue
cessfully followed the teaching of the
coaches
! Amherst had developed Tow, who was
the bright particular star of the Amherst
attack. Criticism was made of his gen
eralship because of his continued use of
the forward pass in desperate efforts to
score In general he used that play only
after other forms of attack had been re
peatedly smothered by Williams That
more of the Amherst passes We're not
successful was due to the defense of the
well coached Williams team against this
form of attack. Williams's two touch
downs We're due to Williams men being
on the job to pick up an Amherst tumble
and to intercept an Amherst forward
pass and after these were made Williams
payed a defensive game, the punting OF
lLels being a sufficient margin to hold all
territory gained He repeatedly out
kicked his Amherst opponents and the
Amherst backfeld failed to realize the
length of his punts.
While Amherst bottled up Toolan they
failed to stop Eels. either in his puntine
or in breaking through the line and vii
liams must charge the score against hel
primarily to a tumble by Toolan and sec
ondly to not reckoning with the ability o
the lightest man on either team. Tow
to whom Amherst must accord the great
est credit for the showing made against
superior team.
: The Harvard Brown game, which re
suited in a scoreless tie. failed by dozei
! points to meet the prediction of the Re
+ former The Reformer expected tina
+ Harvard would play substitutes for tn
, most part. As a matter of fact Harvard
played / second and third string mel
: until after the fourth quarter started, am
even then only three first string mel
were sent into the lineup, yet Brown wa
unable to score. From accounts of til
game it would appear, without chargin
: too much to prejudice, that Harvar
should have scored. There appears to b
? no reason to figure out that Brown ough
| to have crossed the Harvard goal line.
The worst fall-down on the part Q
! The Reformer predictions was in relatio
to the Dartmouth-Pennsylvani game
: Dartmouth was styled a powerful team
: but The Reformer did not consider
L sufficiently powerful to score Al point
!, while the team that once claimed a stanC
ing on the same plane with Harvard an
Yale was unable to score a point.
> Colgate developed better football {
: Syracuse failed to develop such effecty
football, as past performances of the tw
n teams appeared to indicate should be til
case The result was that instead
e O'Nei's pupils having "a slight edge o
), Colgate" the teams were about even u
. and neither was able to score.
= Considering the outcome of the predi
- lions a chance win be taken next Frida
bearing in mind the fact that neith'
, Harvard nor Yale showed its real strengt
/ in the games Saturday, on predicting tt
4 outcome of the Harvard-Yale game ne,
Saturday.