The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-11-22
SUPERIOR LINE PLAY
Big AID TO HARVARD
Forwards 0utplay Blue Clad
Rivals Completely on
Offensive.
TALBOT A HERO IN DEFEAT
n, WILLIAM u. HANNA.


ra,ped nv rushing to-day Harvard made
~ wards to Yale's log. Harvard gained
10. In the se.mnd haS and Yale Sc.
moving that Yale pla red vs.ter IN the
.sc,nd half than in the first. Harvard
-,elcd on i6 first downs by rushing. IL
b, the first half. Yale made only 5,
1 In the second half.
Harvard wasn't Yale's equal in ground
s,incd By forward passes, but did make
deadly use of several. particularly those
over the goal line. Mahan threw his
passes low and with accuracy. fale's
forward pass gains were So yards. Har-
Yards 81. In the punting line Mahan
nd slightly better than Legore. because
he was more consistent. No great skin
vas shown by either in placing punts.
with Lcgore the better In this detail.
Hsrvard's punts In the first half averaged
4 wards. Yales 3s Harvard's punts In
Inc second half averaged 81 yards, Yale's
o. A blocked kick cut down Yale's
.yerage. The art OF running back puhts
so,irished extensively. Harvard ran them
b,cI< for a total OF us yards Yale for
total OF 1917 Here was a particular IN
zhch Yale excelled In yards reeled Off.
tod. In the main. by both teams.
! Aside from tactics and team play, tho
answer as to which side was superior In
Individual playing is pretty plain when
one side makes 81 points and the other
none Harvard was Yale's superior in
nearly every position. The Harvard back
acid was better than the Yale backheld.
and the line in a class much above Yaie's.
Nahan's superb running from kick for
nation and bringing back punts and his
forward passing made him scintillant
luminary. He had a tendency TO tumble
when tackled hard, but was chain light
ming In recovering.
BradIee Hits Line Hard.
gradlee was powerful agent in Dor
ing the line and in backing up his own.
Francke did good defensive work, was
good for some short gains, but wasn't
the equal of his associates. Logan ran
his team with his usual excellent tudg-
ment and seldom erred In picking out
the play to use.
The backs OF both teams kept their
feet exceptionally well. Legore was the
most conspicuous man In the Yale back
ie.d lie made mistakes and he also
made stirring plays. Not quite as sure
N his work as Mahan. he nevertheless
I'D a variety of stellar work and was
conspicuous in the Yale passing. The
sure ndHutu IlpplIS Va pdsSt' ~ 10"
men was always pretty. although not al
vsvs good for gain
ya!e's ends weren't good as Har-
Yards by a good deal. They were slower
getting down the field. Were more easily
blocN,d of and were often boxed in line
plays St.lman. with his lame ankle, was
Of little usa 10 Yale and retired early
IN favor Of Carter. The latter was big
Improvement and guarded his end OF tho
line better than either Stillman or Brann.
He was much keerer at diagnosing Har-
wards sleIght OF hand in putting the ball
IN play and Machlavellian covering up OF
The intent.
talbot Hest Man In Vale LINE.
r Coolidge and c. Coolidge were both
worthy mates OF the capable Hardwick,
who. however. was the best end of the
whole lot and standing out more promi-
nenty by his running with the ball. Capt
Taboo played the best OF the Yale line
men and few more OF his calihre would
have strengthened the Yale line vastly.
Talbot followed the plays sharply and
made innumerahle tackles. He was lie
surest tackle on the Yale side, and there
weren't many who were sure. The Val"
tackles COPIED with the Harvard tackles
better than the Yale ends did with the
Harvard ends. Much of HarVard's gain
ing on tackle was because the Yale ends
We're put out OF play so often and We're
~ little help to the tackles.
Harvard was stronger in the centre OF
he line than Yale, this applying more 10
The way the Crimson centre men helped
when on the offence than to defensive
playing by the rival centre trios. The
Harvard middle men did more on offence
and the well drilled, intelligent way in
which the whole Harvard line of individ-
ual parts lifted together for a proficient
whole was n telling factor In Harvard's
game.
The clean tacklng Of Harvard as OPP
ncs<-d 10 the erratc tackling of Yale was
ono fundan5 ntal in which Harvard sur
passed the Ellis, and another was a great
deal better following OF the ball. These
Two fundamentals mad their effect. Fine
.H'crferenc~ helped greatly to make the
Inward plays go. Added We're eleven In
IrIdpls, each smart and efficient and
o"l-r dting beautifully In attack to ac-
'omi'ish the finished team play which
Haugh'on insists ON and obtains. Har-
Nt.ds strength emphasized Yales all sea-
'on weakness In defence. and the best the
Ellis could DO was to play hard while be-
.7g empowered.