The New York herald., 1921-11-27

day were not. Yet we saw stirring
flights and hard line splitting and sud-
den bolts from a struggling mass into
the open in engaging frequency.
French, Smythe and Wood Of the Army,
Barchet, q streak of a little man at
shooting the ends and running back
kicks Conroy and Koehler of the Navy
ribboned the field.
The Navy gained twice as much
ground as the Army along the ground !;
the Army outkicked the Navy by mar
gin seldom attained in football games.
The figures printed elsewhere tell their
own tale. More than three weeks drill
ing is needed to perfect shift; the
Navy's better interference on slanting
plays and better individual line work
were points at which the Navy has ex-
celled all season.
Navy's Firm Foundation.
The Navy's superiority. in brief. was
built on a firm foundation. Yet the
acting" of the Annapolis back who
faxed forward pass was poorly done.
1t lacked guile and conviction and fooled
the Army scarcely at ALL What the two
teams had in forward passing vas far
from first class and was Intellectual. Not
much of game in that respect.
The Army was alert, the Navy bold.
The Navy wasn't afraid to throw for
wards, incpt though these were, in its
own side Of the field, caring nothing for
that zone play" bugaboo. The Army
was cocky and not to be beaten by the
Navy's reputation. There was sign at
West Point last week announcing Three
to two" as the betting odds on the Navy.
ITO hell with oddsv' exclaimed the
cadets.
The Army back field, with not as much
natural speed as the Navy's, nevertheless
played better than ever before and did
not have as good a line to help it as did
the midshipmen. Smythe ran his team
we'll but hasn't the fire of Conroy of the
Navy. The latter missed a chance in the
last few seconds of the first half by not
calling for a field goal instead of trying
| to rush.
But he has had snap and 60, and the
four Navy backs represented more USE
| full units to carry the ball than did their
Army friends. AS a forward passer
French did nothing: as O runner he ran
| fast and lodged well. He was good at
| changing direction. He almost beat the
| Navy with his long run in the fourth
period. He did heroically on defence
too. and the Army backs had a lot OF
backing up to do.
Barchet a Great End.
Barchet, the compact little Navy man,
was again one of the seasons best end
runners. He followed interference clev-
| erly and went low. He was hard to
hold and hard to reach. The only thing
| he didn't do well was to kick, but he
was the most effective back on the field
| IL not the most dangerous potentially.
10 fra of ha lin
held their own with their capable An
napolis rivals better than did the other
West Point linemen. Yet Goodman and
Garbisch weren't as consistent on de-
fence as Frawley and Carney. The
Navy guards were better as a pair. for
the whole right side of the Army line
was weak In the first half of the game.
The Navy pair opened holes better, as
I saw It, and there was good display
by both centres, Larsen. always first
class, being the better passer of the two.
Parr at left end for the Navy played
a corking game. and on offence handled
his opposite much to the latter's discom-
future. A first class end this man, and
with him to attend to a tackle and a
back to take out the Army right end.
the West Point right flank couldn't cope
with the Navy attack when coping was
most needed.
Taylor, the other Navy end, travelled
right along with his mate, and 1t was
he who, when the Army was pounding
at the door for touchdown near the
curtain whistle OF the last period
flashed in and threw the Army runner
for a loss. A tackle of the utmost bear
ing on the outcome that one.
Parr had valuable cooperation from
Wiedorn in making the Navy's plays
go. and the tackling and down the
field playing Of King were good from
first to last. There are few tackles
whose playing Is as uniformly good as
this Kings. The Navy had n line OF
more even strength and activity than
the Army's, and in due time the Army q
shift was loosened and to that extent
rendered less effective.
The Army was far better in the sec
ond half than in the first in almost
every respect. but when the Navy was
heading for a touchdown the Army q
secondary defence was handicapped by
Its lines inability to dig in and
open up the Navy formations.