EVERTON'S CUP TIE OPPONENTS.
February 1 1924. The Daily Courier.
BRIGHTON'S PLAYERS AND PERFORMANCES.
The Brighton players, who are going through just light exercise each day, will in no way discuss their prospects against Everton on Saturday. They told me candidly they wish to forget all about the match until it actually begins, and then they say their best, which they hope will be good enough for them to qualify for the third round. Mr. Webb, the manager, like his players, could not be drawn to make a statement. To my question of what he though of Brighton's chances her replied, "I never prophesy." Players and officials alike have enjoyed some glorious walks on the famous Brighton Downs, while part of the time has been spent on the sea front. All the players are fit.
The team has not yet been selected, but it can be taken for granted that no changes will be made from the side, which opposed Barnsley in both games without being a goal. The best performance at home was undoubtedly the victory over Swansea Town, by 4-1, while on other occasions Aberdare and Bournemouth were beaten by five clear goals. I witnessed Brighton overthrow Barnsley in the replayed Cup-tie at Brighton, but the only credit I can give them is that they were just a wee bit the better of two very poor teams. All the same, I am told by a colleague that in most of their home games the Brighton players have been irresistible. That may be so, but against the Yorkshire men their football was crude in the extreme. There was not an atom of understanding with the forwards, and the defence struck me as being not only uncertain in tackling, but lacking in method. A repetition of that form, and Everton will have an easy passage into the this round. Still, I know some of the Brighton players to be capable footballers, and Everton chief difficulty will be to cope with Brighton's speed and dash, while on his day every one of the Brighton's forwards can be opportunist. Hayes is a reliable goalkeeper who is not inclined to do daring things.
AN OLD BLUE.
Thompson, the right back, will of course, be recognised, as the old Everton player. He has improved since going South. Jenkins, his partner, did good work for Pontypridd before joining Brighton. McAllister who until this season was regarded as an inside forward, was also secured from Wales, having played previously for Ebbo Vale. He has developed into quite a serviceable right half back. George Coomber, the captain, who has been at Brighton about six playing seasons, is a local. He has the right physique for the position of pivot, standing 5ft 9 and half inches, and weighing almost 13 st. Little learned his football, in London, and is a strong bustling type of defender. Against Barnsley he was outstanding player of the match. Nightingale, the outside right, is very fast, and knows the value of a good square centre. Neil, the inside right, is undoubtedly the cleverest player in the team. Coming to Brighton from the Sterenston United team in Scotland, he possesses fine ball control, passes and dribbles effectively, and is quite a good shot. Cook, who plays cricket for Sussex, will lead the attack. He is a local man, who has developed quickly. Dash is the strongest feature of his play, though he distributes his passes cleverly. Hopkins went to Brighton from the Arsenal, and has proved to be just the right partner for Wilson, who like Nightingale the other wings, is fast with a good control over the ball.
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 02 February 1924
One of the most noted penalty experts in the land is the ex-Rossendaie United inside left, Wilfred Chadwick, but he spoilt his reputation with Everton last week when he missed from the penalty spot at Middlesbrough. Had he scored the Borough would have been two goals in arrears, and would have had ten players—Freeman had left the field —to make up the deficiency. 'Nuff 'sed.
Jack Cock has got eight goals for Everton in League football this season and all have been orphans.
MY FOOTBALL CAREER
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 02 February 1924
A Further Discussion of the Ins and Outs of Offside
By Jack Cock
Last week I gave my remedy for the present epidemic of offside in football, and now I wish to point to several phrases of this controversy which are always worthy of thought. Nine times out of ten it is the poor forwards that come in for all the blame when they are pulled up for offside. They are yelled at because they do not keep behind the ball or make certain that there are three opponents between themselves and the opposition goal. I’ll share the blame equally with others. I gave forwards a full 50 per cent., but I allocate the other 50 per cent, to the half-backs behind those forwards. Just think for a moment from where and from whom a forward receives the ball most. From his half-backs! Now there are times when the opposition are positively running down the field in the opposite direction to that in which the forwards wish to advance. The opposition ignores the ball. That doesn’t worry them at all. All they wish to do is to leave an opposing forward or two in an offside position, and up go their hands in an appeal as soon as the half-back passes the ball. O pointed out last week how forwards cannot always be sprinting up and down the field, and especially at the dictates of offside defenders, but I did not point out how great is the responsibility of half-backs in beating this sort of manceuvring. The half-backs (behind the offside forwards), more often than not hold the key to the situation, but nine times out of ten they will not use the key. The kep simply tells them to take up the role of a forward. Instead of putting the usual pass into operation their part is to hold on to the ball and make an individual run through an opposition which is not expecting such a contretemps. Such an individual run can be maintained until such time as the half has carried the ball past his forwards, and then, if he thinks it will be an advantage, he can allow the forwards, who are then onside, to carry on the attack. The forwards are blamed, blamed when they have to cover the most ground and to keep their eye on a ball which flits back and forth, blamed when they are expected to twist and turn – and all the time keeps their eyes glued on the opposing full back. The offside game is most often played against a side which holds the whip hand, and which is constantly attacking. Under such conditions the attacking half-backs, have the time to watch the positions taken up by the opposition –and the positions of their own colleagues. That is the vital point. The half-back who places the ball to an offside colleague is, in my way of thinking, as much if not more to blame than the man who held the offside position, simply because he has had a better chance of grasping the exact plan of affairs. That is one phase of the game I wished to discuss. There is another. I strongly object to the way a defence can “line-up” the other side from a free kick. I think this is all against the true conception of sportsmanship. It is a direct method, and allowed by the rules, be it noted, of annulling a punishment. It is a travesty of football justice.
When a side is given a free kick for an infringement of the laws – for hacking, kicking, tripping, handling, or dangerous play –why should the punishment inflicted be made negligible by the guiles of a defence?
Another Rule Alteration.
I would have the rules so latered as to make offside inoperative from a free kick for any of the infringements I have mentioned above. I would let a free kick be taken in such a way that the full advantage of it shall be gained. I would not have any forward thrown offside from a free kick. Were the rules so altered in this respect I think we should have far more goals scored, and far less rough play, and that is one of the aims our football authorities have been striving to attain for years. But I would not allow a free kick for an offside infringement to come under this category. No, the club which believes in the offside game ought to respect it when it is operated by the other side. If a free kick is granted for an offside infringement then I would allow the other side to continue the “line up” method of defence, unless, of course my suggestion for amending the off-side rule, as given a week ago, were adopted.
There is yet another phase of this offside question which requires phase of the offside question which requires consideration. I am never one to harp on the failings of the referees, but I do think that officials do not give suffiecent thought to “the position of the player when the ball is last played.” One of the big ideas in training players nowadays is to bring them into such a condition
That they will be fast and speedy on the field, yet this very thing is largely being discounted because referees will not recognize the position from which a player started when the ball was last played. I have, on countless occasions, been given offside because I have got away from an offside position simultaneously with the ball being last played. In other words, I have seen the pass coming or the more coming, and have taken time –and speed –by the forelock. And all to no purpose!
Simply because the referee has not noted the spot from where I started I am whistled offside. My speed or quickness in getting away, counts for naught. It is more than neutralized by an official who has not been able to interpret the true positions of the play and players. Nor am I alone in making such a complaint. There are many exceptionally fast wing players who are pulled up time after time, not because they have moved quicker than the official in charge. Of course, there is only one remedy, and that is for a general speeding up all round of referees. I am the last man in thew world to hold the pistol of criticism at the heads of referees, for I realise full well that theirs is a thankless job at the best of times, and that were we to have a referee capable of intercepting every bit of football play correctly he would perhaps only satisfy 50 per cent of the onlookers. But referees generally are lax in respect of this one interpretation I have mentioned. A little study and improvement would be welcomed.
BRIGHTON SURPRISE EVERTON.
Sunday Post - Sunday 03 February 1924
The shattering of the brilliant Everton combination by the Third Leaguers at Brighton was one of the biggest surprises of the round, but none would deny that it was deserved. Everton maintained a close game, but the home team swung the ball from wing to wing with great preci sion. ‘M’Donald and Livingstone did not show up well, but Neil M‘Bain was a masterly figure in midfield. His initiation of forward movements was the work of aft artiste, but his wing halfs were very weak. Hart, Everton’s captain, was unable to play, and Chedgzoy, England’s outside right, was limping in the second half. Troup was faced by M‘Allister, and the meeting of the two Caledonian wizards resulted in honours being oven. No forward, however, excelled Neil, Brighton’s inside right. In seven minutes Thompson, facing the sun, misjudged a centre from Chedgzoy, and Cock drove the ball past Hayes. Jimmy Cook, one of the most dangerous centres in England, burst through, and although Harland saved the shot the ball rolled over the line. Chadwick again gave the Liverpool men the lead after twenty minutes. A successful penalty by Little equalised the score. In the second half the Brighton men scored thrice. Neil crowned a great display by scoring the fifth goal. Result; —Brighton, 5; Everton, 2.
BRIGHTON HOVE ABLION 5 EVERTON 2
February 4 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
WHY EVERTON LOST
VICTIMS OF UNCERTAINTY AT BRIGHTON.
Though the English Cup records for Saturday will go to history showing Brighton and Hove Albion beating Everton 5-2. In my estimation the match will always go to memory as the game wherein Everton beat themselves. They bore no sort of confidence prior to the game, though a force of circumstances over which they had little control, and on the field of play they had to engage with a smart, swift moving side, and had only ten men to do the work. Eleven men should always bent ten, and while in no way decrying Brighton's victory, which was complete and unbeatable, it is necessary to draw a moral from the way Everton went to their defeat. Let it be understood that from the start there was a doubt about Chedgzoy and Hart –two members of the side, and sub captain and captain respectably. It can be argued that there were reserves present in Parry and Peacock, but I am more concerned with the fact that two known artists were doubtful starters. From Friday morning until the start of the match there was this doubt lurking around the team. They hoped one or the other man might play they believed one or the other would play. Hart definitely cut fear and feeling by saying he could not play, but Chedgzoy, anxious to help, went to the ground tried his leg, and kicked without undue pain to a very bad injury to9 the thigh. Perhaps the directors innocently pressed Chedgzoy to service, in the belief that they would be bringing some confidence to the other members of the side. If they did, they did a disserves, because, from the moment that Chedgzoy left the dressing room, it was plain he could not run, and the team would have to carry a virtual passenger. Chedgzoy was not to blame. The directors had delayed their selection too late, and it would have been better for the peace of mind of all concerned had they definitely fixed their team first thing on Saturday morning. As it was, there was a nervous feeling perseating everybody, and this showed itself in the process of play.
THE BETTER SIDE.
But there were other reasons for Everton losing to Brighton. They met a far better side on the day's play, and, though Everton led them twice, it can be truthfully stated that never for a moment were Everton travelling smoothly, and they led twice simply and solely through their only two shots, to that point, finding a home at the back of the net. It was an extraordinary game, as well as an extraordinary result. Cock scored in seven minutes, though a back faltering to take Chedgzoy's easy lob centre. It has been said that the side that gets its blow in first is the winner of half the battle. Cook. The circketer, a twenty three year old, who was purely a local player until a few months ago, when he left Cuckfield, Scored through Harland only half carrying a ball that he might have got to a second time but for falling awkwardly. It seemed a blunder by Harland, and it made the Everton players more unsettled than ever. Then came Chadwick's fine drive, to take the lead afresh, but a penalty kick goal, much debuted by McBain and company, let Brighton go off the field with honours even. I question very much whether the foul against McDonald which led to the penalty incident, was a genuine one, and the poignant feature of the penalty declaration was that first the referee, on the immediate spot, decided for the game to be played on. Then Brighton claimed for something, and the linesman placed the ball for a corner kick. Brighton pressed their claim, and the referee consulted one linesman –the man who had placed the ball for the corner kick –and ordered a penalty kick.
In the second half play had not gone many moments before Hopkins shot, and Harland and Cook completed a goal that should never have come. All along Brighton had enjoyed the majority of the attack, and the turn of events was not surprising to the onlookers, because in the second half Everton were just as insipid at half-back as at the early part of the game. The placing of Coomber was admirable and Nightingale and Wilson, the latter in particular, had many yards in which to work. That was where the fault lay –the wingers were left too open, there was lack of co-operations, and at half backs, where Everton had been strongest all through the same they became weakest Even McBain did not find his true game till late, when all was beyond redemption. Brown offered Wilson too much room, and Peacock, on a strange wing, was not able to cope with Nightingale. It would be right to say that none of the losers did himself full justice, yet that would hardly be fair to the backs, McDonald playing a splendidly sturdy game, and showing an intervening power that broke up many an attack. McDonald was excellent, and Livingstone was close on the heels. With the half-back line out of touch with normal positions and play, the forwards had to do all their own grafting, and Cock, at centre, made many fine runs, perhaps a trifle too individualistic, but nevertheless praise worthy. Troup, without being flash, was wise in his centre, but did not get sufficient work, and Chadwick was "pressing" all the time to win the game on his own. The right wing was naturally, out of balance. Chedgzoy had to leave the field twice, and Irvine felt the loss of his partner. So much for Everton. They would have been beaten by worse teams than Brighton on such a day's exhibition. It was lamentable football, without the slightest show of the team ever becoming astride their game. Even so, one must give Brighton credit for their sterling, rousing football. They played good sensible football. Each was for the other, and strictly speaking the score should have been heavier, and would have been but for the fine saves by Harland, and a trifle of excitement in front of goal. Brighton's best were Wilson, at outside left, Nightingale, in the second half, at outside right, and Coomber, at centre half, together with the snap-chance artist Cook, the Sussex cricheter. Cook did not stand out on his own in spite of his three goals. He just kept his position, kept the ball going, and shot instantly the chance showed itself. That was why Brighton scored so heavily. Brighton thus for the second time in their long history, get into the third round. It was a record attendance for the ground, (25,570 Receipts £2,177), and it is the third successive year that Everton have been proved lacking in Cup quality –last year it was Bradford (P.A.); the year before Crystal Palace. Teams : - Brighton Hove Albion: - Hayes, goal, Thompson and Jenkins, backs, McAllister, Croomber (captain), and Little, half-backs, Nightingale, Neil, Cook, Hopkins, and Wilson, forwards. Everton: - Harland, goal, Livingstone and McDonald, backs, Brown McBain and Peacock, half-backs, Chedgzoy (captain), Irvine, Cock, Chadwick and Troup, forwards.
EVERTON RESERVES 1 MANCHESTER UNITED RESERVES 1
February 4, 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
CENTRAL LEAGUE (Game 28)
An exceptionally big crowd gathered at Goodison Park and witnessed a very mild encounter, a division of points providing a fitting result. Occasionally there were spells of brilliant football, but the combined efforts of both forward lines often lacked accuracy. The United quintette appeared the more penetrative, but when within range of goal the good work invariably petered out, and the Everton backs effected clearances. Forbes was the prima mover in most of the home attacks, with Williams a good trier, but the Everton vanguard were at fault. Play had only been in progress five minutes when Everton were awarded a penalty for a fouled on Wall. Williams took the kick, but Mew made a clever right hand save. Everton had slightly the better of the first half attacks, the brilliance of Mew and the sturdy defence of Barlow and Dennis preventing a score. Fern made some good clearances, but the United custodian was kept very busy, the nearest escapes being when Miller tried to twist the ball off the post, and a perfect header by Wall from Forbes centre. Smith scored for United close on the interval, and midway through an even second half Wall equalised.
SKELMERSDALE MISSION 1 EVERTON "A" 2
February 4, 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury.
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COMBINATION.
Skelmersdale were somewhat unlucky to lose, for though their visitors showed some good footwork at times, the Mission rectically had them penned in their own half for the first portion of the game. Lawson saved his side on many occasions and the Mission also missed chances. A breakaway near the interval enabled Swindell to score a capital goal for Everton, and the second half was well advanced when Cadwell gave Lloyd an easy chance of equalising. Swindlles, however, give his side the lead again. For the visitors McPerson and Houghton played a fine game whilst Cadwell made many good runs for the home side.
BURNLEY RES. V. EVERTON RES.
Lancashire Evening Post-Monday 04 February 1924
In this rearranged game at Turf Moor, to-day, Daweon appeared in order to test hit ankl, which he injured about three weeks ago. A trial was given by Burnley to Falck, a junior from Mirfield. teams; Burnley Reserve; Dawson; Fulton, Evans; Emerson, Sims, Robinson; Falck, Freeman, Sullivan, O'Beirne, and Waterfield. Everton Reserve; Fern; Raitt, Kerr; Rooney, Weller, Grenyer; Swindles, Miller, Wall, Williams, and Harland. Referee; Mr. H. Parkinson, (Manchester). Burnley had the wind to help them, and after good half-back play Fern saved a hard shot by O'Brirne, and also scooped the ball away from Sullivan following a header by Freeman. The visitors combined well, but Robinson intervened cleverly, with the result that sims started a raid on the left flank. O'Beirne was again forceful, but the ball cannoned off a defender for a fruitless corner. Everton pressed hard, Evans clearing almost on the goal line. When Sullivan got a good opening he finished weakly, through Weller had later to kick into touch to stop Burnley's forcing play. A hard back-pass by sims took Dawson by surprise. he only just managed to turn the ball round the post. The corner was cleared. when Fern scraped out a header by Sullivan, Burnley appealed that the ball had been over the line. The referee ruleld otherwise. half-time; Burnley Reserve 0, Everton Reserve nil.
BURNLEY RESERVE BEAT EVERTON RESERVE.
Lancashire Evening Post - Tuesday 05 February 1924
In a reranged Central League game at Turf Moor, yesterday, Burnley Reserves beat EvertonReserve 1-0 . The vistors inside forwards showed neat footwork, but their exxtreme wingers, Swindles and Harland, ths latter of whom was secured from Ireland as a goalkeeper, were held by the opposing defenders. fulton, a young right back from the Irish Intermediate League, played a smart game for Burnley, while the fine volleying of Evans, the Welsh international was a feature. Dawson, who reappeared in goal in order to test his ankle, waqs thus soundly covered, and the only time he was seriously troubled, was when a hard back pass came from Sims. It needed a full length save to turn the ball round the post. The home half-backs with Emerson and Robinson effective on the flanks, formed a dependable line, but poor finishing by Sullivan, a centre forward promoted from the "A" team, spoiled Burnley from gaining a good lead in the second half. When he did eventually score the ball entered the net after it rebounded against his foot from an Everton defender. O'Beirne and Freeman were forceful raiders, but Fern made several smart saves.
BURNLEY RESERVES 1 EVERTON RESERVES 0
February 5, 1924. The Daily Courier.
CENTRAL LEAGUE (Game 29)
Burnley defeat Everton in the rearranged game yesterday, by a lucky goal, which was scored midway through the second half. A centre from the right was missed by Burnley centre and the ball struck Raitt, the Everton back, and from him it bounded off Sullivan into the net. It was a pleasantly contested game, and Everton combined well but found Dawson very safe.
February 6, 1924. The Daily Courier.
DOUBT ABOUT CHEDGZOY AND HART.
Everton play their rearranged fixture with Preston North End today at Goodison Park (kick off 3 o'clock), but the directors will not definitely decide on the team to do duty until today. Both Chedgzoy and Hart ate however, doubtful. It should be a good game, for Everton will try to a tone for the disaster at Brighton on Saturday whilst Preston North End, who have a strong side out, will strove desperately to average their Cup defeat and at the same time improve their League position. Marshall accompanies the team and will play if McCall is unfit, but the English International is expected to lead the side. Prout is again preferred to Branston in goal, and at outside right Rawlings returns in place of Quantrill, who recent displays have been unsatisfactory.
EVERTON 1 PRESTON NORTH END 1
February 7, 1924. The Daily Courier.
PRESTON PICK UP A POINT.
CLEVER DISPLAY AGAINST EVERTON.
Preston North End, at Goodison Park yesterday, captured a very valuable point, but they have only themselves to blame that they did not get two. For fully two-thirds of the game they were the dominant side, and with better finishing touches would have decided the issue before the interval. Only in the last half-hour, after Everton had secured the equalising goal, did the homesters get the upper hand. As the play ran afterwards the visitors were in a sense lucky to escape defeat. Preston opened the game at a great pace, their open passing often having the home defence in a tangle, whilst their halves kept a tight grip on the Everton forwards, who were never allowed to get a straight shot at goal. The mainspring of the Preston attacks was almost invariably McCall, the veteran revelling in the heavy going, and the perfectly timed passes to Harrison and Rawlings kept the Everton defenders on tenterhooks. Harrison was the live wire of forward line, and from his centries both Roberts and Ferris had glorious openings. Everton were never really in the picture until a long shot from McBain caused Prout tom handle, whilst a minute later the home goal had a narrow escape, for Harland, coming out to clear a centre from Harrison, lost the ball, and Marquis was presented with a shot at an empty goal, but put high over the bar.
Harland later had to go full length to save a strong low drive from McCall, but the veteran had his reward a minute off the interval, for a beautiful forward pass by him to Marquis, saw the latter veer to the left and score with a drive from eighteen yards range. The Preston forwards opened the second half with dash; but the defence seemed inclined to be shaky, and a delayed clearance by Hamilton nearly cost his side dearly, for Chadwick almost got through. A quarter of an hour had gone before the equaliser came, and there appeared to me to be a slice of luck for the homesters in it, for it was only the ball rebounding off Hamilton's head that placed Cock onside. Still it was a good goal; for once the centre-forward gained possession he made no mistake with his final effort, which bore a marked resemblance to that of Marquis in the first half.
MIGHT OF McCALL.
Everton were the superior side for the remainder of the game, and only some stout defence, notably by Hamilton and McCall, saved the situation for Preston, in which they were not helped by the over-robust tactics of Yates. Once however, Marquis worked the ball through, and a pass to Roberts would have made an almost certain goal, but he preferred to shoot, and his effort lacked sting. On the display they gave, the position of Preston North End is bad to explain. Perhaps it is McCall who makes all the difference in the team, for the veteran and Harrison were the outstanding figures on the field. The forward line, as a whole is bag and clever, and with some "devil" in their shooting would take some stopping. Hamilton was a great back, and Prout impressed as a goalkeeper. As a line the Everton forwards until the last half-hour were never a happy combination, but Cock led them well. McBain and Hart were the better of the halves, and Livingstone of the backs, for neither Brown nor McDonald could cope with the Ferris Harrison combination. Harland could not be blamed for the shot that beat him. Teams: - Everton: - Harland, goal, McDonald and Livingstone, backs, Brown McBain and Hart (captain), half-backs, Parry, Irvine, Cock, Chadwick, and Troup, forwards. Preston North End: - Pront, goal, Hamilton, and Yates backs, Mercer, McCall, and Crawford half-backs, Rawling, Marquis, Roberts, Ferris, and Harrison forwards.
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 09 February 1924
Everton had to take the field at Brighton without their Hunter Hart, who is the skipper of the side. They also lost all heart after the interval.
MY FOOTBALL CAREER
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 09 February 1924
TWO REFEREES A MATCH; ROUGH PLAY AND OTHER TOPICS.
By JACK COCK.
Last week I had occasion to mention the subject of refereeing, and pointed out one common error made by officials. This has brought to my mind the suggestion recently made that two referees should have control of the game, one official being in charge of play in one half of the field, and the other official in the other half. It would surely be an innovation were it ever to be tried, and I am not at all certain that the idea is not worth taking up. Players to-day do not, in general, hold referees in high respect. There are exceptions, of course, just as there are to most general observations. I don't say players have contempt for referees, but I do know that many of us do not look matches controlled by officials whose i ulings have been queer in our earlier experiences of them. Whether better refereeing would come about were an official to confine himself to play in one half is a matter for practical demonstration. It is' easy to argue that such a method is bound to cut by half the responsibilities of one official; it is also easy to argue, also, that it is easier for one man to do half a job than for him to have the whole job his hands. Rather jumbled up, but sound logic all the same.
Yet here's the rab.
To have two referees to each match means that double the number of referees would be required. lam not at all sure that there are enough competent referees to go round now, so what would the refereeing be like were the League suddenly to decide to find twice the number. It would mean that another fifty officials, who have not been considered good enough for the League list, would have to be brought on to the scene. Thus, we might get .good refereeing in one half, and—well, not quite so good in the other. On the other hand, may that were the League to add to their list they would discover some rough diamonds amongst the latest refereeing talent of the country. Perhaps the advantages from such a discovery would far outweigh any dangers and dissatisfactions which the two-refereesa-match system would bring in. I don't think there would be any real danger in giving the idea a trial month, say, in the practice games before the season proper opens. is only on the field that one could come to any real valuation of the merits and demerits the proposal. The two-referees plan admits of the human failings and virtues of two men. That must always remembered. Thus, we might get a strong man in one half of the field, and a man who won't take a grip of the game in the other. Here I refer to game in which rough play and frayed tempers are seen. We thus run into another of football's many vexing problems. While we all regret it, there is no earthly use in blinking our eyes at the fact that there are players in the game who will stoop to unfair tactics to stop opponent. Most men who do this sort of thing simply advertise the fact that they have not the full amount of talent required to keep pace with the League standard. Football Complicated Enough.
In other words, such players are incompetents. Some referees nave these players weighed up to a nicety, and they are seldom allowed to play their tricks for any length of time without finding that they are running the risk of being sent off the field. There are other referees who appear to have conscientious objection to speech-making, even if warning speech does consist of but half a dozen or so words. But it would be grotesque if we were to have a strong man in one half of the field and weakling in the other. The ankle-rapper would be like the man who is in and out of goal; he would feel— not literally—the preventive walls of the strong referee when he was in his sphere of operations, and the joys of freedom and lawlessness when he passed the line into the other half. I 'don't know that any system which does not allow of absolute uniformity will good for football, and absolute uniformity in thinking can never be guaranteed where two referees are concerned. One man's outlook is not that of another. For instance, there are referees who will allow professional players to give healthy shoulder charges as freely as they would allow famous amateur players to indulge in this healthy recreation. But there are other officials who wag their fingers at this sort of thing and tell us not to be naughty boys. It would never do to have two such referees on one field, or we would have a plaver charging the wrong half, and then telling the referee that he forgot—he thought he was in the other half. I do not wish to look cynical, but all these things have to be remembered and considered. To mind, football is quite complicated enough. We want progress in the direction where simplicity lies. It might simplify the referee's task by giving him half a field to watch over instead of a whole one, but would it simplify things for the players, who have to make a study of referees just much as of their opponents, the rules of the game, playing conditions, etc. Don't think that referees are passed over players as not important enough to consider. Most referees have their good points and their weak points, and most players who have been any time in football, are well aware of these things. is part their job to know them. It is the same with some linesmen. Some of them are dead nuts wagging their flag if a ball touches the line! The rule says something else, but that doesn't matter. There are other linesmen, I am convinced, who wag their flag for "foul throws" simply because the half-back has not" happened to take the throw. What can done with such matters these? Players have given permission to ask referees for explanations on rulings given games, and they have to this politely. I have not seen many instances of players asking for such explanations. What js the use? The player cannot argue; is debarred from pointing out any mistake a referee may have made. ask, and may ridicule private as much likes, but gains nothing, nor can hope to have decision altered asking. Players are philosophic enough—unless they allow the heat of the moment to run away with their preconceived notions philosophy— see that question asking is use. When a player asks for an explauat'oii can bet your life it is be-, cause does' not with the decision, and not because does not understand. I haven't yet come across professional player who would advertise his lack of knowledge in public might delve after knowledge off the field—but not on.
FOR THE THIRD TIME.
February 9, 1924. The Daily Courier.
BLUES MEET PRESTON AND SHOULD WIN.
It was obvious that Everton were off song in their midweek match with Preston North End, but notwithstanding the absence of Sam Chedgzoy today, there is every prospect of an "away" victory at Deepdale. The second half at Goodison on Wednesday revealed the fact that the Blues were not lacking in the virility which wins matches, and a good start today will probably clinch the issue, if Everton do not allow a temporary advantage to affect their onlook on the ultimate result. They have done this several times this season, forgetting that a goal lead is by no means a safe margin. Parry again plays on the extreme right, and the Everton directors have great faith in his powers. His form on Wednesday certainly justified high hopes of his future and he is fortunate in getting another chance so soon. The Everton side is, therefore unchanged. Preston too are content to reply on the same eleven, Marquis being again tried at inside right to Rawlings. With the certainty of a great personal struggle for supremacy between Jack Cock and Joe McCabe –sufficient in itself to make an afternoon's enjoyment –there should be a big gate at Deepdale, where Everton are old and tried foes, and popular guests. The team travel from Exchange Station at 1-13 p.m.
PRESTON NORTH END 0 EVERTON 1 (Game 1088)
February 11 1924. The Daily Courier.
A LATE GOAL BUT A GOOD ONE.
GIVES EVERTON TWO POINTS AT DEEPDALE.
The fact that Everton beat Preston North End at Deepdale by a goal is not so remarkable as that it took them 85 minutes to get it. Only continual bad finishing by the Blues' front rank, and some remarkable saves by Prout kept the margin between the teams to what it was. The day was damp, drizzly, and depressing, but the game was bright enough all through, and there was a refreshing absence of foul tactics. For the first fifteen minutes there was little in it, although McCall was showing masterly activity in checking Irvine and setting his own forwards away. Harland had to be spry to save a couple from Roberts, but he had an easier time afterwards when Ferris was hurt and became more or less a passenger.
Frequently Everton's forward moves were frustrated by the exploitation of the one back formation, and it was both irritating and amusing to see Cock being given offside while walking leisurely back towards his own goal when a yard or two away from the ball. However, both Parry and Troup managed to get across some fine centres, and on one occasion Chadwick took a first time left foot pot at goal, which Prout only just managed to tip over. On another, Crawford saved a Troup "special" by kicking off the goal-line with the goalkeeper beaten. Still, Preston had their moments, and no injustice was done with a blank score sheet at half-time. The main feature of the second half was the goal by which Everton won, and it was a really fine bit of combination which led up to it, for inter-passing between Irvine and Parry was so rapid that the defence was drawn to stop the winger. He, however, went on to beat Yates, and put across a perfect ball to Cock, who, unmarked, headed it past Prout. This was five minutes before the end, but it had been obvious for some time previously that Preston were not lasting so well as their opponents. McCall, who had been brilliant up to the interval, fell away considerably, with the results that the Preston fabric of defence and offence became shaky.
Prout played a fine game for his side, and so did Hamilton, but the North End wing halves were not nearly fast or clever enough. Harrison was the best Preston forward, but there are obvious possibilities of development in the hefty Marquis. It is a pleasure to be able to extend wholehearted congratulations to the Everton backs, who gave their best display of the season. They were the outstanding figure on the side. The halves, as usual, were consistently excellent, and of the forwards Parry took the eye with his speed and accurate crosses. With a little more experience this lad will be an acquisition. Cock, who has abandoned his attitude of apparent nonchalance, bucked in whole-heartedly, and kept the defence on pins and needles. Chadwick shot with power, but no luck, and Irvine and Troup were as enthusiastic as ever. Teams : - Preston North End: - Prout, goal, Hamilton, and Yates, backs, Mercer, McCall, and Crawford, half-backs, Rawling, Marquis, Roberts, Ferris, and Harrison forwards. Everton: - Harland, goal, McDonald and Livingstone. Backs, Brown McBain, and Hart (captain), half-backs, Parry Irvine, Cock, Chadwick, and Troup, forwards.
EVERTON RESERVES 2 BURNLEY RESERVES 0
February 11 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
CENTRAL LEAGUE (Game 30)
For this return fixture Everton introduced a new right wing in Barton and Wilcox, the former from the "A" ream and the latter from Prescot, and they blended well, as all through the game the chief danger came from this wing. The home forwards, particularly in the first half, were a quick and virile combination, full of strategy and speed, and very deadly when near the goal, but found Dawson, the Burnley keeper very hard to beat. Waterfield on the extreme right, was the visitors' most dangerous forward and Fern saved two strong shots from Sullivan and O'Beline. About fifteen minutes before the interval Wall converted a centre from Wilcox. After the interval the play of Burnley much improved, the game being more open and both keepers being fully tested. From a free kick close in Peacock just skimmed the bar. Then Dawson made a clever save from Williams. At the other end, Fern was fortunate in saving at the second attempt a shot from Freeman. Ten minutes from the finish Wall scored a second, and Everton ran out well-deserved winners.
EVERTON "A" 4 SKELMERSDALE MISSION 2.
February 11, 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COMBINATION.
Although being down at the interval by 2-0. Everton turned the deflict into a 4-2 victory. The home team gave a trial to a couple of "locals" who made good. The first half lacked vim, neither side showing to any advantage although the visitors managed to score a couple of goals, through Hilton and Abrams. Tolley made a good effort to reduce the lead, his shot striking the crossbar. In the second half the home team monopolised the play, and four goals were soon scored through the brothers Houghton.
MY FOOTBALL CAREER
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 16 February 1924
A TALK ON WAGES, THE BONUS, AND PAYMENT FOR TALENT.
By JACK COCK.
I once heard a football enthusiast declare that it didn't matter tuppence what professional footballers were paid so long football went on. That remark must be my excuse for touching upon subject which, I daresay, many people consider is purely a matter business for the players themselves to look after. Let say right away that I cannot agree with this point of view. Footballers are often threatened with reduced wages, and have suffered such reductions, but we never went on strike, so that when I point to strikes to prove my contention I don't want anyone to run away with the idea that i am inferring anything. Far from it. But does the football fan declare thai, the wages of any worker are concern of his so long as the work goes on? If there is a big striko in the land then everybody is affected, which shows that everybody is concerned in the well-being of any trade or profession. The same argument applies precisely to footballers. If they have a grievance, then tho public, which supports football, ought to know all the ins and outs of the case. This article is just general talk on the conditions under which footballers play. For the most part, players accepted the last wage reduction without a grumble, but that does not say that we are all satisfied. Ido not think the ideal payment for players will ever be achieved until the clubs embrace the idea of payment according to talent. I have often heard that this idea is impracticable, that cannot done, and that it never will come about. I don't agree with any of these things. Football, so far I know, is the only profession where the cleverest men to accept the same reward as their less talented brothers. This comes about through their being ruled a maximum wage rule. It doesn't strike one as lair. There have been players who have done so well that in their first season they have won International honours, which proves that they are exceptionally talented. Now doesn't it? Yet there have been cases where such players have been receiving the first season maximum, which is per week less than the maximum. Where is the reasonableness of such plan? professionals claim that it is possible to remove the maximum wage altogether and allow clnbs to pay their players according to their value and talent. I don't say that unlimited wages should allowed, for that would open door through which would rush scandals and other things we do not want. I won't mention any names; comrarisons are always said to odious. But surely the regular football enthusiast can point to players in every club team who are talented above their colleagues, and whoso worth to the side must be and is much more than their fellows. The names will jump up before every close student of the game. Under present all these players can only aspire to a maximum wage of £8 per week. When they reach that they have nothing left strive for, and I beg to suggest that this all wrong. One of the moving forces in world is that constant striving for something better. Once that is removed and this jolly old world comes to standstill. Footballers have come to that pass, and while I am the last to say that players do not always strive give their best, I do say that, with payment according to talent, there would be opened an avenue up which the game would advance to higher standard.
Just take, for an example, the bonus and the effect this has had. Though some people deny I say quite frankly that my experience has been that players will adopt and ready methods to gain the bonus —the £2 for a win and £1 for draw has been an additional incentive to players and some of them have not cared how they have gained their Now that is the wrong- sort of an incentive. Players who are habitually rough in their play wouldn't have a chance of receiving higher pay tinder the payment taunt scheme. Their clubs would know their real value, and their pay would be in ratio. The rough player would have "nothing to gain and everything to lose. That is why I would abolish the bonus, and failing by talent scheme being adopted, I would add the bonus to the regular wages, and so raise the limit. By doing- this I have no hesitation in saving that the game would made lot, cleaner. You will never make football absolutely devoid and hard knocks., it isn't a drawing-room game.
Is sport which for a lot of give and take, is a game in which man is carried away by the sheer excitement it all, and it a game which the man who cannot stand a lot hard knocks had better pack up and embrace another calling. No one wants football to a namby-pamby sort of sport, with players wrapped cotton wool, but all of us—players, officials, and spectators—ought to strive to cleanse the game of all elements which are not sporting. The habitually rough player not wanted. Thank goodness, they are few and far between, rather than common as some people would have us believe. But it is our duty to get rid of this class, and the sooner the better. The responsibility largely lies with clubs who employ the men; they must know the characters of the men they employ, and that should be sufficient. Then referees can do a great deal eradicate this phase of the game. Where whistle-wielders do not take grip of the and the players, then you will always find that players will take liberties. It is in every walk of life. Didn't we all do when we were at school, taking liberties with the lenient master, but paying strict attention to the work in hand when were in charge the master whose one motto was "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Weak referees do more harm in football than any other people. It is the same with "weak crowd ' —the crowd which only goes to see one team win, and which lets out yells of execration when it wants a thing done. Such crowds have to educated, just as our referees baive to educated that strong man in the middle worth three weak men.
Jack Cock Again.
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 16 February 1924
Jack Cock is proving a real match-winning forward with Everton these days. It is true that has only annexed nine goals to date, but seven of these goals have brought points to his club, six of them having been winning goals ! Cock is playing better to-day than he was when led England's attack in that celebrated game with Scotland Sheffield in 1920
Cock of the Mersey.
Jack Cock has scored a goal in each of four consecutive games for Everton; Chelsea have not had a player who could put up such a performance since the Cornish man left their ranks.
EVERTON 2 CHELSEA 0 (Game 1089)
February 18, 1924. The Daily Courier.
CHELSEA GO FROM BAD TO WORSE.
FERGUSON THE HERO IN 16 TH DEFEAT.
For once in a way Everton achieved the obvious, and did exactly what current form suggested in beating Chelsea by two clear goals. The victory was achieved without any particular affair. Of all the clubs which have visited Goodison Park this season Chelsea is the least cohesive and concerted. It is a collection of eleven units, each rotating more or less upon its own axis; and that way lies disaster. What few attempt at combination there were on Saturday were made by the inside forwards, but these always fizzled out ignominiously whenever home halves saw fit to intervene. It must be said, however, that the Chelsea front rank was even more disorganised than usual, and that, although Wilson pluckily turned out at centre, it was found necessary to play McNeil at outside left, and Whitton (who is a leader) at outside right; while Ferguson, whose role has heretofore been as a wing forward, was transferred to left half. This shuffle did not make for confidence, but Ferguson played a remarkably fine game, and was not far from being the best man on the ground.
There is not much of him, but he is a real worker, and time and again, after checking Chedgzoy and Irvine, would go right through and shame his effective forwards by taking shot at goal. Practically all Harland's work lay in stopping Ferguson's efforts and the narrowest escapes the home goal had was when a terrific drive hit the woodwork and Wilson shot past from the rebound. Frankly, Wilson was a disappointment. He did little but what one might describe as "Andy" up and down in the middle. Davie Reid held him in a vice, and the international must have wished many times during the game that he had gone to Cardiff, where, at any rate, he could not have done worse. Chelsea's inside men were deplorable and the wings slow and indecisive. Wilding did exceedingly well at centre half for some time, and Smith and Harrow kicked heroically, if without particular direction.
Everton deserved to win. The first goal was made for Irvine by Chedgzoy, and was a hefty drive, which Hampton could not get to. The second was an unsatisfactory sort of affair from a penalty kick for hands, converted by Chadwick. (Smith handled Troup cross Daily Post). Most of the match was the Blues, and there were few incidents over which to enthuse. Cock was rather subdued against his old clubmates, but did not distress himself unduly. Neither did Chedgzoy, who took matters very quietly. On the other hand, however, Troup was a mighty atom of energy, and trotted out one of his best displays. No higher praise can be given Reid at centre-half than to say that Neil McBain was not missed, and McDonald played a superb game at right back –his best to date. Everton's win takes them into sixth place in the table, and leaves the Pensioners lamenting in the last place but one. They have scored 16 goals in 30 matches! Teams : - Everton: - Harland, goal, McDonald, and Livingstone backs, Brown Reid, and Hart (captain), half-backs, Chedgzoy, Irvine, Cock, Chadwick, and Troup, forwards. Chelsea: - Hampton, goal, Smith and Harrow, backs, Priestly, Wilding, and Ferguson, half-backs, Whitton, Armstrong, Wilson, Miller, and McNeil, forwards.
CAP FOR NEIL McBAIN.
February 18 1924. The Daily Courier.
Wales beat Scotland at Cardiff on Saturday, in front of 30,000 spectators.
LEEDS UNITED RESERVES 1 EVERTON RESERVES 0
February 18, 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
CENTRE LEAGUE (Game 31)
Everton put up a plucky fight against Leeds United at Elland road, where the spectators saw plenty of interesting football. Everton, who were beaten by a goal scored by Powell after half an hour's play, were unlucky for they did quite as well as Leeds both in attack and defence, and it was by good fortune that the Leeds, defence held out against clever raids by Forbes and Parry, who were the speediest forwards on the field.
MY FOOTBALL CAREER
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 23 February 1924
THE TRANSFER SYSTEM AND BENEFITS FOR PLATERS.
By JACK COCK.
Last week I touched upon the wages question as it affects the game and the public, and this week I cannot do better than turn my attention to the present transfer system, of which we have heard so much of late. The two subjects are twins; one cannot discuss the first without reverting to the second. The transfer system has been described "a scandal," simply because clubs have dared to pay huge prices for players when they have been greatly in need of such players. Personally I fad to see where the scandal comes in, unless one couples the fact that clubs can pay unlimited transfer fees, but hold down all players to a maximum wage. The two things are inconsistent, and perhaps that is where the scandal comes in. If club is willing to part with a player and another club is willing to pay big fee, I see no earthly reason, providing the player is willing, why such transfers should not be permissible. What is there wrong in it? There is nothing against the rules; everything is fair and above board, and three parties are no doubt happier for —the club which sells, the club which buys, and the player. Don't think, however, that players have not a grudge against the present transfer system. They have. There was time when a player could take a big share of any fee that was paid, but to-day— matter what sum changes hands —he cannot take more than £650 as his share. This one of the most outrageous features of the system. After all, it is the player that makes possible the payment of huge fee, and that being so, he ought to come in for the lion's share, and not the club. It argued that but for the coaching and training by the club many players would never risa in the game. It. is further argued that all players owe their advance to the fact that the big clubs spotted them when in a rough state and gave them the chance to make good. These arguments are put forward to vindicate a system which allows the clubs to pocket practically the whole of the money when transfer bargain is struck. I reply again, that if player isn't born with the talent never becomes worth a huge transfer fee. If he himself hasn't the talent- he never gets out of the ruck of his fellows. No club can make a player "born to the game," if that player hasn't the latent somewhere. If the player has the talent it will come out without the help of any first-class club. It all "bunkum" say that the clubs make the players; it is just the other way about—the players make clubs. If wasn't so, why there all this searching and grasping for good class players. If the clubs make the players there would no such thing big transfer fee paid. There would be no need for such a thing. No, if there a scandal attached to the transfer system is inconsistency of the whole regulations round which the system has been built up. Clubs pay wages on a strict maximum.; they take unlimited fees whenever they think fit, and they pay out of that fee strict maximum again to player—who has made the big fee possible. There is another argument. Some clubs claim that without the help of big transfer fees they would not be able to exist, and that, therefore, players should waive all right a larger share of the fees received, for the general good of their brother professional players.
Inconsistencies of the System.
I once learned a motto about cutting one's coat according to one's cloth. It does seem to a lot of professional players that many clubs try to be "first class" when they are a long way from being so. For instance, we have Third Division 3 regulated by the maximum wage as First Division clubs, when everyone knows that there ii wide gap between the standard of play the two divisions, just there is a wide gap between the amount of support given to a First Division club as compared with that given a Third Division club. Here again you have one of the coil- j of the whole thing. Then, again, I do not soe why benefits for players should have a maximum amount placed upon them. It does seem that everything to the players must be maximumised, but every source of revenue for clubs must be left with unlimited boundaries. If these are the things which to make the transfer system a scandal then I can agree with that description, but, to come down to hard facts, there is absolutely no scandal in one club paying for nlayer providing they think that player is worth it. The maximumising of benefits has been another big blow to players, in that it removes from his path another inducement to stick to one club, give that club his best service, and then take his just reward in the way of a benefit. To-day, player won't wait five years for £650; prefers have it on the instalment system, and he gets a transfer after two years, picks up £240, stays with his new club for a spoil, gets another transfer, and picks up bit more of his benefit money. This has helped to bring about more transfers of players than anything else that I remember in recent years. It- is the same old story, which I explained last week. Remove the incentive for good, faithful service, and you remove much of the desire to be a good, faithful servant. It's human nature, and players are human. When one comes to think of all these things one cannot be surprised that the standard of play has not returned to that of pre-war days. There are far too many clubs striving to reach a level which fewer clubs would have hard task to succeed in reaching. There are far too many rules and regulations fencing in the players—rules and regulations respecting his wages, share transfer fees, bonus, and benefit money. Players are regarded as being well looked after. They may be from one point of view, but the other point of view shows that the clubs are looked after. There never was a time when a strong pull between clubs and players was so necessary now. There must be co-operation between the two. Without the game wouldn't last. That is why I claim that the players are deserving of every consideration. They have shown every consideration for the clubs in having accepted all the wages, bonus, transfer shares, and benefits regulations r which have been on them since the war.
CHELSEA 1 EVERTON 1
February 25, 1924. The Daily Courier.
MORE BOO THAN BOOST AT CHELSEA.
GAME, GATE, AND FORM A BIT MIXED.
CHADWICK SENDS PENALTY WIDE
It has been said of America that it is not so much a nation as a mass meeting, and the cynicism might equally be applied to Stamford Bridge, where there are few supporters but thousands of spectators. On Saturday these gave tongue in no uncertain manner, booing the referee, the Everton team, and most particularly, the Chelsea players. They may have done so in order to create an atmosphere of "money's worth," for there were precious little about which to enthuse. The first half was deadly dull, the second half dogged and a trifle dirty.
There were only four incidents of note in the whole of the game. The first was that Chadwick missed a penalty kick ; (Cock goal bound shot, tip over bar by Harrow, Daily Post) the second was that he scored one of the best goals ever seen on the Chelsea ground (at least, so a South America spectator from Glasgow assured me –it was his second visit in twelve years); the third, two remarkable shots by Andy Wilson and John Cock respectively both of which hit the crossbar with the goalkeeper guessing; the fourth, the extraordinary bit of leg work which enabled Wilson to mystify Harland and so save the game for his side. All these events were most impartially applauded –or derided –by enthusiasts from Ealing and Seven Kings, Stratford and Streatham. It is a most cosmopolitan place in Stamford Bridge!
To be perfectly frank Everton did not play up to form; otherwise they would have scored at least three goals. In the first portion it was almost painful to watch Chedgzoy "callin canny" on the right wing. He improved considerably in the last half, and some of his centres were beautiful. All the forwards and halves overdid the embroidery, and the consequence was that little Tommy Meehan had the time of his life. He was here, there, and everywhere, and constantly popping up to intercept dainty ground passes from Irvine to Chedgzoy. Before half-an-hour had gone Chelsea had enough chances given there to make their bonus safe, but Harland was in great form, and the home forwards were not. McNeil and Ferguson worked hard –the latter too much so, for he displayed temper and tricks of which Mr. Head took cognisance. Andy Wilson was immeasurely superior to the others, and played a 50 per cent better game than at Goodison Park. Reid held him pretty well throughout, but there was no mistaking his skill and craft. He too, was well booed by a few Patagonians in the stand –what for, nobody but themselves knowns. Armstrong was a complete failure, and Castle inconspicuous. Meehan and Wilding were a best of the halves and Smith the better back.
As to Harrow, it is fortunate for him that he has a powerful voice. He did his side more good by insistent offside appeals every time Jack Cock got the ball than he did by his play, which was the feeblest back display I have seen this season. Per contra, Everton's backs kicked lustily and with direction, and the intermediate line did well. Cock was a tremendous trier, Chadwick got his nineteenth goal of the season, Irvine "suffered" a good deal, while Troup aroused great mirth amongst a contingent of Scottish onlookers from Barnet. Really, it was a tame affair altogether, except for the varieties vituperation around the ring. Teams: - Chelsea: - Marsh, goal, Smith, and Harrow, backs, Priestly, Wilding, and Meehan, half-backs, Castle, Armstrong, Wilson, McNeil, and Ferguson, forwards. Everton: - Harland, goal, McDonald, and Livingstone, backs, Brown, Reid, and Hart (captain), half-backs, Chedgzoy, Irvine, Cock, Chadwick, and Troup, forwards.
EVERTON RESERVES 3 LEEDS UNITED RESERVES 1
February 25 1924. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury.
CENTRAL LEAGUE (Game 32)
At Goodison park. Everton introduced the schoolboy Houghton at inside left with Forbes, and he had the satisfaction of scoring a goal. During the opening play Forbes failed to get into their stride, their passing being badly timed. Leeds pressed most, and indeed there were occasions when they played brilliantly, their forwards displaying remarkable control of the ball, and it was their misfortune when Fullarn had to leave the field with a cut head through a collision with Grenyer. During his absence Williams scored and Wall added a second three minutes before the interval. Fullarn returned for the second half, but a further misfortune befel Leeds when Smith, the left half, retired for the rest of the game badly hurt. Playing a one back game Everton found great difficulty to keep onside. Lambert reduced the lead, and then a third goal came to Everton. Parry sent in a fast shot and the ball travelled across the goalmouth, leaving Houghton an easy opening. Everton only just deserved their victory.