Review of Harvard Season

With eleven "H" men back in College, and a coach, whose system had already defeated Yale once, Harvard undergraduates naturally felt that the prospects for this year's team were exceptionally bright. The usual number of injuries, however, has prevented the team from developing as fast as some had hoped. Perkins, T. Frothingham, T. H. Frothingham, H. C. Leslie, and Wigglesworth have each received slight injuries that have kept them out of many of the early games.

Aside from this the development of the team has been all that could be expected. The first severe test came in the Brown game, when the University team met an opponent with a heavy line, well versed in the new football. The work in this game was not as accurate or as fast as that against Amherst, and there was a decided lack of snap and dash in the offence. In the last quarter many substitutes were put in and Brown gained at will, almost scoring a touchdown.

Little need be said of Coach Haughton and his methods, for everyone knows what success he has achieved as a football coach. It is sufficient to say that in the two years he has had charge of the team, Yale has been defeated once.

Through the kindness of Dr. S. H. Blodgett '84, the practice this fall began about September first at Frazier's Island Camp, Frazier's Island, Me. For about two weeks the players lived an outdoor life and gained a knowledge of what the new rules demand. Very little real football was tried, the work being experimental and arranged in such a way that coaches as well as players learned much. On September 19, practice began in Cambridge and was held both morning and afternoon. The work was light, consisting only of rudimentary drill until a few days before the Bates game, when the first scrimmage was held. For the last month or so, the work has been almost entirely secret.

In the first game of the season Bates was defeated, 22 to 0. For such an early game the team-play was surprisingly good, but it was surpassed by the individual work of the Harvard backfield. In fact, toward the end of the game, long runs through broken fields came frequently. They were many fumbles but on the whole, the work was very encouraging.

The following week Bowdoin was defeated by the score of 32 to 0, at no time being able to gain consistently. Open runs were frequent, Leslie and Graustein running respectively 65 and 57 yards for touchdowns. The interference on these plays was very effective nearly half the Harvard team keeping with the runner. In the open play the University team followed the ball very closely.

In the Williams game the University team had its first opportunity to show its strength. The line was impenetrable and the backfield displayed its ground-gaining ability by scoring 21 points. The following Saturday the University team defeated Amherst by the decisive score of 17 to 0, in a game characterized by long punts and noticeable absence of the new style of play. During the first five minutes of the game the University team's line was put on the defensive inside its 5-yard line for the first time this season. Three attempts by Amherst to gain were unavailing, and Corbett punted out of danger.

One week later the University team played Brown, and won a hard-fought game, 12 to 0. The line showed decided weakness in this game, and the play, in general, was slow. The first touchdown came near the end of the first half after L. D. Smith recovered a kick which Marble had muffed. From the 11-yard line, Corbett and Wendell made 5 yards in two rushes, and then Corbett went over for the score. The second touchdown was made by Graustein in the middle of the last period. Brown had carried the ball through Harvard territory for 88 yards on 13 line plays and three successful forward passes. On the 3-yard line Sprackling made a pass to Ashbaugh, but it was intercepted by Graustein who, aided by good interference, ran the length of the field for a touchdown.

The score of the victory over West Point, 6 to 0, hardly indicates the superiority of the University team, for West Point never had the ball in its possession in Harvard's half of the field. The score was made in the third period by Captain Withington, who broke through the line, blocked Dean's punt and 20 yards for a touchdown. The University team had several other good chances to score but lost them by fumbling, which has been rather noticeable throughout the season.

The one feature that marred the Cornell game was Cornell's score, which came as the result of a fumble. The victory was decisive, however, as the score, 27 to 5, indicates. The offensive work of the University team showed much improvement over the West Point game, and even when all the regulars were out of the game, the plays were run off smoothly and accurately. Potter's work at quarterback was very good. Beside making a perfect drop-kick from the 23-yard line, he handled forward passes well, and ran in three punts 28, 21 and 27 yards, respectively.

Last Saturday the University team defeated Dartmouth by the score of 18 to 0. Harvard scored by two touchdowns, two goals from touchdowns, and two drop-kicks. Dartmouth had only one opportunity during the entire game to score, and that came in the second period. It was Dartmouth's ball on Harvard's 31-yard line, and Barends dropped back to attempt a placement kick. Both Fisher and Withington broke through and Withington blocked the ball, Fisher recovering it and carrying it to Dartmouth's 23-yard line before being tackled. From this time on Dartmouth never got nearer than 53 yards to the University team's goal-line. The work of the University team as a whole was very encouraging, especially as Dartmouth had the strongest team that Harvard has played this year. Every Harvard player showed better knowledge of the fundamentals and followed the ball much closer than his opponents. Harvard's team-play was always evident the interference showed improvement