A Test for the Haughton System.

Mr. Haughton's problem was to beat a veteran cloven, familiar with Harvard's style of play, with an inexperienced eleven, having only a second-hand knowledge of Princeton's tactics. Tufts had beaten Tufts the following week, 3 to 0. On the strength of that record Princeton should have been the favorite. Man of man, the advantage in weight, experience and skill was undoubtedly with Princeton as it was in the contest a year ago. But the betting odds told another story. They favored Harvard--and logically. For past experience supported the assumption that the Harvard coaches would be able to weld their raw material into an offensive and defensive machine capable of showing a sufficient margin of superiority over Princeton's.

To establish that superiority required a longer and stronger pull than had been necessary t Harvard for many years. Mr. Haughton has said that the Harvard team of 1916 deserves more credit than any other team which he has coached since 1908. It has travelled further than any other Harvard team of recent years. Yet without the sound football system which Mr. Haughton and his assistants have provided this year's team would have had very little chance of finding itself. It is the tradition of thorough training, unrelenting attention to detail and absolute concert of effort which makes Harvard's veterans invincible and even her unpromisingly green teams victorious.

Harvard had a positive scoring punch, though the team's play on the defensive and, for that matter, on the offensive, was somewhat ragged and unfinished. Princeton lacked the scoring power which she has been promising to develop these many years. A first class defence and a good kicking game have been Princeton's chief assets ever since football was modernized. But to win consistently something more than these assets is required.

It has always seemed as if Princeton's strategy was demoralized by the double victory over Harvard and Yale in 1911. "Sam" White picked up a loose ball in both of these, games and ran the length of the field for touchdowns.

But a winning game cannot be built up merely by offering opposing teams chances to make errors and then profiting by them. Harvard committed three glaring errors on Saturday. But Princeton could not manufacture a score out of any one of the three. That only shows that Princeton is still deficient in a genuine winning attack. On Saturday holding in the line cost two 15-yard penalties at critical moments. A year ago fumbles twice ended what promised to be successful marches toward Harvard's goal line.

Mr. Rush ha made marked changes for the better in Princeton's system of play. But apparently he has not yet overcome defects which have been deep-seated in Nassau's teams. Until he builds up a more formidable offensive Princeton can hardly hope to overcome the superiority which Harvard has been demonstrating since 1912--which she demonstrated even in 1911, when white's great chance run and one other lucky steak of the game returned Princeton a victor. --New York Tribune.