GAME ON SATURDAY MARKS NEW ERA IN HARVARD FOOTBALL

The Opening game of the University football team, with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, resulting in an 18 to 6 victory for the Crimson; has brought forth an infinite amount of comment and speculation as to what may be expected from the 1925 eleven. The new Fisher-Daly system has been given its first test, and according to the general consensus of opinion, has revolutionized Harvard football, R. Keith Kane '22, captain of the 1921 team and one who has been in touch with University football since leaving college, has written especially for the Crimson, the following criticism of the new system as it was shown in Saturday's contest. A short summary of the game follows the special article.

The opening game of the football season found Harvard in a new mood and with fresh spirit. In spite of the atrocious conditions the team entered upon its task with a show of confidence and determination which was refreshing after the sluggishness of some of our recent teams.

Probably the most striking feature of the Harvard play was its speed. The precision and accuracy with which most of its plays were run off, particularly in the first half, showed marked improvement over last year's team and was very encouraging in view of the limited time the squad has been at practice. Most of all it was reassuring to see the life and punch sustained at critical times as when the team was in scoring distance. It does not help very much to gain ground in mid-field if the offence is going to collapse when it is in the opponents territory. There were indications on Saturday which should lead us to expect this team to make the most of its opportunities which seldom come in abundance in the course of a game.

Mistakes Costly

Mistakes were very costly on Saturday, although there were not a great many, but in this connection we should be most encouraged by the absence of fumbles. It is a fortunate thing, perhaps, that the team has had an early season opportunity to handle a wet and slimy ball. The experience may come in handy later on.

Undoubtedly the new tactics show a thorough and careful study of the best methods in the country today which, of course, does not exclude the Haughton system itself. I say "undoubtedly" for, in so far as the Notre Dame and other well-known attacks are concerned, I speak very largely from hearsay. But I do know that the Harvard coaching staff has for some time been studying various successful systems of play and it is safe to say that what we saw at the Stadium on Saturday was not an exact reproduction of the offence or defence of any other system but was the result of an intelligent choosing of the best in all in so far as the coaches have been able to glean it in their long experience.

No doubt the existence of the punch and speed was partly brought about by marked changes in the offence which make for faster execution than with the old Harvard attack.

New Offense

We saw to begin with, a new formation for the receipt of a kickoff which resulted in some excellent run-backs. For its running attack the team lined up with an unbalanced line as before, but the old round-the-center shift has gone. The primary formation of the two halfbacks and the fullback in a line parallel to the line of scrimmage suggested Dartmouth and other teams, something very different from former Harvard teams.

Then comes the sudden shift and the direct pass from the center which sets the team in motion with greater speed than the old method as executed in recent years. With their three or four formations into which they can shift alternately at the discretion of the quarterback and with the very short interval of time between the shift and the passing of the ball by the center, the defensive team has little opportunity to prepare itself and is in danger of surprise.

The attack can hit the short side with almost the same strength as that with which it can hit the long. At any rate everything on the short side does not seem to be sacrificed for the sake of strength on the long. The old Harvard flavor seems to remain for the most part in the assignments. An advance, however, is made here in pulling a man quite regularly out of the off side of the line and getting him into the interference. Most encouraging of all from an offensive point of view was the improved and increased effectiveness of the interference generally which goes hand in hand with the speed and precision with which the plays are run off. The new method of developing a play is conducive to those improvements.

Defence Still Harvard's

On the defence the Harvard flavor is exceedingly obvious although the formations of the backfield are here again changed. The line is trying to get across the line of scrimmage as before in order to bottle up the offensive team. The ends, if anything, go deeper than before and against Rensselaer they were very effective. On the whole the line was playing too high but that is a usual criticism in the early season. All told the visitors gained very little ground except for their successful forward passes. Our forward pass defence seemed to be our weakest point.

To sum up we might say that the team has done well to master the new methods as well as they have and to have shown a sense of timing in their execution which is an essential element in a successful offense. It looks as if there were a powerful team in the making on Soldiers' Field and if they continue to improve as they have thus far, there will have been a successful revolution in Harvard football

A summary of the game follows:Sayles, E. Bradford, l.e.  r.e. Smuker, MaherNash, Fordyce, Pratt, l.t.  r.t., Basiterich, BemisDaley, Hoague, l.g.,  r.g., Banks, StammbergerMacomber, Turner, c.  c., NicholsKilgour, C. Bradford, Daniell, r.g.  l.g., BuschLindner, Taylor, Simonds, r.t.  l.t., TriestSaltonstall, Adie, r.e.  l.e., Shafer, MaherCheek, Stafford, McGlone, q.b.  q.b., EschholzMiller, Puffer, l.h.  l.h., AndersonCrosby, Moseley, r.h.  r.h., Frankenfield, Corido, HerreaCoady, Howe, f.b.  f.b., Clark, Reuther, Corid