Harvard Plods to Win Over Cornell; Ohiri Scores Two in Shoddy Victory

The varsity soccer team contended with the wind, itself, and a "no win" Cornell strategy Saturday in its first League test of the year. When it was all over, Chris Ohiri had scored two goals, the Crimson had gained a 2-0 victory, the wind was still blowing, and Cornell, true to its strategy, indeed had not won.

Yet, no one seemed happy:

For if Crimson Coach Bruce Munro was glad that the predicted victory had materialized, he was equally disappointed that it had not come by a greater margin and with more finesse. He attributed the low score to the wind, but for the tarnished play he could only blame his team.

Strangely enough, Cornell Coach Jerry Lace was not happy, either, True, he had relied on a kind of "no win," defensive strategy, but one did not have to conclude, he claimed, that he had come to Cambridge to lose, though he fully expected to.

As it was, said Lace, his "containment policy" had worked fairly well since Cornell had held the Crimson to two goals. But no one likes to lose, and so Lace was not happy.

The situation remainded one of a philosopher who has proved that the end of the world is 48 hours away.

The Cornell containment policy consisted mainly of a "pack defense". Sacrificing any offensive initiative, the Red-men concentrated instead on blocking their own goal. They did so with six human bodies-three halfbacks, two fullbacks, and a goalie.

The six gallant young men made an effort to be soccer players, but essentially it was a pretense; they merely served to defect numerous Crimson shots at the Cornell goal by offering their bodies as a barrier. Clay pigeons (or gorillas) would have done just as well.

Both Crimson scores came in situations for which a pack defense is inadequate.

Harvard scored first at 5:00 of the first period when Ohiri placed a medium-hard. curving shot past the goalie on a penalty kick. The Crimson star scored again at 21:50 of the third quarter when he deftly angled a shot into the Cornell goal during a dense scramble in front of the net.

Cornell succeeded in mounting only two or three threatening attacks. Perhaps as a result, the Crimson defense seemed lax in a way it cannot afford to be against a better opponent. Offensively, Harvard was often uninspired. The failure of the left wings to set up and take advantage of scoring plays was particularly apparent.