St Sidwell’s v Exeter United

25/10/1902

Who are the Leaders ?

The question which will arise in Exeter Association football circles, in face of the result of the Exeter United v. St. Sidwell's United match on Saturday, is: Which is the leading Club of the City ? Nominally, the distinction belongs to Exeter United. Not only does that organisation bear the City's name, but it had up to last Saturday held undisputed superiority over other Exeter Clubs. Now, however, it has been displaced from its position by that wonderfully promising Club, St. Sidwell's. The latter, to speak of the team in the plural, have now the strongest possible claim, viz., succeea on the field, to the title. It will not, I think, be questioned by the staunchest supporter of Exeter that the Saints proved themselves a distinctly smarter and more scientific side in the game which ended in their favour by three goals to nil. They are to be heartily congratulated - on an achievement that will rank as not only the most notable, but also as the most pleasing in the history of the Club. The result is one that should have a very beneficial influence on Exeter football. The immediate effect should be two-fold in its character-St. Sidwell's should be greatly encouraged in their laudable effort to raise the standard of the game, and Exeter United should learn by this sharp lesson of experience that disjointed individualism will always be beaten by intelligent combination.

It must not be imagined from the above that I consider the combination of St. Sidwell's per- fect, or anything like perfect. But it is intelli- gent. That is to say, the players give evidence of that knowledge which is so absolutely essential to what is so often described as effective combination, but of which local players have hitherto been apparently in more or less complete ignorance. The idea is too often held that the mere passing of the ball from one player to another is the perfection of combina tion. That is so only when the ball is disposed of to the very best advantage of the side. Who, for instance, would say that it was good com- bination for a man to transfer the leather to another player in a position as difficult as, or perhaps worse than, his own? Yet such a transfer would constimate passing. No; com- bination, to be of any real value to a side, must take into consideration at the moment the ball is passed the probable effect of the pass. In other words, the great underlying principle of combination is to dispose of the ball so that the greatest use can be made of it for the side in possession.

To attain the ideal is very difficult; for local clubs, indeed, impossible: but it is always best to aim high. It is a curious trait in human nature that we always strive with greater ardour after the unattainable. We find it so in all human affairs; and it is so in football. Therefore, make your objective as high as possible, and never tire in attempting to realise it. The effort to rise to the apex of combined excellence is a fascinating one, and those who always strive after it must of pecessity make some headway towards the goal of ambition. One cannot understand why such little atten- tion has been given to combination, seeing its value in winning matches stands unrivalled. Combination, it must also be remembered, is not for one section of a side alone, but for the whole side. Forwards and backs must work to- gether, and the great link between the two divisions is the half-back line. If only half- backs would recognise the fact they are the backbone of a team. They can make or mar it. Just a word for the private ear of halves and backes. Your duty is not only to defend your goal and keep the opposing forwards in check, but also to feed your own forwards, and the latter part of your functions cannot be satisfac- torily performed unless you exercise the greatest judgment and discrimination in your kicking. It is a glaring mistake to fancy that the sole pur- pose of a hack le to kick anywhere and anyhow so long as he gets the ball away. That is where many local backs fall. In their desire to clear. they kick too hard or too high, or in the wrong direction. The ball should be sent with a low sweeping volleying kick to the feet of the for- wards, and not, as in many cases happens, to the rival backs. Halves should always support their forwards in attack and be ready to fall back to assist those behind them in defence.
The Better Team,
St. Sidwell's had much the better of the game on Saturday. In the first half, playing with the wind and slope in their favour, they scored once through Thomas, and after the interval, put through two, Thomas and Sellick doing the need- ful. Exeter had hard lines in a number of occa- sions, Shots from Horner, Rowsell, Rawdon and Hogan either hit the cross bar or posts. Others were finely stopped by Ribinson, who excelled himself between the sticks. On the general run of the play the Saints were quite a couple of goals better than Exeter. They played more in unison, showed far better concentration of at- tack, and worked throughout with splendid spirit and determination. In short, they looked like the winning side all the way through, except for a brief period early in the second half. Hughes and Campbell kicked with some amount of accuracy and no little skill; the halves were energetic; and the forwards kept together capitally. Exeter's forwards displayed but little adhesion and rarely seemed to know where to find each other. Consequently many passes went astray. It must, however, be admitted that they were somewhat handicapped by the kicking of the backs, who often kicked with too much power. In defence, Exeter played hard and well, but were beaten by a better side.

Final Score 
St Sidwell’s 3-0 Exeter United

Scorers Thomas 2, Sellick

Team Robinson, Hughes, Campbell, Avery, Mann, Morgan, Sellick, Davies, Thomas, Eveleigh, Coles.

Exeter United
Goal, Ashford; backs, Luke, Maunder; halves, Haylock, Bailey. Hogan; forwards, A. Wallage, F. Wallage, Horner, Rowsell, Nawdon

Published: Monday 27 October 1902
Newspaper: Western Times

SATURDAY 25th OCTOBER 1902,

St Sidwell's United Reserves 4.
St David's Reserves 1,