ENGLAND v. SCOTLAND
— Hamish Stuart | 01/04/1901 —

In the course of a chat which I had with G. O. Smith on Friday morning, the English captain expressed the opinion that a wet turf would be in England's favour, while personally he hoped for such a ground. But in his wildest dreams of mud and Scotland at sea in the same, the crack centre surely never visioned the quagmire on which the greatest match of the season was played — and in the opinion of many wrongly played. If the weather had remained dry, and the ground had been even decently fit for such a match, I am convinced that we would have witnessed such a display of football as the history of the game could not parallel. As it was, by sheer ability, and their very greatness, both sides, after ten minutes of hopeless floundering, found their feet in an amazing fashion, and played a game, under the existing conditions, that reached the very highest standard. 

Apart from the ground, the wind was a most disturbing factor, but it was on the whole fairly steady, and hence the ball was never very erratic in its movements. Taking the first half, as a whole England had naturally rather the best of matters, but they scarcely played the most suitable game under the circumstances, for in spite of the great goal which Rennie kept, and the fine defence of the Scottish backs, many opportunities were lost by hesitation in "letting go." Whenever the Scottish forwards got off, however, they were always dangerous, Walker early showing that form which stamped him before the close as the best forward on the field. With the wing, one naturally expected England to cross over with the lead. Nor was the expectation disappointed, though the point was a rather doubtful one. As the Scottish goal had had one or two narrow escapes just before, and England were at the time going great guns, the legitimacy of the goal is perhaps immaterial. Well as England had played with the wing, there was no escaping the conclusion that Scotland were the superior tean, for their football was finer, and their control of the ball greater, while the understanding between forwards and halves was far more pronounced. With the wind, to judge from the play in the first half, a win for Scotland seemed the probable result.

They certainly went away with a bang, and the pressure on the English goal was very severe. Sutcliffe twice beaten — with a shot which he had no chance of saving, and a header which he could not get near. One felt, however, that there was always a chance of a slip on such a ground giving England a chance to equalise, especially as Foster and Blackburn were playing a great game, and Bloomer and Bennett were by no means idle. Needham too improved much in the last twenty minutes, and though neither Oakley nor Iremonger could cope with the Scottish wings, England was always dangerous when aggressive. And at last the slip came — one of those curious unforeseen examples of a great back making a ghastly but simple blunder. Drummond missed the ball altogether, though it came straight to his foot, and Bloomer getting on it easily beat Rennie with one of his own "peculiars." Everything counts, and the mistake cost Scotland a great match, which they ought to have won, and would certainly have won on a dry ground. I have called the match a great game, and a great game it was — one of the greatest ever played between the countries. Better football one need not wish for; that the men overcame the difficulties and played as only players in the very front rank can was matter for wonder; it was also matter for regret, for had the ground been dry we would have seen the game of history. 

As it was, we saw a game none of those present are likely to forget, while on the whole a draw was the most satisfactory termination. Comparison between the teams is somewhat difficult. England were undoubtedly inferior at back, where they were expected to be superior, but were equal if not superior at half, where they did not expect to be superior. Forman played the game of his life, and neither Wilkes nor Needham were so consistently good, though both played well. Of the Scottish halves, Raisbeck was the best. He made G. O. Smith seem quite ineffective at times, though M'Coll had something to do with the somewhat indifferent display of the Corinthian, who must, of course, be judged by his own standard and the standard of play shown. M'Coll, we know, is a great player on a wet ground, but in spite of his reputation as a mud-reveller, there were times when he could not keep his feet; while the Scottish wings, whose combination was the best thing in the match — many good things as there were — were undoubtedly hampered by the slowness with which the ball travelled. That the clockwork passing of the Scottish forwards and their marvellous individual brilliancy — Walker in particular being the star of the match — would have won the game had the ground been drier and faster, was the impression left after seeing Oakley and Iremonger repeatedly outwitted, but even trying things as they were, there was little ought as to the superiority of the Scottish forwards. Both English wings played well, but they were never collectively so clever, although always keen and ready to seize an opening. Foster, Bennet, and Blackburn witnessed their reputations, while Bloomer was unequal, and Smith was not worthy of himself, though, of course, it was impossible for him to play a really bad game. Of the Scottish backs Drummond played the better game, but neither man seemed fast enough for the English forwards, though they always fell back when beaten. For the goal-keepers one need have nothing but unstinted praise. Neither had any chance of saving the shots that found the net, and it is certain that Robinson could not have improved on Sutcliffe's display, the Bolton Wanderer more than once giving evidence of his early Rugby training by his fine handling and punting. Rennie was every whit as good in all other respects, and his coolness in retaining the ball from a hot shot just as the whistle went, and running off with it to the pavilion was the best evidence, if any were needed, that he has the requisite head for such a great occasion. 

It was indeed a great game, and though on such a ground a draw was the most satisfactory result, the conviction remains that Scotland would have won, and won easily — for such a case of Greek meeting Greek — with a dry ball and decent footing. It is, perhaps, out of my province to criticise the arrangements made by the Palace authorities, but they certainly could have been improved so far as both the press and the public are concerned, while a very defensible result of the match having been played on such a quagmire would be a refusal on the part of the Scottish Association again to play on the same ground, unless something is done to improve it and to make it worthy of such an occasion, save in the driest and finest of dry and fine weather.