INTERNATIONAL MATCHES
— G. O. Smith | 23/09/1899 —

The following have been the results of the international matches during the last two years: — Against Ireland, England has won by 3 goals to 2 and by 13 to 2; against Wales she has been victorious by 4 goals to love and by 3 to love; Scotland she has defeated by 3 goals to 1 and by 2 to 1. These performances are very flattering to English football and, if they can only be kept up, England will soon, we hope, be able to draw level with Scotland in the number of victories. At present Scotland has won thirteen times to England's nine, but of late years the latter has done by far the best, and she may reasonably hope to at least reduce her deficit during the next few years. The results of last season were even more satisfactory than those of the previous year, though this is probably accounted for by the fact that the matches were played in this country. Long journeys are undoubtedly upsetting, especially when you have to cross the sea, and it is rarely that a team shows at its best when it has had to undergo inconveniences such as these.

A "RUNAWAY" MATCH.

It would perhaps not be out of place to give here a short account of the international matches of last year. The Irish match took place at Roker Park, Sunderland, and a great deal of interest was taken in the game, as England had only won by a very narrow margin the year before. The Irishmen, it is only fair to state, were not at full strength, while the Englishman were a powerful side that it was felt would without doubt take a lot of beating. The day was a very fine one for football, but the ground was distinctly on the heavy side, and, in front of one goal at least, had a close resemblance to a quagmire. Nothing happened for some time after the game was started, though the Irish goal was hotly attacked on many occasions; but when Frank Forman had drawn first blood, then came the deluge. Goal after goal was obtained, the Englishmen completely outplaying their rivals, and, but for one or two breakaways by the Irish, the game continued to be the same till the end. It was probably thought that over here England would win, but no one, I fancy, dreamt that the match would be such a runaway affair. Flattering as the result was to us, yet it would have been infinitely more so if the Irish had had a less experienced player in goal than Lewis. He was wonderful, and he certainly had full scope for showing his powers; but for his play the score. I think, would nearly have been doubled, though it is difficult to imagine that 26 goals could be obtained in a game of this sort. The match was, of course, too one sided, and cannot thus be called a good one, but it sufficed to show off some marvellous play on the part of the English forwards and halves. The backs were little called upon, and had small chance of showing up, but the half-backs had a great chance of feeding their forwards and even shooting, and they did both in splendid fashion. The combination of the forwards, however, was the chief point, and rarely has a better display been seen. The weakness of the Irish had no doubt a lot to do with the excellence of the English play, but even taking this into consideration, it was very fine. The Irish play was poor throughout, with the exception of the goalkeeper, though due allowance must be made for the journey and the losses their side had undergone.

AN INDIFFERENT DISPLAY.

The Bedminster ground at Bristol was the scene of the Welsh match, the English team being the same as did duty at Sunderland, save that Robinson took the place of Hillman in goal, and Thickett superseded Bach. The turf was good, but the ground was somewhat uneven, and seemed too narrow, and these deficiencies made the game poorer than it would have been otherwise: combination was a matter of difficulty, and there was by no means too much of it. The Englishmen were a good deal superior to their opponents, and the result, four goals to love, might have been considerably increased had they played up with the vigour that they did at Sunderland. It was an indifferent display all round, and combined pieces of play were rarely seen. Everyone seemed slack, and the spectators must have gone away with a poor idea of International matches. The half-backs perhaps played the best game, but even they seemed rather off-colour. England, however, did what she was wanted to do, namely, scored a victory, though the form shown did not argue too well for the Scotch match, and made many of the English supporters feel somewhat uncomfortable.

KILLED BY THE WEATHER.

With these two victories achieved England faced the most important fixture of the year — the Scotch match — feeling that the game would be fiercely contested, and hoping to just prove victorious, and so crown the year with success. The match was played on the new ground of the Aston Villa Club at Birmingham, and the English team underwent little change, save that the defence was slightly altered. Crabtree was shifted to back and partnered Thickett, Williams being left out, while in the half-back line Forman went centre-half in place of Crabtree, and Howell filled Forman's place on the right. The goalkeeper and the forwards were the same as against Wales. Had the day been a fine one a magnificent game would probably have taken place, and some brilliant play had been witnessed. As it was, combination was practically impossible, and the match was a scramble throughout. The contest was indeed a fierce and exciting one, as the result was in doubt the whole time, but good football was almost entirely absent. The cause of this was the wind, or rather tempest. It was blowing great guns, and many a kick went exactly in the opposite direction to that in which it was intended. The wind was right down the ground, and therefore it was no mean advantage to win the toss, as the side that faced it were fairly fagged out before the end of 45 minutes: this the Englishmen managed to do, and it had not a little to do with their ultimate success. In such a wind two good sides are more or less put on a level, and any such advantage as I have mentioned may turn the balance. In my own opinion I fancy the Englishmen would have won had the day been calm, as their combination has of late years been the superior, but such surmises are of course valueless. On the day it was anybody's game, and the side that secured the victory could not but count themselves lucky. As the Englishmen won the toss, play was during the first half confined to the Scotch end, though their forwards relieved the tension now and then accurate shooting was, however, difficult, and the Scotch defence was forcible if not brilliant, and thus at half-time England had only scored twice —  none too strong a lead on such a day. Immediately after the interval Scotland scored, and things certainly looked rather blue for the chances of our ultimate success. Owing, however, to some magnificent defence the score remained unaltered, and England left the field victorious by two to one. The forwards were off colour naturally, and none of them could be called good, though Settle worked hard and was the most prominent. All the defence, save Thickett, who was uncertain, played wonderfully, and the victory was practically owing to their display. Of the halves, Howell was very clever, though Forman, and of course Needham, were good. Robinson was excellent in goal, and often saved magnificently. Head and shoulders, however, above them all stood Crabtree; his play was the feature of the game, and friend and foe alike would. I am sure, agree with me in saying that without him England would never have emerged in such creditable fashion from the match. Thus ended the last and most important of the International games of last year. All Englishmen will look back at the three results with infinite satisfaction. May we only prove as successful this season!

WHY ENGLAND SUCCEEDED.

I will now try and explain why in my opinion the Englishmen have done so well for some time past. The reason is not, I think, far to seek. It is because they have had far more chances of late to get together and to know each other's play than they had before. Some years ago it was the custom 'o play an amateur team in one of the minor International matches, and to play a professional side against the other. When these had been played off, a mixed side was chosen to do battle against Scotland. In this way in the most important game of the year men played side by side who had never in all probability had a chance of playing together before, and who knew nothing whatever of each other's play. Under these circumstances it was difficult for the combination of the side to rise beyond a certain height; it may often have been fairly good, but it is obvious that without previous practice players cannot fall into each other's ways with that ease which such a match requires. The Scotch match, as I have said before, if it is won, is won by the superior combination of the English. The Scotchmen are, as a rule, strong, stalwart men, and unless England can show finer combination it is hardly likely for her to prove victorious. The English are generally a lighter set, and must have some advantage if they are to enter on their task with a likelihood of success. It should then be the aim of those who have such matters in their care, to get together a side who thoroughly know each other, and who have had plenty of opportunity of playing together, and nowadays this is the method which is employed. Last year the same forwards played against all three countries; the half-backs, too, with one exception. were the same, and the advantage this conferred cannot be easily estimated. In this way the whole attacking force of the side get quite intimate with each other's play, and know more or less for certain what each member is likely to do. It is, of course, well known that a side that plays together constantly will generally beat a scratch side even if it is made up of superior players, and therefore the present system has had, to my mind, a great deal to do with England's success during the last few years.

INUTILITY OF TRIAL GAMES.

Trial games may be of some use, but personally I do not think they do much to aid in the selection of, or to benefit, the players. It is impossible to judge of a man's form by one day, and it is hard luck for a player who has been, we will say, in good form all the year, but is off-colour in the trial match, to lose his chance in this way. As a practice game, too, a trial match confers little benefit, as the men who are ultimately selected may be on different sides, and I know no more of each other' play at the end of the game than they did before. I am well aware that it is not for me to put forward ideas of this subject, but I should have thought that such a match as Possibles and Probables might have met the case. This was done not so long ago, and though the match, it may be argued, may be a little one-sided, yet after all that would not be a great matter of great moment. The men, who would probably play, would get a good practice together, and anyone on the other side would have quite a good chance of showing up. If this match were played after the Irish and Welsh games, I believe it would prove of value. The present system, however, is excellent, as the results have shown, and we can, I know, safely leave all arrangements in the hands of those who have charge of such matters.