SCOTLAND SUPREME
— Ivan Sharpe | 06/04/1925 —

A thousand and one things could be said of the latest meeting of Scotland and England at Glasgow — a thousand thoughts on the Scottish setting, the Scottish style, Scottish skill, and just the odd one reflection one the Englishmen's contribution: they did their best.

That is as much as can be said of the final failure, among many disappointments since the war, of England's international team — they did their best.

For the fact is, England has to doff cap to the Scotsmen and admit their superiority. It is true that the selectors contributed to the dismal failure of Saturday afternoon — a story told elsewhere — but after the inter-League match at Everton recently and the humiliation at Hampden Park in the greater contest, there can be no questioning the supremacy at the present period of Scottish football.

We have long regarded the Scotsman as the superior player in thetrue art of the game — ball control, command, skilled footwork anf finesse. To-day that superiority is clearly and definitely established.

Scotland, judging by the season's displays, is playing true football. In England the helter skelter game abounds; control of the ball and subtle manoeuvre have been thrust out of the game by the craze for pace and the urge of highly competitive play.

A margin of two goals leaves Scotland the International Championship, but a victory twice as emphatic would not have been at all flattering. This result is not unwelcome. It may teach English clubs that true football — skill before speed; artistry and attractiveness rather thandash and devil — can still take the honours of the game.

NINETY MINUTES' HARD LABOUR.

The Englishman at Glasgow obtained one consolation. If there was not a sign or semblance of the true International standard in the English team's display, there was the setting — great and glorious Hampden all spick and span, nearly a hundred thousand people, the kilt and pies, eight trim, grey-jerseyed boys around the arena to fetch the ball and keep the pot boiling, and, between players and public, forty solemn policemen marching round the track. Cold, soulless policemen, who strode round and round with solid, stately tread; who seemed for all the world like forty warders pacing grimly round to see that these eleven invaders were safely tried and sentenced, and served every second of their "time."

That was the atmosphere at the start and finish. The Englishmen were penned in and their frailties exposed. It is almost true to say that Scotland toyed with them. In all the finer arts of football they were their masters, and, if they did not secure a commanding lead and left the second goal or knock-out blow until the closing minutes of the match, there was a cat and mouse feeling over the arena through the second half.

SCOTLAND SUPREME, AND WHY.

Why did Scotland win? The boys in grey fielding the ball could answer that question. They were decidedly the better football players. They were infinitely the better team.

How does this happen when England has a wider field for selection and far greater resrouces? That question rests wit hthe clubs, the system of play and pracitice, and with those who say that ball practice makes a man stale.

The lesson of this match was the superiority of Scottish control and command of the ball. The home players — like the policemen, dressed in dark blue — had all the pace of the Englishmen, but the ability, also, to kill the bounce of the ball, keep the ball to toe, push it here and there along the ground, incisively, progressively, and all too cunningly for the opposition.

This was the great contrast between the teams. Scotland had artistry and choice combination, as well as alertness and activity; they played their football on the ground. England had activity, certainly, but no such ball control, no such cohesion or skill, no power to sustain a movement while keeping the ball down. Nor had they the alertness of the foe.

The lessons of the inter-League match, in fact, were read over again.

Between the two games, however, there was an important difference. At Everton the English League team failed in defence but had striking-power in attack. At Hampden England failed in defence again and failed also in attack, largely, one believes, because the F.A. selectors had chosen to split up good wings and so wreck all the understanding and promise built up in the forward line.

THE LINE THAT FAILED.

Directly the game started it was seen that Tunstall was not in the mood that made the match at Hampden Park two years ago memorable. He punted the ball behind at the end of an uunchallenged raid. An early error is excusable, but Tunstall never recovered. He revealed no ingenuity in attempting to outwit and opponent, and was little more successful in his centres or his effort to touch the ball inwards for Walker to make the return forward pass.

Tunstall did not justify his inclusion, and for the collapse was a shdow of the player we have seen in games for a club or country of recent years, the selectors must share the blame. A ready-made and successful left wing had been sundered.

Equally distressing was the transference of Roberts to centre-forward, and the consequent rupture of the right wing. 

However effective he may have been in club play in the centre. Roberts was never happy in this match. He did not hold the ball and co-operate with the inside men, and he did not get the ball to the wings. His display cosisted in the main od individual dashes for goal which usually broke down with the arrival of Morris or before he reached the backs. Consequently the line had no link, and, therefore, no real leader.

Two changes in attack had involved three alterations in position, and the result was disastrous. The forwards were just five individuals without cohesion — all strong and none succeeding. Generally the ball was in the air. Rarely was there a movement that had any swing or power, or attractiveness.

KELLY IN THE COLD.

True, Seed, at inside-right, trapped and controlled the ball well. He dodged and side-stepped and was the one forward to suggest that England could emulate Scotland's subtlety. Unfortunately, however, Seed's skill was rather purpoeseless. Sometimes his contriving ended with a good pass and achieved progress. Usually it led nowehere. Also, he failed to serve Kelly.

The man from Burnely escapes criticism because he had no chance to make good. The ability we know him to possess was wasted. Inside, he could have foraged. Outside, the must depend on being "fed" with the ball, and he saw precious little of the spoon.

It follows that the attack was a failure. Now and again came a hope from an occasional raid, and a real hope on the stroke of half-time, when Scotland were leading by a goal, but Walker's pass to Roberts, standing only five yards from goal, failed to produce the equaliser because the Manchester City man, shooting hurriedly, punted the ball into Harper's hands.

WADSWORTH'S DISTINCTION.

Neither was the defensive play satisfactory. Magee set himself to play policeman on Morton, and succeeded reasonably well — no English opponent I have seen has fared any better, anyway. But he had his hands full, and he could not help the forwards in front. Poor Kelly!

Neither were Ashurst and Townrow capable of being primarily responsible for Cairns and Gallacher — the problem left by Magee's mission. Ashurst, though d

tackle, was, time and again, too late; Townrow, though excellent in support in the first half, had no virility in defence, could certainly not quell the ardour of Scotland's sparkling inside forwards.

Graham was perhaps the most effective member of the intermediate line, for the was useful in thrust and support, but it was an international line only in name, and it was overplayed by superior footballers. That, as I have said, is the explanation of the whole affair.

Just one man emerged with distincition from England's humiliating experience, from a display lamentably feeble in comparison with that of the victors, and that was Wadsworth, who, if slower than at his best, was rarely outwitted, and could show to the assembled thousands that the captain, at any rate, was not out of this class.

In goal, Pym was not faultless, but it must be remembered that his uncertain fisting of the ball in the earlier stages was attributable, in part, to the swirling breeze. Moreover, he saved from Jackson at close quarters before the interval when a goal could have been excused.

England's display was a disappointment. The response to Scotland's masterful leads was so feeble. But we haveto recognise the fact that fully half the team played up to their normal form, which means, again, simply that they were not good enough.

MEN AND METHODS.

Scotland had a team, playing on the Scottish plan with the addition of the pep and pace that turns frills into thrills and makes "fancy work" pay.

Their strength, as at Everton, was mostly in front. If there was a poor player among the eight forwards and half-backs I did not notice the deficiency. These men worked in unison and with delightful touch. The half-back was generally on the spot for the backward pass and, if there was a challenge, the odds were on the man in blue getting there first.

Neither wing was held because Cairns and Russell could cut capers and carbe a passage at the same time, and because Morton and Jackson could take a pass give a pass in the international way. And down the middle Gallacher could dart with decision, deflect and divert the ball according to the needs of th moment, or drive hard for goal.

Vastly superior were these eights, for the same excellent equality existed at half-back, were Morris was a powerr and Meiklejohn, though good, was not a whit better than merry M'Mullan. I liked them all. They were conquerors in the full sense of the word.

GALLACHER'S GOALS.

Consequently there was a good measure of relief for the men behind, and M'Stay and M'Cloy answered all calls. I did not deem the test exacting, and the strength or weakness of the backs was not revealed. There was evidence of the skill of Harper, however, little though he had to do. He was quick to action and sure in his pounce upon the ball.

One weakness only the Scotsmen had, and that was before the net. Here Russell once butted in towards the close, when Gallacher surely would have had another goal. A hat-trick would have been a joyous celebration, for the Airdrieonians' centre-forward had sent a flying ball into the net from the fringe of the penalty area after 36 minutes — a great goal — and he knocked in the last nail when there were four minutes remaining for play.

And still the policemen marched around. They had our men in goal.

The attendance was returned at 92,000, the recepts being £5,072, which is stated not to include tax.

Scotland.— Harper (Hibernian); M'Stay (Celtic), M'Cloy (Ayr United); Meiklejohn (Rangers), Morris (Raith Rovers, captain), M'Mullan (Partick Thistle); Jackson (Aberdeen), Russell (Airdrieonians), Gallacher (Airdrieonians), Cairns (Rangers), and Morton (Rangers).

England.— Pym (Bolton Wanderers); Ashurst (Notts County), Wadsworth (Huddersfield); Magee (West Bromwich Albion), Townrow (Clapton Orient), Graham (Millwall); Kelly (Burnley), Seed (Tottenham Hotspur), Roberts (Manchester City), Walker (Aston Villa), and Tunstall (Sheffield United).