BACK PLAY — THE MERITS OF C. B. FRY
— William Pickford | 17/01/1903 —

A team that has done what Portsmouth Club has achieved, if only this season, cannot be said to have an inadequate defence, but owing to illness and injuries, I quite believe that the club has suffered in comparison with other first-class professional clubs in the back division, and that a virile and never flagging half back line has saved the situation more than once. The backs have certainly not been playing a sound game of late, and when contrasted as they were on Saturday at Fratton Park, with Molyneux and Robertson, the difference was marked. There is plenty of good and effective play in Turner, Burgess, and Wilkie, but hardly of the same stamp as that of Molyneux. It is lucky for the "Saints" that they had such a fine pair in good form and fettle, for the match was very largely, especially in the first half, a case of a grand forward line vainly seeking to break through a grand defence. Change the backs and I think "Pompey" would have won. Southampton have always been fortunate in securing good backs. One of their pioneers, old George Carter, suffers little, even in the lapse of time since he last played, with present day exponents. Then they had the Nicol and Haynes combination, the former grim, relentless, masterful, and the latter heavy, solid, and undaunted. To my mind Tom Nicol, in his best days, was the nearest approach to that famous old master Nick Ross, that I have seen. The Preston man never seemed to know what fear was, and frequently gained the ball by the very terror of his approach. Albeit he was a rough diamond, and lost his life gallantly in rescuing a boy from drowning. After them came Meehan and Durber, also with one great exception a notable pair. Meehan perhaps a little too beefy, but very safe, and Durber, cat like and springy. Now the club have fallen on their legs again with the present indomitable, cool, and active pair.

THE SCIENCE OF BACK PLAY.

We used to be told that the essence of back play was weight. Modern methods teach us that provided a back is of good average tonnage, it is sufficient; weight alone is no great consideration, for forwards like Steve Smith and Cunliffe, Harry Wood and Turner, give no openings for being charged, if they can help it, and what is the use of a mighty bulk if it has no object to aim at? An elephant might as well try to charge a tiger, or a whale a shark. The main qualifications for a back are strength, vigour, and speed, accurate gauging of the attack and the precise moment in which to meet it, quickness of decision, determination, accurate heading, and accurate kicking with either foot. The back who dashes in, and bowls over his opponents, scrimmages the ball through and pelts it up the field, and who lands the ball well up every time he boots it, takes the public eye, but does not always catch the eye of the expert. The most dangerous part of a back's position is not when he has a yard advantage of an oncoming rush and eludes it, but when there is quick hustling in front of goal. It is then that he shines, if he is a back of the true breed, when he knows that the goal yawns open a few feet behind him, and that the least tap of the ball by a forward, or the slightest slip on his part means disaster. It was on this quality, the quality of cool-headedness and close tackling that Molyneux rose to international honour, and to watch his alert, quick, resourceful tackling in front of goal is a pleasure. There is no reckless or hard kicking about his play, and not over much charging, but a grasp of the situation that is quick and resolute and free from vice.

AMATEUR v. PROFESSIONAL BACKS.

There have been some grand backs turned out by amateur teams. There was a time when the fame of the Brothers Walters, of the Old Carthusians, out-shone that of any backs in the kingdom. They gained a great deal by knowing each other's moves so well, but in that they charged so heavily it is probable that they lost in comparison with the more subtle play of the highest rank professional. Few amateurs have approached that standard, and few professionals have reached it. Among the latter I have mentioned N. Ross and I ought to name R. Howarth, his partner, and since then men of the stamp of Crabtree and Spencer, of the Villa, Holmes, of Preston North End, have shown perhaps the finest type of classical play. There are indeed two fine types of back play, the heavy and the subtle. Rarely does any man combine the two. Williams, of West Bromwich Albion, Thickett, of Sheffield United, Iremonger, of Nottingham Forest, stand on a level with the Walters, and L. V. Lodge among the English amateurs, and Drummond and Doyle among the Scottish professionals. Such men are partly battering rams of bone and muscle, and create feelings of uneasiness among the ranks of the opponents. The better type was more nearly approximated by W. J. Oakley, of the Corinthians, and Crabtree. I am not sure that reviewing all the great backs I have seen perform I would not put Oakley at the head of the list. Quiet strength, thoughtful and skilful play are his great characteristics, and especially that safeness in front of goal when the forwards bunch themselves in gallant pertinacity, and worry the ball like a pack of wolves, to which I have referred.

C. B. Fry'S position in the football world will always go down as that of a back of the better type, but unless he improves wonderfully he will not be put on the same plane by future historians as Oakley. He is just a little short in safety methods, taking risks, knowingly or carried away by his speed I am unable to say, the latter most probably. One point where he is handicapped is in his being still in the pupillary stage as regards the science off heading. He is improved wonderfully of late in this department, but has not yet acquired the knack of placing the ball where he wants it to go and of bobbing the cranium up just at the precise moment. He butts at it with head down, whereas the profesional, more versed from his earliest days in heading, does it with his head erect, and so can also see what he is doing. There are other little matters in which he loses by comparison with Molyneux for instance. He breasts the ball too often, and when the Smith wing, for instance. met him at the Dell, he showed hesitancy as to divining their moves. Of course it is a test for a back to judge him on his checkmating of the elder Smith in manoeuvring the ball, but judged on such a test, C.B — as Steve will probably say if asked — is not very hard to deceive. Still he in a back who would be welcomed open armed by most clubs. I am sure Southampton are almost grieved to have to choose between him and Robertson. Mr. Fry has few greater admirers than myself, and I am sure will take my criticism kindly. The very best of sportsmen, and instinctively recoiling from the semblance of unfair play, yet if the Portsmouth men can bring him to the view that it is not unsportsmanlike to put the ball into touch when no better course offers, they will do him a service. It is the game, and not at all contrary to any of its canons to do this, and as it also advantages a side when hard presed, when attempts to kick the ball into midfield might result in a sudden onslaught on goal with the defence scattered. May he win an English Cup medal in the "Pompey" colours.