ENGLAND v. SCOTLAND: SOME FAMOUS GAMES
— Walter Arnott —

In a Scotman's mind there are only two ways of estimating an English International match. It is either a famous game or an infamous one. There is no middle course. To the North Briton it is a poor season which does not include a victory over England, for the match against the pre-dominant partner is the event of the year, and nothing but victory satisfies. The final tie is a parochial event; the International match against England is a national one; and this, to my mind, accounts for the vast difference there is between the English and Scottish view of the two games. Scotland is nothing if not patriotic, while my experience of England leads me to believe that on the amount of local colour thrown into the English team depends the success of the match when played south of the Border.

Naturally, as an ancient foe of the Sassenach, the trend of my inclination in this attempt to review some famous matches lies towards making the most of Scottish victories; but impartiality — although this virtue has often been denied to my nation — demands the discussion of some engagements where we suffered, and that justly. I intend selecting the matches which show the inception of the fixture — 1872; the rise of the game in the South, and what Tinsley Lindley termed "the turning of the corner" — 1887 and 1888; the best win in England's finest period — 1892; and Scotland's return to the top of her form in 1900.

I remember, as a boy ten years of age, and playing Rugby at school, being told by some of my playmates about the great International match between England and Scotland which had been arranged to take place at Hamilton Crescent Ground, Partick, under Association rules. Several of us determined to go and see it. When the Saturday came, we started off in the forenoon to walk to the ground — a distance of nearly five miles; but after reaching our destination, found that there was no chance of getting inside the ground unless we paid at the gate. What few coppers we had had among us were gone by this time; and how disappointed we felt, after such a weary walk, at the poor prospect of our getting a view of the game.

Just when we had given up all hope, we earnestly begged a cabman to accommodate us on the top of his cab, and it was from that perch that I witnessed the first encounter between the two nations. There would not be any more than 2000 spectators present; but I well recollect the great excitement there was among them when the play was going on, and I was so impressed with everything I saw, that to this day I can vividly recall it all. The English team was by far the heavier one. Their forwards played an individual game, and were much faster than those on the Scotch side, whose forward work was done in pairs. What a treat it was to see Clegg or Ottaway getting the ball near their own goal, and making off at a great pace down the field, and only being robbed of it by some one in the last line of the Scotch defence! Then, again, to watch the great Jamie Weir — the prince of dribblers — and his partner, by splendid combined play rushing down the wing and centring the ball with great accuracy right into the goal-mouth; the gallant attempts of "Billy" M'Kinnon — also a wonderfully fine dribbler and splendid shot — to score; the grand, manly charging that was freely indulged in by both sets of players; the resolute tackling of the half-backs; the delightful, clean kicking of the backs; and the cool, and, at times, daring saves by the goalkeepers. All these were features in a game the memory of which I will ever cherish.

It is now thirty-four years since that match took place, and during that time I have been either directly or indirectly connected with Association football; and I make bold to say that some of the play I witnessed in that first International match would put to shame some that I have seen in recent years in our first-class club games. From 1872 to 1888, England had only two victories to her credit; but in 1886 English forward play showed unmistakable signs of great improvement, and I know that experts indulged in the prediction, after seeing the English five play that year, that Scotch forwards would soon have to play second fiddle to those of the Saxon. It was no weary wait till that prophecy was realised. To my mind, there were two reasons for the decided improvement in the English forward play. First of all, a great many of our Scotch forwards migrated to English clubs; and, secondly, the advent of the Corinthian Club, whose forwards adopted and played to such perfection the three-inside game — the prettiest and by far the most effective style of forward play.

I have often been asked what was the hardest game I ever had to play against England, and it never took me long to answer that question. It was at Blackburn, in the Jubilee year of 1887. England that year had the best all-round team I ever knew her have, and before the match it was very generally admitted that England's forwards were immeasurably superior to those on the Scotch side. The Scotch back division was I say so without being at all egotistical — the strongest that ever fought on her behalf. The half-backs were Kelso (Renton), Auld (Third Lanark), and Leitch Keir (Dumbarton); Johnnie Forbes and myself at back; and M'Aulay in goal. What hope Scotland had in that match of holding her own rested with the back division; and I remember, on the morning of the game, the six of us met in secret conclave and discussed the best policy to pursue, and decided that Leitch Keir was to shadow Lofthouse; Forbes, Fred Dewhurst; Auld, Tinsley Lindley; Kelso, Cobbold; and I was to look after Charlie Bambridge. How successful we were in the tactics we adopted the result of the game gives ample proof, for we only got the ball over the English goal-line six times (three of which were goals, and two of them from free-kicks) during the whole ninety minutes. I never saw such a sustained struggle between forwards and a back division as there was between us that day, and there was no mercy shown by either. From start to finish the excitement was intense, as the Englishmen practically bombarded the Scotch goal during the whole game. Yet we only lost two goals, and in the end we won by three goals to two. It was, I thought — and think so still — the most meritorious win Scotland ever had over England. One little incident I would like to mention, and it had reference to the amount of hard knocking that was indulged in. Kelso and Cobbold had many a severe bout, but the Rentonian had much the better of them; and I remember how we all were much amused when we read in a prominent English athletic paper on the Monday of Kelso being designated "the Renton ruffian." In spite, however, of that epithet being used against him, I must say there was no foul play, either by him or any one else. It was a case of Greek meeting Greek, and you had just to give what you could, and take what you got.

The following year — 1888 — was a black one for Scotland, as England won by five goals to nothing; but the play of the Englishmen was not nearly so good as it had been the year before at Blackburn, although England were the superior team, and she thoroughly deserved her victory. Strange to say, the Scotch forwards in this match were a very much better lot than those who had played at Blackburn; but all played much below their club form. Indeed, that applies to every member of the team. All the same, I do not think, even supposing we had all played up to our best form, that we would have beaten England's team that day.

I now come to the match at Ibrox Park in 1892. The forwards playing for England that day displayed the most brilliant form — indeed, it was nothing short of dazzling — especially in the first half. They scored four goals in the first twenty minutes; and during that time no back division that ever played could have stopped them. It may be interesting to mention their names — Bassett, Goodall, Southworth, E. Chadwick, and Dennis Hodgetts. There is no doubt it was in that year that England touched her highest standard of International football. Not only had she fleet and yet methodical forwards, but she then exhibited for the first time that high excellence at half-back which she was to maintain for the next five years, and, to my mind, was the corner-stone of all her grand teams of that period.

Although, however, she was uppermost during the time I have referred to, England never showed her superiority again in the same marked degree as in 1892. It was not until 1900 that Scotland once more showed a very decided superiority over the Saxon. Like England in 1892, the Scotch forwards in 1900 — John Bell, R. Walker, R. S. M'Coll, John Campbell, A. Smith — exhibited the finest forward play they had ever shown; and it is a strange coincidence that Scotland won by exactly the same score — 4 goals to 1 — as England did in her most brilliant year at Ibrox; but there was this difference — the Scotch forwards kept up their magnificent form right through the game, and had it not been for the miraculous goalkeeping of Robinson, they might have won by twenty goals; whereas at Ibrox the English forwards somewhat fell away in their play in the second half — and a good thing it was for Scotland that they did.

Each International supplies its remarkable incidents; possibly each match is famous to some one. But while it is a subject practically inexhaustible, and one always interesting, there are some games standing out clearly in the memory as the game of a generation.

Thus I have selected the few here detailed as those which impressed me most. Each and all had some striking characteristics; and it is such characteristics as mark the evolution of the pastime and keep its chnges green in the memory. No contest has the same never-ending charm for me; and, in course of time, the great pure sport-loving public of England will place the International where it ought to be — first of all matches.