13 October 1923

RIVAL ROVERS BATTLE

An Unlucky Day for Featherstone

HOW HULL WON

I disappointed in Featherstone Rovers. They have a leavening of talent in their ranks and a very fair conception of the artistic side of the game; but they lack discrimination in the application of their resources.  They lost to the rival Rovers on Saturday because they believed their backs to be match winners, so obsessed with the one policy that they failed to realise their limitations. So freely were they employed that it might be argued their ideas failed solely through faulty execution. It is certain that in having to transfer the injured Hirst to full back for half the game they lost a gilt-edged link in their attack at a period when they might have been expected to come into their own, and is a fact that they had no luck at all; but the crux of the situation was that they had not the tactical genius for such a battle.

They threw out their one line repeatedly, against adversaries always well prepared, and once they were disarmed they left themselves open for counter thrusts which they had no capacity for checking. Kingston were too workmanlike a force, too seasoned in cup warfare, not to perceive the least line of resistance. They allowed Featherstone to expend their energy against their own resilient lines of defence then stepped in to catch them on the rebound, so to speak.

TAKING CHANCES.

When Hull Kington got their chances they made no mistake; but they were so few relatively as to make the score a travesty on the play. Featherstone, in a word made the play and Hull took the points. No one, however, could question Hull Kingston's right to the verdict.  The hundred and one halts in the game, either from infringement or faulty play, brought the contest down almost to the conmen, though it did not disguise the good in both sides. There was plenty of excitement, too, and never so much as in the second half, when, facing arrears of ten points, Featherstone by sheer grit and enthusiasm, threatened more than once to sweep Kingston off their feet. In their brightest moments, however, Featherstone could never do the right thing.

Denton had an extra burden carry when after about twenty minutes, Hirst injured his left shoulder, and some of his slips at that time were excusable, but when that useful and energetic forward Kinsey joined him the second half, he was often either inaccurate in his handling or deficient in speed. There was not a man in the back division with a safe pair of hands. That the progress of the line was retarded so often was traceable to the inconsistency of Williams, who with such a live wire as Kirkham to inspire him, ought to have ensured more proficient service.

INACCURATE HANDLING.

The Featherstone backs fumbled, knocked-on and hesitated until the crowd were in agonies of despair, and showed it. They did much fine work it is true, but it just happened that Cook, Rees and Harris were perfect in their anticipation at those times, and this Hull Kingston trio lacked nothing in skill or strength. Indeed, it would not too much to say they were the prime factors in the victory. I thought Rees played a great game. He sensed every move on the board, and was seldom more decisive than when trading on the limitations of his opponents. It was a fine run by Hoult which cut out the way for Austin’s try; but the Rover’s half-hacks were not impressive. They were generally ready to thwart Williams but it is unquestionable they never filled the eye so forcibly as Kirkham, who, operating behind an eminently successful pack, wielded amazing power. It is to Kirkham’s credit that he tried other methods when he found his swift and clever service misapplied in combination; but found no equal support in any direction, and was beyond his physical capacity to win the match by individual resource.

HARRIS MAKES GOOD.

Neither Mason nor Morgan got the chances they ought to have had in such a service, and generally were so impotent In front of Austin and Harris respectively, that the last-named Hull winger found it in his power to turn in, help to knock the Featherstone centres off their balance, and profit by their slips.

The Featherstone forwards indisputably were the more effective force. They possibly lacked speed in the open, but presumably their main purpose was of a productive character, and when they came foot to foot with their rivals, in the loose they left no scalps. Hepworth. Clements, and Haigh were the most noticeable; but the whole pack, along with Kirkham, did sufficient to win any match. Wynard was more effective on the fringe of the scrum than at full back, where he seldom gathered cleanly and was also slow under pressure. Hirst, even under his disability showed up better at full back than his colleague, though it must said, playing down the hill, his, task was easier than Osborne’s.

Leeds Mercury 15 October 1923