Harper's Round Table, September 10, 1895 Part 10

"There's the Sheep!" shouted the ex-Pirate, suddenly, and he pointed out their old friend sitting on a bench about a third of the way down from the head of the long table. They hastened toward him, followed by the Gopher, who was doubtless afraid of being crowded out, for the animals were taking seats rapidly.

The Sheep was overjoyed when the ex-Pirate sat down beside him, and he moved up closer to his neighbor on the other side so as to make room for Tommy and the Gopher. The little boy sat on the bench with the ex-Pirate on his left, and the Gopher on a high stool at his right. The Lion and Lioness occupied the head of the table, some distance away, and the Bull sat at the foot.

"I have been looking all over for you," began the Sheep, "but you were so well concealed I could not find you. Where did you pick up that Gopher?"

"Oh, he's all right," answered the ex-Pirate. "He's got his ticket inside."

The Gopher almost fell off his stool. He whispered to Tommy, "Tell him not to talk about my ticket."

But before Tommy could deliver the message, the Monkeys began bringing the soup in on trays, and placed a plate full in front of each one at table. The Gopher seized his plate and lifted it greedily to his face and swallowed all at one gulp. Then he threw the plate under the table, and began snapping his fingers loudly, just as if he had not been served at all.

"You must not do that," remonstrated Tommy.

"Oh yes, I must," said the Gopher. And then he held up both hands and snapped all fingers.

"What dreadful table manners the Gopher has," said the little boy to the ex-Pirate. "Did you see what he did?"

"Yes," answered the latter. "It was very reprehensible. Worse than anything I ever saw. Worse than the Bishop of Shinnikoree."

"The Arch-Bishop," put in the Sheep.

"Arch-Bishop nothing," retorted the ex-Pirate. "He was only a Bishop."

"But he is an Arch-Bishop _now_," persisted the Sheep.

"He's _dead_ now," retorted the ex-Pirate.

"Yes; and they carved him in stone, and put him up over the entrance of the Cathedral, and so he is an Arch-Bishop, ain't he?"

"Well, I suppose so. Anyhow, he was mighty queer at table."

"You never told me about the Bishop before," said Tommy.

"I know it," answered the ex-Pirate. "But if I had the third volume of my collected poems here, I could read to you about him. He was dreadful.

Worse than the Gopher."

"Can't you remember about him?" pleaded the little boy.

"Part, I guess. Let me see," and the ex-Pirate reflected in silence for a moment. Then he began:

"There once was a Bishop Who tossed every dish up The moment he sat down to table; At juggling with plates Full of apples and dates He was really exceedingly able.

"He would stand on his head When he b.u.t.tered his bread, And his neighbors he gayly would banter, While he gave a wild whoop At the sight of pea soup Which was served in a cut-gla.s.s decanter.

"With fish-b.a.l.l.s and prunes, And fresh macaroons, The Bishop was likewise quite clever; To pile them up high, And swallow them dry, Was his constant consistent endeavor.

"He could drink salad oil By the pint, and not spoil The perfect success of digestion; And having well dined, And copiously wined, He could turn a handspring without question."

"Goodness," commented Tommy. "Where did you say he bishoped?"

"At Shinnikoree," answered the ex-Pirate.

"I did not hear that last verse," broke in the Gopher, swallowing his sixth plate of soup. "Can't you recite it again?"

"No, I cannot," replied the ex-Pirate, severely. "If you don't look out I'll write a piece about you."

This seemed to frighten the Gopher, for he snapped his fingers again and took another plate of soup.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: INTERSCHOLASTIC SPORT]

Last week this Department discussed the preparatory work and training of football-players; in this issue I want to speak briefly of team-play.

The American game has now become such that team-work is its most important feature. Brilliant individual players are valuable, and every captain should be glad to have as many as he can get; but I should much prefer to captain an eleven made up of inferior players who worked well together, than a team of brilliant individuals who played each for himself. Walter Camp says that "team-work is the road to victory," and he ought to know. It is plain that if you have eleven men working as one, and directing all their force against a single point, you have a much more formidable engine than if the individuals making up the team are doing their best according to their own conceptions of the requirements of the situation.

There is a greater opportunity for team-work in defensive than in aggressive play. The former affords an excellent chance for the placing of the men so that they can concentrate their efforts to the best advantage in the resistance of the opponents' play. The captain decides beforehand who shall go through to tackle behind the line, who shall wait to see where the ball is coming through, and then block the runner, who shall wait back of the line as a reserve force, only to act if the ball is carried into his territory. There is also always plenty of opportunity for team-play in the working together of several rush-line men in the defense, as, for instance, when two or three block off the attack's interference while another tackles the man with the ball.

The best team-work in the rush-line, however, is to be obtained by the playing together of the centre and his two guards. It is absolutely necessary that these men should act like a machine, with precision and celerity, for they are the keystone of the whole team. They should not only have a perfect understanding among one another, but with the men behind them. They must watch the opposing backs, and try to let their own rear men through upon them wherever a certain defense for certain plays may seem best. The ends and tackles form another division of the rush-line which acts as a unit. It is the business of these men to stop the runs around the ends, of course, but now that the development of the game has brought in so many rushes through the line, between tackle and end, or tackle and guard, the four end men must play into one another's hands in the tackling of opponents and in the blocking of holes that the men opposite are trying to make.

The men back of the line must also have a perfect understanding among themselves as to what each one will do in certain emergencies. As in chess, they must have one or more "defenses" for known attacks, and they must know which one of these defenses it is best to use under given conditions. The backs supplement the work of the forwards in defensive play against rush-line work, but the conditions are reversed in resisting a kick. Against a kick the backs are the main defense--that is, the team as a whole depends upon one of the four men back of the line to make the next play, and each man of the four must know as soon as the kick is made which one is to get the ball. In the defense against a kick, therefore, the rushers supplement the work of the backs.

When I say that the rush-line supplements the work of the backs, I do not mean that their efforts are to be considered in any way secondary.

At the beginning of a kick play it has been their work to hold the opposing line as long as possible in order to keep the attacking forwards off their own men, who are engaged in receiving and handling the kick. Frequently the ends take an important part in the defense against a kick by coming back with their opponents, bothering them as much as possible, and being always ready to block or interfere for their own back should he see a good opportunity open for a run.

Now that the rules have been amended so as to require actual kicks, it is interesting to note some of the new plays that have been adopted to give the rushers the opportunity to get possession of the ball again as quickly as possible. Last year the big college teams tried all sorts of expedients to achieve this end. One method put to the test was to kick the ball against the opponents with sufficient force to insure its bounding back out of the immediate reach of the man whom it struck. This method, although it sometimes worked, is hardly a satisfactory one, and will probably be used only as an occasional trick in unimportant games this year. Another experiment was a rolling kick between the rushers, but in a diagonal direction so extreme as to give an end or a tackle a chance of securing it.

In the same manner a diagonal kick, short, over the heads of the first men of the opponents, was exploited by some of the adventurous captains.

But toward the end of the season the problem narrowed itself down to a question of the relative value of a kick, short enough, and in a sufficiently high slanting direction, to enable the rushers to get fairly well down to its falling-point, and a long kick driving the opponents back, admitting, it is true, of a run in because the rushers cannot reach the dropping-point in time to down the man receiving the ball. Both methods found strong advocates, and were used in about equal proportions.

And then as to the returning of the kick. Until the rules were changed "returning a kick" meant catching the punt of an opponent, and, without stopping for a down, punting it back again before the opponents could prevent. Naturally this was, among the big teams, much more talk than practice, for it was a rare exception when such an opportunity offered.

With the new kick-off, however, there is certainly an excellent chance for a return kick. A man can make the most of his run in, and just before the opponents meet him he can get in his kick, if that is his play.

Another interesting matter is the distribution of the men on the line-up for the kick-off, and it gives ample room for the ingenuity of coaches and captains. One effective placing of the men is this:

o C

LG o o RG

LT o o RT

o QB

LE o o RE

o o o HB FB HB