No corrections yet
A RUNAWAY WIN.
East Fremaotle Scores Heavily.
Before a small attendance, Claremont Cottesloe figured ingloriously against East Fremantle at the Fremantle Oval on Sat urday, East Fremantle monopolism' the
play and winning by 12.15. Apart from a splendid exhibition' by Clarke, and flashes' of brilliant form by Hough and Oliver, Claremont-Cottesloe's play was ? far below league standard. A disquieting feature of the game was the latitude allowed by the central umpire, slinging of' the player hot in possession of the ball being invariably allowed, with the result that free kicks were as few as:^-East Fremantle, 12; Claremont-Cottesioe, 14. The teams were: — EASt FREMANTLE.— Backs: F. Mann, Woods, N. Doijj. Half-backs: C. James. Jarvi9, JCunro. Centres: Migro, 0. Doifj, W. Doiff. Half .forwards: Snell, Kingsburj,- Martiensen. ' Forwards: Rey nolds, G. Doig, Butcher. Ruck: W. James, Pros ser, McGIinn. f rover). Nineteenth man: 'G: Mann (did not play). . ? CLABEMONT-COTTESLOE. — Backs: Buzzard, Batt. Deans. Half-backs: White, Clarke, Hou?h. Centres: Garside, Oliver, Neilson. Half-forwards: Morris, O'Beilly, Moloney. Forwards: Edmeades, Skinner, Oliff. ? Ruck: Growcott; Laidlaw, Ste ward (rover). Nineteenth man: Johns, (replaced Garside at toe beginning 61 second quarter). UMPIRE.— F. PeterMn, . East Fremantle had much the better of the opening exchanges, and attacked for the first- five- minutes, but its. goal front work was decidedly' poor. The superiority of East Fremantle thrust heavy burdens upon Clarke and Hough, who held Clare mont-Cottesloe together. East Fremantle held a great advantage in the air, and its abilitvto 'combine' in ' long' chains of 'marks enabled it to reserve its energy. Inaccu rate kicking, -however, -robbed it of a great lead. Two- goals were- scored by-. G.- Doig. and at quarter time East ^Fremantle' led 2.8 to 1.2,, Claremont-Cottesloe opened brisky with goals from Growcott' and O'Reilly/ .but its recovery 'lasted 'only 'until the scores were level, when East -Fremantle. took almost complete charge. ~Its inaccurate shooting, however,, was evident in its score. of 4:13. Clarke' continued .' to repel numerous ?. on slaughts, but elsewhere ClaremontCottes loe was ineffective. ' The ? next' six goals were kicked: by. East Fremantle, which led with 8.15 to 3.4, at half-time. . 7 G. .Doig snapped a goal almost immedi ately and scrambling play marked the re mainder of the' quarter. Clarke' continued to play the best game on- the ground, but his team-mates .were seldom'1 under notice. East Fremantle's football was almost as bad. and little interest remained in the match; at three-quarter time, when the scores were:— East Fremantle. 10.16; Clare mcmt-CottesIoe, 3.6. ? Playing wide, systematic football and keeping the ball low. East Fremantle de moralised' Claremont-Cottesloe, which had lost its pace. Showing anticipation, back ing up, and passing at will. .East Fre mantle added several goals before Steward broke the spell. Claremont-Cottesloe nia.de all manner ' of ?mistakes.' and the .final phases of the game represented shooting practice for East Fremantle. The final scores were:— ' EAST FREMANTLE : 16.23 (1 19 pts.). CLAREMONT-COT. . 4.8 (32 pts). Goalkickers— East Fremantle: G. Doig (7), Martiensen (4), Kingsbury (2). Mc GIinn, Reynolds, and W. James. Clare mont-Cottesloe; ? Skinner,. Growcott, O'Reilly, and Steward. McGIinn (roving) and Jarvis (half back) played brilliantly throughout for East Fremantle. McGIinn showed wonder ful speed, marked surely, and constituted a problem .for his. opponents. . Though stu diously avoided by Claremont-Cottesloe when attacking, Jarvis gave a remarkable display. Munro showed improved form, and solid support was given by -C. James. Others to render outstanding service were G., C. and W. Doig, Butcher. Martiensen, and Prosser. Clarke dwarfed the other members of the Claremont-Cottesloe team, and was the finest- player of the match. With con sistently good ' high-marking, Clarke pre vented East' Fremantle from compiling a mammoth score. Hough's ground play and dash were of considerable value, while Batt in goal brought off many dashing saves. Oliver did fairly well at centre, the best of a disappointing remainder being Growcott, Skinner, and Laidlaw.