West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954), Monday 28 May 1934, page 14


A RUNAWAY WIN.

East Fremaotle Scores Heavily.

Before a small attendance, ClaremontCottesloe figured ingloriously against East Fremantle at the Fremantle Oval on Saturday, 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: Reynolds, G. Doig, Butcher. Ruck: W. James, Prosser, 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, Steward (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 Claremont-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. Inaccurate 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 ?. onslaughts, but elsewhere ClaremontCottesloe 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 immediately and scrambling play marked the remainder 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; Claremcmt-CottesIoe, 3.6. ? Playing wide, systematic football and keeping the ball low. East Fremantle demoralised' Claremont-Cottesloe, which had lost its pace. Showing anticipation, backing up, and passing at will. .East Fremantle 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). McGIinn, Reynolds, and W. James. Claremont-Cottesloe; ? Skinner,. Growcott, O'Reilly, and Steward. McGIinn (roving) and Jarvis (halfback) played brilliantly throughout for East Fremantle. McGIinn showed wonderful speed, marked surely, and constituted a problem .for his. opponents. . Though studiously 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 consistently good ' high-marking, Clarke prevented 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.