Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

A COMPARISON.
" BRITISH AND AUSTRALIAN.
REPLY TO R.B.H.'S COMMENTS.
"An International" writes as follows
respecting the special article by "R.B.H."
on the subject of football, published last
Monday:—
I am a North of England man, well ac-
quainted with tho "soccer" game. Hav-
ing been five years In Victoria, I have
witnessed a good many of the best games
played during that period. I consider I
am in a better position to compare the
two games than your visitor, who haa
only witnessed one Australian game, and
from what he says I gather that he has
seen about the same number of British
Association games.
I do not wish it to be understood that
I do not like the Australian game. Far
from it. Your writer says, in the first
place, that the Australian grounds and
accommodation, are superior to that of
homo teams. That statement I flatly
contradict. English clubs go to enor
mous expense for ' the , benefit of their
supporters. Stands arc erected all around
the ground. The grand stands, which are
covered In. are .each capublo of seating
anything from 2000 to 10,000 spectators.
The playing eroa Is usually well kept,
and In appearance la not unlike a bowl
ing1 green."
Re the number of players. I maintain
that eleven men aside In the field spue©
allowed for the Engllsfi game Is quite
equal to the number playing In an Aus
tralian gamo, where the playing space
Is larger. Moreover, tho fewer players
a mare open game la witnessed.
" As to the respectability of a British
crowd. I admit the workmen often go
straight from their work to see a game,
but what Is In n coat and a dirty face?
Besides, there are stands to suit all
tiwtes. But that lo entirely beside the
question— a real enthusiast notices little
;of his surroundings when wutchlng a
good game. .
Then; ognlp; with reference . to t1»e
Wdlcb'xtfiose absence your writer notes,
l ean truthfully eny-I Have even- crowds
roated ta tho _
them hci.
wORLDoTs®
$