September 12, 1910
Liverpool went one better than they did last year at Blackburn, and gained a creditable victory over the Rovers.
The forwards gave an improved display, and one is pleased to note that Parkinson succeeded in hitting the target on two occasions.
He took advantage of the two openings which came his way, and it is to his credit that he beat such capable backs as Crompton and Cowell.
The “Robin” in the course of his comment on the match says: – By their clever victory over Blackburn Rovers at Ewood Park the Liverpool team have quite restored confidence in the minds of their many admirers.
They were up against a side that were determined to leave nothing undone in order to retain a home record that had not been sullied since April, 1909, when Newcastle claimed both points.
Moreover, the Anfield organisation withstood an attack remarkable for its grit and persistency for the greater portion of the game, and there was no suggestion of fortune assisting them to accomplish their object.
Beeby came into the team again, and, as events transpired, Hardy was not missed.
The Rovers’ keeper, Jimmy Ashcroft, who has played a great part in many of the successes of his side – notably one in which the “Reds” were concerned a couple of seasons ago, when he practically defeated the Anfielders – was far from fit owing to an attack of rheumatism, and gave place to Murray. This was the only change on the Rovers’ side.
The Rovers were unquestionably the more aggressive side, but that availed them little inasmuch as their final efforts were as a rule lamentably weak.
The forwards shot frequently enough, and on a few occasions their attempts were such as would extend the best of keepers.
On the other hand, the Liverpool van, though they had not so much of the play, were decidedly superior in driving home any advantage that came their way.
There was method in their movements that one failed to observe in the Rovers’ plan of campaign, and when the Anfield forwards settle down to the standard we know they can attain a goodly crop of goals should be forthcoming.
The earlier stages were characterised by repeated onslaughts on both goals, and though the Blackburn Rovers, by sustained pressure, were the more fancied, Liverpool were the first to open the scoring.
This came from a throw in, which resulted in Parkinson getting the ball in a position exactly to his liking, and as the home backs were standing wide, he dribbled between and gave Murray absolutely no chance.
This point came after ten minutes play, and, though, the Rovers redoubled their efforts, the interval arrived with Liverpool holding the lead.
Resuming, the Rovers again were the more aggressive, but their play was not convincing at close quarters, and it was left for Parkinson to again add to their discomfiture.
Macdonald took a neat pass from McConnell, and gave Parkinson a clever forward pass.
The centre’s speed came in useful here, for he pounced upon the ball, and as Murray stepped out it was safely placed in the net.
Still the Rovers were not done with, and for some time the Liverpool goal was severely bombarded.
Harrop was a bit slack during this period, but Beeby saved the situation; in fact the keeper and subsequently a trying time, and attended ably to shots from Aitkenhead, Latheron, and Garbutt.
Towards the close Chorlton missed his kick, and the Rovers’ outside right rushing in reduced the lead.
The closing incidents were intensely interesting, but no further scoring accrued, and Liverpool won by the odd goal of three.
Coming to the players there could be no disputing the brilliance of Parkinson. He gauged Stephenson, the Rovers’ centre half, to a nicety, as lying just in front of him, he frequently showed a clean pair of heels and shot with an accuracy beyond reproach.
Orr’s display, if not of a polished character, was characterised by downright hard work, but Macdonald, though he occasionally put in some clever touches, ought to have done better against Crompton, who on Saturday displayed both a lack of speed and judgment in clearing.
Much interest was of course centred in the introduction of Brough to First League football. It is always a big order to expect a young player to bound into brilliant form in an initial trial, but this much may be stated that while he played an average game in the first potion, he improved greatly in the second, and plied Goodard with passes that by their accuracy and timing were of more than ordinary merit.
The skipper completed a line which, if not altogether aggressive, was capable of displaying the nicer points of the game when an advantage came their way.
The work of the half-backs reached a fairly good standard, while further behind the performance of Crawford was a model of accuracy, and with Cowell, who was a tower of strength to his side, provided features, the value of which could scarcely be over-estimated.
Chorlton, too, offered stern residence, and it was unfortunate that the slip he made in the closing stages should have penalised his side.
Beeby, in goal, was all that could be desired, and the best compliment that can be paid to him is that Hardy could not possibly have done better.
Garbutt, Latheron and Aitkenhead were the most resourceful of the Rovers’ forwards, and while Bradshaw put in many fine touches, there could be no doubting the superiority of Walmsley, who on the day probably had no compeer in half back play.
Naturally Crompton was not the hero of pas seasons. He did some smart things, but as a rule he was an exemplification of the view that age tells a tale.
Murray kept a good goal, and could not have parried either of the shots recorded against him.
(Evening Express: September 12, 1910)