November 21, 1910
On recent form Liverpool occupy a false position in the League table. They were defeated at Nottingham on the County ground on Saturday by a single goal, but this was a result that was scarcely justified by the play. A division of points would certainly have more truly represented the merits of the contending sides.
Unfortunately Parkinson was not at his best, and the consequence was that openings, which time and again presented themselves, were allowed to pass by without tangible results when a little extra effort and judgment might have been productive of reward.
From a Liverpool point of view much interest was centred in the re-appearance of Jimmy Stewart, who along with Macdonald last season did so much towards providing the necessary link to Liverpool’s chain in attack. It can at once be stated that the line on Saturday was greatly strengthened by the presence of Stewart, and with ordinary luck the issue might easily have been reversed.
A most gratifying feature of Liverpool’s performance was the variety of method adopted by the front line. Their efforts were not concentrated in a groove, and under ordinary circumstances they must have accomplished their object, and in no uncertain fashion. There were many delightful touches of wing play that gave promise of success, but the pivot was so repeatedly harassed that he was thoroughly thrown off his game, with the result that he failed at even the easiest of openings.
The second half was well on the way ere Richards scored for the home side after swinging cross shots from Bradley and Waterall, but towards the close there was nothing better seen in the game in the way of finishing efforts than items supplied by Parkinson and Stewart. The Notts custodian warded off with certainly a suggestion of luck a hard drive from the Liverpool centre, while in nine cases out of ten any keeper would have been defeated by a magnificent shot from the inside right. This latter was an effort worthy of an equalising point.
The plan of campaign adopted by the Liverpool forwards was not of the stereotyped character that has marked several of their games this season, and with ordinary luck they must have met with substantial reward. As has been indicated, Parkinson was unfortunately of his game, and such being the case it would probably have benefited the side to more purpose had the inside men plied their wingers even more persistently than was the case. No exception could possible be taken to midfield play and the general movements that led up to the final stages, in which they were all too frequently the victims of bad luck.
Owing to the failing light no interval was taken, and it was tribute to the physical condition of both sides that they maintained the keen pace that had characterised the opening stages right to the close of the game. The part played by Parkinson and Stewart has already been noted. Goddard, Orr, and Uren were a most successful trio of workers, though the outside left rather discounted the value of his work by hanging too long on the ball.
Harrop was the stalwart in the half back line, and while Robinson also contributed much good work, McConnell was at times weak, but probably this stood out more prominently by reason of the success in other departments. Longworth played a great game, and with Lee, the Notts right back, who has recently been identified as a reserve forward, gave an exhibition of defensive work that could scarcely have been excelled. Crawford played a useful game and Beeby once again showed that he is a keeper of the first flight.
Iremonger gave nothing away, and was ably supported by his backs. Clamp, at centre half, was a tower of strength and it was mainly due to his resource that the issue went in favour of his side.
(Evening Express: November 21, 1910)