December 27, 1910
Match: Football League, First Division, at Goodison Park, kick-off: 14:15.
Everton – Liverpool 0-1 (0-0).
Attendance: 51,000. Gate receipt: £1,000.
Referee: Mr. A.W. McQue; linesmen: Messrs. J.A. Kay and J.A. Macgregor.
Everton (2-3-5): William Scott; William Stevenson, Bob Balmer; Val Harris, Robert Young, Harry Makepeace; Arthur Berry, William Lacey, Sandy Young, James Gourlay, George Beare.
Liverpool (2-3-5): Sam Hardy; Ephraim Longworth, Robert Crawford; Robert Robinson, Jim Harrop,John McConnell; Arthur Goddard, James Stewart, Jack Parkinson, Sam Bowyer, Harold Uren.
The goal: 0-1 Parkinson (50 min).
This was somewhat unfortunate from a local point of view that the two premier League clubs of the city should have arranged their return fixture on a date following two excting encounters, within the space of three days. That the fixture however, was popular, was rendered by the hugh attendance, as the official figure were returned at over 51,000, which the gate receipts exceeding £1,000. There were few changes to record in the constitution of the rival teams. Everton with one exception relying upon the side beaten at Newcastle, while Liverpool introduced Crawford, McConnell, Parkinson and Uren.
Naturally enough, after their two previous arduous tussles, the teams were not in the best conditions for providing a sprinted exposition of the code such as we have seen in recent engagements between these rivals. Yet it must be admitted that Liverpool deserved their victory, for they did manage to find the net, whereas their opponents could not once send the ball past Hardy. Apart from this, however, there was little to choose between the teams, for while both were strong in defence, the respective forward lines were often at fault in utilising the many chances, which their clever play in midfield had created.
The deciding point of the match came within five minutes of the restart after the interval. Following a corner to Everton. Uren got clear away and placed the ball to Harrop, who transferred to Bowyer. The latter tipped the ball forward to Parkinson, who raced ahead and coolly sent the ball wide of Scott into the net. Favourable opportunities were obtained for adding to the lead, but the great weakness of the respective forwards near goal continued to the inside, and whereas chances tell to both sides, nothing of a tangible nature was subsequently forthcoming. Liverpool thus prevailed by the narrowest possible margin and the result fairly represented the general run of the play.
Both sets of forwards were equally faulty in their finishing touches, and hesitancy and inaccuracy spoiled much clever play in midfield when within shooting range. In this respect there was nothing to choose between the two attacking divisions, though Liverpool were presented with more opportunities of testing Scott than was the case in the Everton van. The most capable of the Liverpool forwards was Goddard, who was well attended to by Stewart, but the inside right seemed utterly unable to send a decent shot towards goal. Yet his efforts though misdirected were commendable in that the showed an earnestness of purpose which had it been emulated by the other inside forward might have been productive of good results.
Parkinson’s goal was splendidly accomplished and the movements which led to it acquisition were deserving of the greatest praise. The play of the left wing pair was disappointing and the outstanding feature along the whole line was the lack of accurate finish.
Everton were similarly fault in their endeavour, though Sandy Young played a capital game in the centre, but received little support from his wings. The other inside forward Gourlay and Lacey showed little sympathy with their partners, and combined effort on the Everton wings was rarely forty coming. Berry received a nasty knock before the interval, but he was sadly neglected in the second half, and Beare was afforded few chances. Taken all though the forward play left much to be desired, but Liverpool apart from their weakness near goal were certainly more aggressive than their rivals.
The respective defence bore all the honours in this match though neither custodian was unduly harassed. On one or two occasions Hardy was fortunate in preserving his charge intact. Little fault could be found with the display of the full backs of whom Stevenson and Longworth stood out prominently in their respective sides. Each kicked and tackled cleanly and decisively, and though Balmer and Crawford but their valuable assistance, they were not so reliable as the former pair.
Half-back play reached a high standard, and none did better then Harrop whose headwork and general control of Young were repeatedly in evidence. Makepeace ran him a close race, while Robinson and Harrop were most zendous performers. McConnell also shaped better than in many of his recent display. At centre half Robert Young was untiring in his efforts, and his endeavours to open out the play deserved a better purpose. Thus while the respective rear guard were practically equal in merit, Liverpool held a slight advantage forward, which brought then a couple of points that may have a powerful influence upon the future welfare of the clubs.
(Liverpool Courier, 28-12-1910)
Artur Berry (Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News: November 19, 1910)
Evening Express: December 28, 1910.