Gilchrist 44
Match Information
Attendance: 16,000
Referee: A Allan (Glasgow)
Matchday: Saturday
Match Trivia
Frequently has it been remarked that discarded players of the Rangers’ have shown their very best form when opposed to their old masters. For confirmation we have only to look to the game which such men as John May and James Stark have put up when the Light Blues came along to Greenock – aye and even when these gentlemen have returned to the haunts where the fame of at least one of them was made. At Motherwell, Rangers found another of their old players’ chiefly instrumental in their downfall. I refer to Tom Gilchrist, the scholastic Lanarkshire forward, who began his senior days at Cathkin, found his wat later on to Ibrox, and left there because – I believe I’m correct – the crowd said unkind things to him. That, at any rate, was one of the reasons. I don’t give Gilchrist all this credit because he scored that goal three minutes or so from the interval, which settled the destination of the points. Although his had not been the foot which guided that ball past Hempsey, I still would have regarded him as the Motherwell player chiefly responsible for a success which sent the enthusiasts of the great industrial burgh of Lanarkshire into ecstasies. I will not labour the subject. Let me say this, however, that in the first half the red, curly locks of Gilchrist were ever noticeable in the many attacks of his team; later on he gave assistance to the defence which probably accounted, in large measure for their success in keeping the desperate Rangers out. It was an exhilarating game to watch. Three minutes had only gone when that stalwart from the north, Duncan Finlayson, had Hempsey beaten all ends up with a shot which set the timber shaking. Later on Reid gave Hampton a shock of a similar character. The play did not remain for any length of time round one goal; the scene of attack was ever changing. Still I, like many other had the feeling that the little bit of resource which the Rangers seemed to have would ultimately get them a goal. And a goal for them would have meant quite a different tale today. But the goal, as I have indicated, came at the other end. The attack which led up to it was not so virile or searching as others which the Motherwell forwards made. Indeed it was rather a loose ball which Gilchrist delivered. Hempsey seemed to be deceived, and as a matter of fact slipped when he made his effort to get at it, with the result that he was short of distance when he lay prone along the goal line. Not many of us, I am sure, thought the scoring was done for the day when Mr Allan called the teams round at the interval without allowing them to retire to the pavilion. The men with the blue favours who had filled several special trains and numerous brakes, and charabancs were not a bit disconcerted because their team was down a goal. It was all a question of time until the leeway was made up and the points subsequently made safe. And it really seemed as if these ruminations were to be realised, for tight away the Rangers attacked, and Reid found the post when Hampton was beaten. Later on Duncan whizzed a ball against the cross-bar, and when Paterson caught the ball on the rebound and shot in the Fir Park goalkeeper turned it past the post. Stewart and Bennett seemed to have ‘gifts’ laid at their feet, and Reid whistled one just over the crossbar. But still no goal! Rangers weren’t doing all the attacking, you know, but I mention these incidents of play to show you how near they came to getting a goal. Motherwell were not altogether a defending side, and although as I pointed out to you, Gilchrist did fall back to assist his colleagues there was no pronounced scheme of ‘hold what you have got’. Since Saturday after noon the people whom I have discussed football with have, as a rule, put this question to me – How did Rangers Lose? You will observe that their interrogation was not – How did Motherwell win? I will answer the query as the majority put it. Rangers lost because they were not the Rangers we know them. To begin with the half-backs failed – failed absolutely. I cannot say a word of commendation about one of them. Even Gordon, the best player in his position in the country, failed, and to the extent of dribbling the ball across his own goal in the closing minutes, at a time when the play from his team’s point of view, was wanted at the other end. Logan was seen – and heard – a lot, but I cannot say that he did anything worthy of praise. Bowie was not a half-back in the true sense of the word. The forwards then you will see had not much encouragement. But they had opportunities, and did not take them. It is not expected of Reid that he should forage and make play for himself, and when the men on either side of him are not foraging for him then we don’t see Reid. I will say this for him – and it really is not a great deal – that he was the best of three inside forwards. Stewart began as if he would do a real good afternoon’s work, but nothing came off for him, the reason being that the ground was slow, and he did not suit himself to the circumstances. Bennett can never do worse. I like Scott Duncan best of the line, for Paterson was not context with beating an opponent once, and that is a failing I cannot forgive – even if it does come off. Muir was the best back on the field, his kicking being delightful. Campbell did not remain cool when things went against his team. And now to the winners. They are entitled to praise for beating such a team as Rangers. But they must not forget it was their turn of Dame Fortune’s wheel – and it was probably due. To a certain extent they were indeed lucky to win. If they had lost they would have had reason to grumble, but a point would have done them justice. I have already stated what a big say Gilchrist had in the victory. To veteran McNeil I also offer my congratulations. He did not shadow Reid unnecessarily, but he was never to be found far away. He realised his deficiency in speed when he refused to be drawn forward in the second half, and when a player used his brains I am always ready to say a word in his favour. The best of the half-back, however, was McStay, and Mair came into the picture at the crucial time later on. I like Duncan Finlayson, the Fir Park centre forward, because of his possibilities. He knows all about centre forward play; what he lacks is speed. They talk of him in the Motherwell board room as a grand half-back. It is as a centre forward I would have him. Gray was very clever, but Knowles did not respond as he ought to Nicol was only moderately successful. The Motherwell backs never inspired in me much confidence, but they contrived to get the ball away somehow. Still their kicking was frequently inexplicably weak. Behind them Hampton’s goalkeeping was a strange mixture. He stopped balls splendidly, but I cannot understand why he so often dropped it again. Mistakes such as these will not always escape unpunis
