A Venters 12
Rutherford 24
Match Information
Attendance: 12,100
Referee: W Bell (Motherwell)
Matchday: Saturday
Match Trivia
This result conveys the impression of a close game, but that is hardly a correct reading of the run of play. For long periods Rangers were definitely on top, and they accomplished a winning lead with an ease which took most of the expected thrill out of the game. Still, had Queens second goal, five minutes from time, come a little earlier, the record crowd of 12,100 would not have been robbed of excitement. Perhaps with five or ten minutes more to go, Queens might have forced an equaliser, for it was only towards the finish they were really like themselves in progressive play. I should say Queens forfeited their winning chances for lack of enterprise as much by lesser skill, though Rangers were clearly masters in positional play and in taking the ball in the air. Allan, usually Queens key-man, appeared apprehensive of the inexperienced Kerr behind him against such a formidable attack, and sacrificed his linking with attack, which is a feature of Queens team-work. Of course, Kerr was immediately behind another comparative newcomer in Curley, so Allan can be excused. The result was that Allan fell between two stools. His concentration on defence became an obsession, and the consequent curbing of his activities deprived him of the sense of positional range. All three Rangers goals were scored from territory the ordinary, mobile Allan would cover. The natural effect of this was that Queens inside forwards were compelled to lie back, and were too seldom up fighting along with Rutherford, or taking the return pass from the wings. When Queens gained the confidence to come out boldly, we saw what might have been, but then it was too late. Their second goal illustrated this exactly. Allan played the ball through judiciously, McKay was in forward position, and Cumming was also up to shoot through. This was almost the only time we saw such a movement coming from the Queens, and there were only five minutes to go. There was a time in the first half when a bolder policy would have paid Queens. They had been outplayed and Rangers led by a Venters goal, scored in 12 minutes. Then a lapse by Simpson gave the home side an unexpected equaliser through Rutherford in the 24th minute. Incidentally, Gray kicked the ball away when it was just over the goal-line, and the referee though Meiklejohns protest went too far and booked him. Rangers were rattled at this stage, but instead of rushing them off their game further Queens attempted the orthodox moves and fell inti the trap of Rangers superior strategic plans. Queens got a bad break shortly before half-time, when Gillick collected two simple goals within little more than a minute. Straight shots on the target sufficed without any preliminaries. There was no scoring in a stalemate second half until Queens late counter, and so few signs of nay that the game became featureless until that belated revival. There ware no outstanding players. Gillick, who played centre, with Fleming on the wing, snapped his chances nicely, but was not otherwise conspicuous. Only in flashes did Rangers reveal good combined forward play on the wings, but they were always conscious of their skill. In covering Queens general team failure, I criticise them sufficiently, but special mention must be made of newcomer Curley, a worthy First League player, and Kerr, an adventurous young back, who might have been an example to his fellows. Rutherford passed muster with poor support. A final word some of the Queens players are inclined to work the ball too closely. This was an obvious mistake, as it played into the feet of Rangers tactical witing defence
