Talk:Combination Game

FJ Wall

The Royal Engineers section refers to Wall attending the 1872 international match. Can this really be true? According to his autobiography he was born in 1858 and would only have been a boy of 14 when the game was played. The match was played 400 miles away from his London home. There is nothing in his biography to say that he made the trip north. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit to text

Some minor changes with explanations

1) Alteration to opening sentence. The sentence originally refered to the Combination Game only as being about 'ball passing' and does not account for the original system of 'cooperation' known as 'backing up'.

2) I took out the bit about the 1880 throw in rule (see reasoning below) and slightly amended text relating to the offside rule (which originally stated that there was not offisde rule in the 1863 Laws of the Game, when infact there had been - a rugby style rule which required players to remain behind the ball to be onside).

3) C.W. Alcock - I merged the information on Alcock contained within the Queen's Park section with this text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Throw in Rule c1880

The circa 1880 throw in is being presented on the same level as the change to offside (1866) as being a major factor in the end of dribblng. The quotation given by the Scottish reporter, from my understanding of the rules at this period (please correct me if I am wrong), is being taken out of context. There were two forms of throw in at the time of the quote - the throw in of the Football Association and that of the Scottish Football Association. The English throw in was a one handed hurl in any direction, the Scottish throw in was two hands behind the head with the ball entering the field at a right angle to the touch line. The FA, on occasion, tried to force the SFA to play their code in the internationals (the throw in and offside rules in particular were at a divergence). I think that the reporter is refering to the English style one handed hurl in his comment which enabled the ball quite literally (if the player took a run up) to be launched from one end of the pitch to the other. The two hands behind the head neccessitated a much shorter and more limited throw in. I think it is the Manchester Conference of 1882 which settles the dispute with a compromise between both codes (two hands behind the head but in any direction). If the year is 1880, the journalist, is likely refering to the English rule which allowed for the ball to be launched high into the air and over considerable distance which negated the prospect of players receiving the ball a relatively short distance from the throw in taker. I'm pretty sure that the 1879 international which took place in England was played under the code of the FA and the match which took place in 1880 in Scotland, was intended to be played under the Scottish code, but the FA refused to take part in the game unless the Scots played to their rules. The 1879 game refers to Scottish players back near their goal line trying to head away the long throw ins which are launched from distance.

I think though that the comments are not directly linked to a specific passing v dribbling debate - Players dribbled and passed the ball widely by this period. The journalist is using an alternative term for Association football (just as Soccer is an alternative term). In early publications Association football is often referred to as the 'dribbling game' to differentiate it from the 'handling game' of rugby. The quote 'Scotch players... positively declare it has spoiled the appearance of the dribbling game' is therefore likely to mean, "The Scottish players positively declare that it (the one handed hurl in any direction) has spoiled the appearance of the Association game." This would make the current line of argument wildly inaccurate and it should be taken out.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Corinthians

Towards the bottom of the page there is reference to the 'likely' influence of the Cambridge team on the Corinthians playing style. Could you expand upon this please, as I have never come across information relating to this. The Corinthians are widely portrayed as the champion team of the amateur south - right from the off they are a high profile 'Allstar' team of leading amateur players and certainly provide enough England internationalists over the course of the 1880s to be considered the major power of the amateur teams in the south of England. N.L Jackson himself attributes the foundation of the club to the success of the Scottish combination game and he also invites leading Queen's Park players in the shape of Dr John Smith, Walter Arnott and Andrew Watson, who played in Scotland's 6-1 win of 1881 and 5-1 win of 1882 over England (the latter being the game which motivated Jackson to set up the Corinthians). In relation to the Corinthians, the evidence points to the Scottish combination game as being the inspiration.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge University

This is an interesting piece but raises some issues. 2-3-5 formation (pyramid or otherwise) is developed quite early on and sources point to a number of teams playing 2-3-5 long before 1883. The earliest that I am aware of is Wrexham FC (1878). In Scotland there is evidence of Rangers FC and Queen's Park playing 2-3-5 in 1880, while I am aware of Sheffield Wednesday also playing 2-3-5 in 1880 and Blackburn Olympic playing the system in 1881. Olympic also uses the formation when they win the FA Cup Final in 1883. The 2-3-5 system is a natural progression from the 2-2-6 game of the late 1870s - the deeper lying of the two centre forwards dropping permanently into a central midfield berth. Alcock's quote is interesting and comes from 1891 when the pyramid was still the latest development. Within a few years of this it is superseded by 2-3-5 'W W' formation, with the inside forwards dropping back deeper to improve the passing lines amongst the forwards. The difficulty here is that, as tactics improve and systems improve, newer and better examples can inevitably be given. Beyond Cambridge University there are strong cases which can be given for the Preston North End 'Invincibles' and the Corinthians for the 1880s, and of course Blackburn Olympic already feature as well. Moving even further forward you then have the Austrian Wunderteam's combination of the 1930s (still playing a form of W W) or the revolutionary form of combination displayed by the Hungarians during the early to mid 1950s (which superseded WM, the conventional British system of the time). You can then move further forward to the Dutch total football concept of combination etc.

My question is whether this contribution would be more appropriate for a 'history of tactics' or 'history of team formations' section, which identifies progression in combination (during the 'post established' period), or whether the page on the Combination Game should be expanded from the early period of development(1860s / 1870s) which relates to the origins and establishment of combination football and into a wider exposé on developments in combination (moving from the early 1880s through to the significant developments of the Twentieth Century)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

More Revisions to Queens Park component

I have made two changes to your additions to the queens park component and justify them below:

First, to describe one's own club as the pioneers of the modern passing game ignores earlier contemporary evidence as well as the opinion of notable figures like Wall and CW Alcock (who state that the Royal Engineers and Sheffield were the pioneers). Your notion that modern passing begins when your history begins is illogical, unfair and tantamount to saying the WW11 began in 1941. No one doubts queens parks role, but you seem to want to use this to deny solid evidence for others' achievements.

I am refering to combination football based on systematic passing when I use the term (the article is entitled 'Combination Game' not 'The first team in history ever to make a pass'). Sheffield's history is well documented and exceptionally important - I would still say that their form of passing in 1860s and early 1870s is rudimentary, and Alcock himself confirms this. Sheffield rules football was based on the long direct pass, even by the mid 1870s, due to the lack of offside which enabled players to stand beside the goal keeper and poach. Alcock does not attribute it to 'combination' in the sense of inter passing between players. They also 'backed up' and a definition of backing up is provided below. Beyond Sheffield rules, the London Association game would have allowed the forward pass from 1866 onwards (absolutely no argument there), but what type of game was being played at this time and how long did it take for a systematic form of passing to take hold? The Old Boys teams just don't take to it and the London culture is primarily a dribbling game until the Corinthians arrive on the scene. The Engineers play a form of combination, yes, and great credit to them, but in my opinion it simply does not become a culture of passing like Queen's Park (or else the Engineers game would have been copied across the UK, with a legacy to show for it - they are, after all, an older club than Queen's and are based in the South East - the home of the Association game). You give a quote from 1869 relating to "Backing up". This form of combination is described by Geoffrey Green (Fabian A H (ed); Association Football Vol 3, London, 1960, P7) when he introduces the style of football being played at the time of the 1872 FA Cup Final,

“Here, too, was the age of the dribbler, pure, allied with a system of “backing up” as it was known, whereby a colleague supported the man with the ball, at the ready either to take it on, or to hustle and fend off any interference by the opposition."

It is described by Green as a system of support, the supporting player being ready to step in should the man in front falter, or of doing what he could to help fend off the charges from opposing players. A culture of cooperation and team work? Yes. A style in which the odd pass could have been made? Yes, judging from the references attributed to the Engineers and even from references that I have come across relating to the celebrated dribblers of the period, Alcock's Wanderers. But a culture of systematic passing? No. This is why Alcock refers to Sheffield when talking about early evidence of the pass in football, and Queen's Park and Scottish teams when talking about systematic passing.

I have added new material to show the evolution of the Queen's Park game which shows that simplistic passing (the beginning of World War II as you put it) for them was made possible as as early as 1867 (with their offside rule change) and I accept that the 1866 rule clearly made this possible in England, but from evidence provided it is 1872 when their game has reached an advanced form of combination (this might be the '1941 entry' as you put it in terms of the overall history of the pass but it marks the beginning of the game that Queen's would pioneer (the modern passing game) - from the Scotch Professors at the Preston 'Invincibles' and John Harley's revolution in Uruguay, to Jimmy Hogan's teaching of the short passing game in Central Europe (via his time at Fulham), the strands can be traced back to Queen's Park and 1872. The playing styles developed by Sheffield and the Engineers do not appear to share this experience.

I take F.J. Wall's views into consideration but I would say that at times he displays an arrogant view of the game in Scotland, describing the FA in one particular article in 1906 as claiming an 'overlordship' over the Scottish FA (after the formation of the Scottish body in 1873)...'which was not fully accepted and ultimately not insisted upon.' Walls views have a haughtiness about them when it comes to Scotland and I'm not surprised that he demotes Queen's Park's contribution. In many respects he embodies the traditional anglo-centric viewpoint of the development of the game. In his autobiography he cites Major Marindin of the Royal Engineers as being one of the people responsible for him being appointed secretary of the FA. Understandably he would have a favourable outlook towards the Engineers although it has to be said that he does not specifically mention a passing game in his praise of the Engineers but rather uses terms like 'working in unison' and 'combination', terms equally suited to the system of 'backing up'. Alcock is fair minded towards football on both sides of the border and interestingly does not place the science of the Engineers game ahead of Queen's Park when it comes to the development of the passing game in any articles that I have viewed.

Second, you write off the Royal Engineers on the grounds that it is a rough game. Contemporary evidence describes the Royal Engineers play as "beautiful", emphasizes strong teamwork and shows passing. Sure, the game was rougher then, but is also true for Queens Park. I have therefore added contemporary evidence (as opposed to retrospective opinion) to show Queens Park playing a charging style as late as 1875. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 09:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Sanders, quoting from the same 1875 game that you refer to(in his book, Beastly Fury, London, 2009, P81), writes,

"The Scots were 'very sorely tumbled about', said one report, but the English 'found it was no use knocking them over, as they just rolled onto their feet again.' Their star striker James Weir, in particular, delighted the crowd by shrugging off charges from both Alcock and Kinnaird, then calmly placing his foot on the ball before firing home."

The Scots play their passing game within this context, so some charging would be expected (and I listed the quote in its entirety to include the bit about charging) - Indeed in the quote Weir of Queen's Park is in possession of the ball when he charges the English forwards. This demonstrates how difficult it could be to take the ball round opponents who delighted in knocking players over (players like Kinnaird of the Wanderers were famous / notorious for their robust style of play). It has to be said, and often is in contemporary accounts, that Queen's are noted for being smaller and lighter than English sides of the period and they are up against a team, in the Wanderers, that charges and dribbles, but if you read the rest of the paragraph that I posted on the 1875 match v Wanderers, it is crammed full of passing moves - can such detail of such length be found for the Engineers? The information on the Royal Engineers is quoted from their official museum website and refers to players 'combining' to knock the goalkeeper into the back of the goal - also selecting their forwards out of rugby players. With quotes like those the physical aspect of the Engineers game (as well as references to beauty) in my opinion has to be considered when assessing the nature of their combination style. It certainly fits in with the London Association system of backing up.

A final point on this section, contemporary evidence, important though it is, tends to be scarce, fragmentary and at times obscure in content, during this early period. The 'retrospective opinions' (ie 'eyewitness' accounts) and the views of acknowledged experts of the period must have an important part to play in helping to make sense of the information, yet you appear to reject it.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the Royal Engineers early playing style

A few points and questions from this section of the page,

1) "The evidence above (relating to the quotes from games involving the Engineers) contains detailed descriptions of passing that are lacking in reports of the 1872 Glasgow international" - How can this comment be justified in relation to the Graphic's specific account of passing, allied to Walter Arnott's detailed eyewitness testimony, backed up by the frequent reference to team work mentioned in the other newspapers? The evidence from the Engineers games (aluded to in the passage) are individual accounts (fair enough) and are not cross referenced in the way that the account of the first international is.

2)"Unlike the 1872 Glasgow international - which was drawn - the contemporary evidence above shows that the Engineers' team playing style benefited their team play by winning games." In the international match of 1872 England, represented by players from nine different clubs, were expected to trounce a Scotland team made up from the members of one club - the combined approach was the salvation of Queen's Park in the game. If they had tried to play the dribbling game they would have been outpaced and out muscled. Moreover, in the March FA Cup semi-final tie Queen's Park draw against the Wanderers - in the FA Cup final tie the Royal Engineers lose to the Wanderers. This runs contrary to your line of argument. Queen's Park do not lose their first game until 1876.

3) "Similarly, the 5th March 1872 match between Wanderers and Queens park contains no evidence of ball passing" The Field's insightful description of the Queen's Park game (aided also by the observation of the Herald) presumably now changes this statement.

4) "The Engineers are the first side to be considered to play the football "beautifully"" Fair enough, but beautifully does not necessarily equate to passing the ball, unless the account gives reference to this.

5) "It is probable that Queen's Park FC observed the Engineers' passing game during one of their visits to England to participate in the 1871–72 FA Cup. Undoubtedly, their representatives in London were well aware of the Sheffield and Engineers' style." Nice attempt! but without facts and hence the use of 'probable'. A significant flaw in your entire line of argument is the alignment of 'backing up' with a 'passing game'. Backing up is simply a support of the dribbler. Individual references to a pass being made as part of this style of game does not equate to a culture of passing or passing game. The support players were also working together to fend off (charge into) opposing players as they tried to intercept the dribbler, or simply to pounce on the loose ball when the dribbler in front was felled. A passing game places an emphasis on the systematic movement of the ball from one player to another - as the players run forward with the ball, passing is a predominant tactic in their play. The Wanderers team are also quoted in contemporary accounts as playing a pass within their system of backing up, but Alcock does not refer to his team when he talks about a passing game. His silence in relation to the Engineers is deafening.

As it happens Queen's Park did have some awareness of the London football scene and a member resident in the metropolis reported back to Queen's Park about the 'dribbling' style of the London game. If the Engineers were pioneering a 'passing game' amongst the London clubs the brothers Smith and others don't mention it. Robert Smith after the Nov 1870 international, in which he played, refers to the practice of dribbling the ball with the feet, as opposed to high or long kicking, but no reference to a passing game. Queen's Park are already playing a passing game when they first visit London for the FA Cup tie with Wanderers in March 1872, so the point about learning the game then from the Engineers can't be true. The awareness of the Sheffield game is even less clear as there is no contact until 1872 when the Sheffield Association request a game, and once again they are not playing a passing game. 'Passing on' is an individual tactic not a passing culture. Knowledge of the Sheffield game also appears to be limited. A game eventually takes place between the Glasgow FA and Sheffield FA (1874), but the secretary of the fledgling Scottish FA, writing in 1873, although expressing knowledge of the distinctive offside rule, asks for a copy of their rules in advance of the game (this suggests that there could not have been much contact even by 1873).-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Queens Park Component

I have trimmed down the Queens Park component by removing two parts:

1) bits about the royal engineers and Sheffield that are clearly flawed as a result of earlier, irrefutable and contemporary evidence of passing. That a historian should make conclusions such as these (for example that Sheffield and the Engineers copied Queens Park) without considering the evidence must call into question the other conclusions provided on this page about Queens Park. 2) the bit about the media not reporting the Dec 1872 match fully. The Scotsman and most other papers (Scottish as well as English) provided very lengthy accounts of this match without mentioning passing. The match accounts relating to Sheffield and the Engineers - on the other hand- were all very brief (literally a few lines!) and did include accounts of science, combination and passing. This adds considerable weight to their evidence.

There is no doubt that Queens Park innovated short passing in the 1870s. The question is when did it start. The evidence that it started in 1872 (or before) is very thin indeed. Once reference stating that they "seem" to be adepts at passing is far from convincing. It sounds like the author was not an observer: certainly he pointed his readers away to sporting gazettes! The rest of the evidence to support 1872 is all retrospective and therefore must be viewed with caution by any serious historian. Herein lies an important question and one that has not been tackled objectively. (n.b. that players "worked well" or "combined together" is often reported in the early 1870s).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I reiterate that it is 'staggering' to dismiss the Graphic newspaper article and I know of a few 'serious' historians, other than myself who would agree with this statement. I know of a few authors who have published the account in books, most recently Richard Sanders, without viewing the material as being dodgy. A weekly newspaper reporting on the same game (but later) than a daily newspaper will write up the account differently, and the content is different in tone from the match reports that are published a day or two after the game. There is nothing suspicious in that. There is also definitive evidence that an employee of the newspaper was at the game - the sketch artist. The other newspapers did not devote such attention to the game as to draw a series of sketches on top of producing an article. Where did the publication get the idea of saying that the Scots were adepts at passing the ball if as you say there was no one present and it could not have been picked it up from the other newspapers? The emphasis placed on the Scotsmen newspaper and it's references to 'dribbling', which appear within the Engineers section, is a deliberate attempt to try and downplay the reference to passing in the Graphic - when you raise the issue of objectivity you should perhaps address this particular example - the Scotsman actually refers to the team work of the Scots, as do other newspapers - ally this to the Graphic which refers specifically to passing, and the testimony of Walter Arnott (eyewitness) who not only backs this up, but provides more detail. I have also quoted a five man passing move from a Queen's Park match which takes place less than three months after the 1872 international match. The passing style of the club in the March 1872 FA Cup semi final tie provides earlier evidence.

The physicality of the Engineers game has also to be considered - according to the museum of the Royal Engineers forwards are chosen from rugby players, while players 'combine' to barge the goal keeper into the back of the goal. The Queen's Park players are smaller and lighter and, in an era of the heavy charge, rely much more on scientific methods in order to compete against heavier and quicker opponents than the direct charge. On top of this there appears to be a lack of understanding as to the nature of the backing up game which I have defined elsewhere on this page. One pass in a game does not make a passing game but this is effectively what you are trying to assert. If this is the case then the Wanderers are also playing a passing game as I can quote them in the same way that you quote the Engineers. Charles Alcock certainly does not agree with this view, while the statement of F J Wall does not confirm that the Engineers are playing a passing game.

The section on the summary of the Engineers game argues that it is 'probable' (ie no facts) that a Queen's Park representative in London would have learned of the Engineers and Sheffield games is once again without foundation. Indeed the whole section is flawed and is used as an attempt to play down the role of Queen's Park in general and the 1872 international in particular. Alcock is a good source on the evolution of the game and points to the Sheffield long pass as the first account of passing (the 1866 game between Sheffield and London if I remember correctly) - He also talks in a number of publications about the importance of the scientific style of Queen's Park and the Scots (I think it might have been mentioned before on the page and has been removed), but I have not yet seen any credit given by him in the same way for the contribution of the Royal Engineers. Coming from the London scene he would have known them very well, he certainly played against them with the Wanderers, and was a colleague of Major Marindin, but he does not credit them in the same way that he does with Queen's Park.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You take my comments on early newspapers out of context. I have read accounts of hundreds of games from the 1860s and 1870s over the last decade. The reports of this period can be littered with obscure references - some like 'kicking the ball with the head' are easy enough to understand, others are not as easy. Descriptions on games are not always clear and concise - that was my primary point. You are right to say that teamwork does not necessarily equate to a passing game, but if you have reference to a collective passing game (the Graphic) then the accounts of team work and playing well together from three or four other newspapers clearly adds to this.

My clearly flawed evidence, as you put it, does not deny early forms of passing in England but points out that the different playing styles championed by Sheffield and Engineers were not as advanced as Queen's Park. Notable men like Alcock and GO Smith amongst others confirm this when comparing Sheffield with Queen's Park and don't mention the Engineers at all when discussing the development of the passing game. There is no evidence that QP is influenced by Sheffield or the Engineers. Indeed the QP minute books point to regular practise and instruction by the members of the Glasgow club as the basis of it's success.

The inclusion of two Royal Engineers players and Lord Kinnaird are blamed for the breakdown in combination in the 1873 international match between Scotland and England. My point was that the Anglo's could not adapt to the Queen's Park system and were not playing at as advanced a level of combination (systematic passing) as Queen's were at this time. They are all subsequently dropped from the team. The fact though that two RE players became acquainted with the Scottish style at the time of this game was the reason for pointing to the Engineers being introduced to and possibly learning from the QP game. The statement was based on identified players and an actual event - the piece about a QP official watching a Royal Engineers match at some point around 1872 isn't based on any account or event at all. The Engineers style does not appear to be adopted by other clubs in the south east. The Queen's Park style, however, is quickly adopted across Scotland and beyond. The Sheffield team from 1874 onwards lost consistently to Glasgow in the annual games and, in playing the games, would have encountered the combination style of the Scottish game as the 1870s progressed. Sheffield is one of the first English cities to witness the importation of Scotch Professors (Officials from Wednesday having watched Glasgow play against Sheffield). This shows that the Scottish game had an influence on that particular city.

I have also moved the Queens Park component to its chronological slot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge AFC

Montague Shearman's book on the history of Football (1904) apparently also has info about Cambridge's role in the combination game. Very hard to come by tho' If anyone has a copy, please could you have a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Location of the Scotland (Queens Park) section

this article would be a million times better if the Queens park section could go between Sheffield and Cambridge, in accordance with contemporary evidence. It would need to be very much shortened and referenced. Obviously if there is earlier contemporary evidence of passing it could go higher, but I have not found any such contemporary evidence either in books or early newspapers. I know that some people will not like the idea, but the contemporary evidence seems to support it. I do not think any historian worth their salt can depend upon very retrospective evidence, especially at a time when travel was so slow. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been reworking the QP section and don't mind too much where it is placed as long as the club has an opportunity to put forward it's account. I have said before that there needs to be proper analysis of what is meant by 'combination'. There are actually different types of combination, including styles of working together without relying on ball passing - ie 'backing up'. They are all being lumped under team based passing at the moment. It appears that the emphasis of this page is moving towards a scramble to identify which team was the first to be listed as playing a pass in a game rather than establishing the different styles of combination that existed (the Wiki page on Passing in Association football is best suited for this as it does not focus on team based 'combination' as a starting point). An inroduction to the subject of combination should of course refer to early examples of passes, but the 'combination game' alludes to the development of systematic team work (passing and otherwise). The passage has been shortened a little but unfortunately as other sections are currently set up to include attacks on the Queen's Park / Scottish account, the passage is longer in order to respond to the comments - I have tried to put information on this page as well to cut back). When it comes to analysing playing cultures, relying solely on one line references, sometimes slightly obscure references at that, from a newspaper account is a dangerous line to adopt. Accounts (retrospective or otherwise) from people connected to the era, who can be considered as possessing knowledge (eg Alcock, McGregor, Wall, Arnott etc) are important. Any historian worth their salt would be remiss not to pay attention to them. A good example of how mistakes can be made from making judgements based on contemporary newspaper accounts can be found on the description of the 1880 throw in (which I refer to above). It appears to have been thrown in (excuse the pun) because it is attributed to a Scottish journalist and mentions dribbling, in an attempt to suggest that the English rule of throwing the ball in any direction ended the Scottish reliance on 'dribbling' in 1880. In reality the reference to 'dribbling game' is an alternative to 'Association game', in the way that soccer can be used. The complaint of the journalist is to the one handed hurl which enabled the taker to 'launch' the ball high and far across the field, over the heads of many of the players, which understandably altered the style of the Association game as played north of the border. The quotation has been misconstrued, making the analysis of the person writing up the quote completely wrong - Because of this we now have the 'circa' 1880 throw in rule (there were two rules at the time not one) placed along side the 1866 offside rule as being a leading factor to the decline of the dribbling game! I know I mention this already above, but I think it serves to show how dangerous it is to base an argument on isolated references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about William McGregor

Is there any proof that McGregor was present at the 1872 Glasgow international? From his wiki page it looks as tho he was probably either in Birmingham or Perthshire at this time. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no insinuation in the passage that McGregor was at the 1872 international. He can be regarded as an expert. though, on football on both sides of the border from the 1870s on. An eyewitness account is given By Walter Arnott, the Queen's Park, Corinthians and Scotland fullback of the 1880s. The telling point, though, is the Graphic newspaper article which specifically merits the Scots at being "adepts at passing the ball" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Section on Scotland/Queen's park FC

Please could somebody tidy up and reference the section on scotland. As in any scientific methodology, please give preference to contemporary (rather than retrospective) evidence. From my readings there seems to be surprisingly little contemporary evidence for passing at the 1872 Glasgow international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To dismiss the Graphic account of 1872 is staggering - a weekly (not daily) paper, London based, reporting within two weeks (not twenty years!) and only their second publication run after the game had taken place. Specific reference to the team "passing the ball" (ie not an individual instance of a passing play durng the game). Add to this the references of playing well together which can be found in the other newspapers. Then, and only then, add the retrospective testimony of Arnott. It is funny that F.J. Wall's 60 year retrospective testimony of the 1873 tour of the Engineers does not receive the same criticism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

thank you for this interesting info. What is the earliest contemporary evidence for short passing in Scotland (rather than tradition)? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thousandsofyears (talk • contribs) 13:52:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

The Field's description of the 1872 FA Cup semi final involving Queen's Park is the earliest that I am aware of - the Field differentiates between the long pass from the full backs and the judicious passing on (short passes) of the forwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Engineers entry

I have altered the R.Engineers part of this article. You clearly know the Scottish story better than anyone (and must have the best job in Scotland????), so I will not alter that. It seems to me that most of the evidence for combination is retrospective (often many years) and for that reason I have used evidence from a contemporary account. I have also added a bit to the public schools part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield

I have moved Sheffield up on this page as I think there is their role early role is undisputed in the development of the game? Does Alcock give a date or say anything more about the Sheffield contribution to the passing game? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spreading the game

I propose a new page on spreading the game to different countries (instead of the section at the bottom of the page). I think this would be better because most of this happened in the 1880s (later than the early combination game) and is therefore a separate issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combination Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330052703/http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm to http://www.corshamref.org.uk/offhist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combination Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831113911/http://www.corinthian-casuals.com/clubinfo/history.php to http://www.corinthian-casuals.com/clubinfo/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)