Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game

Problems involved with identifying individual participants and determining their locations in team photographs
Given the relevance of the exhibition match as an unusual event in the history of Aussie Rules football, the international development of Aussie Rules football, the sporting careers of each of the players involved, the history of the AIF in terms of both "Australian military history" and "the history of the Australian military forces", as well as its encouragement of participation in sport  Australian history, in general, and, perhaps, even, in Australian history as an event that may (or may not) have peripheral relevance to the 1916 conscription referendum, the level of detail it provides must be adequate to serve the needs of each of those entirely different interests, as a dedicated, stand-alone article.

The issue of determining the true "civilian" and "military" identity of each of the individuals mentioned in the match's official programme has presented an exceptional difficulty. In addition to the programme's complete failure to provide the "service numbers" for each individual (understandable, given that the programme was intended to inform the spectators of the day, rather than be part of a significant military document), its multiplicity of typographical errors, its misidentification of particular individuals, its provision of mistaken details of military service at the time, its provision of incorrect names, its misinformation relating to the "TEAMS" associated with each particular individuals and, even, in some cases, insufficient information to allow any further identification of any kind at all.

In the arduous process of attempting to precisely and unequivocally identify each individual participant, the simple assumption was made that the two photographs (taken on the day) of each team were the most reliable source. A further, strong suggestion of an individual's possible location was their age, height, weight, and hair colour as listed in their individual Service Records (once, that is, their "military" identity had been accurately determined)  compared with those of adjacent, otherwise-already-identified players. The newsreel footage of the players both seated and in motion, and the two different photographs of the seated players, all provided more assistance: for instance, Benjamin Hastie Mills [17], who had been measured at only 5ft 2½in on enlistment, was able to be exclusively identified in the photographs and the newsreel.

Yet, the two sets of available photographs were not standard "team photographs", containing only team members, plus an associated list of the names of each player, in their precise position in the photograph. They were, in contrast, simple press photographs taken as records of the significant day; and were intended for subsequent general press release and/or lodgement within military records of the event (rather than of the contest). Although Dan Minogue, writing two decades later (The Sporting Globe, 21 August 1937), did locate the position of some of the individuals in one of the photographs, the set of names that were routinely given, over and over again by the press were simply taken from the programme and did not indicate any of the players' positions in the published photograph.

Moreover, given that both unlisted-in-the-programme A.M. "Mac" Moore and W.H. "Billy" Orchard actually played in the match and were, therefore, clearly present in the team photographs  it was obvious that not every one of those photographed actually had an entry in the official programme.

So, from this, the next step was to isolate the 25 players in the photographs who already had a Wikipedia article; and either through those, or through other material (books, club records, press reports, etc.) independently verify their participation in the match. Following on from this, wherever possible, the participation in the match for those without a current Wikipedia article, was independently verified through books, club records, press reports, etc.

Wherever possible, and in order to confirm (a) their suggested identification, and (b) their location in the team photographs, a separate, independent photograph of each individual was located elsewhere and, for the convenience of those seeking to confirm the veracity of those likenesses for themselves, the details of the pathway to each independent photograph appears within the article's footnotes.

Finally, given that this enterprise was centred on the set of photographed players, no attempt was made to locate independent photographs of any of the 16 (non-photographed) squad members that were not selected to play on the day.

As of 7 June 2022. ..
 * Neither the "civilian" or "military" identity of three of the inadequately described players i.e., [13] "L. Martin (University)", [14] "Maxfield (Fremantle)", and [21] "McDonald [21] (Essendon)"  have yet been determined; although Minogue identified Martin’s position in the photograph, and Cesari's list shows that he started the match in the back-pocket. Also, the identity of "S.M. Keen", the goal umpire, is yet to be determined.
 * Of the 33 photographed-and-identified players, 8 have no Wikipedia article.
 * Of the 36 players in the two team photographs, the identity and location of 31 have been confirmed by their likeness to separate and independent photographs; and, although independent photographs of [17] "B.H. Mills" and [15] "T. Paine" are yet to be found, their Service Records height, weight, etc. measurements have allowed their identity and their location in the photographs to be confirmed. Lindsay658 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Confusion over "[14] Maxfield", of Fremantle
Establishing the true and correct identity of this particular individual, given only as "Maxfield" of "Fremantle" in the programme (and on Beaurepaire’s photograph mount), and further qualified in the programme as belonging to "C Group" of the 15th Training Battalion, stationed at Codford i.e., the same group and battalion as A.J. Andrews [17], G.B. Bower [18], A. Jackson [22], and H.C. Kerley [5]  has proved to be a very difficult task, especially given the widespread confusion in the details supplied in both the associated contemporary sources and the material that appears in the more modern, derivative literature.

Some, no doubt following the Richmond Football Club historian, Paul Hogan — at The Tigers of Old, 1996, p.135 (with no photograph), who (at p.342) states he interviewed Maxfield's daughter, Betty Maureen Widdis (born 1930), née Maxfield, in the process of preparing Maxfield's entry identify the individual in question as the (later) Richmond footballer, and (former) Bendigo City footballer James Vivian "Snowy" Maxfield:
 * "[Maxfield] was a wingman who had the nickname "Snowy". He originally played football in Bendigo just prior to the First World War. He served in the A.I.F during the First World War and played in the famous Diggers' Football match in London, where he represented the A.I.F. . . ."

It may be that Hogan’s "interview" with Maxfield's daughter exclusively concentrated on Maxwell's (post-Richmond) football at Morwell, Maffra, and Traralgon; especially, given that Hogan also notes (p.346) that he had "visited" and "viewed" the Honour Board at Traralgon, and that Hogan simply took "Snowy" Maxwell's supposed participation in the match to be an already-established fact.

By contrast, however, if the (reasonable and logical) position is taken that the images captured by the photographs of the participating-on-the-day teams i.e., as against the vague, imprecise programme information, and the subsequent (equally vague) derivative press details  are the only existing source of the necessary reliable, precise, and independently established-as-true evidence that can truly attest to (and verify) the physical presence of each match participant on the day  and given the complete absence of any independent photographs of "Snowy" Maxfield to permit a comparison, and given the (reasonably, supposed to be accurate) caricature, by Wells, of Maxfield at The Herald  and given that, although all of those photographed have been (often inaccurately) named, none have been precisely identified (name, rank, serial number, football club affiliation, etc.) in any associated material of the time, and, further, that none of those photographed seem to resemble "Snowy" Maxfield, as depicted in the caricature, it would seem that Richmond's "Snowy" Maxfield was not one of those who played on the day, and that the "Maxfield" in question was quite another individual.

Three independent facts support this conculsion:
 * (1) In his 1937 (so-to-speak, extremely Richmond-centric) reminiscences of the game, and despite his references to another Richmond footballer, Les Lee, Dan Minogue makes no mention of Richmond's "Snowy" Maxfield at all. However, in precisely the same article, Minogue clearly refers to a "Maxfield" of "Fremantle" as one of the "other than . . . well-known Victorian footballers [who were] playing against [my Divisional team]", and, given,
 * (a) that the "Maxfield" in question was opposed to Dan Minogue on that day, is an objective matter of record,
 * (b) that the "Maxfield" in question was prominent on the day (scoring one of the Training Units only four goals) is also an objective matter of record,
 * (c) that Minogue was "Snowy" Maxfield's coach at Richmond in both 1924 and 1925,
 * (d) that Minogue was Maxfield's on-the-field teammate in each of the three matches that "Snowy" played for Richmond in 1924, it's certain that Minogue was an extremely well-informed witness in relation to these matters.
 * (2) Further, at the time of his enlistment (see: Service Record) "Snowy" Maxfield was officially measured at 5ft 4¼in (163cm) (i.e., rather than Hogan's "5ft 7in"). Given that B.H. Mill's measured-at-enlistment height was 5ft 2½in (159cm), that there's nothing in either (1916) team's photograph, or the newsreel, to suggest that any other participant shared anything approaching Mill's size and diminutive height; therefore, it seems inevitable that the "Maxfield" in question, whomsoever he might have been, was most certainly not Richmond's "Snowy" Maxfield.
 * (3) Given that, as one of the best-on-ground Morwell Football Club footballers who took part in (and won) the 1922 Central Gippsland Football League Grand Final (see: The Morwell Advertiser, 22 September 1922), it's entirely reasonable to assume that Richmond’s "Snowy" Maxfield was one of the 18 (otherwise unidentified) players who were photographed at Premier Football Teams in the Country: Morwell, The Weekly Times, Saturday, 18 November 1922, p.40.. Given the six years' difference (age, consequences of war service, etc,) between the two photographs and despite the striking similarity between the individual in the 1924 (Richmond) caricature and the player fourth from the right in the back row of the 1922 (Morwell) photograph  no similarity of any kind can be seen to exist between any of those in the 1922 Morwell photograph and anyone in the 1916 Training Units photograph. Lindsay658 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Further remarks on the identification of the Training Units' "Maxfield"
, and for a number of cogent reasons in addition to comments at various parts of the articles, also see the (above) sections "Problems involved with identifying individual participants and determining their locations in team photographs" and "Confusion over "[14] Maxfield", of Fremantle"  the following has been taken as "given" (i.e., ).
 * (1) The only indisputably accurate primary sources for identifying the 36 match participants are   (a) the two separate photographs of each team taken before the match, and    (b) the newsreel taken at the match.
 * (2) The "information" supplied in the programme is not only unreliable and inaccurate, but also does not identify any of the squad members in any useful way – particularly because it fails to provide the correct family name (and, of even more even more significance, the service numbers) of the individuals listed in the two squads.
 * (3) Based upon a recognition of the "accuracy" of (1) and, especially, the "inaccuracy" of (2) and rather than, as a first step, attempting to identify the participants through their military records  independent-of-the-match photographs of each individual were sought, and it was only when the presence of that individual had been strongly "suggested" by that separate and independent photograph, that the service record of that individual was located, and their presence in the UK, at the time of the match, was verified.
 * (4) As has already been discussed above, if it had been true that the "Maxfield" in question was the later Richmond footballer "Snowy" Maxfield, it is certain that Dan Minogue would have identified him as such especially because that Maxfield, was not only a highly sought-after Richmond footballer five years' post-war, but had also been the centre of considerable controversy and drama in relation to the granting, cancellation, and restoration of his permit to play with Richmond.
 * (5) From (4), accepting that the "Maxfield" in question was not "Snowy" Maxfield, it clearly seems that whomsoever this "Maxfield" actually was, he was a very significant part of the match, having kicked one of his team's four goals (and, therefore, the goalkicker was very likely to be, in fact, a "Maxfield").
 * (6) Despite the fact that the "Maxfield" in question kicked a goal, the concentration of all of the British press reports was on the match as an "event", rather than a "contest", and given that no experienced Australian rules reporters were physically present at the match, and given that all of Brosnan's valuable later-published embellishments to those British press reports were taken from the correspondence he had received from those he had known directly as either a VFL coach, or as a VFL-centred football correspondent, it's not at all remarkable that, in contrast to, say, the well-known participants, such as Bruce Sloss, Percy Trotter, etc., the peripheral participants, such as, for instance, the Training Units' Italo Cesari, continued to be misidentified and/or ignored.

So, from the reasonable position of having accepted that there had, indeed, been a Maxfield involved, and having been unable to precisely identify which particular Maxfield that was, the next step was to locate the World War One Nominal Roll, which revealed that 14 "Maxfields" had enlisted in the First AIF.
 * One of these i.e., Charles Ernest Maxfield (1845)  had been killed in action in July 1915, prior to the match.
 * Three i.e., George Edgar Maxfield (4043), (Captain) Gordon Loris Maxfield, and Harry Maxfield (176)  were serving in France at the time of the match.
 * Five i.e., Allister Williamson Maxfield (68836), Arthur Robert Maxfield (3144), David Hugh Maxfield (3909), Edwin Ernest Maxfield (140), William Eric Maxfield (2849)  were in Australia at the time of the match (either having been repatriated, or yet to leave for overseas service).
 * Independent photographs of another four i.e., Alfred Maxfield (1653 and 3756), Frederick James Maxfield (1898), James Maxfield (1693) i.e. "Snowy", and John Percy Maxfield (455)  fail to display even the slightest likeness to any of the eighteen footballers in the Training Units' photographs  see, for instance, Alfred Maxfield (1653) at left of  who was repatriated back to Australia, and medically discharged (as "1653"), and who, not long after returning to Australia, stowed away on a troopship bound for overseas, and was eventually taken on strength once more (as "3756")  so each of those individuals were excluded.

All of this exclusion/elimination seems to very strongly indicate that the fourteenth and "remaining" Maxfield i.e., William George Maxfield (1899), the younger brother of Frederick James Maxfield (1898) (also, as their sequential service numbers, and their respective service records indicate, they enlisted on the same date at the same location )  is the man in question. William George Maxfield (1891-1962) was born at Spreyton, near Devonport, Tasmania, in 1891. On enlistment, aged 25, he was measured at 5ft 6in, with a fair complexion and fair hair, and next-of-kin was given as his sister Ruth (as was his brother's). His Embarkation Roll record (at ) shows that he left Australia on the same ship as his brother, and his service record (at ) clearly shows that he was on the Salisbury Plain, and with the 10th Training Battalion, at the time of the match. He left for service in France three weeks after the match, and was wounded in action in July 1917, and was repatriated to Australia in May 1918 (see, for instance, ).

Yet,, it has not been possible to locate any independent photograph of William George Maxfield in order to to match (or not) against those in the Training Units' photograph and, also, because there is no unequivocally clear evidence (via TROVE) of his having any skill as an Australian rules footballer in northern Tasmania at any time  the identity of the "Maxfield", of "Fremantle" is still a matter of speculation. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)