Main content

The complete history of the Mighty Magpies

9 July 1910 | Round 11

  • South Melbourne
  • vs.
  • Collingwood

Lake Oval (Away)

  • 13.17 (95)

    • QT 15.2

    • QT 27.8

    • QT 39.14

    • QT 413.17

  • -

  • 4.9 (33)

    • QT 11.4

    • QT 22.5

    • QT 34.5

    • QT 44.9

Match Report


There was a large crowd on the South Melbourne ground to see the game between the home team and Collingwood, and possibly keener interest was given to the match by fact that the  South were looking for revenge on account of a reverse earlier in the season. They got it completely.

The ground was a little slippery about the centre, which is unusual at South Melbourne, and the rain the night before seems to have been unevenly distributed, because while some grounds were bad on Saturday, others appeared to be hardly affected by rain at all. At South Melbourne it had been found necessary to sand the turf round about the goal.

The only change in the Southern team was that they left out Charge and took in Hiskins, but Angus and Rowell were still absent from the Collingwood ranks, and they gave a trial to Lumsden, a Northcote player.

There never was any about the result of this match, because South Melbourne got to work early, and with effect. It was noticeable all day that they played the dashing, forcing game, always going, to meet the ball while Collingwood waited for it.

In the first half, Mortimer, the Southern goal-kicker, was able to get a winning lead for the side, for he scored four goals before half-time.  He was playing about 30 yards out from the posts, and at first Collingwood did not trouble about keeping a strict guard over him, though later they changed their minds, and had him very closely watched.

All through the match, however, the Southern forwards – who proved themselves a strong lot on the day – were superior to the Collingwood backs. Owing to one or two slight accidents of play, Collingwood had to alter their ordinary disposition sending men up forward who are usually in more responsible places.

At quarter time South Melbourne had scored five goals to Collingwood one. At half time they had a clear lead of five goals, and for all practical purposes the match was finished, for South Melbourne playing at their best, never once looked  like a side that were apt to be overtaken. One fine point in their play was the very accurate passing of their forwards. In this they more than matched Collingwood, in a phase of the game which has generally been considered a specialty with “The Magpies.”

In the third quarter Collingwood brushed up a bit, and on general merit it can be said that they had a fair share of the play but they were unable to get a fair share of the scores, because the Southern back line was remarkably sound and reliable, and scarcely made a mistake right through the game.

In the last quarter South Melbourne were simply winning all the way. Collingwood were only able to increase their score four behinds, while the South put on 4 goals 3 behinds. Lee, Collingwood’s crack forward, is still something below his best. He had seven shots on Saturday, all within range, and at his worst he generally manages to get goals from 50 per cent of his tries. On this occasion, however, he only scored two.

The one spot on the field where Collingwood mat be said to have shown their true form was about the centre line,and even there, taking the game through, South Melbourne, I think had a bit the better of the battle. The match was a strong contrast to the first meeting of the teams, at Victoria-park, and the South fairly came to their own in winning by over 60 points. The side seems to be bracing up, and I shall not be surprised if they play a much more important part in the second half of the season than they did in the first of it.

In a very even side, elections are not readily made, but I think Bower, in the middle of the field, was about their best man, for handled the ball always with remarkable cleverness. His high marking was first rate, and in passing to his own men he rarely made a mistake. Their backline was so good that it is hardly fair to make distinctions, but amongst the full backs Dolphin was absolutely up to his best form, and in front of him Grimshaw, Ecoble, and Thomas made a very difficult barrier for Collingwood. On the centreline, Prince again proved himself a clever littleplayer. It is a great pity that he has not more weight. Hiskins, who is “in and out,” was very much in on Saturday, for, playing forward, he scored five goals, and got his opportunities as soon as the Collingwood men started to give most of their attention to Mortimer. Deas was playing well forward, but his sho0ting was not good. In the interchange of forward positions and roving, Gough and Kerr were both excellent, and Belcher was perhaps the pick of their followers, though Sloss again played a very good game.

There was no difficulty whatever in picking the best man on Colllingwood’s side. Ryan was their star all through, his work in the ruck being just as fine as when he was in a place. No man on the ground handled the ball more frequently or with better effect, Shorten made fewer mistakes than usual, and played a fast, forcing, slashing game on the half-back line. Their centre man, McHaile, was perhaps a little below his form, yet always prominent, though Gibbs, on the wing surprised him. While Lee failed to an extent in him main object, which is to get goals, be playedfine football as a forward. Both Vernon and Wilson were in form.

Elder, as umpire, adopted what seems to be the League umpire’s policy at the moment, namely, being very strict in the first half, and relaxing a little in the second. All things considered, I think it is not a bad plan.

1910 ‘SOUTH MELBOURNE IN FORM.’, The Argus(Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1957), 11 July, p. 5, viewed 7 August, 2015,

Team Stats

  • # Guernsey
  • GL Goals
  • B Behinds
  • K Kicks
  • H Handballs
  • D Disposals
  • M Marks
  • HO Hit Outs
  • FF Frees For
  • FA Frees Against
  • T Tackles
Provide feedback Ask the Experts