A Photographic History Of Scottish Football

[G-MAN]

 
A bit of prehistory - some of the Scottish teams from the Charles Alcock Football Annual for 1873.  The team at the top left is Callander.

This is outstanding. Thanks for sharing.

[tamthebam]

14 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

 

A bit of prehistory - some of the Scottish teams from the Charles Alcock Football Annual for 1873.  The team at the top left is Callander.

Not a lot of people know this but there was an FA Cup tie played between Queens Park and Nottingham Forest at the ground of Merchiston Castle.

I believe the ground was where Napier University's Merchiston campus is now Merchiston Castle school moved out to near Redford Barracks years later.

[Eednud]

3 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

That the details were repeated from the previous year's edition, as none of them had sent in the form at the back of the book for inclusion in the 1873 edition.  So it's a warning that the data are possibly out of date.

One thing that stands out is rugby union was much the bigger code in England and Scotland - and the Sheffield code was probably bigger than association as well in England, certainly in the north (although association and Sheffield often went together, northern teams would switch to association when playing in the south, but very few switched between rugby and football).  There's the famous thing that Queen's Park didn't lose a match for about ten years but it becomes less impressive when you realize that for about half of that time they had about four games per season against external opposition.  It was partly QP's evangelism and partly the FA Cup that kickstarted association above rugby. 

And at the top right you can see Kilmarnock were still a rugby side then.

I see Edinburgh University played Scottish Rugby Union and not just Rugby Union or Union.

[ropy]

7 hours ago, Eder said:

But they didn't.  Traditionally the sporting thing is let both sides line up - maybe he was peeved with something or just wanted to be the hero of the day.

I wonder if there is another occasion this happened?

 

 

[RandomGuy.]

9 hours ago, Eder said:

But they didn't.  Traditionally the sporting thing is let both sides line up - maybe he was peeved with something or just wanted to be the hero of the day.

I wonder if there is another occasion this happened?

 

Did it not happen in favour of a Bielsa side a few years ago? 

Sure he then told his side to stand back and allow their opponents to score straight from kick off.

[Jacksgranda]

10 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

That the details were repeated from the previous year's edition, as none of them had sent in the form at the back of the book for inclusion in the 1873 edition.  So it's a warning that the data are possibly out of date.

One thing that stands out is rugby union was much the bigger code in England and Scotland - and the Sheffield code was probably bigger than association as well in England, certainly in the north (although association and Sheffield often went together, northern teams would switch to association when playing in the south, but very few switched between rugby and football).  There's the famous thing that Queen's Park didn't lose a match for about ten years but it becomes less impressive when you realize that for about half of that time they had about four games per season against external opposition.  It was partly QP's evangelism and partly the FA Cup that kickstarted association above rugby. 

And at the top right you can see Kilmarnock were still a rugby side then.

Some things never change...

[Monkey Tennis]

15 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

 

One thing that stands out is rugby union was much the bigger code in England and Scotland - and the Sheffield code was probably bigger than association as well in England, certainly in the north (although association and Sheffield often went together, northern teams would switch to association when playing in the south, but very few switched between rugby and football).  

What was the Sheffield code and how did it differ from Association?

I assume it's related to Sheffield being such an early club?

[Drew Brees]

Big mates birthday today, saw this on his FB

 

[Monkey Tennis]

36 minutes ago, Drew Brees said:

Big mates birthday today, saw this on his FB

 

That was a cracking Thistle strip.

[Eder]

9 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Did it not happen in favour of a Bielsa side a few years ago? 

Sure he then told his side to stand back and allow their opponents to score straight from kick off.

Not sure if it was a quick kick-off but remember an incident when a team didn't return the ball after the ball was played out for treatment to a player.

[HibeeJibee]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What was the Sheffield code and how did it differ from Association?

I assume it's related to Sheffield being such an early club?

Remember there was no FA until 1863 - the early clubs devised their own rules, which took a while to standardise locally, then nationally.

Cambridge, London and Sheffield were all notable 'codes'; and of course Rugby in the oval ball game.

Notable feature of Sheffield was the 'rouge' - a sort of tiebreak, produced from counting near-misses. If you drew on goals whoever had most 'rouges' won. There were other differences e.g. size of goals, extent of handling and roughing-up, plus details around freekicks, corners, throw-ins etc.

EDIT: Vastly more detail here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_rules

Edited August 7, 2021 by HibeeJibee

[bluearmyfaction]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What was the Sheffield code and how did it differ from Association?

I assume it's related to Sheffield being such an early club?

As HibeeJibee set out above.  Even under association rules there was some room for improvisation, Queen's Park for instance would sometimes let the opposition have more than 11 to make it a fair match.  Only official matches were strict.

One thing that probably stopped the Sheffield rules from becoming the dominant code was that they were more subject to change.  Association rules on handball for instance were fairly constant.  The original laws allowed you to make a mark à la rugby (which did not exist as a national code at that moment).  It was quickly changed to no handball for anyone except the goalkeeper.  Whereas Sheffield changed pretty often - a mark, then no handball for anyone, then handball by the goalkeeper, then no goalkeeper but the defender nearest the goal can handle it. 

By 1877 though the Sheffield and association rules had come together so much, each nicking the best laws from the other (e.g. throw-ins are from the Sheffield rules - the FA rules were like rugby ones; one-handed and perpendicular to the touchline) that the FA and Sheffield FAs merged.

It's a reason incidentally why the FA Cup was so southern-dominated in the early days.  Clubs like Sheff Weds didn't take part in it.  I think the earliest a modern-day League (well, ex-league) team started in it was Notts County in 1877.

[Monkey Tennis]

Thanks both - interesting stuff.

I suppose the basic rules we have regarding who can handle the ball etc seem so self evidently sensible that it's easy to overlook that they underwent some bumpy evolution, rather than arrived fully formed.

[bluearmyfaction]

And it was a compromise between the different public school games.  Some schools were purely dribbling, it must have looked like a phalanx with someone at the front being pushed along by those who could get onto the loose ball if he were tackled., so no handball at all, not even a goalkeeper.    One of the things in Sheffield Rules which would be useful today was that the tie-break was rouges - shots that went between poles either side of the goals.  So a bit like the one pointer in Aussie rules.  And like Aussie rules in 1863 there was no bar, could be as high as you wanted.

The thing that set rugby apart in 1864 was running with the ball.  Which meant keeping hacking (kicking the shins) and physical tackles to dislodge the ball.  Neither necessary if carrying is banned.

Incidentally, offside was a bone of contention in the early versions, football originally was like rugby and everyone attacking had to be behind the ball, that didn't last too long.  But most public schools had a version of offside, and Eton had (still has for the Field Game) the perfect term - sneaking.

[Nowhereman]

Interesting. Dumbarton's year of foundation given as 1873 when it has always been 1872 as far back as i can remember. Wonder if the club have got it wrong all these years

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

Interesting. Dumbarton's year of foundation given as 1873 when it has always been 1872 as far back as i can remember. Wonder if the club have got it wrong all these years

Many football clubs foundation years are wrong. Berwick's is 1884 (IIRC) but was thought to be 1881, and the centenary was celebrated in 1981. For a few years we actually altered official materials, strips etc. to 1884 but after a new board took over it was "put back" to the "traditional" date of 1881 - even though contemporary news reports etc. have proven this to be wrong.

There was a museum exhibition about Berwickshire football a few years ago that had features on the counties 'traditional' senior clubs - Coldstream, Duns, Eyemouth and Chirnside. They proved to all have the wrong foundations years, after research was done.

It's also hard to define what a "foundation" date actually is. First time some people congregated and kicked a ball around? First time they played versus somebody else? First time they set-up a committee? First time they joined an FA or league? First time they played a competitive game? What if they began as cricket or rugby? What if they stopped and restarted? What if they broke from another club?

[Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, HibeeJibee said:

Many football clubs foundation years are wrong. Berwick's is 1884 (IIRC) but was thought to be 1881, and the centenary was celebrated in 1981. For a few years we actually altered official materials, strips etc. to 1884 but after a new board took over it was "put back" to the "traditional" date of 1881 - even though contemporary news reports etc. have proven this to be wrong.

There was a museum exhibition about Berwickshire football a few years ago that had features on the counties 'traditional' senior clubs - Coldstream, Duns, Eyemouth and Chirnside. They proved to all have the wrong foundations years, after research was done.

It's also hard to define what a "foundation" date actually is. First time some people congregated and kicked a ball around? First time they played versus somebody else? First time they set-up a committee? First time they joined an FA or league? First time they played a competitive game? What if they began as cricket or rugby? What if they stopped and restarted? What if they broke from another club?

Having checked we had our first meeting and appointed office bearers in December 1872. Although there are reports of us playing a game in December 1872 there are no details so first documented game is 1873. Maybe that's where the book took its date from. Mind you the book also has Kilmarnock being founded in 1872 which appears to be their first game rather than 1869 when they had their first meeting

Edited August 9, 2021 by Nowhereman

[paulbrucerick]

Frank, before he became a caricature. 

[Buddie Holly]

1 hour ago, paulbrucerick said:

Frank, before he became a caricature. 

once a saint,always a saint 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/maccas-soft-spot-2617235.amp

 

[resk]

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Mind you the book also has Kilmarnock being founded in 1872 which appears to be their first game rather than 1869 when they had their first meeting

It's important to not rush into things.  

Edited August 9, 2021 by resk