SUCCESSFUL SOCCER SEASON

Although the tie score in Saturday's contest eliminated the University association football team as an aspirant for second place in the intercollegiate soccer league, the season was by no means as unsuccessful as last year's and the results of the league games in particular are noteworthy as showing a remarkable improvement in the team. Reviewing the contests throughout the season there is to be noted a steady building up of a machine which reached its full strength shortly before the end of the season. The playing in the final game with Haverford fell short of the usual standard probably because of the unfavorable weather conditions. Even in this game, although the breaks were against it and probably prevented the winning score, the University players showed themselves better able to battle with the snow and heavy field and superior in team work to their opponents.

This year marked the third season of the new system in intercollegiate soccer, the playing of the championship series in the fall. This recent revision in the former program of the intercollegiate soccer league resulted, as last year, in finding the team in rather ragged condition for the first few games, and probably caused defeat by a 4 to 2 score at the hands of Princeton in the first league game of the season. Four practice games preceded the contest with Princeton and each of the opposing teams, Prospect Union, Andover, Springfield and the Law School were defeated in turn. Few of these early games showed the team-play and accuracy in shooting which should have been in evidence even so early in the season. Coach Burgess had continually to battle with a tendency for individual playing which threatened to wreck the prospects for a more successful season than last year's, when the University eleven failed to win a single league game. Evidence of the success of Coach Burgess' efforts was prominent in the next league game at Ithaca, when the University team played Cornell in a hard snowstorm and came out the victor, the score being 4 to 2. In spite of the condition of the field, unified playing characterized the playing of the University team.

Penn. Administered Defeat.

In the next game with Pennsylvania on November 18, the University players showed a slight slump in form and were swept off their feet by the visiting team in the last few minutes of play, the final score standing 3 to 2 in Pennsylvania's favor. This proved to be the last defeat, however, for the team came back in splendid fashion and defeated Yale and Dartmouth by the scores of 2 to 0 and 2 to 1, respectively. Both games were very fast and both were good exhibitions of unified playing.

Although the team showed a marked brace for the final game of the season with Haverford last Saturday and kept the ball in the visitors' territory most of the time, the necessary "push" was lacking and neither side was able to get the winning goal after two extra five-minute periods had been played. The tie score assures Haverford of third place in the league with a per centage of 600, having won three games, lost one and tied one. If the visitors had won they would have been tied for first place with Princeton and Pennsylvania. On the other hand, should the University have won, it would be tied for second place with Haverford.

Penn. Won Post-Season Game.

In the post-season game between Pennsylvania and Princeton to decide the tie for first place, at Philadelphia on Saturday, Pennsylvania won by a 3 to 2 score Since Haverford failed to win the game here, Pennsylvania's victory Saturday gives it the intercollegiate championship with Princeton second and Haverford third.

The final league standing is as follows:

W.  L.  Tied  Pct.Penn.,  5  1  0  .833Princeton,  4  2  0  .667Haverford,  3  1  1  .600Harvard,  2  2  1  .400Yale,  1  4  0  .200Cornell,  0  5  0  .00