The Harvard football eleven, as it goes onto the field today, is the product of a season of development, somewhat slow and irregular to be sure, at times even unsatisfactory, but a development that has on the whole progressed constantly and favorably in the face of many discouraging obstacles. Although one game has been lost, another tied, and another won by the narrowest margin, the work of the team each week has been a distinct improvement over that of the week before. And if no game can be said to have been entirely satisfactory in every department of play, it is to be remembered that today's game is the first in which it was, to be expected that the team could show the highest degree of finish and rounding out.

Early in the season the backfield, through the use of the diagonal formation, evolved a vigorous attack. The line, however, has not as yet exhibited the effectiveness of the men behind it. As only four of the regular players on last year's eleven returned to the University this fall, the scarcity of experienced men early manifested itself as a serious obstacle to the rapid development of a team. The problem of building up a line was particularly affected by this difficulty, and team work made little progress under the many changes and experiments that became necessary. Added to this was the fact that many of the more promising men early in the season sustained injuries more or less serious, which kept them out of the game for considerable periods at a time when they most needed coaching. Consequently both individual and team play were retarded in their progress and such faults as lack of aggressiveness in the line, poor tackling and high charging were conspicuous far into the season.

The first game of the season, with Williams, was won by a score of 24 to 0. In this game the eleven showed speed and aggressiveness and gave promise of further satisfactory progress. Games with Bowdoin and the University of Maine, however, although won by scores of 17 to 0 and 23 to 0, respectively, disclosed a weakness in the Harvard defense which has been apparent ever since. On October 11, the team defeated Bates 11 to 0. The low score was due partly to unfavorable conditions of weather and field, but also to general lack of ability and aggressiveness on the part of the team. The West Point game, although won by a score of 4 to 0, was practically a drawn battle, as the faster play of the West Point eleven easily offset the University team's advantage in weight. On October 29, the team was defeated by Pennsylvania, 11 to 0, in a game in which the aggressive play of a fast and determined opposing team well grounded in knowledge of the game, made evident the weakness of the Harvard eleven. The game with Dartmouth, a week later, resulted in a tie with no score. The University eleven, although still weak on the defense, was vastly improved both in the speed and team work of its attack and in the aggressiveness of individual play. Further improvement in these respects was evident in the Holy Cross game last Saturday. The University team scored five touchdowns and showed that, offensively, it has great power. The defense, however, was somewhat disappointing, although this department of the game showed some advance over the play of a week before. Practice during the past week has been light, much attention being given to strengthening the defensive play.

Individually, the players are for the most part neither brilliant nor experienced, but are capable and to be relied upon. Captain Hurley plays a fast, spirited game. In the attack he may always be depended upon for substantial gains, and in the defense he is the best player on the team. Mills at fullback, is a hard plunging back, sure to gain ground in line plunges, and very effective in the secondary defense. Sperry, left half-back, will do the kicking this afternoon. His punts have fair distance and medium height, although in the latter respect they vary somewhat. In carrying the ball he is usually reliable. His chief fault lies in weakness on the defense. Starr, at quarterback, handles the team well, and shows good generalship, although he has had practically no experience in University football. In tackling and helping the man with the ball his work is of a high order. Randall, at left end, has improved in his playing, especially in tackling, and is a strong defensive end. He is, however, still slow in getting down the field under punts. Brill at left tackle usually plays a strong game on the offense and is used effectively in carrying the ball. On the defense he is rather weak. He has a bad tendency to play offside. White, at left guard, has steadily improved during the season and is now one of the most aggressive players on the team. Parker, in his passing at centre, is reliable. His work on the offense is somewhat better than that on the defense. Squires, at right guard, also plays a better offensive than defensive game and is especially effective in carrying the ball. Meier, as right tackle, is perhaps the strongest man in the line. He is a hard player, fast in getting down the field and reliable in tackling. Montgomery, at right end, is slow in getting down under kicks, and is not a sure tackler. His work during the past week, however, has greatly improved and his ability to solve the plays of an opposing team is noticeably good.Erwin. Kineon. Flanders. Hoyt. Gillis. Cates. Neal. Hutchinson. Roraback. Rockwell. Kinney. Hogan (captain). Shevlin. Owsley. Tripp. Flinn. Leavenworth. Veeder. Stuart. THE YALE TEAM AND SUBSTITUTES.