St Johns Ravenscourt School - Eagle Yearbook (Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada)

Page 35 text:

Gardner—148—Quarterback Third string quarterback and the whole point of the year was preparation for ' 65. Bill ran the wrong way, threw the wrong way, and made lots of mistakes to laugh at and learn from. If his play in the House series was next season ' s indication, then the team has a promising player. Goiightly—Halfback -f- L.B. A great chunkering bull of a runner, he could — if he works to acquire speed, stamina and deception—set up next year ' s offence. He ' s tough on defence, too. A foot¬ ball coach ' s dream player. Gray—Def. End Another learnee stationed at end and tertiary where he could see the flow of the game. Bill has the chance to play full-time in the Fall. Meredith—168—D. End A learning year at defensive end and punt returns in practices, Muir ought to be a regu¬ lar next Fall. Moncrieff—145—Quarterback + Tertiary Monty didn ' t enjoy the general q ' backing success this year that he deserved, for which there may be a host of reasons; but his in¬ dividual offensive running and tackling were of the highest calibre. Nanson—171—D. Tackle John played remarkably well for his first year with the senior team; he has astonish¬ ing strength and is fiercely competitive; good backbone for the next squad. Hammond—185—O. Centre + Guard + L.B. A frustrated back himself, that ' s why he mashes ' em so; still he opens great gaping holes through and will start earlier this year to get his shin muscles on a par with all the others Neal—173—O. Guard + D. Centre A centre defender and entirely satisfactory in dealing with heftier opposition; bemused Jim just outfights them; his third year should be outstanding. Hartley—165—Halfback + Tertiary A top end-runner with more than average speed and very shifty in the open field; a reliable punt returner; not used too much on tertiary—where he was a sure defender—for these reasons. Purdy—145—O. End Another sure-handed end who with Everett and Funnell, the coach thought would give the team a working pass attack, and the hope was that all three would learn to hold a block firmly and long enough around the ends. Neither attack developed success¬ fully. Honeyman—1 65—D. Tackle Popped into this slot in a practice, Don pro¬ ceeded to cut down all the blockers and ball¬ carriers that came his way; he did the same in games; a loose-ball hawk and apparently indestructible guy. Roper—1 79—Halfback -f- Cor. Def. Perhaps the most reliable work-horse of the team, a quick-hitting, ground-gaining plung¬ er, an effective blocker, a stand-in quarter¬ back, a rock-like defender on the corner or behind centre, a staunch team-man. Hunter—148—O. Guard D. Corner A small tough package; too light and slow to handle the cor. def. with maximum security, but entirely reliable at off. guard and one lineman who came up with that second downfield block. Sanders—1 67—D. End Bob found his spot midway through the season—defensive end—and guarded the position as well as anyone else ever has, even with a broken hand. Lamb—1 50—Halfback + Tertiary The fastest man on the team and in fact our only dangerous scoring threat, Craig made some exciting runs and tremendous punts, but an easy-going individualist, he played in offensive spurts and didn ' t give the team the steady life and fire it should get from all graduates. Macdonald, Doug—136 Doug didn ' t make game grade, but he has fair speed, he can catch; although he is lean and light, if he steels his courage, he has end run and tertiary potential. McDonald, Jamie—159—Halfback + D. Corner The football isn ' t sticky enough for Jamie to catch, but he has more than average speed, powerful leg-drive and will be a top-notch back; a first string defender at corner tertiary. McBeath—146—O. End Another first year senior who saw enough game and practise to learn the demands of football and to make a real contribution next season. Matthews—1 72—Q’Back -f- Corner L.B. The coach spoiled Rick ' s chances for a red- hot offensive year by moving him from plunging back to the quarter-spot; but the ability to run, throw, and take charge was there although it didn ' t develop fully. A first- class defender, excluding the fault of some¬ times roll-blocking instead of shoulder- tackling. Sprague—173—O. -j- D. Tackle Modest, soft-spoken, and quiet in manner, but quick, strong and relentless on the field, defensively or offensively, Stu could play first string on any high school team. Toy—1 56—Corner Defense Garry learned a lot in practices and was beginning to uncover a genuine flair to¬ wards the end of the season; with some additional weight and a summer ' s striving for speed, there could be a regular halfback and corner man here. Walton—1 87—Halfback Mike never really let himself go and in¬ hibited what could have been long, long gains through the line; not from Jack of drive but lack of experience; a creditable first year performance. Wattam—191—O. Guard + D. Centre A solid, stolid lineman, roundly proficient at centre defense; more drive-out thrust needed to do as well at offence, but for those arches he could be an offensive plunging back. Weir—193—O. Guard D. Centre A thinking, self-made and confident foot¬ baller, improved as much this year as last because he always worked to find out why he got beaten; a very difficult body to dis¬ lodge; a firm anchor at centre.

Page 34 text:

Back: Mr. Bredin, Golightly, Weir, Toy, Meredith, Fahlgren, Neal, Wattam, Sanders, Gray, McDonald, Nanson, Honeyman. Middle: Bourk, Macdonald D., Cottick, Weir, McBeath, Brook, Freed, Cousins, Campbell, Gardner, Walton, Flartley, Flunter. Front: Lamb, Sprague, Flammond, Fraser, Moncrieff, Boult, Arnett, Matthews, Roper. Funnell Purdy Arnett—Off. Tackle Def. L.B. Except for one fault—occasionally over¬ shooting an opposition end-runner in¬ stead of hunting him down with last- second caution—Randy’s off. and def. play made a flawless final year. Boult—167—Off. Guard + Def. L.B. Capable all-round, superbly fit, and won¬ derfully even-tempered. For up-coming Bantams, a model sportsman and foot¬ baller. Bourk—1 49—Flalfback Not strong defensively, Stoney had good speed around the end, but just wasn t given enough opportunity to display it. Brook—210—Off. Guard + Def. Center After a slow start, Mike took over first line center defense; we never did get to a successful 5-4-3 based on Mike, but it ought to be possible next year. Campbell—Def. End Angus had a go at def. and in practices as Tertiary; he looked a bit clumsy and uncertain, but never fearful; so much willingness and determination has to come into its own in September. Cottick—154—Def. End Eager, but not experienced enough to nail down a permanent defensive spot; Bill could block” well enough, but lacked the savvy to pick up where the opposition play was headed. Cousins—1 80—O. Tackle -f- L.B. The best defender and tackier on the team, and a first-rate offensive lineman; if he can beef up his weight without losing his speed, Kent could really pulver¬ ize opposition backs of all sizes. Everett—1 50—O. End -f- L.B. Bill wasn ' t a strong blocking end, but he could catch pretty well. Generally he turned in a competent watching effort at corner, and did an outstanding def. job in a couple of games. Fahlgren—175—O. + D. Center Fair agility and speed for a square shape, when he was up Pete was very good, especially defensively, but his work was¬ n ' t consistently alert and aggressive; lots of undeveloped drive and skill here for next season. Fraser—193—Halfback -(- L.B. An excellent plunging back, but the ball wasn ' t always firmly locked up; Clark played well anywhere along the line and with real brilliance on def. end; a very talented competitor. Freeds—130—Halfback + Tertiary Small, but explosive; his speed and agility should give the ' 65 squad end-run power; also a brilliant tertiary defender, Sam makes the bigger they are the harder they fall come true. Funnell—1 55—O. End + Def. Cor. Derek had a good pair of catching hands but wasn ' t quite rugged or big enough to cope with blocking chores; a passable defender and spirited holler guy. 30

Page 36 text:

COACH’S REPORT Defensively, using the top eighteen players, the ’64 squad was as capable as any the school has fielded. Offensively the team was limited; mainly it lacked driving, accelerating backfielders. A passing attack existed in name only; the end run, unlike previous years, was relatively ineffective, likely be¬ cause of poor fakes, and definitely because of un¬ fulfilled blocking and failing to head upheld, but the guards, tackles, and plunging backs gave the team its consistent gains. However, three accidents and injuries did pre¬ vent the “green Machine” from showing a Very definite seasonal improvement. The key game was against St. James on the Fathers’ and Sons’ Week¬ end. The loss of two prime plunging backs just before the opening whistle and of a third within five minutes of starting shattered a carefully practised offense. Every rugby season has its compensations, and in ’64 practice weather was gorgeously warm and sunny; there were more players than ever before to keep busy, and tougher problems to struggle with. But the deepest impression is of a remark¬ ably co-operative, team-centered group, a com¬ munity of players. S.J.R. vs. ST JAMES Although regular league play between S.J.R. and St. James until late in the season, an exhibi¬ tion game was arranged so that the two teams could gain experience against each other. The first half of the games consisted of hard-hitting defen¬ sive play with no scoring. Early in the second half, however, St. James received our kick-off and went down the field in six plays for a touchdown. Their convert attempt was blocked. S.J.R., not to be outdone, received the St. James kick-off and marched down the field. Craig Lamb ended the drive with an end run, carrying the ball over the St. James 25-yard line. The convert attempt went wide, and the game was tied, 6-6. The game re¬ mained tied until late in the fourth quarter when St. James kicked for a single, and the game ended in a disappointing 7-6 victory for them. S.J.R. vs. PORTAGE Portage started things off with a sustained drive from midfield, which gave them an unconverted touchdown, the second time they got the ball. The rest of the half was a well-matched battle and ended with S.J.R. holding Portage on a first down at the six-yard line. S.J.R. came back strong after the half, and controlled the ball for most of the third quarter, but was unable to score. The fourth quarter was fairly even although Portage made a 70-yard drive which ended in a converted touchdown to add to their score. The game ended 13-0 for Portage. 32