Source: The Scotsman, 25th February 1926
DEFENDERS' GAME.Even allowing that there was much play, it was a defenders' game from beginning to end, and that it cannot be said the goalkeepers were unduly stretched to keep their charges intact. Compared with Saturday's contest, St Johnstone played just about the same game in front and rear, but Aberdeen were less impressive forward and more solid in rear. St Johnstone had a slight advantage so far as team work was concerned. Not only did their wings work in greater harmony, but their defenders were less reliant on the success of any particular player to pull them through. Team work was never a feature of the Aberdeen game, except in so far as spirit and obvious intention were concerned. Briefly, the execution of the Aberdeen team as a whole left much to desired, but St Johnstone could not be said to have supplied a model.
GOALKEEPERS' PART.Both the goalkeepers scarcely do other than come out of the game with credit, although, on Saturday, Page had more dangerous shots to deal with than Blackwell. Both teams had shots that found the woodwork, but In no case could they really have been said to have been unlucky. Page had more low balls to deal with on Saturday, which suggested that the Aberdeen attackers were striving to turn a lesson to account, but the balls they sent in could not be described as really dangerous, although the Muirton Park custodian proved himself as great a master as on Saturday with those shots that came his way. Blackwell's task, if slightly easier, was equally hazardous. Except for a double-fisted effort during the extra time, he had nothing to really stretch his ability. Amongst two sets of resolute defenders, Hutton took the eye at once. The Internationalist played just as Scotland's right back is expected to play. Accurate in a tackle, powerful in his kicking, enterprising in his attack and judicious in his position play, Hutto fulfilled all the functions of a really great defender. He overshadowed his partner, who was distinctly weak, and exposed his goad on several occasions, and, but for Hutttonhttp://www.afcheritage.org/Team/CurrentSquad/player_show.cfm?player_id=6697&Season=2016-17s contribution, the Aberdeen backs would have played a much less prominent part than they did. Improvements looked for in the half-back line did not quite materialise. Cosgrove and Edward evidently got "policeman ideas'* into their scheme, and while occasionally doing well in their shadowing tactics, they did not help their team so far as offensive was concerned. MacLachlan alone appeared to realise the importance of all-round play, and with resolute and vigorous attack he was prominent throughout
FORM OF ATTACKERSNot so conspicuous as on Saturday, the forwards failed to reproduce their strength as an attacking force. There were Individual bursts which were brainy and bright, and promised well, but, unfortunately for them, these were not always well-timed nor were they carried through with the appreciation of the value of a colleague's assistance at the opportune moment. AlI worked hard, but all did not use their brains as they might have done. McDermid made up for half-back weakness by playing a semi-intermediate game, and was easily the best of the Aberdeen attackers, and for him fell the lot of being the most enterprising, yet most unfortunate of the Aberdeen attackers. More than one effort of his was deserving od success. Reid was an enterprising and clever raider, the best of whom was seen in the outside-right position. For some reason he and R. Bruce changed places for 15 minutes after the interval but it could scarcely be said the alteration made for improvement. Reid suffered from being not sufficiently plied with the ball, yet showed a tendency to overdo individual effort, which was unprofitable against a set of defenders that covered up. R. Bruce was a wholehearted trier who accomplished many clever things without striking the successful medium. Frequently dangerous, he did not always part judiciously or as opportunely as he might have done. Smith on the left lacked "fire" in his efforts, and did not turn Saturday's lessons to account, because when he did centre he did so too near a goalkeeper of Page's calibre and physique. Pirie had a rather unfortunate afternoon. Shadowed throughout, he was never able to shake off the opposition, yet he always was a threat to the St Johnstone defence, and required a deal of watching.
ST JOHNSTONE.St Johnstone neither enhanced nor detracted from the reputation earned in the first meeting at Pittodrie. They failed to score not because of any falling-off in their attack, but because they found defence less generous than on Saturday. Page did not have the opportunity to repeat his success, but again proved a good all-round goalkeeper. If there was an improvement anywhere it was at half-back, where Swallow and Whyte were much more effective than on Saturday. The forwards were just about the same quantity as at Pittodrie, except that Munro, though showing nice touches, was not afforded the same easy chances to prove his ability as a marksman. Kirkwood was the strategist of the line, and Forest came next in order, but a comparison of the two attacks left one with the impression that, while St Johnstone could combine better, they were no more dangerous when it came to marksmanship than the Aberdeen van.
REPLAY AT PITTODRIE.After the game the clubs decided to toss for choice of venue in the replay, and Me William Philip, the chairman, on behalf of Aberdeen, said "tails," and " tails" it was. The game will be replayed at Pittodrie Park, Aberdeen, on Monday at 3.15 p.m. The attendance was 12,500; gate, £458 18s 4d., exclusive of tax.
Source: Press & Journal, 22nd February 1926