Talk:1871–72 FA Cup

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Nach0king in topic Removing attendances

Hampstead Heathens vs. Barnes edit

I have the four volume set of books "Association Football" published by Caxton Press in 1960. It gives the result of the second round match between Hampstead Heathens and Barnes as a 2-0 win for Hampstead and no mention of a replay. This seems to be at odds with various other websites that I have checked. I presume that this is an error in this book. Jooler 10:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

R Engineers v Hampstead Heathens edit

I have reverted this to a 3-0 scoreline. All my major printed sources (AFS Book on F.A. Cup 1871-1881, Mike Collett's Complete Record of the F.A. Cup and two version of Tony Brown's ultimate F.A. Cup results book) all list it as 3-0 - fchd 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you're right but there does appear to be some discrepencies, and so I think it worth further investigation.

3-0 edit

2-0 edit

You would think that the FA would put up the socres on their pages but they don't. Jooler 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another bloody discrepency edit



So probably the same original source (probably this very Caxton Press book) accounts for the 3-1 result for Royal Engineers vs Hitchen and thus gives us the occurences of the R Engineers v Hampstead Heathens result showing as 3-0 and Hampstead Heathens vs Barnes as 2-0. But that still leaves 4 sites (discounting http://www.uk1871census.com/news.htm which doesn't inclde these two socres) which show 3-0 for R Engineers v Hampstead Heathens including http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engcup1872.html which one would hope would have got right. Jooler 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You don't happen to have a copy of "Football And The Men Who Made It?" from 1906 do you? I know that User:Mikedash does. Jooler 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


Removing attendances edit

None of these attendances are sourced so I'm removing them. They should be re-added only if sourced, as is the case for current fixtures. Nach0king (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply