Kingston-On-Thames v. Addlestone:-
Played at Addlestone on Saturday. Kingston had a party of fourteen, but the Surbiton trains being inconvenient they arrived rather late, and only 25 minutes each way could be played.
During the first half each goal was visited in turn, but the home team led by two goals to none when the ends were changed.

Two more were added by them in the second half, and they won by four goals to none.
The winners played very roughly towards the end, three of the Kingston men being injured.
Lanham the goalkeeper was badly kicked and had to leave the field

Kingston-On-Thames:- F. Lanham, Goal; A. Peck and Morfett, backs; J. Baker, W. E. Stevens and J. Fagan, half-backs; W. Ocock, E. Land, H. J. Kaines, Hutchinson and H. Short forwards. Linesman, F. Ansell.

Report from Surrey Comet dated 11 January 1896- see report in original format.


Kingston-on-Thames went to Addlestone on Saturday, and after a hard and none too pleasant game, were beaten by four goals to none. Lanham, the Kingston goalkeeper, was rather badly hurt is clearing his goal, through being kicked.

Notes from Surrey Comet dated 11 January 1896- see report in original format.


ADDLESTONE v. KINGSTON.
Played at Addlestone on Saturday, and resulted in a victory for the homesters by four goals to nil. It was evident from the commencement that that Addlestone was the superior team. The visitors, however, played a plucky game but they seldom had a chance of scoring. Slade, as usual, was in capital form, and kicked two the homesters goals. Austin adding a third, and Montgomery a fourth.

The game at times was rough, and, to say the least of it, the spectators were rather partial. A Kingston spectator's view of the game is embodied in the following remarks, which we have received:- "The game was a very rough one, resulting in one of our men (the goalkeeper) being disabled, and a second one being hurt (kicked in the leg while not playing ball."

Addlestone we admit were the superior team, and the rough play was quite unnecessary.
Teams:-
Addestone.- J. C. Adams, goal; K. Tehay and P. H. Darling, backs: F. H. Gale, W. Montgomery, and J. D. Austin, half-backs: W.Anstead and J. Groom, right wing; G. Greig, centre; F. G. Slade and H. W. Hartley, left wing.
Kingston.- F. Lanham, goal; W. Morrfett and A. Peck, backs; W. E. Stevens, J. Balker, and J. Fagan, half-backs; W. Ocock, F. Land, H. J. Kaines. Hutchinson, and H. Short fowards.
Referee- Mr J. Gray.

Report from Surrey Advertiser dated 11 January 1896- see report in original format.


KINGSTON v. ADDLESTONE.-
F. B. Arthur, of Surbiton, writes:
"I happened to be present at the above match played on Jan. 4, which, as the report in your last issue says, was a very rough one. The report does injustice to the Addlestone players, and I desire to let the Kingston supporters know the real facts of the game.

In the first place I will say that the Kingston players played by far the roughest game. As soon as they found they were playing a losing game they resorted to rough play, which of course raised the ire of the spectators, who resented it. I thought at the time the match was being played that Kingston were playing eleven referees, for they seemed to get mixed a great deal, and each one in turn was disputing the referee, which fact alone is sufficient to show the unsportsmanlike behaviour of the Kingston men.

Sir, I am writing purely in the interest of sport and fair play, and trust you will also act for the same interest by giving this publicity in your next issue. From start to finish the homesters played the better game, and at times I must admit they had to be a little bit rough, to defend themselves, for to "play the game" seemed almost impossible at times."

Letter printed in the Surrey Comet of 18th January 1896- see letter in original format.


KINGSTON-ON-THAMES v. ADDLESTONE.-
Mr. Charles J. Bartlett, the honorary secretary of the Kingston club writes:
"Referring to the remarks of A Mr. Arthur which appeared in your columns of last week, I should be glad if you will allow me to emphatically contradict the same. That the game was rough I admit, and our men have every reason to deplore this, seeing that Lanham was so badly kicked in the back that be will be unable to play again for sometime and that both Peck and Baker received severe kicks which have caused them considerable pain and trouble. It is palpably absurd in the face of these facts to absolve the Addlestone men from blame as Mr. Arthur attempts to do. They were the first to import roughness into the play and if the Kingstonians infused unnecessary vigour into their play it is obvious that they had plenty of provocation.

I quite agree that the home team played the better game and I may add that the Kingston team expected to be beaten, so that the rough play on the part of Addlestone was the more uncalled for. Perhaps Mr. Arthur, who states that he was a stranger to both teams, is so unacquainted with them that he mis-took one for the other and is giving credit for the action of the Addlestone Club. This is really the only reasonable solution one can offer to the grotesque misreprentation of the facts which he volunteered."

- Mr. William G. Carn, Referees' association, also writes "I was extremely surprised to read the remarks made by a correspondent in your sporting column last week, charging the Kingston Association Club with rough play. I myself would be one of the first to deal severely with any such conduct, but having known many of the Kingston men for over ten years, and having acted as referee in many of their matches, I can only say that during all that time I have known of only one flagrant case of rough play, and that even then the player immediately afterwards apologised for his offence.

That a team who have such a good record should suddenly be transformed into the ruffians your correspondent describes is not merely remarkable, it is incredible. I notice your correspondent states there were 'eleven referees', on the field, which statement seems to give his case away, for if the rough play that he describes actually took place, I should infer there was not one referee present- at least not one competent referee!"

Letters printed in the Surrey Comet of 25th January 1896 in reply to the previous weeks letter- see letters in original format.