FA Cup 1926/27

There's all sorts of items of interest in these press cuttings. Firstly, as we've commented before, the FA Cup was invariably called the "English Cup" for many years after its inception. I wonder when that changed? You'd almost expect usage to have gone the other way with "English Cup" becoming the enduring name. Perhaps there was an effort to reinvent "tradition" at some stage?

Then a lovely arcane reference to Torquay's "unbeaten home certificate" which, as so often, is just the sort of expression reporters of the day used to "posh up" their prose. Certainly no room for cheap claptrap such as "Fortress Plainmoor" in the Westcountry's paper of record.

And, when it came to pre-war cup-ties, the training was always "special". Often, if the newspapers were to be believed, this involved football teams being pictured running along beaches and engaging in unusual diets and treatments. Or is all training regarded as "special" as in the notion of "specially-trained" people being on hand when anything goes wrong? We trained "specially" for the Rovers in 1926 and I'm confident we'll do so again this week.

Something that sounds properly "special" for the Rovers cup-tie was the construction of the "ring" accommodation around the playing enclosure. That reminds me of sitting on a fold-up "ringside" chair when Argyle played Santos in the 1970s. That was between the goal line and perimeter boards at the Barn Park End.

The report of the Plainmoor game reads like one of those "we were all over them" tales that have been with us since a ball was first kicked in anger. No 75% possession statistics carefully logged in those days but "the Devonians had quite three-quarters of the game" will do nicely for me.

Their goal, of course, was "lucky" (a "fluke" even) although it transpires Bayes may have been at fault. Who could imagine that, many years later, future generations of Torquay United correspondents would be reporting occasional errors by a similarly-named - how you say? - "custodian".

Although it's disappointing there was "little very scientific play" - it was a cup-tie so that's permissable -- it's good to learn our brave lads subjected Rovers to "incessant bombardment". Well, in a fashion anyway, for there would have been a few poor sods in the crowd that day who would have understood the true meaning of that term.

And so to the replay and, as we all know, it's usually "rough" up in Bristol. Looks like the ref "bottled" it, doesn't it? Why do we always get these incompetents? Our "excursionists" clearly deserved better for their time, trouble, money and unique loyalty. Bristol, I see, were "conspicuous offenders". Same old, same old.....

Well, what exactly? Partisan interpretation probably and all part of the fun. What's Jon's usual wise, measured response? Plus ça something or the other?