Before the largest crowd that has assembled at the Claremont Road ground this season, Hampstead were beaten on Saturday by four goals to none at the hands of Enfield, who had gone under in a mid-week F.A. Cup-tie at home to Leavesden Mental Hospital. Though Hampstead are aware of Enfield's fine fighting qualities, they expected to win, seeing that they stepped on the field with an unbeaten record. This has now gone by the board in a hollow fashion. The match on Saturday reminded us of the debacle at Maidenhead last season. It is to be hoped that the fall from grace will not result, as it has done before, in the Hampstead selection committee getting panic-stricken. Changes are necessary, maybe, but they should not be on a wholesale scale.

This was one of the matches where all the luck seemed to be confined to one side. It was so at Bromley two or three weeks ago, when Hampstead won by seven goals to one. Then Hampstead could do no wrong. In the match under notice the boot was on the other foot. It is not our habit to criticise referees, but some of the decisions given on Saturday were, to say the least, open to question. Enfield at times were the sufferers, but the denial of a penalty kick to Hampstead for what appeared to be a clear case of handling meant much more than the number of other occasions when rulings went against them. A goal at this stage - it was towards the end of the first half - might have made a big difference.

But after all one cannot get away from the fact that on the day's play Enfield deserved to win. Leaving the question of goal-keeping out of consideration, there was no section of Enfield's team inferior to Hampstead's. A goal-keeper who is beaten four times is liable to be blamed, but we do not blame Smith, and we question whether there is a better custodian in the Athenian League. So good were the Enfield forwards that with a less capable man than Smith against them they might have got a dozen. His vis-s-vis, Miles, who has long served Enfield in goal, kept his charge intact except for one occasion, when the ball was put through from an offside position. We should not be wrong in saying that Hampstead were attacking for a longer period than Enfield, but the attack was of the milk-and-water kind, whereas there was a good deal of punch in the work of the Enfield five.

It had been arranged that Johnson and Wilton, two of the Hampstead halves, should exchange places, but the original positions were adhered to. There were no alterations in the home side, though Sherman was a doubtful starter owing to a slight injury in a mid-week game. This, however, did not appear to affect his play. The same cannot be said of his partner on the right wing, Walsh going lame fairly early in the game, and it is understood that a fall downstairs was in a measure responsible for his ineffectiveness. In the second half he exchanged places with Sherman.

Enfield were one up in two minutes. Smith made a grand save from Trevelyan, but from the subsequent corner kick, taken by Irons, the ball seemed to go into the net off Smith. Soon afterwards Trevelyan almost headed through, and Smith did well to beat off an attack by Irons.

Then Hampstead came into prominence, a centre by Sherman leading up to two or three corner kicks. But the attack was short-lived, and after ten minutes' play, [R.] Evans, the Enfield centre-forward, ran through on his own to beat Smith at close range. He hit the bar later, but Hampstead rallied, Butland heading over from Sherman's centre. The home forwards, however, were not working well together, [F.] Evans shaping very badly at centre-forward compared with his namesake in the same position on the other side, and even when good positions for shooting had been found, the shooting was invariably devoid of deadliness. Moore, it must be admitted, had terribly hard luck, and one shot by Walsh, from Sherman's centre, missed by inches, but one could not say that Miles was greatly troubled.

[As already stated, R.] Evans, the Enfield centre-forward, broke through the Hampstead defence to beat Smith at close range, and a little later came the third goal from Beswarick, whose experience in Kent League football is likely to prove valuable to Enfield. He scored in the easiest possible fashion from Jackman's pass, and one could not help feeling sorry for the Hampstead captain in goal.

Then came the incident of the penalty kick deserved but not awarded, the referee's refusal to grant it making him very unpopular. The players took the decision with more grace than the crowd. Even the Enfield officials in the stand admitted that an error had been made, but in such matters the word of only one person counts, and he was not favourable to Hampstead. Half-time came with Enfield leading by three goals to love.

Little need be said of the play in the second half. Hampstead opened fairly well, [F.] Evans giving signs of improved form, but it was plainly evident that it was not Hampstead's day. In this half they had to battle against a strong wind, and to make matters worse, Walsh developed lameness to a degree which made it painful to see him. He had no chance against the bustling Enfield players, and in the hope of effecting some improvement Sherman took up an inside position. Under the circumstances it might have been well to give the left wing more work. [F.] Evans had one glorious opening, but he allowed himself to be bustled off the ball by Miles. Towards the end Enfield scored again from a breakaway, Jackman putting in a fine centre which gave Beswarick an easy chance.

Enfield were masters of the open game, and they were speedier than Hampstead. Walker was not a success at centre-half, but every other man on the side played in very workmanlike fashion. Beswarick was the inspiring force in most of the attacks. He had much help from Irons, his outside partner, and on the opposite wing Jackman made the most of his speed. At right-half J.C. Anderson played in that masterful style which earned him an amateur cap last season, and Miles kept goal in good style.

The combined work which brought success to Hampstead in previous games was here lacking. The forwards were a disjointed lot. Cohesion gave place to individualism. All tried to score, and not one succeeded. The short passing game was exploited, but did not prove profitable. Johnson was the best of a not altogether successful half-back line, and the backs were at times very uncertain.