James Lillywhiite's Cricketers' Annual 1874

3 1 in the future , as he is a fine bat with excellent defence as well as plenty of hit. Rugby defeated Marlborough , but the latter were by no means so strong an eleven as under Gay's captaincy in 1872 , and Cheltenham were still worse , 나 though in their Captain , E. Browne, the latter have a very fine but rather wilful and mismanaged cricketer . It must be mere conjecture of course , but to m y mind Clifton and Uppingham were as good as any School of the year . Facts arestubborn things , and byfigures both were very formidable , though it is absolute experience that produces the assertion . Strong at every point the Clifton Eleven were undoubtedly , and it will surprise manygood judges if one of them, T. W. Lang , does not confirm the opinion of Mr. W. G. Grace , and justify his election to represent the County of Gloucester . Uppingham only lost one match, and that was at the Oval , their first appearance on a public ground . Norwas this a fair test , as they had to meet Southerton on one of his pet wickets when he was almost unplayable . There are some who go so far as to assert that they were the best School Eleven of 1873, but without going to this extent , they would certainly have comported themselves well against the best . They had three batsmen at least who would have been dangerous against the finest bowling ; their Captain , W. S. Patterson , an excellent bat, sure of runs , Steele , a resolute player with genuine style , and A. P. Lucas , as steady as the old guard, and as difficult a wicket to get as Mr. Ottaway or Jupp. Of the other schools I know nothing , except on hearsay , and that is not reliable evidence. Individual deeds must follow general exploits in natural order , and pro- fessionals give way to amateurs . One mansways the balance it is true , and his feats were as marvellous as ever . There is one champion without a doubt , and he would be eccentric , rather than bold , who would venture to dispute the title of Mr. William Gilbert Grace to the first place among cricketers , as superior to the rest as Cook is unapproachable at the spot stroke . If you are in doubt, glance at his achievements in the three annual contests between the Gentlemen and the Players , and estimate for yourself his supremacy over the best bowling in the land . Youmaycall him a bad bowler if you like , but there is a general feeling in favour of the bowler who gets wickets , and he has got a great propensity in the direction . It matters not whether it is a “ head ball ” that does the mischief or not, but he knows how to keep the ball just on the blind spot , and calculates the position of his field to a nicety . If you are anxious to knowthe second in rank as an all -round cricketer and care to accept m y opinion , commend me to Mr. G. F. Grace , as next on the list , an effective bats- man always , at times a dangerous hitter , a very useful bowler and a brilliant field in any position . Such are his credentials , and I know none else that can have such good references . Mr. Hornbymaytread close upon his heels , and his innings for the Gentlemen against the Players was one of the treats of the year . Asplendid bat , a fine field , and a sure catch , he only lacks the skill in bowling to be on level terms . Mr. Yardley was not seen so often as in previous years , but his play was as well -timed and as hard as of old , even if his fielding was occasionally not quite upto the mark. There was no visible deterioration in the play of Mr. C. J. Ottaway , stubborn and resolute as ever ; but the Cambridge Captain was not in anything like his best form . Mr. C. E. Green , too , showed only rarely , but he proved , in the two Middlesex matches in which he took part against Yorkshire and Surrey at Prince's , that his powers of punishing had byur no means deserted him. Mr. W. H. Hadowwas not quite so good as in 1872, i