James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1876

40 lost matches it was attributable to weakness in the bowling department notwithstanding that Cunlilfe kept fairly straight during the season. Moreover, it was unlucky for Rugby that Key, who at times bowled a most difficult ball, was unable to play in several school matches, being prevented by illness. The fielding generally was very good, Inglis especially dis­ tinguishing himself. In the hatting of the eleven, observers tell us that there was plenty of hard-hitting and several steady players, but not the combination of the two styles, which Yardley and Cooper so well exempli­ fied. Fearson, the captain, hits very hard, and makes his runs fast, and competent critics declare him to be the best hat in the eleven, although Hirst, who is a free player, with a nice style, has the better average. Key improved greatly since last 3rear, and plays the game thoroughly, and towards the end of the year Inglis came out wonderfully, playing several excellent innings. Burton and Bennett are dangerous when allowed to stay, hut go in too much at first for the on-hit. Speaking generally, Rugby would not have been overmatched by other schools unless their opponents bested them in bowling, and considering the reduced (although, we rejoice to say, rising) numbers of the school, this reflects merit on Diver and his painstaking pupils. Marlborough cricket presents an enigma which we do not pretend to be able to unravel. Accounts reached us from the school of great improvement in style and of hard work in practice, and, on the whole, of fair success, but the College performance in London with Ru-'by was of the most dis­ piriting description, and, unfortunately, casual observers are wont to form an opinion based on what they see at Lord’s on this occasion. Defeat at the hands of this year’s Rugby eleven was, indeed, no disgrace ; hut there really was nothing terrible in the bowling opposed to the Marlburians when they won the toss on an easy wicket, and were disposed of for 23. That the Marlborough ground had been slow all the season, and Lord’s fast on the day in question, is the solution offered us, and is no doubt partly true, but it is clear that a panic overtook the team, no less than seven of them being clean bowled. Marlborough bad previously had a shocking bad piece of luck. They altogether mastered the Cheltenham Eleven, who, at the time stumps were drawn in consequence of wet weather, had 150 runs to obtain before saving their innings, and had lost one wicket for 21. Now, notwithstanding that the Cheltonians were uncertain, they were a dan­ gerous eleven, and to overcome them in this hollow fashion must be accounted no mean performance. A. G. Steel shares cricket talent with his elder brother. Besides being a careful and promising batsman, his slow bowling was constantly useful and showed up well at Lord’s. Wilson, Arthur, and Burton have good reputation at Marlborough for batting, but friends do not tell us of strong howling. The fielding was certainly not below' par at Lord’s, and creditable considering the sudden change of ground, and that the ^ame with Rugby was sadly uphill We shall not forget in a hurry the hit of cover point tielding by which the Rugby Burton was run out. Altogether there must be the seeds of future success exist­ ing at Marlborough, and we sincerely hope to see them bear fruit next 8cason. Although weakened by the loss of Lucas and Fleming the Uppingliam- ians rose to the occasion, and under the Captaincy of D. Q. Steel had a fairly successful season. A. Ackroyd having developed into an excellent