James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

P U B L I CS C H O O LC R I C K E TIN 1 8 8 5. 4 1 Wykehamists, and Surrey Club and Ground. Inthe former match their catching w a sterribly bad, and the latter they lost from sheer " funk." Their w i n against Wellington has already been noticed as one of the curiosities of the season, and a victory against a fairly strong M.C.C.t e a mwasundoubtedlya feather in their caps . W ehear that seven of their numberare staying on for another season , and we should esteem the outlook very hopeful were it not for the vile practice wickets . Of individual performances we have not muchto say. Wreford-Brownwoundup the season brilliantly , but Hawkins' average of 17, with a highest score of 28, proclaims him to have been the most consistent performer . With the ball Wreford-Brownand Wilkinson met with most success , but we are told that , with proper care , Streatfield is likely to prove an useful , perhaps a dangerous , bowler. W i t honly one m e m b e rof the '84 teamavailable , Cheltenham could not be expected to make a very favourable show. Manyof the eleven however gave considerable promise for the future , and with some tried material ready to hand, the team are likely to show good form this year. The two school matches resulted disastrously for them, as they were easily beaten by Clifton , while the Marlborough boys would almost certainly have been victorious had time allowed . The most promise among the colts was shownin the bowling line-Richardson (slow left ) , Blyth (fast ), and E. Glass (medium) all gave evidence of merit , the latter proving specially successful in the Marlborough match. Of the bats the most " likely " seemed to be Blyth, Turner and Campion, the last namedbeing the only one of the team whomanagedto get into double figures in each innings , against the Clifton bowling . Woofhas been appointed resident professional , and will . no doubt, turn out a dangerous lot for the coming campaign. The Clifton boys succeeded in winning their two school matches last season with considerable ease , but this does not prove them to have been a good team, Cheltenham and Sherborne being unusually weak. Infact , wedo not consider that the team was in any wayto be compared with manyelevens that Clifton has turned out. Thestandard of Clifton cricket in the past is so extremely high that it would be folly to expect them always to maintain it ; butwerejoice to hear, that in a couple of years ' time , they meanto be as good as ever . W eshould describe the eleven of '85 as respectably mediocre . A fairly even lot , with little or no tail , they yet could show no one whosoared above mediocrity . Thebowling was characterised by an unfortunate sameness , and Fowler, who with Abneydid the bulk of the work, hardly showed any improvement on his form of the previous year. H ewas certainly the most successful , but we doubt whether Abneywill not develop into the better m a n of the two. Amongthe batsmen, Cuyler , a left -hander, though not first in the averages , was no doubt the best . Fowler can hit magnificently if his opponents will only let him " get set ," but he is far too rash and impatient . Thebest of the rest were youngsters , w h o mR. Humphreywill do his best to mould into worthysuccessors of the long string of Clifton celebrities . Eton very reasonably claim a leading position among the public school elevens of the year. Theylost the match, but in this case defeat was almost as honourable as victory , and they canplead extenuating circumstances , for their bestm a nwasmore or less hors -de-combat . Throughout the season they showed consistently good form, andwere, without any question , a strong lot ; and, in ouropinion , far superior to the Eton elevens of the last few years . W eare afraid that there was not an Alfred Lyttleton amongthem; still , some of Philipson's performances with the gloves , as well as the bat, encourage the hopethat hemayprove a worthysuccessor to the " prince of amateur wicket- keepers .' It is impossible , in a few lines , to do justice to all the individuals of ateam, but wemaystate that two only of themfailed to score a double figure average . Allusion has already been madeto the batting of Thomas, Foley and LordGeorge Scott , as well as to the bowling of Bromley- Martin, but any notice of the eleven would be incomplete without some mention of the resolute hitting of Barnard, and the bowling of the elder Forster . During the holidays