James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1887

1 2 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. the merits of the Brighton boys-indeed wehave already stated that three or four of them are destined to take a prominent part in the cricket of the future . Cotterill does not stand first in the batting list , but his average of fifty -four is a very high one, and he was an even more dangerous bat than he was in 1885. His début for Sussex,was watched with general interest , and, though unsuccessful onhis first appearance , he will yet prove a most useful memberof the county team. Woodswas very deadly with the ball , and in the present dearth of fast bowlers his services are sure to be in request ; he is a capital bat as well, and played some excellent innings . Wilson , an Australian we believe , scored tremendously , and has the phenomenal average of fifty -nine ; he is a glorious hitter , but is not yet steady enough to be dangerous against first -class bowling . His fielding is good, and his bowling very fair , and he ought to become anAl m a n. Cooper was probably the best of the others , and his cricket is thought veryhighly of in some quarters . There ought to be a first -rate team at Brighton this year, and w ewarnall their opponents that it will be well to secure two or three goodbowlers , or they are very likely to have " a day in the country ." The performances of the Charterhouse team were strangely uneven. Four out of five of their victories were so meritorious , that it is impossible to account for the collapse at Wellington . That their first innings was a mistake , even the supporters of Wellington would admit, and the only reasonable explanation that occurs to us is that the combination of a journey and a strange ground put them altogether out of form. Theresult of this match makes us more than eversure that no inter-school contest ought to be decided onthe first innings. Against Westminster the Carthusians showed really good play, and beat their old rivals bythe handsome margin of eight wickets . The wins against M.C.C. and Surrey Club and Groundmust howeverbe counted as the best performances of the Charterhouse eleven of 1886. T h eremarks whichw e m a d elast year about the practice wickets , and the ground in general , have w e hope borne some fruit , for we are convinced that , with a really good ground, Charterhouse wouldsoon gain as great a reputation for cricket as it has already w o non the football field . Hawkins was the most consistent scorer of last year's team, and proved a really good bat; while Currey and Nixondid yeomanservice for their side on manyoccasions . Currey was also a good " stumper," as they say in the North. The steady play of Tringham was answerable for muchof the school's success ; while Price , whose energy as captain deserves commendation, is not fairly represented by his average . The brunt of the bowling was borne by Wilkinson, Streatfield , and Shaw, and of these Streatfield is the most likely to m a k ehis m a r kin thefuture. Cheltenham had a very fairly successful season in 1886, and their miserable display at Clifton was as unexpected as it is unaccountable . It is true the team weredisorganized by the loss of their captain , but this is not sufficient to account for their complete defeat , and it mustbe put downas one of the " curiosities of the season ." This defeat notwithstanding , the promise of 1885 was redeemed, andhadRichardson's slow bowling been available ,webelieve that the Cheltenham eleven wouldhavebeenone of the best school teamsof the year. T h e yw o n seven of their matches , the most noteworthy being the defeat of Marlborough byfive wickets . The chief credit of this performance must be given to Champain, w h oplayed grand cricket in each innings ; if he only trains on he will be a brilliant cricketer ; even nowhe is a downright good bat, sound and yet free , with a fine off -drive . Of the others , Pitts , Brown, Heaven, and Holdship were the most successful , though a mention of Wardmust not be omitted , as he is said to be as hard a hitter as the mighty Thornton. A. A. Glass managed his teamwell , and the Clifton fiasco shows howessential his presence wasto the success of the eleven . Blyth wasthe most trustworthy bowler, but E. C. Glass (slow right) often did good service , and their mediumleft -hander, Hornby, is distinctly promising . The fielding of the team was safe and good, Holdship being especially conspicuous . The coming season will , it is believed , see the rise of Clifton to its old place in the list of public schools . The 1886 team was by no means up to the old