James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1888

8 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. stronger combinations. Norfolkdid not showto the sameadvantageas in pre- vious years , and Hertfordshire , though it can boast of a fair numberof capable amateurs , has not at present the means or the advantages which so manyothers canclaim in large centres to enable it to makemuchheadway. Cheshire and Northamptonshire , although there was no lack of energy on the part of the respective executives , both showed a slight falling off in comparison with some recent years ; and Staffordshire , though its movingspirits will spare neither pains norexpense to develop its cricket , has not as yet madeany marked advance. Public School cricket in 1887 did not, as far as appearances go, produce any boyphenomenon, although , on the whole, there was some very promising all- roundform shownb y the various schools . E t o nbeat both Winchestera n d Harrow, and were, taken altogether , a strong eleven . Marlborough had all the best of the annual match with Rugbyat Lord's , and though the latter suffered severely from the loss of their most reliable batsman, H. C. Bradby, the Marl- borough eleven were on the day decidedly the better side . The victory of the Marlburians was noteworthy from the fact that they hadpreviously hadto succumb to Cheltenham. The Cheltonians , whohad a most successful season , were also victorious over Clifton . Their record , indeed , was a distinguished one, andweare inclined to think that they were one of the strongest Public School elevens of the year . Clifton College was, in the fore part of the year, thought to be equal to thebest school team, but its double defeat by Rugbyand Cheltenham detracted fromthe merits of its early performances , though none the less the eleven was a good working one. Winchesterwas beaten by Eton, but all the same it had astrong batting side . Amongthe most conspicuous school cricketers were Lord Chelsea , C. P. Foley , R. C. Gosling , W. W. Llewellyn , H. R. Bromley-Daven- port, andC. A. Field , a wicket -keeper considerably above the average , of Eton; A. C. Maclaren , a young batsman of exceptional promise , of Harrow ; F. J. N. Thesiger , of Winchester ; H. B. Champain and S. A. Turner , of Cheltenham ; P. R. Farrant , of Repton ; H. S. Schwann , of Clifton ; R. A. Wilson , of Rugby ; J. F. Whitwell , of Uppingham ; F. L. C. Hamilton , of Haileybury ; G. L. Wilson , of Brighton ; A. J. L. Hill and S. H. Maurice, of Marlborough . Thegrounds , as wehave had occasion to remarkmore than once, were gene- rally in favour of run-getting , and as a consequence the batsmen were seen to the best advantage . ArthurShrewsbury's batting was an almost uninterrupted succession of high scores . Three times he was credited with an innings of over a hundred at Lord's , and his average of 78.15 has only , as has already been said , been once beaten in county matches . He did not play anything like so much cricket as Mr.W.G. Grace, but his performance wasnone the less anextraordinary one, and he is fully entitled to the distinction of being classed as the best batsman of 1887 . latterAf him , longo intervalo , comes Mr. W. G. Grace , and considering that the all-r o u n dcricketer. 1 + ] proof of his pre -eminent ability that he has no superior even now as an Among the other amateurs of senior rank , Messrs . A. J. Webbe , W. W. Read , and K. J. Key were the most sucesful , and the last - named was fuly entitled to a very prominent place among the leading batsmen of the day . Hall , Ulyett , Robinson , Gunn , and Barnes have the best records among the profes- of the Oxford eleven , shows every sign of developing into a fine bat . As a bats- Mr. J. Eccles , of Lancashire , made a marked advance , and Lord George Scott , man Peel showed great improvement last year , but the coming professional bats- man , according to appearances , is the Sussex youngster , Quaife , of whom great things are, and with reason , expected . fesionals . Considering the excellence of the wickets , the bowling figures of the hundred wickets or more , and in addition Barnes and Attewell both bowled with great success . Lohmann's performance was Briggsted altogethr 154 wickets for an average of uder sixteen runs , and taking no particularly noteworthy . He got