James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1888

1 0 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. doubt, too , it is almost impossible to get together the best eleven of gentlemen , but even so we fear that the candid critic must confess that the present genera- tion are not as good as their predecessors ; the giants of the past are still the giants of the present , and , so far as we can see , there is no one of the juniors , with the single exception of Key, who can compare with Webbe or Shuter , with A. G. Steel or Patterson (we purposely omit all mention of cricketers whodo not hail from public schools ). Still we mayhope that the depression is but temporary , andthat during the coming season , newlights m a yshine forth , and a team be putin the field , whowill be able successfully to oppose the strong combination of "Players ." The ' Varsity cricket of '87 is also worthy of notice in these columns, because a glance at the names of the respective teams will showthat almost every one whoplayed at Lord's hadwondistinction previously at one or other of our great public schools . W ebelieve further , that w e are correct in asserting , that they all , without exception , had received markednotice in the article on public school cricket in their respective years . Enoughhowever of the past public school mén, let us nowturn to the task assigned to us, and dis- cuss briefly the leading characteristics of school cricket during the past season . Thetask is a congenial and pleasant one, for from all wecan hear, there was a great deal of very good cricket shown, and though perhaps the " Stars " are fewer than they have been in the past , there was (what is after all far more satisfactory ) a general high standard of excellence . " The best team we have had for some years " has been the answer which manyof our friends have given on our questioning them as to the merits of the boys, in w h o mthey were specially interested . Comparisons drawn between different school elevens are, andmust be, unsatisfactory and misleading . Each school should be judged by itself -this is by far the safest plan ; if the public insist on something further , we may, with more or less fairness , draw comparisons between the different teams thatmeeteachother. N o whoweverw eshall assumethat the public is generous and kind-hearted , so without any further generalities w e will pass to the con- sideration of the performances of the various school elevens . Bath College is , w e are told , fast rising into prominence as the home of cricket , and w e are very glad to be able to say a few words about their team of last year . Without being at all above the ordinary , the team possessed two or three boys whoare not at all unlikely to be heard of again . Ross promises to be really good, and Garrett , Smyth, and Wilson all show good form. The two latter moreover were effective with the ball , and were well backed up ; the fielding being decidedly good. If the Bath authorities can only succeed in getting on a school match or two, the extra stimulus which this would give , would be of the greatest service to the school cricket . FromBradfield we have received a most encouraging report , and there can be no doubt that the team was considerably better than usual , for they won seven out of the twelve matches, and one of these was a most decisive victory over Radley, while none of the four defeats were either disgraceful or crushing . This record is all the more creditable whenwe bear in mindthat Scott , whowas certainly one of the best of the eleven , was prevented from playing in most of the matches. The strength of the team lay in its batting , its weakness (sad to say) in its fielding , but in Menzies it had a cricketer whowould have done credit to anyschool team-a fine bat and bowler, and a splendid field , he ought to , and we hope he will , figure prominently in the future . Six of the team are still at Bradfield , so for the present season there ought to be many victories in store. Brighton did not put such a powerful team into the field as in '86 , but still they proved themselves far too strong for the majority of their opponents . Highgate, Dulwich, and Tonbridge all suffered defeat at their hands, but w e should reckon some of their other performances higher in the scale of merit , and notably their capital fight against the M.C.C. , and their victory over the Old Boys. Cooper did not redeem the promise of the previous year, whichwas all the moredisappointing after his splendid innings against the Brighton Club. Chalmers did yeomanservice in the bowling line , and his average of 68