James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1888

P U B L I CS C H O O LCRICKETIN 1887. 1 1 wickets for ten runs apiece is a very grand performance . In Wilson , however , the chief strength of the team lay-a first -rate bat , a brilliant field , and a useful bowler; such he undoubtedly was-he has already shownhis mettle against first- class bowling , and we shall be disappointed if he does not confirm our estimate of his abilities at Oxford this year. The future is not very bright : Cooper will have few old choices to support him, and though we are told there is plenty of promising material , we must express our doubts as to the ability of coming Brightonians to worthily fill the places of Woods and Chalmers , of Cotterill and W i l s o n. The Charterhouse team is to be congratulated on winning its two school matches , but it was not very successful , three victories only being achieved out of eleven engagements . Still we must rememberthat the sides against themwere, for the most part , very strong , notably , Surrey Club and Ground, M.C.C., and Prince Christian Victor's Oxford team. Thebest performances of the eleven were the dismissal for 92 of the aforesaid Oxford team, which included Key, Brain , Forster , Cochrane , and other good men, and the decisive victory over Westminster , whowere reported to be a good batting lot . Of individual efforts , we would call special attention to the stand madeby Lemanand Gatehouse against West- minster ; they scored 173 for the first wicket , and so practically wonthe match. Some of the bowling performances of Streatfield and Shawwere wonderfully good , and in the former , Charterhouse possessed one of the best school bowlers of the year. From all we can learn he ought to become quite first -clase . Hawkins, who promised so well in '86 , was unable to play in manyof the matches, and his loss was a great drawback to the team. Of the regular players , Lemanwas probably the most trustworthy bat , though Wilkinson , the captain , wasa brilliant hitter whenset , and played a goodinnings against the Butterflies . W ehave already alluded to Streatfield's success with the ball , and as he will again be available , in addition to Price and Gatehouse , two very promising bats , the prospects for 1888 are certainly bright . Cheltenham could boast the possession of a really good eleven-the best they havehadfor manyyears , and probably the most powerful school team of the year. Thebatting was good all through , and Champainand Turner were very far above the average . Champain, this season's captain , proved himself to be really brilliant , sound , and strong , and always to be relied on. Turner , a left- hander , played excellent cricket , and when his size is taken into consideration , he mustbe considered a marvellous batsman. Ofthe others , HeavenandBrownwere the best , though the former was rather unlucky in the matches , and in point of average was below manyof the others . Thebowling was not first -class ; there werefive of the team whocould bowl very fairly , but that is all the praise we cangive them. Glass , the captain , was the most successful , but he was not so steady and dependable as Heaven. Gordon, left -hand medium, wasvery useful , andBignell and Clowes showed considerable promise . The fielding of the team was first -rate , the one weak spot being the wicket -keeper . Thus, with really good batting and fielding , and very respectable bowling, the teamhad, as w e should naturally expect , a most satisfactory season . Theywontheir two school matches easily , and were only twice defeated first on their own ground, when they were altogether out of form , and secondly at Lord's , by a very strong M.C.C. team. Their performance in this match does not seem to us to detract fromtheir merits , as they had to face the deliveries of Attewell and Martin on a sticky wicket , and every one knows that even the most experienced cricketers wouldfind it a difficult matter to makeruns against such bowlers as these , when the weather was unpropitious , and the wicket tricky . W econclude then , as we began, and state that it is our firm belief that the Cheltenham eleven of '87 was the best , or, at all events , one of the two best public school teams of the year . Someof the performances of the Clifton boys during the past season were little short of marvellous ; indeed after their victory over Key's team, which in- cluded seven " blues ," every one predicted that they would be as strong as any eleven the school hash a d. T h edefeat of KnoleParkwasalso a verygoodper- formance , and we were at once surprised and disappointed to find them fall to