James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1888

1 2 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. pieces as the season 'advanced. It is impossible to explain awaythe defeat by Rugby, but it cannot be regarded as true form, for even at their best, and on their ownground, the Rugbyboys ought not to have smothered their rivals as theydid. T h eresult of the other school matchw edo not think a " fluke ," as Cheltenhamhadthe better all -round team. It would seem that , for someun- knownreason , the Clifton eleven were utterly out of form in the middle of the term. Theywere very good and very successful at first , and towards the close of the school season they showed in most favourable colours at the Oval, a strong " Club andGround" side only winning by 37 runs in a long -scoring match. To account for this in- and-out form seems impossible , but w e think that some ex- planation m a ybe found in the fact that there were only two bowlers in the team. Wethered and Smith, both fast , were very deadly on slow wickets , but until quite the end of the season , whenBradford showed wonderful improve- ment, they had no one to help them . The batting was really good , Schwann, Smith, and Crawford being the best of a good lot ; the fielding was exceptionally safe and brilliant , but the wantof bowlers prevented Clifton from fulfilling the expectations they aroused at the beginning of the year . It is always a difficult matter to write a summaryof the doings of the Eton eleven . Whereas, in reviewing other school teams , we are supplied with ample information from those on the spot, w ehave to glean, in any waywecan, our knowledge about Eton. If, therefore , we err in ourjudgment, we maintain that the fault is not ours , for it is impossible to correctly gauge the merits of any eleven unless one sees them play constantly . Of the team of last year great things wereexpected , and to a great extent the expectations were realized . Etonhadthe great advantage of starting the season with a strong backbone of experienced cricketers , andthough someof the old hands did not improve as much as was expected , there canbe no doubt they were as powerful a combination as the school has put into the field for manyyears . W edo not consider that they were at their best at Lord's , manyof the most trustworthy bats failing to makeany show, and the honours of the match rested with A. C. McLarenof Harrow, andLord Chelsea of Eton. It is curious to note that in this match, as well as in the other fashionable match of the year, it was left to the last choice in three of the four teams to make the highest individual score of the game. Against Winchester the Eton eleven showed up well in all points of the game, their ownbowling was excellent '; while the attack of their opponents seemed to makeno impres- sion on the early bats of the team, and they wonwith the comfortable marginof nine wickets . The victory might not have been quite so complete had Win- chester beenable to use all its best m e n; still w ed onot consider that the actual result could possibly have been altered . To pass to individuals , we would es- pecially notice Bromley -Davenport's bowling , and we believe that with care he will becomequite first -rate . Brand also was most useful , and comes out with a capital analysis , while Bathurst with his " lobs " proved a worthy successor to A. W. Ridley . This list does not by any means exhaust the bowling strength of the eleven , for McLachlanwas quite up to the average , while Hoare was at times very useful . W ewere sorry not to find the last -namedat Lord's , for his brilliant fielding wasalways well worth seeing . In batting , Gosling , Llewelyn , Foley , and Tollemache were probably the best ,though Foley was not as success- ful as in '86 . Coventry got runs at Lord's in the first innings , and Brand showed, by his good steady play at a critical time, that whenwanted he could get runsas wellas wickets. TheHaileybury eleven did not do as well as wehad hoped, and as only two of last year's team are nowavailable , wefear that the prospects for this season are not very bright . W esincerely hope we maybe wrong in our surmise , as nothing would please us morethan to see the Hertfordshire boys score a victory over Uppingham. It is a long lane that has no turning ," but the lane of Haileybury's failure in this school match is a particularly long one, and we do not think that even the Uppinghamboys themselves would grudge their old rivals a victory . It is quite impossible to account for the long series of reverses which Haileybury has suffered in its struggles with Uppingham , for the latter has not been exceptionally