James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1889

PUBLICS C H O O LCRICKETIN 1888. 1 3 supporters , and mayall be classed as very useful cricketers . Gatehouse began the season extremely well, but he did not maintain this form, owing partly to a wantof energy, which rendered him less valuable to his side than he might have been . Price was most reliable , and secured a fine average ; while Rayner's steady bowling formed a fitting complement to his captain's more deadly deli- veries . Crossman and Woodbridge only remain to uphold the honour of their school , and we fear they will find it a somewhatdifficult task to fill up all the vacant places with worthy recruits . W ehave already stated that , in our opinion , Cheltenham possessed the best school teamof the year, and, after a careful study of the doings of other schools , w esee no reason to go back from what wehave said . Theyproved far too strong for Clifton and Marlborough , and only suffered one reverse in the course ofthe season . As might be expected , the averages both in batting and bowling comeout well , and great keenness and perseverance will be required on the part of the rising generation if they meanto rival the deeds of their predecessors . In thebowling line Davy and Palmer (both left -handers ) were undoubtedly the best; but there were also two fast bowlers in the team, Mayers and Young, who occasionally met with great success . The general fielding was sound and safe , Mayersand Thompsonespecially excelling in this most important branch of the game. Champainwas of course far and awaythe best bat in the school , but Davyis a very powerful off-hitter , and at times played brilliantly . Hodges showed wonderful patience and defence ; and Mayers, Bigg, and Swire did some good performances . Thesiger , a brother of the old Wykehamist, is said to be very promising , but at present he has none of his brother's dash . Hodges succeeds to the captaincy , and he will have three or four old choices to back himup, so w em a yhope for another favourable report of Cheltenham cricket at the close of the comingseason. F o rthe last fewyears Clifton hasnot been so fortunate in her elevens as she used to be. It is true that duringthe s u m m e rof '87 the teamdid one or two performances of exceptional merit , but in the past year there was little to relieve the dull monotonyof mediocrity . Twice only did success smile on their efforts , and one of these victories wasgained over a very weakside , and by the narrow margin of two wickets . W efear therefore that they must be rated as only a poor team. Theyhad one redeeming point-their fielding was good, except in the Cheltenham match, and then a catch -dropping epidemic set in , w i t ht h e m o s tdisastrousresults. Bradforda n d O r rw e r et h e m o s tuseful all -round players , but the captain was indisputably the best bowler, and he wouldhavebeen more successful but for a damagedarm, which kept him out of the field for some time , and seriously handicapped him when he began to play again . Several of the team are still at Clifton , and as they are young, promis- ing, andkeen, we mayexpect better things from this year's eleven . Theearlier weeks of term were a time of great rejoicing at Eton : the eleven werewinning their matches, and were confidently expected to makemincemeat of the rival schools ; but this was not to be, for with the change of weather there came a marked change in the play of the boys, though it was not until the Winchester matchthat Etonians fully realized howutterly the eleven hadfallen to pieces . This match opened their eyes to the fact , and the collapse , which occurred in their second innings then, m a yfairly be held accountable for the still more disastrous breakdownat Lord's. This waslargely dueto wantof confidence -a quality which the eleven are said to have possessed , perhaps rather too fully , earlier in the season . That they were outplayed in the two school matches admits of no contradiction ; still we are unwilling to judge them by these two performances , as we consider that , at their best , they were a very fair lot . W ehave already spoken of Davenport and Yate-Lee, but there are several others of the team whodid some good things during the year. Andfirst among these wemust place Studd, who at times , and notably at Lord's , bowled with great success . H eis also a hard and clean hitter , but at present has little or no defence . Bathurst's lobs were often destructive , and always to be relied on to keep the runs down; he did not come off in the school matches , as his opponents