James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1889

1 8 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. is practised there , and wehave always thought that the double attempt tended to thedetriment of each, but we are glad to hear very good reports of the cricket of last season . The eleven went through the season without defeat , and though w eshould not judge them to have been a powerful side , they were well in advance of the ordinary run of Shrewsbury teams. Rhodes, Castley , and Nicholson were their most successful bats , and Miles wasthe best bowler ; and as three of these , as well as some others of last year's eleven , are still at school , a still further advance maybe looked for this year. B ywinning eight of their eleven matches the Tonbridge eleven can showa very good report , and one which recalls to mind the doings of their teams a few years ago, whenRashleigh and others brought the school into such prominent notice . W edon't think there was a Rashleigh amongtheir number, but the eleven was undeniably a very fair one, and we should say above the usual standard of Tonbridge teams. Kortright and Reid did the bulk of the bowling , anddid it well , obtaining over 50 wickets apiece at a small cost . Aston was the largest run -getter , and his average of 32, with 58 as his highest score , proclaims himaconsistent performer . H ewas well backed up by the rest of the side , all of w h o mseem to have had the power of making runs . W ehave not heard if any of the above are nowin residence at either of the 'Varsities , but weshall besurprised if someof themare not heard of again. Afewyears ago Uppinghamwasthought to have one of the finest cricket grounds in the kingdom, but this was not the case last year ; prolonged drought in the spring rendered rolling of little avail , and the practice wickets were positively dangerous . Partly for this reason , but still more we believe from wantof material , the team fell far short of the recognized Uppinghamstandard , and there wasno single batsman of any particular merit . H o wstands at the head of the averages , but his style was most ungainly , and we should esteem Castle andHannayas his undoubted superiors . Castle has pretty style , and played one or two good innings , and Hannay's performance at Repton gave evidence of his having plenty of cricket in him. Of the others , Figgis is promising , and is sure to repay Stephenson's coaching , and we look for a general improvement in the cricket this year. Bowling was a weakpoint in '88 ; there were only two bowlers of any worth at all , and of these Wolferstan , though straight and steady , was far from difficult , while Hemmantlacked experience ; with more practice he will probably be a dangerous man, as he has a fine natural break-back, and seems to have a good head on his shoulders . The fielding was very fair through- out, and Castle brought off some brilliant catches " in the country." The school matches were not a success ; at Repton the weather was positively dis- gusting , and robbed the gameof all interest ; while against Haileybury a miser- able collapse in the second innings deprived them of what looked like a certain victory . Althoughbadly beaten by Charterhouse , the Wellington eleven of the past season was by no means a poor one ; they gained an easy, if somewhat lucky, victory over Haileybury , while their performances against I Zingari and the Old Boys were distinctly creditable . E. C. Mordaunt , a brother of the old Etoncaptain , was the pick of the team, and we shall be very muchsurprised if hedoes not makehis mark in first -class cricket . The school is extremely for- tunate in having his services for another year, and as Berkeley and four others of the old lot will be in the field , Wellington ought to do well. Berkeley bowled with great effect last summer, but as he and E. C. Mordaunt were practically the only two bowlers , the opposing side had sometimes rather a merry time of it. In batting the school were fairly strong : Hankeywas steady and reliable , and Browning, Weigall , and others could all get runs . Weigall excelled in the Haileybury match, but it wasin fielding that he chiefly shone, and in this de- partment of the game he was quite Al. W ehope Wellington maytrain up m a n ymorefieldsmen of the same calibre . Tendefeats to one victory is the dismal record of Westminster cricket during the past year, and not only wasthe list of defeats a long one, but manyof them were of an overwhelming character -indeed , so overwhelming , that we are un-