James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

P U B L I CS C H O O LCRICKETIN 1889. 1 1 school . Oflast year's eleven the captain was indisputably the best man; hedid not prove as destructive with the ball as had been hoped, but he more than counterbalanced this failure by a wonderful advance in batting powers . H ewas also a good field and an excellent captain ; and by example as well as precept instilled energy and smartness into those under him. The team were good in the field , andmanagedto win the balance of their matches , their mostnoticeable victories being obtained over M.C.C. , and the rival schools -St. Paul's , and Merchant Taylors . Sewell and Surtees proved the captain's most useful sup- porters , and as a large proportion of old colours are , we believe , still available , the school team ought to give a good account of itself this year. TheBradfield record shows the team of last year to have been hardly up to the average . Thoughpossessing an excellent bowler and fair bat in the captain , anda steady , though not brilliant , bat in Smyth, the eleven seemed to lack back- bone, andmadelittle or no improvement during the season . The fielding was slovenly and half-hearted , though against Radley it was distinctly creditable , butit could not win the match, for Lea was altogether " off colour " in the bowling line , and the side generally collapsed before an ordinary lob bowler . Lea, Gellibrand , Crawley, and Jenyns madesome sort of stand, the rest did nothing . Several of the younger hands showed promise , and made runs at times , butas a rule success entirely depended on the first two batsmen-if they scored , others followed suit , if they failed , a rot was almost inevitable . In bowling Nicholls was easily second , the others were wild and by no means deadly , and the slack fielding did not tend to improve them. Seven of the team, Smythand Nicholls amongthem, are still at school , so there is no reason whythey should notdo well this year, if-and on this if hangs a great deal-the fielding improves . TheBrighton eleven of '89 was not particularly successful , owing partly to the great strength of their opponents , partly to too constant changes in the team itself , partly to rather indifferent fielding , but above all to a decided lack of bowling . Still they won two of their school matches , and avoided defeat in the third , so they cannot be said to have altogether failed in their duty. Cooper proved himself a painstaking captain , and was the mainstay of the team. H e andMeissner did the bulk of the bowling , the change bowlers being very expen- sive , though one of them, Jupp, mayin time become a dangerous customer . CooperandG a y, whoare nowat Cambridge, stood out well above the others in batting , andwe are told that Cooper is by no means unlikely to come to the front. T h epast season at Charterhouse w a sa most disastrous one. It w a snot expected that, with so manynew choices on the side , the eleven would dowonders, but a solitary victory out of thirteen engagements is indeed a dismal record . The team were not so badas this record would imply, for two or three of the matches were only just lost , and the visitors were usually decidedly strong . The one victory was over Westminster and was very decisive , but against Wellington the Surrey boys, though playing on their own ground, made rather a sorry show against Berkley's bowling. Stanborough's 24 was the largest and thebestinnings onthe side, butHolman'seight wickets for 68 runswasfar the best thing done by any Carthusian in the match . For this season the supply of tried players is limited , but there is some promising material , and w ehope Charterhouse will have more luck than in '89 . W e hail with delight the announcement that a new ground has been secured by the school authorities , for the old ground was at once too small and too dangerous for the development of goodsoundcricket right through the school . W ecannot accuse Carthusians of wantof energy, otherwise they would never have madesuch a namefor them- selves on the football field , and we believe it has been the ground, and nothing but the ground, which has kept themfrom sending their fair share of cricketers toswell the ranks of the 'Varsity teams. Cheltenham put such a good all -round team into the field in '88 , that we had nohesitation in placing them first among the school elevens of the year. The samehonour cannot be given to the team of last season , indeed they fell far short of the standard of the two previous years . The general fielding was not