James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

1 2 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. upto the mark, though Cockburn was a notable exception ; the batting , Hodges excepted , was only fair ; and the bowling not particularly strong . Easily beaten b yMarlborough, whowere stronger in all points of the game, they were certainly unlucky not to win the Clifton match, their opponents being over 100 runs to the bad, with only four wickets in handwhentime was called . In this match Hodgesplayed a masterly innings of 119 not out, and he was without doubt the best m a non the side . Nextto himin point of merit weshould place Thesiger ; at present he has done more with the ball thanthe bat, but he has batting in him, and will probably showit this summer. Baker, left -medium, was much the most successful bowler, and only wants steadiness to be really good. Cock- burn's fielding we have already mentioned , he was also a very fair bat, but often lost his wicket by trying to force the gametoo soon . Every excuse ought to be made for the failure of the Clifton boys last season , their first professional having been on the sick list all the term. His absence was most ruinous to the school cricket , especially as the promising boys were, for the most part, young and inexperienced , and wanted all the teaching they could get. Whetherthere were other baneful causes at workwe do not know, but this wedo know-the promise of '88 was not fulfilled , and the team could boast only one victory throughout the year. Given luck and a good coach 1890 ought to tell a different tale . Seven old choices are still at school , and amongthem Hansonand Field, the two most consistent performers of last summer; also a young player , Richardson by name, who is spoken of very highly . Bowlers are badly wanted. Field did best in this line , the others being terribly expensive ; w e trust that he and they will improve, and that a fresh supply m a ybe found to meet the undoubted demand. TheDulwich boys seem to have hadthe knack of getting runs , at all events against anything like weakbowling , and proved far too strong for Bedford and Tonbridge, while they had all the best of their drawngamewith Brighton . In this matchthe Dulwich captain played a dashing innings of 166, and for the whole season secured the splendid average of 58. H emust be a really good cricketer , and he seems to have found a couple of able supporters in the two Wells. W econfess to great ignorance about Dulwich cricket , but we know that the school has turned out somegood menin the past , notably M.P. Bowden, and w ehope Douglas m a yprove a worthy successor . W emust not say w e wish him to follow in Bowden's footsteps , or we might be charged with having adesire to see himbury himself in some out-of-the-waypart of the world. It is most puzzling to knowwhat to say about Eton. H a dit not been for the miserable collapse in their second innings against Winchester , their record wouldhavebeen at least creditable . That failure , due we suppose to a sudden attack of nerves , has led manycritics to condemnthem as an uncertain lot , who could not be depended on at a pinch . This we are very unwilling to believe ; their play at Lord's-and it wasanuphill fight for themfrom the first -proved themtobea plucky side , whorefused to acknowledge themselves beaten, until the winning run was scored , though toss , ground, and light had all declared against them. It cannot be denied that they madeone or twobad mistakes in the field , especially the one which gave the Harrowcaptain a second innings ; still the performance was on the whole a meritorious one, and, though w e believe the better side won, we cannot help thinking that , considering the weather, winning the toss meant winning the match. The most pleasant feature of the gamewas the success of the Eton captain . Every one knowsthe great things which were predicted of himin '87 , andthough we fear he will never fulfil his early promise (w eonly wish he may), at all events he proved that his left handhadnot altogether lost its cunning, while his plucky batting in either innings showed whata good m a nhe is to have onaside . Tollemache also "came off " at Lord's and against Winchester played one very good innings , and he was probably the best manin the team-a good bat , a first -rate field , and a very fair bowler , though in this respect he did not shine at Lord's . Studd's bowling was disappointing , and certainly not as steady as in the previous year , while his batting is spoilt by over eagerness . Of the others R. A. Ward