James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

PUBLICS C H O O LCRICKETI N 1890. 1 1 TheMelbourne critics thought very highly , too , of F. H. Walters as a batsman, and Dr. Barrett's defence was, and rightly as it proved , rated at a very high price . S. E. Gregory's all -round cricket , too , had wonhim the good opinions of manygood judges , and his ability at cover -point , it was thought , would alone justify him a place . The selection of a second wicket -keeper as under study for J. M. Blackhamcaused considerable heart -burning between the rival factions of Victoria and N e wSouth Wales, and this ultimately produced an absurd com- plication in the appointment of K. E. Burn, of Tasmania, who, it was found too late , hadnever officiated as wicket -keeper in his life . O npaper the team was strong enough with Murdoch, Trott , Lyons, Jones , Barrett , Turner, Blackham, and Walters in batting , as it was with Turner, Ferris , Charlton , Trumble, and Lyons in bowling. Unfortunately the batting never came anything like up to expectations . Jones's ill -health , of course, robbed the eleven of, at his best , perhaps , the safest batsman they had, and Trott, though he several times played good cricket whenothers had failed , by nomeanscame up to the promise of the last tour. It was in the batting more than anything that the team failed , and the only gratifying feature was the markedsuccess which attended the young Victorian , Dr. J. E. Barrett , whose defensive cricket was one of the most noteworthy incidents of the tour. In bowling Ferris and Turner were as dangerous as ever . Blackham's wicket -keep- ing was quite as perfect as of old , and in young Gregory the high standard of Australian fielding was fully maintained . All the rest was-well , mere prunella . C H A P T E R III. P U B L I CS C H O O LC R I C K E TIN 1 8 9 0. B YA N O L DO X O N I A N. PUBLICSCHOOLcricket is n o wa large and comprehensiveterm, for the talent is no longer confined to some half -dozen leading schools , but is distributed more widely each year through the whole number. The present article takes under review no fewer than twenty-eight elevens , differing , of course , widely in importance and strength , but all in some respect deserving of notice . Tenor fifteen seasons ago not one-half of these schools were considered likely to pro- duce players who would strengthen our first -class amateur teams, but these unrecognized nurseries have gradually forced themselves into prominence . The fameof onecricketing meteoris sufficient to attract attention to the place where he learned the game, and the sporting public naturally look with interest to see whatmannerof recruits are coming from the school of such-and-such a well- knownplayer . H o wfar this spread of the gamewill extend it is not for us to prophesy The reviewer's task becomes more elaborate every season , and, to judge byappearances , the time is not far distant whenhe will have to criticize the elevens at the girls ' schools as well as at the boys', unless the gentler sex insist upona Cricketers ' Annualall to themselves. In considering the mass of letters and information , which we thankfully acknowledge , from various quarters , it is impossible to help noticing the impor- tant influence exercised over the future of cricket by those gentlemen who, at the different schools , take a practical interest in all the boys' sports , and share personally in their games. Scarcely any school nowadays is without some master, probably himself a well-knowncricketer , whodevotes his spare time to bowling at the nets to his young pupils and giving them advice . W espeak , it must be remembered, solely as the mouthpiece of the game, and venture no opinion on the position of athletics in education ; but, regarding the matter simply as it bears upon amateur cricket in years to come, it seems to us that the