James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

PUBLIC SCHOOLCRICKET IN 1890. 1 5 plenty , although , as in the case of Cheltenham , they were built too muchon one plenty ,although Still , they only lost two matches, and one of these was a very close thing , in London,whenthe boys were four menshort . Unfortunately , from our point , and fortunately , no doubt , from the country's point of view , most of the elevenhavedetermined to do battle for their Queen, and so will be lost in the future to all but armycricket . They had a newcoach in Gregg, the Gloucester- shire cricketer , whowas a great success . Field , who is staying on for another year, was a really sound batsman. Oneswallow , it has been truly observed , does not makea summer, neither does one C. M. Wells make a strong Dulwich eleven . Sides which possess a " star " must always feel a very distinct penalty of the greatness in which they participate . W h e nWells failed , the minor lights of the side failed also ; in the face of such a disaster , rungetting appeared impossible , and so against three victories the boys had to place five defeats . I n'89 , it will be remembered, this school had, in Douglas, a player whohas since madehis markas almost the best batsman in an exceedingly strong batting team at Cambridge . Last year his mantle seems to have fallen upon Wells , round whomthe chief interest in Dulwichcricket of 1890 centres . H emade350 runs, with an average of 58, and took 52 wickets for seven runs each . If he can get rid of a little recklessness at the start of his innings , his undeniable ability should certainly bring him into prominence in the future . Against a very fair Surrey Club and Ground team hewasnot out either time with 66 and71. Ofthe rest , the least overshadowed wereDouglas, whois a very steady and promising batsman, and Kennedy, who wasoften useful . Thebatting , though, with the exception of the captain , was rather weak, and to this cause must be assigned the disappointing results of the s e a s o n . W ehave already made some allusion to the excellent wayin which Eton played up against Harrow. Their display on that occasion makes it rather difficult to speak of them. Owing to Gosling's absence they were left with a teamcomposed entirely of newhands. These things being so they werebound to bebelow the average of Eton elevens , but the batting and bowling results comeout tolerably well . The record of Forbes , who took 41 wickets for 10 runs each, is the best thing in the statistics . H e is a fast bowler of the terrifying order , with a"yorker " which , whether it be the outcome of design or accident , is very effective . If years give him increased steadiness , his performances certainly warrant the assumption that he m a yturn out a really good bowler. Though he was headed in the batting averages by A. R. Hoare and Cooper , Brewiswas the best batsman. His runs against Harrowwere got with the aid of some luck, but he is a clean hitter andplays very straight . A. R. Hoare is unattractive to watch, but he proved very useful , his average being 25. Yet another Studd appears in the eleven , and promises well , playing a strictly careful game. His inches and strength aid him in this determination . Pilkington , too , wasa goodbatsmanon a slow wicket . The fielding was up to, if not above,the average , the brothers Hoare, in particular , excelling in this branch of the game. Norman, inGosling's absence , wasmadecaptain anddid well in that responsible post. Theeleven , on the whole, appear to have realized thoroughly well, that there wasa great deal to be done, and that they had manydifficulties to fight against . Theyfaced the outlook boldly , and took a great deal of pains , with thenoticeable effect , that whenthe time came they were able to hold their own in their most important fixture . While, therefore , the team contained no cricketer of anygreat prominence , andwhile no startling talent cameto light , they deserve every credit for doing so well, whenso muchwas asked of them. Theycannot be said to have approached the strength of manyEtonteams, but, as far as in themlay, they supported the traditions of the school cricket . Haileybury have received a great , although indirect , addition to their cricketing strength in the person of their newHead-master, and the benefit of his influence is boundto re-act favourably uponfuture elevens . Last year they were a fair team, and they promised well , though they enjoyed no very startling success . Thebatting averages are headed byBartlett ,but the largest aggregate