James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

1 6 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L: scorer wasBennett, and he and Fisher were decidedly the best bats on the side . Thelatter , who captained the side energetically , is also a useful bowler, but the bowling figures come out poorly . This year they seem likely to be quite strong , for they retain the services of Fisher, and five others of last year's team, among w h o mare included most of those who did well during the past summer. T h eH a r r o weleven wasundoubtedlynot so strong as in 1889, for the loss of cricketers like HoareandJacksonwasboundto be felt still it wasquite up to the average and, but for their disappointing display at Lord's , there wouldbe nothing to complain about. In the homematches they did capitally against a strong lot of Harlequins , and, though the wickets at Harrowwere muchagainst rungetting , the boys were accountable for some excellent performances , in spite of every disadvantage of ground and weather. The captain , MacLaren, after rather disappointing expectation in the two previous seasons , got back into form again, andestablished a fair title to be considered the leading public school bats- m a nof the year . He averaged 42 for 13 completed innings , ending up with a first -rate bit of batting against Eton. In addition to this he is a good and reliable fieldsman , so that altogether his future doings will be a matter of great interest . Of the rest , Napier, though he once or twice played very well , failed onthe wholeto maintain his reputation . Barlow shows a good deal of promise , andButler , true to his name, wasvery often good at a pinch . The teamh a d three hitters in Anderson, Bevington , and Matthews, whooccasionally came off , but some more steady defence would have greatly improved the batting . Of the bowlers Popegot 33 wickets for 9 runs each , a performance which increases inmerit whenthe quality of the batsmen opposed to him is taken into account . R u d dis a promising left -hander, and Peebles ventures to bowl lobs , and bowls themwell. Gowanskept wicket admirably throughout . MacLarenproved him- self a very efficient captain , and this , added to his ownbrilliant feats , accounted in nosmall measurefor the school's success . Six defeats and only one victory was the melancholy lot of the Lancing eleven . Poor batting wasundoubtedly the cause of disaster , and the averages tell their owntale . Hallward was easily their best batsman, though his average is only 18, for Simpson, whofollows closely with 16, though a stalwart hitter , is too uncertain to be reliable . The fielding improved as the summer advanced , and it wasmainly due to this cause , that the school wona creditable victory over the M.C.C. Whitaker and Elgee shared the bowling, and between themtook 49 out of the 64 wickets taken by the eleven , so that they did their duty nobly. There was hardly any change bowling . Against Brighton the Lancing boys had a good deal the worst of the luck, for they had to bowl with a wet ball , as rain cameonjust before their opponents ' innings . Still , on the whole, they were a weakeleven . Theyare raising moneyto construct a newcricket field , which is muchneeded, and, though it must necessarily be some time before the scheme is carried out, such animprovement cannot but have a beneficial effect on the cricketof theschool. Except for the school matches Malvern had a pretty good season , and the batting , in particular , wasconsidered to be better than it has been for m a n y years . Theywere beaten by Rossall , after a very tough fight , by 8 runs . In the Reptonmatchthe same blight , which has often affected their display , was again apparent , and they failed to gain the victory over their rivals for which their supporters have so long looked . Yet there were a great manyruns made for Malvern in 1890 , and they madeover 300 both against the Warwickshire Crusaders and against the Old Boys . H. K. Foster and Lathamwere the two best bats ; the former is very strong all round whenset , but Lathamis weakon the leg side and unsafe in the slips . Corbett and Pike disappointed expectations , but W. L. Foster and Romneyare both promising players . The bowling was weak, though Mitchell did well at the beginning of the term: perhaps Lowe is likely to turn out the most useful in this department . As only two of the eleven are leaving before next summerthey should have a good side , more especially as w ehear that Briggs has been engaged to comedownand coach for the early part of next season -an arrangement which should do them a lot of good.