James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

PUBLICS C H O O LC R I C K E TIN 1890. 1 9 engagement of all , against Shropshire , ended in a very disastrous fashion . Raikesmadea very satisfactory captain , and did manygood things himself , as well as influencing his side most favourably . His average is 33, and his wicket- keeping and bowling were both at times serviceable . Keysell is a most valuable all-round m a n, being a run-getting batsman and a straight slow bowler ; he should , if he can, learn to be hit with rather morephilosophy-but the lesson is notaneasy one. Havers, except for a tendency to playing back crooked on the leg stump, is likely to become a good player . His average as it is stands at 28, and if he succeeds in eradicating the fault to which we have alluded , he should d owell . Fitz Hughand Burrough were far from useless batsmen, and both did a bit of bowling as well . Perhaps one of the most marked features in the statistics is the prevalence of players whocombined both batting and bowling to somedegree : Shrewsbury was fortunately situated last season in this respect . Tonbridge have nothing very good to show on the whole though they defeated Lancing brilliantly . But the season was marked by great unevenness , a state of things whichm a ybe accounted for, to some extent , bythe fact that their captain , Tandy, wasobliged to be absent more than once, and his substi- tutes werenot altogether a success . Perhaps the best point wasthe bowling of Marshall , a mediumpace left -hander, whoworked very hard andwell through- out. The same encomium m a ybe given to his vis a vis O'Grady, in a less degree . They formed a pair of very dangerous bowlers . Kennington , a rash player, rather lacking in defence , and Baiss , of the steady order , did mostwith the bat. Tandy failed to come up to the expectations formed of him as a batsman, but whenhe was there he captained the side well . Thepast season at Uppinghamis not to be judged by its results , for out of 8 matches only a single victory was recorded , nor in any one of the drawn matches (5 in number) do the school possess , on the figures , any marked advan- tage . Buttheir opponents were powerful teams, and in spite of no very startling success , the eleven reflected a good deal of credit on that careful tuition which they are always certain to receive . The batting all through was very level ; there wasno star , but any one on the side might makeruns. Westrayled his m e nwith judgment, and was a useful , steady bat : Hemingwayis a fine hitter and a good fieldsman ; and these two, with Hemmant, represented the pick of a tolerable lot of batsmen. The brunt of the rather mediocre bowling was sustained byHemmant. The fielding was admittedly excellent , and showed up, as wehave said , in brilliant colours against their opponents ' in their gamewith Repton. Theywere unlucky in their two school matches, for Haileybury could not play them, andthe contest with Reptonwasspoiled by persistent rain . Therewas so muchgenuine enthusiasm and energy about the general cricket of the school at Westminster last season , that somedisappointment was felt at the first eleven boasting so moderate a record . Still , there is muchthat is hopeful for the future about them; for they are a young team, and though they were defeated eight times and only successful twice , the two victories were both decisive and brilliant . Onewas over the I. Z. , whenBlaker, for Westminster , played a fine innings of 171 ; and the other was against Charterhouse , whom they defeated by an innings and 40 runs . Perhaps , if we maybe allowed to drawaninference from the statistics before us, we shall be right in saying that weakbatting hadsomething to do with this wantof success . Blaker stands so far ahead of the rest , that it would seem that the scoring powers of the side were largely concentrated in him. H e averaged 32, and is a batsman of the most undoubted ability , although he failed in the earlier matches . But, besides the captain's achievements , there is little else in the batting averages . Camp- bell , Giffard , Shearme , and Sherring were all good players ; but they did not, anyof them, prove great rungetters . The bowling and fielding of the eleven wereboth good and safe . Giffard against Charterhouse was most deadly , and h etookfar morewickets in the season thananyone else . H e bowls with a good deal of spin and fair precision , and among the public school bowlers of the year-though this is not extravagant praise -he takes a leading place . Blaker madean excellent captain , and there was more keenness about the game at