James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1892

THE UNIVERSITIESA N D PUBLIC SCHOOLSIN 1891. 1 1 3 B A T T I N GA V E R A G E S .-Continued. T i m e s I n n s. n o to u t. R u n s. M o s tin a nI n n s. H .K. Umfreville 1 3 0 1 4 5 4 7 Average. 1 1 . 2 5 D .Potter.. 1 1 4 7 2 *2 3 1 0 . 2 8 H .J. Smith 1 4 0 0 1 3 2 3 6 9 . 2 8 A. A.Francis.... 1 0 3 5 1 1 6 7.28 F. W .Worsley 1 0 1 4 0 2 0 4 . 4 4 C.G. Smith 4 0 2 9 1 4 7.25 B O W L I N GA V E R A G E S . O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. Wickets. Average. H .H. Jupp 3 0 9 . 2 5 3 9 3 4 6 5 14.36 H. J. Smith 1 9 9 4 0 5 7 3 2 5 22.92 H .K. Umfreville 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 8 1 2 2 6 . 1 6 A.A. Hughes.. 59.4 1 1 1 6 1 6 2 6 . 8 3 P.M .Cooper 3 0 9 8 8 3 2 9 . 3 3 BRIGHTON ELEVEN IN 1891.-W. H. Picton (Captain ) : Very nearly spoilt his former sound style by developing jumping habits , but hadthe sense to recog- nize his error , and do his best to cure himself , ultimately playing some fine innings ; has gained but little in power, but times his stroke correctly and places the ball discreetly ; in fielding he showed great improvement , and was a hard- working captain . S. W. S. Collins : Haseye and power and patience enough to makea first -rate bat, if he could only be convinced that it is easiest to keep the bat in the line of each straight delivery with left foot and shoulder forward ; wasunfortunate in straining a muscle andmissed four matches ; fields excellently . *H. H. Jupp : Hasbowled his slows as well as ever, but perhaps too muchwas expected of himbecause the other bowlers were so weak; in a teamwith more change bowlers , and with more of the assistance he requires behind the wicket andin the field , he might have had a remarkable average ; his batting has a cun- ning of its own, anddefies the ordinary rules ; he fielded brilliantly . P. M. Cooper : Hasmadea great advance all round in his cricket ; his batting is still stiff , but very straight and careful , and, with one exception , he showed up best against goodbowling ; his fielding is muchsmarter and surer , andhe has learnt to bowl a little . H. J. Smith : Has been disappointing as a bat, contracting bad habits of crouching , and keeping his bat glued to the block ; but proved a useful bowler , plain ,but straight , and fairly fast ; slow on his legs in the field , but picks up andreturns well . F. W. Worsley : Has kept wicket in the most unequal fashion - o n eday brilliant , another altogether collapsing ; his defective sight maypartly account for this peculiarity , as it must for his inability to use a bat to stop a straight ball . A. A. Hughes : Has a quick eye and wrist , but does not use his legs , preferring to chop at each delivery , rather than to meet it ; nevertheless , he contributed two useful innings ; he bowls jerkily , with some spin, but no control of pitch ; his fielding is often smart, but not sure . H. K. Umfreville : Hasabandoned wild slogging , and begun the study of defence with very fair success ; his style is stiff , especially in playing back, but he keeps straight , and if hedoes not relapse into a rustic hitter , he maymakea fair bat ; in bowling , he has improved his pitch , but gets very little workon the ball ; he is still slow in the field . A. A. Francis : Deserved a place in the team for his fielding only , which was consistently fine ; he uses his bat like a golf club ; his bowling (left hand, medium) wastried on one or two occasions without success . M. P. G. Cobbett : Came off once in batting , making also a useful stand upon another occasion , but he cannot expect ever to do more than this in a season unless he gives up his passive method of allowing the ball to play itself against his bat ; he has a good eye, can field well whenhe rouses himself , and ought to makea good slow bowler (left hand). D. Potter : Earned his colours more by fielding than batting , his defence being stiff and mechanical , and his hitting wild . C. G. Smith : Only played four innings , but showed good form for his size , and all round gives promise of a good c r i c k e t e r . dan cheats b e gf 9