James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1892

PUBLICS C H O O LCRICKETIN 1891. 1 3 butapart from himthere was not a bowler in the team. The fielding of the side was, on the whole, better than in the previous year ; but Juppwas sometimes severely handicapped by the mistakes of the wicket -keeper, and, it must be added, some other membersof the team as well . The batting was uneven and uncertain : Picton and Collins showed really good form in some of the matches, while Cooper made a great advance on his doings of 1890 , and Jupp hadthe knackof knocking up runs, still the element of uncertainty was so largely evi- dent that they cannot be called a strong batting side . Fromwhatwe can gather Juppwas the best m a nin the eleven , and is sure to prove a useful addition toanyclub that is lucky enough to secure his services . Collins will lead the team this year, andwill be supported byfive or six old choices , so if only some bowlers canbeunearthed there is every prospect of a successful season . Charterhouse cricket has been rather under a cloud for the last two years , so it is an additional pleasure to hear that the team of last year earned a fair measureof success . Theywere badly beaten by Wellington and the Butterflies , it is true,but against these losses can be placed an easy victory over Westminster , anda grand victory over the I Zingari , the boys knocking up the last 95 runs in thirty -five minutes , winning with two minutes to spare ! Thedraw against the OldCarthusians was a creditable performance , as E. C. Streatfeild was on their opponents ' side ; and the last match of the season resulted in a victory for the school , thanks to the fine cricket of Bray and Winch-Bray scoring 90 and 67, each time not out , and Winch 92 at his second attempt . Bray was unquestion- ably one of the most useful membersof the team, as he kept wicket fairly , and w h e nset wasa fine clean hitter , and he ought to be of great service this year. Gardiner, the top scorer against Westminster , is another whois likely to do well this summer, but the hopes of the school are centred in G. O. Smith. As captain , Smith has done a great deal for Charterhouse cricket , for not only was he the mostsuccessful performer both with bat and ball , but he inspired his team with confidence , and instilled into themsome of his own keenness and energy . His phenomenal average of 57 is largely due to five not-out innings , still there is no doubthe is a really sound player , and with another year's experience ought to bequite in the top flight of public school batsmen. His most notable performance in 1891 was against the old boys, whenhe scored a faultless innings of 168 not out; but this was only the best of a series of good innings , and werepeat that with additional strength and experience he will , we hope, be quite A l this y e a r. Thenews from Cheltenham is most dispiriting . Atthe beginning of the season all promised well , there was an exceptionally large numberof old choices , and amongthem several of the most successful performers of the previous year. Onepiece of badluck happened to the team, as before either of the school matches Brookeleft , and in himthey lost not only the largest , but their most consistent scorer . Butwith all due allowance for this , wemust honestly confess that their performances fell far short of expectations . It is no good to mince matters , and w ewill say at once, the failures of the season were entirely due to their own shortcomings . Asa batting side they were strong all through, but they never didthemselves justice , simply because the evil spirit of slackness pervaded their ranks, and so they were unable , whenthe critical momentcame, to pull them- selves together for any sustained effort . Quinton and Healing bowledwell and pluckily throughout , and as there was no other bowling of any merit they hada great deal of work to do, but they were not adequately supported , the fielding beingoften slack and the catching bad. Against Marlborough, Quinton proved almost as deadly as in 1890, andin the first innings took 5 wickets for 9 runs . W e shall be eager to knowhowhe will fare in the match this year. W eshall speak morefully of the Clifton andWellington matches hereafter ,but for Cheltenham's sake it wouldbe well if the story of the Clifton match could remain untold, as the gamewas simply thrown away, the batting was bad, the fielding execrable . O u rcriticism on this unhappyteam must not close without a word of well- deserved praise to Holdship for his uniform energy, and to McPherson for his wicket-keeping. McPhersonhad earned a great reputation in the previous