James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1892

P U B L I CS C H O O LCRICKETIN 1891. 1 5 again conspicuous , and to this , we believe , their defeat must in a large measure be attributed . Norman's unfortunate accident in this match, though it did not affect the result of the gamein question , was a serious blow to the Etonians , as it rendered him absolutely unfit for the more important encounter at Lord's . H eplayed, it is true, but it would probably have been better for himself and his side if they hadput some one else in his place . In addition to the illness of their captain , the Eton boys were handicapped at Lord's by the seediness of Ark- wright , but, making allowance for these drawbacks , it must be confessed that the team did not do themselves justice . The batsmen, with a few notable exceptions , were feeble , and the bowling had little or no sting . The exceptions wereStudd, Arkwright, and, above all , Brewis. Having been out of all form during the season , Brewis' performances were as welcome as they were unex- pected, and it is generally allowed that his two innings were as good as anything inthe match. Studd then , as always , proved himself a thorough cricketer , who only wants strength to be a really high -class batsman . Arkwright was, as we have said , not seen at his best at Lord's , but he did well in the second innings , and whenw e rememberthat he made over 100 runs in his two efforts against Winchester, and also bowled with success , we can easily believe that he was, as has been asserted , not only the best batsman in the team, but also a cricketer of undeniable promise . There are others of the team whoare expected to render a good account of themselves in the future , though they failed to distinguish themselves at Lord's , and chief amongthese is Forbes . In the preceding year hehadproved a very dangerous bowler, a character which he fully maintained last season , and his great pace will always make him a nasty opponent , especially if the wicket is at all fiery . Itis doubtful whether he will appear again in the Etoneleven , but if he does , and it happens to be his day, it would go very badly with either of the rival schools . Hoare and Lane-Fox are sure to be available this year, and with Studd also in the ranks, Eton seems to have a very good chance of avenging the defeats of 1891 . W eare at a loss to knowwhat to say about Haileybury , their almost com- plete breakdownbeing to us perfectly inexplicable . Everything seemed to point to a season of real success , for not only were there six of the 1890 eleven still at school , but included in this number were the two most successful batsmen, and the three leading bowlers of the previous year . Added to this the captain was no novice , having already had a season's experience in the post , so, we repeat , the want of success appears to us positively extraordinary . It maybe that those behind the scenes could tell us the reason why, but we have failed to find any satisfactory explanation of the problem. The failure cannot rest on the heads of the bowlers, as Lushington and Fisher did their work well , nor can it be due altogether to the fielding (though mistakes in the field were far too commonin the Wellington match) , otherwise the bowling averages would not be as good as theyare. Itwasthe batting that was at fault , and very muchat fault too to judge by the averages . Partridge heads the list , and was decidedly the most successful batsman of the year ; all the old hands, with the exception of Lushing- ton andWare, who in 1890 were almost innocent of run-getting , failing utterly to uphold their reputations . Partridge , even, was not a large scorer , and there musthave been something seriously amiss with the defence of the Haileybury boys last summer. W ehave alluded to the Wellington match, and shall speak of it morefully afterwards , but a few words about the Uppinghammatchmust find a place here . It was, without question , a very close thing, too close probably for the nerves of some of the spectators , for the Herts boys were defeated by 19 runs only . But, to be fair , we must not forget that Sharp, their mostdeadly bowler, was absent from the visiting side , and judged by other performances , the strong probability is that nine times out of ten victory would have gone to Uppingham. There is no more to be said , but at all events w e m a ybe allowed to hope that better things are in store for Haileybury this year, even though they will have to rely almost exclusively on untried m e n. It is somewhatdifficult to form a fair estimate of the quality of the batting of the Harroweleven . The wickets were so invariably heavy, and the ground