James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1892

P U B L I CS C H O O LCRICKETIN 1891. 2 1 bowlers of the stamp of Quinton and Healing . O. C. Raphael and Blundell werelarge scorers in either innings , but Forbes' 62 was perhaps the most taking performance of the match. The meeting with Charterhouse took place early in theseason , and afforded rather an inadequate test of the respective merits of thetwoteams, the Carthusians , Smith excepted , failing utterly to do themselves justice in the first innings . Nor were their bowlers seen to any advantage , and Wellington knocked up, in a little over three hours , the mammoth score of 368 for 4 wickets , and then " declared ." Wood, with 171 not out, was the hero of thematch, andhis innings and the aggregate score were alike records in Wel- lington cricket . W o o dfollowed up this grand performance by some deadly bowling against Haileybury , and his 13 wickets for 68 runs proved that, when inthe humour, he was the most dangerous m a non the side for offence and defence combined. R. H. Raphael also earned distinction in both matches, as didFellowes , whosupplemented his fine bowling at Godalming by a vigorous 95 against Haileybury . If weare to form our estimate of the merits of the Wel- lington boys simply on their doings against their boy rivals , we must inevitably cometo oneof two conclusions -either that they were overpoweringly strong , or that their opponents were undeniably weak. Fromwhatis said elsewhere , it will be apparent that w e have formed a rather poor opinion of two of the opposing elevens , and we do not think the Carthusian bowling sufficiently good to afford any satisfactory test of the real batting powers of their opponents . W e prefer , therefore , to base our final judgment of this eleven on their doings in their other foreign matches ; andfrom them we gather that, though W o o dand Fellowes were at times distinctly successful , the bowling of the team was not formidable . Further , we learn that W o o d, Mordaunt, and Fellowes were bril- liant , rather than trustworthy , batsmen, and that for consistent value the highest place must be given to R. H. Raphael . W edo not for a momentwish to withdrawfrom our previously expressed assertion that they were an able batting side , because the statistics amply justify all that wehave said . Indeed, the merefact that six of themaverage over 20 is a striking testimony to their general excellence ; but we must not allow ourselves to be so far led awayby their un. precedented success against other schools as to pronounce them an absolutely first -class team. It maybe that , as time goes on, W o o d, Mordaunt, and others m a yacquire the patience which would render them as reliable as they have proved themselves brilliant , and we confess that it would give us the greatest pleasure to hear of Mordaunt's success in the cricket world some day. H e has deserved well of his fellows , for to his never-failing energy muchof the cricket enthusiam of the school is due ; and we hold that any captain whodoes his level best to foster the true cricket spirit amonghis companions , not only merits the praise of his ownschoolfellows , but of all who have the welfare of public school cricket at heart . It is an enormous advantage to Wellington that he will captain the side again this year, and, though at present he seems to have an uphill task before him, weconfidently anticipate that his team will makea good show this summerin the representative matches . It seems to us, as wepen these lines , that we have often had to write "disap- pointing " against the performances of the Westminster boys . Certainly they disappointed everybody last year ; for though on paper they seem to have done better than their immediate predecessors , the improvement is more in appearance than in reality , and the loss of the Charterhouse match more than counter- balanced the additional victories . Thereis no fault to be found with the bowlers , four of w h o mwere at least respectable , and only twice was a long score madeagainst them. Berens is said to be really good, and should be very dangerous this year. If he is in form, and Shearme, Fitzmaurice , and Sherring comeon as expected , there is a prospect of better things . This cannot be unless there is a vast advance in the batting ; for, so far as w ecan learn , there was only one respectable score made by any individual last season . Blaker failed utterly to maintain his reputation , his average sinking from 32 to 11, and his failure seemed to depress the others , Sherring , perhaps , being the only one who was not more or less disappointing . W ehope 1892 will see a great change ,