James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1895

T H EUNIVERSITIESA N DPUBLICS C H O O L SIN 1894. 1 7 9 M I N O R S C H O O L S . BedfordG r a m m a rSchool.-Matches played , 12 ; won, 5; drawn , 3; lost , 4. C. J. Beazley (Captain )-the main scorer of the team; sound, though casual looking bat ; got quite played out at the end of the season , only needs moreenergy to be first -rate . A. H. Harrison-hits well, but muchtoo fond of pulling , must learn more defensive play ; should be more energetic in the field . R. Joyce-a most promising cricketer , combines good defence with great power of hitting , should try to improve his cutting . P. J. Jacob-an ugly bat, but can makeruns ; a beautiful cover point . F. R. Lumb-improved greatly during the season , and at the end batted prettily and well. E. C. Harris-very quick scorer , but must learn patience ; bowled exceedingly well all the season ; good field . H. B. Warner-a useful bowler, but not so successful as last year, did not come up to expectations as a bat . H. B. Dealtry -a painstaking cricketer , but all his play lacks life and dash . J. F. Howard-useful change bowler and very rustic bat . A. J. Pollard -kept wicket exceedingly well, but failed as a batsman. A. E. Hodder-very useful bowler , and maynext year be first -rate ; plucky field a n dstiff bat. B O W L I N GA V E R A G E . Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. Average. A . E. H o d d e r E . C. Harris. J. F . H o w a r d H .B . W a r n e r 1 0 8 3 6 2 0 6 2 0 1 0 - 3 2 9 2 9 0 6 3 8 4 4 14.5 1 2 2 2 7 2 7 5 1 9. 14-47 1 6 2 5 4 3 3 9 2 3 14-73 C h a t h a mH o u s e, R a m s g a t e .--Matches played , 24; won 14; drawn, 5 ; lost 5.-G. Smith, Captain (average 22.5 ).- Areally fine bat, with pretty style and straight bat ; has great run-getting power ; whenhe has grown taller , so as to have a more commanding reach , he should develop into a first -class m a n; splendid point , and fair slow bowler ; proved a very popular captain . E. Wallinger (average 23-2 ).- Avery useful and painstaking bat, but would do better if he played more for the game and less for his average ; fair bowler, sluggish field , but a very useful all -round m a n. R. Chattell (average 16.4 ).- A very patient bat, rather cramped style ; his innings of 103 not out was a splendid performance ; good bowler and field ; highest promise . P. Wingate (average 17-2). Ugly but painstaking bat , with great power of timing and placing balls to the on side ; useful manall round , as he is a dead catch andprompt in the field . A. Chatteli (average 12.2 ).- Ataking bat, with good defence , but must learn to vary his play with the bowling ; too fond of the same stroke , but plays forward well ; a very accurate and steady bowler and good field . A. Backus (average 10). Amost useful bat on an emergency ; plays in good style , though with rather too muchflourish ; was unlucky at the begining of the season ; a very useful medium bowler with a good spin on the ball and an accurate pitch ; as a field uncertain- nowbrilliant , nowoverrunning the ball ; agood catch . S. Higgins (average 10.1 ). One of those sloggers whooccasionally comeoff, and whena few runs have been gained settle downinto good style ; a fine out-field , running andcatching well ; bowls very fairly . T. Downes (average 8.3 ).-Very fast and dangerous bowler , but erratic ; hadpersistent bad luck in batting , and so lost nerve , and nerve is what he requires for his batting , as he hits all over the field with terrible impartiality . E. Downes (average 6.)--- Bids fair to be a good cricketer both for batting andbowling in time, but needs practice and to learn howto keep his bat straight . W. Howard (average 3.5 ).- Adisappointing bat , chiefly because of a stiff and ungraceful posture , letting the ball come to him and never meeting it ; fair young bowler. S. Bolton (avarage 2.2 ).- C a nplay well against very inferior bowling , but in anything like a school matchis too tame, nevertheless can bat far better than his average would show, and bowl and field fairly .