James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1895

8 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. Halliwell is a thoroughly first -class wicket -keeper and a really good and reliable bat. His average is of course , aided by his not-outs ; but as he generally went in pretty early he certainly earned these . Routledge , a bat of the hitting order , is , however no mere slogger . H ewas very successful at the beginning of the tour ; but did not appear to be suited by the very slow wickets that prevailed afterwards . In adry season , such as that of last year, he would probably have scored twice as manyruns . Like Sewell and Halliwell he stood downfrom two matches . Rowerested in one only . Davey was either very unfairly treated by the Selection Committee or else played above his knownform whenhe did get a chance . In any case , it does not look well that the third manin the batting averages should only have been allowed to play in 25 per cent of the matches . Nextto R o w e, Middletonwasthe best bowler on the side. A ttimes he bowled quite as well as his young colleague , but on the whole can scarcely be reckoned hisequal. Johnson and Glover are both useful all -round men, the former, who has the advantage of youth, somewhat the better of the two. Johnson scored 112 against the Liverpool team and 79 v. the Gentlemen of Ireland-a team which included several of his former comrades at the Dublin University -but only on two other occasions did he top thirty . His best bowling was against his old AlmaMater, whenhe secured nine wickets for 61 runs . Glover, in conjunction with his captain , madea plucky stand which will not readily be forgotten v. Surrey ; and his 11 in that matchwas his highest score , though he batted well on several other occasions . He is probably slightly the superior of Johnson in the trundling department . As we have bracketed these two, so we may fairly lump together Seccull , Frank Hearne, Mills and Cripps , all of whomhad batting averages ranging from just under 15½ to just over 145. Hearne is probably really the best batsman of the four; but he was very inconsistent . His first three innings did not produce a run : his last seven only realised 22. The other three were more consistent . Seccull and Cripps were each only twice dismissed without scoring . Mills did his best perform- ances at Southampton and Edinburgh making morethan one -third of his runs in the two games played at these places . Kempis and Parkin , like Davey, did not get muchof a show ; but, unlike him, they did nothing whenplaying to justify their places . Castens would, but for the innings -that plucky 58 v. Surrey-have to be written down a failure as a batsman. Perhaps the cares of captaincy weighed upon him too heavily to give him a fair chance . Hewas fairly successful , so far as an outsider can judge , in the onerous task of leadership . Cricketically and socially the tour was a success ; financially , we believe , it was not . But that matters less since the expenses were fully guaranteed ; and the trip was avowedly in great part an educational one. W h e nanother South African team comes it ought to fly at somewhat higher game. W efancy that the general public would have taken more interest in this team had it been generally recognised as first -class , and had not some of its fixtures been of the scratchy type . A fully representative South African team, coming over in four or five years time- -or sooner -might try conclusions with the fourteen first-class counties (for surely Hampshire will be reckoned first -class after its gallant performances this year) and the two Universities , the Gentlemen ofEngland and the Gentlemen of the South, Dublin University and the Gentle- menof Ireland , Liverpool and District , with maybematches at Portsmouth , and in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Such a programme would have to be reckoned first- class ; and we doubt not that it wouldbe carried through with at least a fair