James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1895

C R I C K E TIN 1894. 4 9 beat Marlborough easily , and as already stated , won the Haileybury match, though only after a remarkable finish , their record was by no means satisfactory . T h eperformances of Curtis and Townsendquite over-shadowedthe rest of the cricket at Clifton College . Public School cricket in 1894 could not show two better all -round players . Curtis's batting was quite out of the common. For eleven completed innings he had an aggregate of 707 runs, and his score of 238 (not out) against the Clifton Club should be somewhere near if not quite a record in Public School cricket . Curtis was perhaps the best school batsman of the year, and therefore it is the more to be regretted that he has gone to Cooper Hill where he will not have the same opportunity of developing cricket as he wouldhave had at the Universities . Of Townsend's bowling little need be said . Hisunmistakeable ability was fully proved in the Gloucestershire eleven in 1893. To a great break he added rare knowledge of pace , and as a slow bowler he was certainly the best the Public Schools have produced for manyyears . E t o n, I should consider above the average of late years. T h e ybeatW i n - chestera n dw o u l dalso h a v edefeatedH a r r o wh a dnottherain intervened. I n fielding they were hardly as good as Harrow, and the wicket -keeping was cer- tainly inferior . Otherwise they had a decided advantage . In Cunliffe and Pilkington they had two excellent all -round cricketers , and as the latter stays anotheryearheis certain to be of great use. Haileybury, though the eleven madea good fight with Cheltenham at Lords , were rather an uneven lot . Graves bowled with the best success , and the bowling altogether was by no means bad. Otherwise the cricket was only moderate . TheUppingham atch was given upfor the year, so that the only school fixture waswithWellington, in which they were quite over -matched. It is refreshing to see still another Foster in the Malvern eleven . Inbatting , Malvern was decidedly strong , with Porch, Marriott , Burnup, the Simpsons , and others . The eleven , though, were handicapped by the weakness of the bowling , which showeditself unmistakeably in both matches against Repton and Sherborne . Bowling too, was the weak point in Marlborough cricket , as witness the w a yit was punished by Rugbyat Lords . J. Grahamand Cheales were good batsmen, but otherwise the best was only moderate. Inbothmatcheswith . Rugbyand Cheltenham, Marlborough were badly beaten . Radley, as has already been stated , beat Bradfield by four runs . It was not their only victory by any means, and had the batting been at all up to the standard of their out-cricket , the eleven would have been very strong . Repton had an excellent all -round cricketer in A. Eccles . There was no bowler on the side really good enough to puzzle batsmen, and the record of the eleven, which showed two wins to five draws, andthe same numberof defeats , was only poor . Rossall's chief claim to distinction , and it was a good one, was their double victory over Loretto and Shrewsbury. WithGowers, Sample, and Christopherson -honoured name in cricket- Rugbywas well represented in bowling . Stanning's batting was far the best on the side . His performance in going through the innings in the Marlborough match will notsoon be forgotten. Neither Sherborne nor Shrewsbury were strong in bowling, but the former werehandicapped considerably by the loss of their captain , C. L. Alexander , whoseall -round cricket would have been of great use. Tonbridge had a better all -round side than the majority of the schools . Bannon's batting and Carlton's bowling were the best features . The bowling generally was quite up to the average . C. E. M. Wilson's illness handicapped Uppingham very materially ; the