James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1896

BATTING AVERAGES. THE UNIVERSITIES AND l'LHLIC SCHOOLS IN 1895. 176 Times Most in Inns. not out. Runs. ail Inns. Average. A. II. Belcher ............. 18 2 686 160 42* 13 F. B. Jackson ................. 18 2 411 74 25*11 C. L. A. Smith ................. 16 3 28-4 74* 21*11 D. J. Crump ... . . . • 15 1 240 70* 17*2 R. E. James ................. 14 1 223 66* 17*2 R. L. Henderson ... ............. 12 6 83 32 13*5 R. A. B. Henry ... 15 1 178 :#> 12*10 G. R. Hampson ... ............. 12 1 130 34* 11*0 C. F. J. Holmes ... ............. 12 0 101 57 8*8 31. CLKiernander... ............. ‘ 30 3 62 18* 8*6 E. E. Bottoniley ... ... ... 14 0 76 14 6*6 BOWRING AVERAGES. Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wickets. Average. A. H. Belcher ............. 20212 80 596 40 14*36 K E. Bottomley ... ................. 30*2 12 76 5 15*1 II E. James ... ... 270 44 894 5S 15*24 C\L. A. Smith ................ 100*3 50 470 25 19*4 G*R. Hampson ... ... 04 17 142 5 28*2 B r ig h t o n E l e v e n in 1805. — * A . 11. B e l c h e r : Batted in the same excellent style is last year, and has improved in hitting, especially in cutting. Some­ times he was in too great a hurry to score, but his big innings were a fine contribution of sound defence and clean hitting. He did not do much wicket- keepipg, but came out as a most successful bowler, heading the averages, with a high fast delivery, getting up dangerously. Was very good in the held, and captained exceedingly well. ('. L. A . Smith : Has only improved slightly in batting, his excessive caution still leading to a want of decision in his strokes. In bowling he was also disappointing, perhaps because he did not practice enough*, certainly he always seemed to tire. His fielding was excellent, either at slip or in the deep. *F . B. Jackson : Got more runs than his style deserves, as lie scarcely attempts defence, but uses his long reach, and some cleverness at the pull stroke, to hit directly lie goes in. This method was frequently useful to his side, but has probably ruined his future cricket. A bad knee handicapped him as a fielder. *li E. James: Ought to bat well, but will not learn defence, so only occasionally hits up a score. His slow bowling was better than ever, but liis great command of break, pitch, and variety of pace was not lacked up by patience; his fielding, especially at slip, was remarkably good. A J. Crump: Made a great advance in batting, his (not out) seventy- nine against the Brighton Club being played in excellent style. He did ncit, however, choose to repeat the steadiness and care with which he played on that occasion. In wicket-keeping he takes the ball smartly, but is slow at stumping. Is an active fielder. 11. A . B. l lcn r y : Contributed useful scores in four matches, but in the rest showed a falling off in his defence. Fielded very pluckily.* *C. E. J. Hohn<*s : Still plays too blindly at the pitch of the ball, and gels nervous, consequently lie only came off in two innings. His energetic and often brilliant fielding made him, however, a useful member of the team. *E. E. Sot tomley : Bats in a straight but stiff and awkward style, which results in but few runs. Most useful as a fielder in the deep ; also as a change bowler, with a fast, slinging action. C. B. llampson: Bats in a good style, and with confidence,' but has not much hitting power, though he cuts well. Never made a big score, but by his steadiness saved two critical games. Bowls medium pace, keeping a ’ fair length, but without much sting in his deliveries. M. C. Kte roomier: Has an awkward p ip of his bat that spoils his style, but has a goodeye, and watches the ball. Good fielder and promising wicket-keeper. +jp J v. 1Tenderson: A rustic bat, hitting vigorously to the on side; safe, though not speedy fielder, and bowls medium pace ; mostly half-volleys, with an occasional good ball.