James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annaul 1897

1 4 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL it compares most unfavourably with the football efficiency of the school . T h efamous Surrey school ought to produce more cricketers of the stamp of Streatfeild and G. O. Smith. W eare afraid the fault lies with the boys themselves . Perhaps it is the excessive keenness for football which is the root of all the evil , though there is absolutely no reason whyboys should not be keen on cricket as well . They are played at different times of the year and ought not to clash in anyway. The eleven of last season was a verymoderate one. Both the batting and bowling were weak, while the fielding was of no particular excellence . Several good performances were of course done by individuals , but as a side the eleven was by no means strong . The one really good performance of the year was the victory over Westminster, though there can be little doubt that Westminster had the better side . T w oplayers at Charterhouse stood head and shoulders above everyone else , viz . , Wreford Brown and Barrington . Of the two the former , though he had the smaller average , is said to be the better player , and with increasing steadiness and experience should turn out first class . H ewas, too , a keen and capable captain . Barrington is a more careful bat with a very nice cut , but rather a lack of forcing power . The partial failure of the Carthusianslast season was due in n o small measureto slackness in attending net practice . The boys seem to imagine that cricket can be learnt without keenness and hard work. It is to be hoped that they have ere now discovered their mistake . That famous athlete ,te C. B. Fry , is now a master at Charterhouse , and we have no doubt that in future he will instil into the boys some of his own great keenness and enthusiasm for the finest of games . D u l w i c had not a particularly successful season , as out of eight matches played, only two were won, whilst five ended in defeat . As the two victories , however , were both school matches , and the only draw greatly in their favour , their record is really better than it looks . Against Tonbridge the school were seen to particular advantage, scoring 241 for two wickets , whilst theygot eight of their opponents ' wickets downfor 140-a moral win. Thebatting , bowling , and fielding of the team were all very fair ; but the want of a respectable wicket keeper was severely felt . But for this weakness the Dulwich boys would assuredly have given abetter account of themselves . Knox, whoheads the batting averages , is a thoroughly sound bat, and was well backed up by Lobb. Anthony, who, like Knox, is still quite young, shows great promise , and as both these boys stay on at Dulwich they should eventually become first -class . Moss-Blundell is spoken of as a greatly im- proved player , whilst Gibson , the fast bowler of the side , was simply invalu- able. To sumup, the team contained several boys of the greatest promise , who, under the guidance of J. Douglas , the well -known Middlesex cricketer , should turn out Al. In short , everything points to a highly successful season in 1897. As the R u g b yboys again proved successful over Marlborough at Lord's , they maybe said to have done all that was required of them. Still , of the twelve matches played only two ended in victory , so that their record would not at first appear to be a very great one. However, in several of the drawngames , notably against Oriel College and Liverpool , they were seen to conspicuous advantage , and they were on the whole a very fair side indeed . Theywere, perhaps , seen at their best at Lord's , their bowlers on that occasion being in capital form . Stanning heads the averages , but was on the whole rather uncertain . H ehas not, wethink , quite fulfilled his early promise . C. P. Nickalls once more played well , though he did not repeat