John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

ETON. 1st Inna H. W. Bainbridgo, b Moncreiffo . . . . 22 It. H. Rawson, run out ................................ 7 P. J. do Paravicini, b Shakerley . . . . 0 It. J. Lucas, c Hadow, b Shakerley . . 8 J. Hargreaves, b S h a k e r l e y ........................0 W. F. Oavo, c Spiro, b Shakerley . . . . 7 A. E. Newton, b Shakerley .................... 4 llon.C. KnatchbulMIugesson, b MonoroilTc 4 A. G. Richards, b M on cre iffo ........................2 Hon. D. H. Lascellos, not o u t ........................2 Hon. 0. Trefusis, b Routledge........................3 L b .......................................................J* Total . . . • . • . . . . . . 64 2nd lung. c Bolitho, b Greatorox . . . . 23 c Baines, b Routledgo ...................a c and b Groatorex . . . . . , 27 b G reatorox ................................... 30 b Shaker ley .................... .... . . . 2 b Moncreiffe...................................(j c and b Moncreiffo ...................... 17 c Spiro, b G r e a t o r o x .................. 5 b Shakerley...................................23 c Moncreiffo, b Grcatorox . . . , 10 not o u t .................................... . . . 4 B 4,1 b 7 11 Total ........................... .166 ANALYSIS OF THE BOWLING. H arrow .—F irst I nnings . Overs. Maidens, Runs. Wkts. V. J. de Paravicini 42.2 . • 23 • • 42 • O 6 A. C. Richards . . 21 . • 6 • • 33 • • 1 It. J. Lucas . . . . 5 . # 2 • • 5 • • 0 Hon. C. Trefusis . . 4 . • 0 • • 12 • • 0 Hon. D. H. Lascelles 28 . • 13 • • 34 • • 3 R. H. Rawson . . 4 . • 2 • • 3 • • 0 Lascelles bowled a wido. E ton —F irst I nnings . Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wkts A. F. Kemp . . . . 7 . . 3 . . 9 . . 0 G. H. Shakerley . . 29 . . 19 . . 30 . 6 L. A. Routledge . . 9.2 . . 5 . . 10 . „ 1 R. Moncreiffe . . 12 . . 7 . . 10 . . 3 J, E. Groatorex O f the 57 matches played, each school has drawn. • S kcono I nnings . Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wkts, 39 . . 13 . . 67 . . 6 9 .. 3 . . 18 . . 0 3 .. 0 . . 6 . . 0 8 .. 4 . . 17 . . 0 40 . . 17 . . 68 . . 4 13 .. 1 . . 29 . . 0 S kcond I nnings . Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wkts. 2 . . 0 . . 8 . . 0 38.2 . . 20 . . 59 . . 2 23 . . 13 . . 25 . . 1 16 . . 7 . . 28 . . 2 17 . . 3 . . 36 . . 0 won 25, and 7 have been ETON t\ W INCHESTER . 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. June 23, W inchester 124 138 262 Eton. E ton 181 79 263 E ton won by 6 wickets. This result was most unexpected, as the W inchester boys had shown far better form in their trial matches than the Etonians. I t is not, how ­ ever, too much to say that the v ictory o f E ton was in a very grea t measure due to the fine a ll-round cr icket o f P. J. de Parav ic in i, w h o took 10 w ickets at a cost o f on ly 71 runs, and scored 27 and 32, the latter innings in c lu d in g a splendid on drive for six. A . 0. R ichards , a very small cricketer , played a p lucky 38 (not ou t ) in the first inn ings o f E ton , and It . J. Lucas batted steadily and well fo r 36. The W in chester hatting was , on the whole , disappointing, but some good form was shown by 0 . M. Lam br ick 34 and 20, Hon. J. W . Mansfield 10 and 37, W . N. Lea 41 and 0 , and H. Gr. Ruggles-Brise 1 and 38. O f the 52 matches played, E ton has won 35, and W inchester 15. The m a t ch in 1845 resulted in a tie, and that in 1865 was le ft unfinished.