John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

42 * aptitude for the game, and in these cases, wo are inclined to think it gi\«s a great deal of quickness and readiness to rise superior to thedillicul ties of slow and wet wickets. C harterhouse in its public school matches plays W estminster and W ellington , neither of whom have latelv been up to their level. J 1 Ittin by , we think, this year were fortunate in defeating M arlborough A\ho probably would have reversed the result seven matches out of ten! t-A\r was a hard hitter, but not by any means a good or sound hat, still his innings against M arlborough was a* good one, and played in the nick oi time, in fact, too much can hardly be said in praise of the plucky stand made by him and C ohen , which won the match. I nglis was a fair slogger, and K empson a steady player. The R ugby howling was of the weakest possible nature, and the eleven cannot be said to have contained one even moderate bowler. .M arlborough was not a strong team, and were defeated by R ugby and C heltenham , though, as stated above, we think them stronger than R ugby . T i itNEK was a very fine hitter when opposed to bow ling of the calibre of that opposed to him at Lord's, hut he lias r.o means a strong defence. This school appears to be rather unlucky, and when in antagonism with other schools the hoys seldom show their best. form. They certainly ought to have defeated R ugby this year, but R ugby Avon nevertheless. In C heltenham they met a superior eleven. They have a promising cricketer in a brother of the famous A. G. S teel , who next year will probably be good both as a hat and bowler. L eaf was a fair bat, as also was R owe , and a good field to boot. S teel and M ahon were the best bowlers. The eleven seemed rather lifeless in tlie field. H arrow this year were fully up to the average, and were not far removed from the be?t School Eleven of the year. They had in S uakebley a very straight howler, perhaps a little slower than medium pace, with an excellent length, and he was one of those bowlers who gladden a captain’s heart by being always ready to stop run-getting, and keep up an end. He was certainly one of the best school bowlers «of the year. K emp and H adony wrere good hats, H a now being a very good hitter, though to our mind rather uncertain and wanting in defence. The eleven fielded tolerably well, and B u L itiio and G reatouex were both use­ ful bats. The H arrovians may, in our opinion, be ranked second amongst the schools of this year. C heltenham ’ s strong point lay in their bowling, P emberton being a steady, trustworthy trundler, and B oyd , P age , and F riend all lair. G reenway and B oyd were the two best bats, the former a very dangerous man, playing good cricket. B oyd , who is much steadier, played con­ sistently well through the season. These two bats scored weU in the two poor ___________ f B oyd , and P emberton . The C heltonians were slack in practice, and out­ side the eleven there was none at all to speak of—a deploiahle <ir( uin­ stance, which suggests the enquiry as to whether lawn-tennis was to blame,'or what else were they employing themselves at. S herborne disappointed expectations, which is largely to be accounted for bv the loss of their captain, H arper . They were defeated by C lifton after*a good struggle, in which the loss of a good fast bowler was severely