John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

44 which may have something to do with the rather trusting-in-Providenc, sort of play which is characteristic of this school, by which we mean tl^ method of play which is determined by the direction the hall ought to take rather than that it does take. P owell was the only good howler at the school this year, and as he gets stronger he may turn out above tho average. The fielding of the eleven was admirable, and in battW V izard , R ichardson ,— except to slows,—and B rain were the pick of the team. W ellington lias hitherto suffered by the sandy, loose soil of their ground, ard an important change for the beUer may be looked for in the future in their play, since we hear a piece o f ground has been laid down on a strong bed of asphalte. The boys in this school do not as a rule seem very keen on the game; perhaps, as most of them are embryonic soldiers, it is natural that their hearts should be generally lingering after the more warlike game of Rugby football. We hope that next year, when the new piece of ground can be practised on, and when they will be helped by several of the best boys of this year, an improvement may he discerned. M ilner and Du C ane were the best hats, and the first-named is likely to turn out an energetic captain also. M edley was a good slow left-hand bowler, hut he was most poorly supported by.the field. Fielding is always bad when boys are not keen on the game, for it entails a certain amount of drudgery which has to be got over, and frequently requires the stimulus of vigorous action on the part of the captain. UrpiNGiiAM scored a moral victory against R epton , which latter school is seldom successful in its opposition to its rival. U ppingham produced a batch of wonderful cricketers all about the same time, and in R otherham , later on, perhaps the most effective boy howler ever seen at any school. Their coach, II. 11. S tephenson , has impressed a distinct stamp on their style of play, and its leading characteristic is great strength in the play oft* the legs. Some U ppingham players rise to our mind’s eye who requiie eight of the rival fieldsmen to be on the on side. F ield , II aviland , and E ccles were perhaps the best bats in this year’s team, and N jeilson the best howler. They were an average eleven this year, but not much more. M alvern and R epton were very even : the latter had a good howler in T opham , and a good bat in F orbes , and these two and G rabham —a good all-round man—were the chief causes of their victory over M alvern by 10 runs. E velyn and B uck were the best M alvern bats, and S aville their best bowler. To sum up generally, the four best schools in our opinion appear to be H arrow , C harterhouse , W inchester , and C heltenham , and the task is difficult of selecting the actual best of these. C harterhouse is the best perhaps of any in batting: there was a high standard all through, every member of the team except one securing a double figure average, and in W right they had one of the best bats, and certainly the best wicket-keeper of the year. H arrow had only one good bowler, but he was very good ; and if we consider the superior batting powers of K emp and H adow , we are inclined to think that this school and C harterhouse were the best o f the year, C harterhouse being perhaps, owing to their superior fielding and wicket-keeping, a trifle the stronger of the two. W inchester in batting were better than C heltenham , but in bowling inferior; on the whole, however, they would win a majority of matches.