James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

45 performance on any other occasion. The fielding of the team was fain and G renfell kept wicket throughout the season well, and at times brilliantly. M arlborough has made great strides since 1882, and by its achieve­ ments of last year won lor itself a foremost place amongst its rivals. The pick of the batsmen were Q uinton and B uckland , who were generally to be relied on for runs, and both played correct cricket throughout. R owe (their captain) was, perhaps, hardly so successful a bat as in 1882, but both he and R ose were continually to the fore with good scores, while M kyrick , though a slow run-getter, showed excep­ tional promise for a young player. The defect in the team was it poverty in bowling talent. They had, it is true, two good bowlers in B uckland and S ale , the former— slow— being an unusually good school howler, and the latter— fast— quite up to the average. Besides these, K eeling — very fast— at times took wickets, but bowled in most erratic fashion. But when we have said this we have about summed up their bowling resources. As a result, whenever B uckland and S ale were knocked off, the team was at the mercy of its opponents. Witness, for instance, R ugby ’ s second innings in the match at Lord’s, where the latter __all credit to them for it— though essentially a weak hatting team, and in a considerable minority, made a prolonged and determined stand against ever}" device of their adversaries. T expler proved himself °a very useful wicket-keeper, and the fielding of the team generally was safe, though, with an exception in the case of P adwick , not brilliant. R owe has gone up to Cambridge, while B uckland , following the traditions of his family, has joined himself to tlie sister University. The latter during the holidays supplemented his success at scl ool by" more than one long score against good bowling, and, as an all-round cricketer, gives considerable promise for the future. The H arrow Eleven was not, taken all round, so good in our opinion as in 1882, and again must he included in the comprehensive list of Schools of last year who were weak in bowling. The E ton and H arrow match—so woefully interfered with by rain— afforded, we fancj’, a poor criterion of the real merits of the contesting teams. On the one hand H arrow had to hat in a very had light at the close of the first day, and this probably accounted for the rapidity with which their last few wickets fell, while on the other the heavy rain which came down soon after they had begun their second innings disposed the ground entirely in favour of the batsmen; so that it is impossible to say really what would have been the result had the match been played out fair and square on an impartial wicket. G reatorex , who has been referred to before, was possessed not only of a thoroughly sound defence but of hitting powers much beyond the average, and undoubtedly bids fair to become one of the finest bats H arrow has ever produced. He was throughout the season a most reliable run-getter, and contributed very largely to the School’s successes. Both he and M archant are in residence at Cambridge, and their side-by-side career there w ill be watched with much interest, and will afford plenty of opportunity of judging who is the better player of the two. C rawley , the captain, and B uxton were fair bats, both scoring largely at times, and both possessed of free style. Of the rest O ates was a decent player, and B utler gave promise for the future. Y oung , one of the last choices, was, perhaps, the best of a weak