James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

46 lot of bow lers : he is young in years as well as name, and may turn up trumps hereafter. T hompson , H ewett , and O ates also bowled but not in any high-class style, and G rieve — fast underhand__when the ground was “ made to order,” met with some success. The fielding of the team was passable, but not perfect, D auglish , however, heinc? art exception in this respect, and at times really brilliant. ’ & The C lifton Eleven of 1883 were a much improved lot, and met throughout the season with considerable success. This was in a great measure owing to their possessing two really fine bats in B rain and K ey . The former gave great promise in the beginning of 1882, but failed entirely to sustain his reputation at the end of the season. Last summer he regained his form, and from first to last played sound and telling cricket, not only whilst at school, but afterwards during the holidays in the ranks of the Gloucestershire team against high-class bowling. K ey ,who is now at Oxford, was, with B rain ,one of the mainstays of the School team, and proved himself a fine, powerful bat, and a much improved bowler. He, too, later on in the year, figured more than once in his County (the Surrey) Eleven, and acquitted himself therein with considerable distinction. Besides these two, B radford and SANDFORDwere consistently good bats, and on occasions proved of great service to their side ; indeed, in the match against C heltenham it was chiefly the good steady play of these two, at a most critical point of the game, that turned the tide in favour of C lifton . F ox played a safe game and at times made runs, while H artnell , though weak in defence, was endowed with good hitting powers. Here again, sad to relate, bowling was the weak point in the team. K ey was, perhaps, their best bowler, and B rain , though very simple, not unfrequently took wickets. P owell , who gave good promise in 1882, fell off considerably, and F owler , while he captured several wickets during the season, did so at the cost of a great many runs. In fielding, we are glad to say, the eleven of 1883 was good, and in this respect compared favourably with its immediate predecessor. C harterhouse last year made a rapid recovery from their relapse in 1882, and, whereas the School then registered only four wins out of fifteen matches, last year it was successful in eight engagements and unsuccessful in four only. This is all the more commendable in the face of the fact that there were but'jfour members of the 1882 eleven left as a foundation for last year’s team. Amongst others the School scored a decisive victory over their old opponents, the ‘Westminster boys, and avenged their disastrous defeat of the year before. It is curious that three successive years should have produced three such runaway matches, success favouring either school in alternate rotation. The C harterhouse ] Eleven contained a promising batsman in C oulby , who, though not successful at the beginning of the season, finished up with two good scores—144 (not out) and 99— against Westminster ami the Gentlemen of Sussex, and, chiefly by means of these two totals, made for himself the very respectable average of 29 runs per innings. He is a free bat, with good style and excellent cutting powers, and as he is still at C harterhouse should prove of great assistance next yeai’. Attei him W ebber deserves notice as a sound bat, and, perhaps, the nios regular scorer of the team, while C awston , E wing , and B rown a & times made runs. The bowling of the team was quite up to the eve