James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

50 l iim se lf an e ffic ien t w icket-keeper, but the p lay o f the team generally was slack and d iscouraging, I t is a lw ays sad to ch ron ic le decadence, especia lly when such decadence is from a h igh estate, and so i t is w i th fee lings o f regret that we have to re la te tha t the U p p in g h a m E leven o f 1883 was fa r below the average o f U p p in g h a m E leven s o f the past few years. I t was not destitu te o f ba tting qualities, fo r O r fo r d , R oberts , R ichardson , and S tone w ere a ll fa ir bats, but the team did not contain a single bowler of average school m erit. Several o f them bow led, but i t was a ll in the same style, plain and easy both to p lay and to score off. O rpord and R oberts have gone to Cambridge, but S to n e , who gave best prospects o f becom­ in g a cricketer, is not bound fo r e ith e r U n iv e rs ity . As we have alreadv noticed, they lost th e ir matches aga inst both LoRETToand R e p t o n : this fs the first occasion— i f w e exclude from our reckon ing the year in which the School was at Borth and had no proper ground to p lay on—on which they have lost a school match since th e ir w e ll-known coach, H. H. S t e p h e n s o n , has had them in hand. There must be “ ups and downs” with every school, and le t us hope th a t this is on ly a v e ry temporary “ down ’’ in the case o f U p p in g h a m . Th e grea t confidence w e have in S tephen - son ’ s coaching powers makes our hope a sanguine one. D u lw ic h possessed a rem arkab ly good boy cricketer in B owden . H e played la te on in the season fo r his County, Surrey, w ith some success, and w i l l doubtless be heard o f in the cr icke t world again. Dearth o f bow ling is the almost universal c ry in summing up School Cricket o f the year. One or tw o schools were w e l l o ff in this depart­ ment, but the m a jo r ity w ere lam en tab ly weak, and some had no bow ling at a ll w orthy o f the name. Per fec t ion in bow ling is not, as in fielding, always to be atta ined by practice, but rea l patient practice will go a long w a y towards mak ing a useful, i f not a dangerous, bowler out of the most ord inary m a te r ia l ; and we wou ld therefore urge captains and coaches o f school teams to do the ir best by a steady routine o f practice to develop young and prom ising bowlers, and fu r th e r to take care of such products, when developed, and to see tha t th e j1, do not overbowl themselves, or, through carelessness, lose th e ir accuracy o f length and pitch. W inch e ster , w e th ink , was w ithou t doubt the best School of the year, and w e have but l i t t le hesitation in placing E ton next, w ith in a measurable distance o f th e ir old opponents; but beyond this i t is hard to go, fo r there were, in our opinion, a la rge batch of Schools almost indistinguishable in m erit. Amongst individuals M arciiant and G reatorex stand out by themselves as cricketers o f the future; a fter these the most prom ising form in ba tt in g was, w e think, shown by C obb (W inchester), R ash letgh , L e F l e m in g , and A . O. H ubbard (Tonbr idge ), B r a in and K ey (C l i fton ) , S t u d d and L ucas (Eton), B owden (Du lw ich ), Q u in to n and B u c k l a n d (M arlborough ), H igg in s (Westminster), D ’A eth (H a ileybu ry ), and B l a ir (L o r e t to ) . O f bowlers, N icholls (W inchester) was, we think, facile princeps, and should he retain his form he w i l l doubtless attain to further fame hereafter; and o f the rest the best were probably B u c k la n d and S a le (Marlborough ), S wayne (W in­ chester), M i l n e r (W e l l in g ton ) , K ear sey (R ep ton ), S m ithson and B arton (H a ileybu ry ), and G . H u b b a r d (Tonbridge ). The wicket-keeping of the year was considerably above the average, C obb (Winchester), G benffj x (E ton), T em pler (Marlborough ), and T aylor (Cheltenham) being alb to a greater or less degree, proficient behind the sticks.