James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

26 Vow]ing. M byriok , of whom gicat things v*(‘i6 prophesied, failed fn score so consistently as in the previous year • lie had two or three bad strokes on the off side, but as he improved in power, we hope he mar yet become first-class. The captain (I’ adwick ) is a glorious hitter, but cannot be depended on for runs. As a captain lie was energetic’ and managed his men excellently in tlie field. Of the others, K eeling and M eyrick -J ones were perhaps the best; the latter, at all events, plays in good free style, and has the happy knack of adding to tlie score. As a bowler. S ale vsnsfacileprinceps; he sends down a lotof loose ball ground helps him at all, as it did at Lord’s, he is undoubtedly very nasty to stop. He bowls fast with a nice break-back, and is sure to make Ins mark at Oxford this year. His performance against Eugby—12 wickets, at a cost of 4 runs each—is well worthy of mention. The rest of the bowling was not of a very high stamp, though some good judges believe that in a wet season C heales is almost sure to get wickets. Too much praise cannot be given to the fielding of the team. With one exception, there was not a “ duffer ” among them, while I’ adwick , and K eeling were quite out of the common. But—there was no wicket-keeper, and here, we believe, is to be found the main cause of the season’s failure—a fair batting team, with one really good, and two or three respectable, bowlers, ought with, their fine fielding to have won more than one match. At C heltenham the eleven were, on the whole, fairly good, and they were certainly unlucky in having butli their school matches drawn, for in each case the odds were immensely in their favour. They were by no means a polished team, but nearly' all of them could, and did, get runs, as the double figure averages of ten of tlieir number conclusively prove. Their captain (H eatii ) was a really good bat, and he played some capital innings for Hampshire later in the season. The bowling was fair. F erguson might be really good with a little more “ head” and determination, but probably B lair would have been the best bowler in the team had be been able to play regularly; bis absence was a serious loss to the eleven. R obinson , though rather a rough and ready player, was often useful, and in tlie two school matches his lobs were most serviceable. P ierson and H amilton were the pick of the basket in the field, though tlie whole team were up to the mark in this respect. "W estminster have many great advantages: their ground is good, and the boys have every opportunity of seeing good players. Still the cricket at Westminster is at a very low ebb just now, and, indeed, the eleven of last year was probably weaker than that of any other public school. We fear there must be a great lack of interest in tlie game, or it would be impossible for a school, with such advantages as those just mentioned, to fail so signally as they have often done. In 1883 H iggins was un­ doubtedly' a fine cricketer’, hut last season, with the exception of H urst and. A rmitagk , there was not one member of the team who seems to have risen above mediocrity. We hope for better things this year. A glance at the C harterhouse batting averages demonstrates con­ clusively that C oclby and C awston were well ahead of their compeers in this department of the game. Still, B aruell and C urrey played some good innings, and are likely to train on. Almost the whole brunt of the bowling was borne by V incent and W keford -B rovvn , and they did their work right well. V incent is probably above the avei’age of 0