The past cricket season was by far the most enjoyable since evacuation, and it was successful as far as results are concerned. We obtained the use of the Grange, the town cricket ground, on Mondays. Wednesdays, some Saturdays, and also for evening net practices, and having got the --,round and the equipment, all that we needed was enthusia:an; luckily there was plenty of that. By constant practice at the nets and in scratch matches a keen, promising, i[ not brilliant team was built up. Thanks almost entirely to the enthusiasm and sound advice of Mr. Elam, who frequently stopped a game to point out some fault, the standard of play increased considerably.
However, one of the most gratifying results was the good form shown, especially towards the end of the season, by juniors, some of whom did extremely well in House Matches.
If this team can show improved form next season, and all the members of it are still at school, it should be very successful in any fixtures which the School is fortunate enough to obtain.

RESULTS OF MATCHES.
9/5/'42 v. Hereford H.S. (A)-Lost by 24 run,. Hereford IZO (Lewis S for 26).
School 96 (Timms 33 not out Willmer 20) .
16/5/'42 .-v. Bromyard G_S. (A>-Won by 92 runs.
School 108 (Insole 34, Norfolk 33. Harris 22). Bromyard 16 (Lewis 3 for 1, Davey 3 for 5).
23/5/'42 v. Ludlow G.S. (A)-Won by 176 runs.
School 216 for 4 dec. (Norfolk 91, Insole 62. Willmer 50 not out). Ludlow 40 (Guest 4 for 2).
27/5/'42 v. Kington G.S. (A)-Won by I wicket. Kington 31 (Timms S for 3).
School "A" XI_ 32 for 9.
l0/6/'42 v. Bclmont Abbey School (H)-Won by 73 runs. School 96 for 6 dec.
Bclnu>nt 23 (Wyrill 6 for 2).
24/6/'42 v. Kington G.S. (H)--Drawn.
School "A" XI. I11 for 8 dec. (Insole 66). Kington 67 for 9 (Davey 3 for 16, Insole 3 for 17).
27/6/42 v. Belmont Abbey School (A)-Won by 3 wkts. Belmont 60 (Insole 3 for 10, Smith, R. 3 for 17). School 64 for 7 (Norfolk 24).
13/7/'42 v. Home Guard (H)-Won by 8 wkts. Home Guard 45 for S dec.
School 65 for 2 (Gillingham 30 not out).
20/7/'42 v. Home Guard (,H)--Won by 6 wkte.
Home Guard 63 (Smith, R. 4 for IS, Insole 4 for 17). School I1 l for S (Insole 40 not out).
22/7/'42 v. Leominster G.S. (H)-Won by 75 runs. School 132 for 9 dec. (Insole 60, Lewis 28). Leominster 57 (Davey 4 for 7, Insole 4 for 17).
24/7/'43 v. Institute, Leominster (H}-Won by 6 wkts. Institute 50 (Smith, R. ; for 0).
School 110 for 7 (Willmer 27)

.
BATTING AVERAGES.
Inns Nol out Highest. Inns . Runs Average.
Insole, D. J  9 1 66 307 38.4
Norfolk, D. E. 7 - 91 187 26.7
Willmer, J. E 11 2 50 124 13.4
Lewis. J. L 8 2 28 76 12.7
Baker, D. J 7 2 16 52 10.4
Timms, P. A 8 2 33 62 10.3
Gillingham, R. 8 1 30 58 8.3
Qualification 50 runs
BOWLING AVERAGES.
Overs Mdns Runs Wkts Average
Smith, R 27 11 43 12 3.6
Wyrill. P. K. 51 22 86 18 4.7
Davey, L. F. 31 10 84 15 5.6
Lewis, J. L. 31 12 76 13 5.8
Insole, D. J.  64 14 129 21 6.1
Qualification, 10 wickets.

TEAM CRITICISMS.
BAKER, D. J.
A very stylish bat, whose stroke play was often brilliant, though in matches he lacked the confidence which he had in the nets. He has a very good cover drive and his leg glance is good, though he 'feels' for the ball outside the off stump too much. His fielding at fine leg was sound and he did not give away many runs.
DAVEY, L. F.
Was a big disappointment early in the season, for on last year's form he should have been our most successful bowler. His bowling, however, was very erratic, and he sacrificed length for speed. He made a good come-back later in the season, when he bowled well. His fielding was good at times, though his throwing was slovenly. He failed with the bat, though his style was good.
GILLINGHAM, R. H.
A batsman who came into the team just after the beginning of the season. His style is most unorthodox, and, though he scored fairly well throughout the season, failure to improve his style is likely to cramp further development. He has a powerful drive which needs polishing, and a fairly good cut between point and gully. His fielding is keen, though his picking-up is not always clean.
GUEST, P.E.
A medium-slow leg-break bowler who, in the matches in which he played, proved very useful. He maintained a good length, and turned the ball a considerable amount. His batting could have been passable, but he had an irrepressible desire to hit out. As a fielder he was keen and safe.
HARRIS,G. E.
He had a natural left-hander's style, but suffered rather badly from nerves. When confident, however, he hit freely all round the wicket and was very pleasing to watch. He had a good leg glidc and hook, though his Off-side play was weak and was usually the cause of his downfall. As a slip-fielder he was not too sure, but was good in front of the wicket.
Lewls, J. L.
Started the season well at Hereford, his bowling coming very sharply across the wicket, but he did not quite reach the same high standard again. Later on in the season he solved our No. 3 problem and proved himself a steady and very forceful batsman, especially on the leg-side, and his running between the wickets was good. He took several difficult catches in the slips and was always keen.
NORFOLK, D. E.
A surprisingly successful batsman, who has improved greatly since the previous season. He opened the innings and scored fairly fast, his running between wickets being good also. His main fault was the absence of a forward stroke, but he has a good forcing shot off his back foot past cover, and a powerful hook. His fielding was reliable and his bowling fair.
RIDEALGH, D.
As wicket-keeper he filled a gap well and has a natural eye for 'keeping,' his taking of fast bowling being good. He has, however, almost everything to learn, especially where slow bowling is concerned. His batting is not to be ignored, for his great strength made him a big hitter, though he cannot single out the right ball to hit.
RIGGWAY, W. D.
A slow but steady batsman, who improved as the season progressed. His shots on the off-side were good, but his leg play was weak. If he uses his wrists to better effect he should develop a good off-drive. He began as wicket-keeper and later fielded on the on-side, where he was generally safe.
SMITH, R.
A medium-slow bowler who came into the team half-way through the season and who was effective because of his ability to maintain a good length under all circumstances. He made the mistake of trying to bowl a faster ball when he really needed to develop a well-flighted slower ball. His fielding at third man was very good and his batting, though slow, was at times promising.
TIMMS. P. A.
A left-handed bat, who, though slow and rather tedious to watch, proved very useful to the team on several occasions. He struck a bad patch half-way through the season, but picked up again later. He had a hard drive when he wanted to use it, and also a good leg glide. His fielding was spasmodic, but he was brilliant at backward point on occasions. His fast-medium bowling was sometimes useful.
WILMER, J.E.
One of the leading members ol the team and a very attractive batsman to watch, though he is unable to hit the ball really hard because his grip makes this difficult. He developed a good forcing back-shot and leg-glide, the latter often being the cause of his downfall, for he was usually l.b.w. His fielding on the off-side was smart and safe, and his slow howling not to be ignored.
WYRILL, P.K.
As an opening bowler he was very successful, especially in the early part of the season. He had a peculiar action, taking a fairlv long run, but stopping just before reaching the wicket. His bowling came off the pitch quickly and he occasionally brought one back sharply from the off, though he might well profit by trying to bowl slightly slower. As a fielder he was always keen and sure. His batting was a recogniscd joke, but his blind hittine won the match for us on one occasion.
INSOLE, D.J. (Captain)
He captained the side admirably, with just the right sort of control. His changing of the bowling was exceptionally good, a very rare thing in school elevens, and he always had a grip on the game. He might with advantage, study very closely the type of field each of his bowlers requires, as they have a tendency to indifference about it.
He was the mainstay of the side in batting, easily the best fielder, and one of the best bowlers. As a batsman he has nearly all the shots, with particularly fine forcing strokes to the off, and his style deserves the more reliable pitch that it really needs, though on the pitches that came his way he was highly successful. His fast medium bowling (fast in this class) has been very effective, though like Wyrill's, it might improve by becoming a shade slower. Brilliant either at cover or silly mid-off, his all-in-one return to the wicket-keeper is a model for any aspirant to good fielding.
J.F.E.