Cricket 1884

442 CEICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. sep t. 25, mm. COUN TY C R IC K E T IN 1884. County cricket in 1884, if for nothing else* would be memorable for the brilliant all­ round cricket shown by the Nottingham­ shire eleven. Their record is not altogether unique, but at the same time there are few parallels of late years. Surrey in both 1858 and 1864 was able to claim a summary with­ out a reverse, and Gloucestershire in 1876 and 1877 was entitled to the same distinction. Lancashire did not lose one of the thirteen engagements in which its eleven figured in 1881, and in addition the three uadecided games were drawn all in their favour. The performances of the Lancashire team in 1881 and 1882 are, perhaps, the nearest approach to those of Notts during the seasons of 1883 and 1884. In the two years each county only lost one match, and singularly the one reverse of Lancashire wras at the hands of Notts, that of Notts at the hands of Lanca­ shire. A comparison, though, between the two shires at their best could hardly fail to be to the advantage of Notts, and certainly no County eleven of late years has shown such excellence of all-round cricket as that which has done duty for Nottinghamshire during the summer just over. Indeed, it is rarely that a team is able to go through a season with such continuous and unmistake- able success. In all ten matches were played by the Nottinghamshire eleven, and of these nine were actually won. Sussex was beaten twice by more thin an innings, Middlesex by six wickets and an innings and 91 runs, Gloucestershire by six and ten wickets, York­ shire by three and seven wickets. Surrey was defeated at Nottingham by seven wickets, bat in tETe return its eleven was fortunate enough to save the match, though, iu ad probabilit/ a very short ex­ tension of time would have given Notts another victory. lt is much to be regretted that the execu­ tive of the Notts Club should have decided to give up their usual fixtures with Lancashire. On the form shown by the latter during the season no one could feel inclined to argue for a moment that they were the equals of Notts this year. None the less, though, the fine cricket shown by the Lancashire team against Yorkshire, at Sheffield, proved how formid­ able that County s-ill is when in its full stieugtb, and tbe absence of the Lancashire matches from its programme certainly de­ tracted in some measure from the merit of the achievements of the Nottinghamshire team. A reference to the averages which have ap­ peared,will show bo wstrong Notts was in bat- ting as well as bowling. The County has always been rich in bowlers, but this year it had,in ad lition, an ext e,)tionally good batting hide. Every one of what we may term the regu'ar e’ev ’n, was, as will be seen, able to c a in an average ot double figures ; and Sher­ win, the wicket keeper, who was, as a rule, eleventh in the <rder of going in,on more thau one occasion batted in very creditable form. Shrewsbury, despite that his eye-sight troubled him very much at times, has fully upheld his reputation. His scorjs of 209 and 127 against Surrey and Sussex, respectively helped materially to place him at tbe head of the averages. His play though, throughout, was of a very high o der, and his aggregafe of 605, for four­ teen completed iunin^s, sufficiently proves this. Sc >tton is only second to Shrews­ bury in batting. He showed a very grei t improvement on any previous form, and iudeed his performances fully entitled him to be considered one of the very best batsmen of the day. His defence was remarkable, and he is certainly tbe best left- handed bat we have had for many years. Barnes was on the whole not so successful as in 1883. He opened the-season in bril­ liant form, but the excessive heat seemed to affect his play subsequently, and though his figures are still creditable, he was not seen to the very best advantage. Gunn, unlike Barnes, began badly, so much so that at one time his position in the team was insecure. Later on, though, he played very free cricket, and his batting to­ wards the end was exceptionally good. His score of 133 against Middlesex, in the last match, was one of the best displays of bat­ ting seen at Trent Bridge for a long time. Wright played two good innings against Surrey at the Oval, and his average was greatly improved by five unfinished in­ nings. Still his batting was on the whole very creditable, and the same may be said of that of Selby and Flowers. Attewell, on the whole, was hardly as successful with the bat as was expected, and his average is in a great measure due to one good score. Still his bowling was so successful, that his bat­ ting was almost sure to suffer, and all round he was one of the most useful members of the eleven. Alfred Shaw was a^ain by far the most successful bowler. In all he took G4 wickets for 608 runs, at an average cost of just 9^ runs—a performance unsurpassed by any bowler of the year. Attewell showed greatly improved form as a bowler. He keeps an excellent length, and his bowling was one of the best features of the season. Flowers was very effective at times, and Baines and Wright were also useful as a change, though rather expensive. Though, according to the recognised •system of determining the places in County Cricket by the number of defeats,Middlesex is technically second on the list, no impartial critic would be inclined to argue that on paper even, its claims are as strong as those of Yorkshire. Out of ten matches, Middle­ sex lost three, while of Yorkshire’s heavy programme of sixteen engagements, only four resulted disastrously. A close analysis of the results of the season, certainly justify the award of second place to the Yorkshire- men. At the outset, it looked as if they would make a very bold bid for the Cham­ pionship, and the prophets were unanimous that the struggle for the premiership would be between Yorkshire and Notts. Yorkshire cricket, though, hardly came up to the ex­ pectations formed from the play of the eleven in 1883. They were singularly un­ fortunate in losing their first match of the year with Notts at Sheffield, by a bare majority of three wickets. This was their best performance, but they fe 1 off as the season advanced, and at times their cricket was certainly not up to their reputation. Ulyett wa<*, on th9 whole, not so successful as in previous years, though at times he hit brilliantly. He was beaten in the averages by Hall, who played capital cricket throughout, as his average of 32.18 for twenty-three completed innings will attest. Bates played a most brilliant innings of 116 against Notts at Nottingham, but he was a little uncertain in his hitting. Grimshaw began the season well, but d il not show quite the same cricket towards the finish Peel’s highest score was fifty, but he rarely failed to get runs, and, taken all round, he was one of the most useful members of the eleven. Two batsmen of promise were in­ troduced in Mr. W. H. Woodbou^e, of Bradford, and F. Lee. The latter, we be­ lieve, was tried once before, but with only moderate success. This year, however, he played really good cricket, and the amateur, who hits hard, particularly on the off-side, also gave hopes of being useful to the team. Theweakness of the Yorkshire eleven,though, was in their batting, which at times failed unaccountably. The illness which kept Mr. Lumb out of the cricket-field was a serious blow to Yorkshire cricket, and the services of a steady and reliable batsman of his stamp would have been invaluable. In bowling, the honours were fairly shared by the two left-handers, Emmett and Peate, each of whom was credited with sixty-one wickets; Emmett was the less expensive, and considering that this was his nineteenth year in the Yorkshire eleven, his performance was remarkable. In estimating the bowling of these two professionals, it must be remembered that tbe wickets gener­ ally were in favour of the batsman. Bates did very little in the bowling line, but Ulyett and Feel were both of great use as will be seen. Harrison’s complete failure after his brilliant form of the previous year was a great disappointment to Yorkshiremen. Still, on the whole the eleven was decidedly strong in bowling, and the wickets credited to the County were obtained at a lesser average, be it remembered, than those of any of the other shires. A curious coinci­ dence in connection with Yorkshire cricket deserves mention. In each of the matches with Middlesex the side losing the toss put their opponents in. Surrey’s sixteen matches presented very much the same summary as those of York­ shire. In each case four were lost, but while the Northerners were able to claim eight victories, Surrey’s successes were limited to seven. The advantages of playing much the same team were clearly apparent in the general cricket of tho Surrey team, and their form throughout the season was very creditable. It was hoped that the re­ appearance of Jones in their ranks after a long illness, would strengthen them mate­ rially in their bowling. This expectation, though, was not fulfilled, and the count/ was still more unfortunate in losing, through ill health, the valuable help of the young professional Henderson, who showed such great promise in the previous year, both with bat and ball. The eleven were decidedly strong in batting, and on the whole, their fielding was creditable. The want of another reliable bowler, though, was distinctly felt, and this is still the point which will need the care­ ful attention of the executive. The County was very lucky in being able to secure the entire services of Mr. C. E. Horner, and his fast bowling was of immense use. His figures were excellent, and Surrey cricket was, indeed, greatly in­ debted to him this year. Barratt, though rather expensive, was again very successful, and though at times, particularly towards the finish, he was rather heavily punished, Surrey would still fare very badly without him, Mr. Roger’s-bowling was generally of use, and Abel was, as a rule, so successful when he was put on as a change, that it is a wonder he was not more often tried. A new colt, who seems likely to strengthen Surrey’s bowling materially, was introduced this year in Lohmann. He makes the ball do a great deal, and as he uses his head well, b d s fair to be a great help to the Couuty. In batting, Mr. YV. W. Bead was again at the head of tbe tables, and his cricket, generally, was quite up to his best reputation. Head comes second with a very