James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1875

190 • BATTING A, 7 ER.\.OE$� • Total Times 1-'otnl ?tI(tSt i11 l\Iost in • Not out Rt111:; an Iit11. Match Average- nn111gs Smith, C.H. •••• 3 0 5 3 3 1·2 Tllla1·d, C. • • • • • • 14 1 151 27 49 11·7 Towrisend, W. 4 0 41 87 3f} 10·1 • • Tye ............ 6 0 32 l ] , 11 5·2 Tylecote, E. F. S. 7 0 94 48 5() 13·8 Tylecote, H. G... 10 1 74 28 32 8·2 Turner, M....... 10 8 54 37 39 6·4 Tolley, R ........ 10 1 88 2:3 2fi 9·7 Ullathorne ...... 13 1 108 5'J t":') 9 U, Ulyett • • • • • • • • • • 21 0 171 2(> 37 8·3 Walker, I. D..... 31 2 517 (3() n1 17·24 Walker, R. D..... 6 0 82 4r· 5R 13·1 , ) Walker , V. E. • • 1 0 33 11 l(, 8·1 Wallroth , C. A... 8 0 156 11 11 19.1 Watson • • • • • • • • 8 0 59 20 21 7·3 Wild ...•........ 21 1 211 1:3 fj(j 12·1 Willis • • • • • • • • • • 8 0 137 27 3(; 17·2 Wilkinson, A. J .• 1 0 15 l _ l 11 3·3 Willsher ........ 13 1 115 3t I (l 12·7 • Wright. T....... 11 0 100 25 2H 9·1 Yardley, W. 1 0 72 17 5(j 18 • • • • • I THE BOWLERS The condition of the ground dt1ring the season affects mate1·ially the suc­ cess of the bo,vler, and in 1874 the weathe1· was certainly more calc1tlated to aid the bat than the ball. It could hardly be called a bowler's year in any sense. No new bowle1· came prominently to the front ,vith the e»cep.. tion of Mo1�Iey and Ulyett, both, as s _ eems to be the nattiral ca11se of events, Northerne1·s, and the old well-known performers occt1pied generally the foremost positions as of late years. Hill, 1Jnl11ckily, was disabled eru.�Iy in the season, or to j11dge by his feats in the openin $ matches of the year, he would have probably been in the first rank, as he 1s, perhaJ)S, now the most reliable fast bowler of the day. Emmett was mo1·e deadly than ever, and Southerton, Alfred Shaw, J. C. Shaw, Morley, Ulyett, the Mclntyi"es, Fillery, Rylott among the professionals, all maintained the 1·ept1tntioo of previous seasons. The Gentlemen have, of late, displayed a ma1·l{ed advance in accU1·acy of bowling, and hence, eve11 in this respect, the P1..ofessionals have had no obvious superiority though the brilliance of their fielding has tended to heighten considerably the effects of amateur bowling. l\fr. Buchanan . was hardly so successful as in the three preceding seasons, nor JYI1·. Appleby, 11or l\{r. Powys, the hope of Cambridge; and Mr. Lipscomb, of Kent, was absent ·altogether. l\fr. W. G. Grace was in better form than eve1·, and �Iessrs. G. F. Grace, C. K. Francis, E. R11tter, C ,. J. B1·une, Capt. Fellowes, A. W. Ridley, T. W. Lang, C. A. Absolom, W. H. Hadow, & G. Strachan, all enha11ced rather than diminished their fame, by thei 1 " achieve­ ments in 1874. All thlt1gs, i11deed, considered, the bowlers generally a1�e to be congratulated on the st1ccess that attended their efforts dtlrin g the late season. f :