James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1876

27 ning six, drawing three, and losing one. The season was begun well enough with two successive victories ovei Derbyshire and Yorkshire. And with the exception of the collapse in the final match there was only one occasion in which the eleven were otherwise placed in a doubtful position. Middlesex would in all likelihood have won the first match at Prince’ s, had not incessant rain frustrated any attempt at play on the third day ; but it is only just in extenuation to reason that Notts, owing to an accident, was de­ prived on tho occasion of the services of Alfred Shaw. Gloucestershire was beaten in the first match by only three wickets, and in the return at Clifton, the draw can hardly be regarded as in favour of Notts, as one wicket was down in the second venture, and Gloucestershire was still 70 runs to the good by the result of its one innings. The two victories over Derbyshire were of lesser account, hut they were decisive, and Nottingham­ shire is certainly to be congratulated on the possession of an eleven not only so strong in the present, but so well calculated to be of use in the future. Yorkshire, even ignoring the drubbing it administered to Notts at the end of the season, showed excellent form thougliout. It was certainly thrice defeated by Notts, Lancashire, and Gloucestershire, and in each case signally, but it can show the same number of triumphs as its neighbour of Notts, and the victories were all as decisive as the defeats. Surrey was twice among the vanquished, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, and Middlesex once, and the three reverses were at the hands respectively of Notts, Lancashire, and Gloucestershire, the one drawn game being with Middlesex at Prince’s. The last victory of the season over Nottinghamshire was the more welcome from the fact that it was obtained on the Trent-bridge Ground, and the experiences of August should convince the executive of the county club that Armitage should be rewarded with a permanent place in the eleven. Gloucestershire was the only shire that gave rise to any sensation. Surrey began by defeating it at the Oval, and Sussex followed the example at Brighton. Two more reverses at Sheffield and Nottingham proved a genuine god-send to the critics who prey on Mr. W . G. Grace, and it was a stettled matter that Gloucestershire and Mr. W. G. Grace were “ both on the down line.” There was good reason, doubtless, for assuming the down­ fall of Mr. Grace to be that of the County, too, but none tho less it seems certain that the deterioration of the western eleven was only visionary. Early in the season the brothers Grace were comparatively unsuccessful with the bat, owing to the generally treacherous condition of the different grounds, and the success of the Grace family is a vital necessity to tho county of Gloucester. Moreover, Mr. Townsend at first was a little out o f form, and one of the most useful members of the eleven, Mr. E. M. Grace, absent from all the four early matches, so that it was not until August that the county was able to display its proper colours. At least the eleven in six innings scored 1320 runs—an average of 221 per innings— against the bowling of Alfred Shaw, Morley, Clarke, Osci'oft, Margin, M 'lntvre, Hill, Emmett, Clayton, Lockwood, Armitage, Southerton, Street, Lillywhite, Fillery, and Messrs. A. Smith and Greenfield, a sufficient confirmation of the iindoubted strength of the county, whether that strength is to be ascribed to the three brothers Grace or not. Of the eight matches that were played, three were won and four lost, and it is worthy of remark, not only that two of the defeat®— that by Surrey at the Oval, and by Notts at Notting-