James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1876

28 ham—showed only a very slight deficit against Gloucestershire, but, further, that all the reverses of the eleven were met with in the out matches. Sussex nnd Lancashire both showed a bold front, and both are entitled to the highest praise. The matches in neither case were of very high standard, none the less, the cricket shown by both counties was throughout excellent. Lancashire can muster a very good all-round eleven, and a very respectable show it made with live matches won, two drawn, and only one lost, though among its antagonists was Leicestershire, not yet an established shire. With Messrs Hornby, Hillkirk, Patterson, Parr, Wright, Rowley, Appleby, Dewhurst, and Harlow, Watson, and William M‘Intyre, Lancashire can take its own part the best. Sussex played eight matches, and of these five resulted in signal victories, one was drawn in its favour, and two were lost, by a very narrow majority in each case. A wonderful good show in all truth, and Sussex lias reason to he proud of the result of its season, though still there is the same evident want of additional strength in the bowling department. Strangely enough three amateurs are well to the front, in the batting averages, and the county is indeed lucky in possessing such dangerous batsmen as Messrs. J. M. Cottorill, L. Winslow, and F. J. Greenfield. Lillywhite and Fillery had the whole responsibility of the howling, and had they failed Sussex would have been in a bad plight. As it was, they secured a hundred and twenty one out of a hundred and fifty one wickets, Lillywliite’s average showing just over eleven runs per wicket. Surrey, true to its traditions of late years, presents a summary hardly encouraging, as of the ten county matches played three only were victories, two were drawn games, and five were lost. A careful examination, too, w'ill not impress, as of the three matches that wrere wto d , twro—these against Gloucestershire at the Oval, and against Middlesex at Prince’s—showed the barest majority, and the tw^o drawn games wTould both in all probability have resulted in the discomfiture of the eleven. Surrey’s star is not yet in the ascendant, and there is at present little sign of any advance sufficient to restore the eleven to its old pride of place. In Mr. Read and Elliott the county has undoubtedly given birth to two promising batsmen, but the bowler that is wanted has as yet shown no sign, and with Southerton steadily advancing in age, the prospect is certainly none of the brightest. At home, the eleven showed fairly good cricket, under the charge of Mr. Straeban, an able Captain, but the dearth of professionals showed itself umnistakeably in the out matches, in which the county had perforce to be represented by its weakest teams. Derbyshire twice defeated Kent—its only victories—and in each case by more than an innings, so that the latter must cede the question of superiority to its younger rival. Mycroft’s bowling has done much of late to maintain Derbyshire in the front rank, but there hardly seems sufficient.strength with the bat or a sufficiency of dash in the field to prophesy for the eleven anv greater eminence. Up to the present Mycroft is almost unknown in London, but as he is said to be engaged for the coming season at Lord’s tin re will be no lack of opportunity for the full display of his talent. Mr. R. P. Smith, who heads the batting averages of the County, is a good sound batsman and a smart field, though he made little show in the match between tho Gentlemen and Players at Prince’s. The season of 1875 may fairly be considered as somewhat experimental