James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1876

30 that either the weather or the ground Bpoiled the match, which would nave been damned in any case by mismanagement. There is a proper system of selecting elevens for such matches and there are also the proper hands to which the selection should be entrusted, but neither need was satisfied on this occasion. Ycrlnnn sot sop. The two great matches of the yeai at Lord’s were both complete successes, both in cricket and from a financial point of view. Throughout the season public form pointed to an exciting struggle between Oxford and Cambridge, and these expectations were realised to the utmost. How' Sims by his resolute hitting almost won the match for Cambridge, and how Ridley’s howling did succeed in achieving a grand victory for Oxford by only six runs is not likely to he easily forgotten. How, too, in the other encounter between Eton and Harrow, ( hater and Tyssen turned what seemed a sure defeat for Harrow into a creditable draw , will remain indelibly impressed on the minds of those who saw the finish. “ Public School Cricket in 1875,” by a more capable hand, prevents me touching on this important branch of the season. So much for the general aspect of cricket in 1875. In individual talent the season was fairly productive. Yorkshire found one very useful all-round player in Aiinitnge, a sound bat, a very effective lob bowler —teste his great exploit fit Nottingham for Yorkshire, when he got 5 wickets in 4 overs for only 0 luns—and a safe field. Two very promising additions were made to the Nottingham eleven during the season, although each had been tried before. Clarke was regularly drafted into the eleven, and likewise Shrews- bury, and both fully justified their selection—the foimer being a good change bowler, a fine fieldsman, and a likely bat; the latter a sound bats­ man as well as a safe field, and, 1 am inclined to think, the best young pro- fessional batsman introduced for many years. Kent landed on a young player, too, likely to be of use, though an importation. I allude to George Bearne, jun., who, though he claims Middlesex by birth, played for Kent reason of his connection with Catford Bridge, and, especially towards the end of the season, proved himself to be a bowler of no mean calibre. Middlesex derived great assistance from the right arm of Flanagan, but two of its other imputations, Messrs. C. K. Francis (Oxford) and C. I. Thorn­ ton (Cambridge)—the latter of whom was a secession from Kent and possessed of only doubtful qualifications to represent Middlesex—hardly fulfilled the expectations that had been foimed of them, though the latter scored somewhat fieely during the early part of the season. Sussex showed no professional novelties during the year, though it brought to light an amateur, Mr. L. "Winslow, a very resolute hitter, and a batsman likely to give great trouble with howling at all of! the wicket. Surrey did not bring the much-wanted bowler to light, bnt it introduced one professional, Elliott, who did great service with the bat during the season, though very weak and unreliable in the field, in addition to two amateurs, Messrs. Lucas and Read, both of whom are above the average in merit as batsmen, and both good fieldsmen. The older players, with a few exceptions, maintained the positions they have occupied for years. Mr. W. G. Grace again heads the hatting ave­ rages, and that he is still the best batsman as well as the best all-round cricketer of the day no one will venture to dispute. He was certainly by no mtuns so successful as in previous years, but whether his decline was due to the unfavourable condition of the grounds during Juno and July or to reai decadence, must remain to be seen. That his powers were little if at