James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1876

77 ■ B atting A verages . Total Innings Times Notout Total Rons Most in an Inn. Most In Match W. G. Grace............... . . o 541 119 154 38.9 G. F. Grace................ , . . 14 2 430 180* 180 35.10 E. M. Grace................. . . 6 0 214 71 136 35.4 F. Townsend ............. . . . 12 0 289 84 84 24.1 F. G. Monkland......... . . . 14 3 208 59 59 18.10 F. J. Crooke................. . . 4 0 64 36 36 16 F. Baker .................... . . . 2 0 31 27 31 15.1 E. Smith ................... . . . 1 0 12 12 12 12 G. N. Wyatt ........... . . . 13 0 148 37 47 11.5 Capt. Kingston ........ . . . 2 0 21 17 21 10.1 J. A. Bush ................ . . . 14 5 88 22* 27 9.7 R. E. Bush ................. . . 8 0 73 32 32 9.1 T. G. Matthews....... . . . 14 0 105 23 34 7.7 E. C. B. F o r d ........... . . . 4 0 26 12 24 6.2 A. H. Heath............... . . . 10 0 52 25 25 5.2 R. F. M i le s ............... . . . 10 1 26 11 11 2.8 C. S. Gordon ........... . . . 4 0 7 4 4 1.3 H. Jenner-Fust....... . . . 2 1 1 1 1 1 R. Brotherhood........ . . . 6 2 3 2 2 — * Not out. B owling A verages . Balls Maidens Rons Wickets Wldes • Runs per Wicket. E. M. Grace ........... . . . 414 47 147 14 0 10.7 W. G. Grace ........... . . . 2284 266 797 54 2 14.41 R. F. Miles ............... . . . 1459 164 431 25 23 17.6 F. Townsend ........... . . . 120 5 58 3 0 19.1 G. F. G race ............... . . . 1324 135 496 23 2 21.13 R. Brotherhood........ . . . 120 9 67 2 0 33.1 The following bowled in one match o n l y C . Gordon, 92 balls for 46]runs and 2 wickets, F. J. Crooke, 16] balls for 12 [runs, G. N. Wyatt, 13 balls"for 4 runs and a wicket. HAMPSHIRE. Chairman, W. W . Beach, Esq., M.P. Treasurer, A. Wood, Esq. Hon. Sec., C. Booth, Esq., Kilmiston, Alresford. The le\i\al of ciicket on what is termed the cradle of the game was not a success in 1875. Hampshire was certainly not, as far as could he judged from appearance, in a condition strong enough to enter the lists against opponents of any calibre, and it is open to doubt whether a little more deliberation in makmg the first step would not have been of advantage There was not the material capable of giving Hants a fair chance of success with the best Counties in the eleven of the past year. Messrs. Ridlev and Longman are cricketers much above the average, and the former absolutely gave Hampshire its sole victory, but there wants more solid cricket than was shown in 1875 to place the county even in the second rank. A little judgment in the arrangement of matches for a season may enable Hants s^ u n d t sU ^ M° St Cri0keterS ^ WClcome lts reappearance on a