Total • , Times Total Most in Most in Shuker, A ............... innings. ... 4 not out. 0 Kuns. 46 59 an Tuns. 20 a Match. 35 Averigc. 11 2 Smith, A. (Derby) ... 12 5 19 27 8 3 Schofield, J . ............ . 6 Ow 27 1 1 16 6.3 Selby ........................ ... 27 1 420 62 63 16.! Shaw, A. .. ___ 4 35 1 26 46 o • Shrewsbury, W ....... 1 50 31 38 W w* W 8.2 Sherwin ...... ............... OO 11 6a 6 3.2 Sou therton ............... . . . . 30 10 235 24 a 36 9.1 Shuter, L. A ............ 0 49 30 33 9.4 Street ........................ 7 110 27 29 6.11 Smith, A. (Sussex) ... 4 0 0 0 0 Sileock .................... 1 25 16a 20 6.1 Tate, F ........................ 1 16 8 13 5.1 Tate, II ................... .... 7 1 19 11 1 I* 3.1 Turner, M ............... 2 347 82 89 19.5 Taylor, E. J ........... .... 8 2 103 25 25 17.1 Tolley, K.................. ..... 5 0 81 33 42 16.1 T yc . ......................... .... 13 3 126 48 59 11.5 Thornton, C. I ........ .... 9 1 135 54 S t 16.7 Tylecotc, II. G . ..... ** 30 26 26 10 I ’lvett ................. . • .... 36 0 (>i*> 48 62 I7J Willis .......................... 10 1 124 39 39 1 1.8 Wood ..................... •1 0 28 13 25 7 Wardo, F ................ .... 4 0 21 10 11 5.1 Watson ................. ..... 17 *> + J 150 25 •19 10 Wadsworth, E ....... 8 0 50 30 37 6.2 Wild ....................... ..... 21 1 303 43 53 15.3 Weigh ell, W. B ..... ..... 5 0 55 20 35 11 Webbe, H . 11 .......... ..... 6 0 91 52 58 15.1 THE BOWLERS. Taken throughout the season1Alfred Shaw, Hill, W. M’Intyre, Mycroft, Watson, Southerton, and Morley were the most successful professional bowlers of the old hands, and Annitage, Tye, Jones, Barratt, Tate, and G. Hearne the most promising of those of younger growth. Alfred Shaw bowled upwards of ten thousand balls, or nearly double the number delivered by any other bowler during the season. W. MTntyre’s eighty-nine wickets for an average of under 12 runs per wicket was an excellent performance, and it is strange that this professional should be so systematically ignored in the chief encounters of the day. Among the amateurs the brothers Grace. Messrs. Francis, Henderson, lladow, Patterson, liidJev, Greenfield, and Foord-Kelcey were most conspicuous among tlioso well known to fame. Messrs. Absolom and Appleby were hardly so effective as of yore, though the latter did good service for tho Gentlemen against the Players. Mr. llid ley ’s “ lob s /’ it will be seen, were as destructive as ever, and for a slow bowler his summary is highly meritorious. An accident early in the season deprived Kent of a promising slow bowler in Mr. A. Penn (left round), while Sussex found a very useful fast round-arm bowler in Mr. C. A. Brown, who was at times invaluable as a change. On the whole, the bowling was fairly up to the mark, though most of the work had to bo done by the old hands, and the supply of young bowlers of merit was hardly commensurate with tho clemaud.