B ow l i xg A verages . Palls. Maidens. Runs. Wickets. Widos. Runs per \Vicket K . H end e r son ........... 1004 166 621 42 0 14 33 W . H . I la d ow ........... 770 57 322 20 4 16 2 C . K . F r a n c i s ........... 698 89 235 12 0 19 7 H . D. W a lk e r ........... 100 26 18G 7 1 26.4 F la n a g a n ................... 392 25 OOP w 8 0 27.6 I. D , W a l k e r ........... 180 29 234 8 0 29.2 Burghes ................... 60 mr o 33 0 0 The fo llow ing bowled in one match o n l y H o w i t t , 76 balls, 8 maidens, 30 runs, 1 w ick e t; V. E. Walker, ISO balls. 8 maidens, 117 runs, 4 wickets; C. »T. Lucas, 1G balls, 1 maiden, 13 runs ; A. II. P„ ,°now, 84 balls, 5 maidens. 36 runs, 2 wickets. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. O f f ic e r s for 1876.— President, Sir Henry Bromley, Bart. Vice President, Geo. B. Davy, Esq. ( ommittee , Messrs. E. M. H. Riddell, W. Lambert, M. Mason, J. Wilkinson, W. H. C. Oates, W. L. Hussey, Clias. Oscroft, Geo. H. Fillingham, R. H. Steegmann, and Chas. Thornton. Hon, Sec., Capt. Holden, Bramcote, Notts. Assistant Sec., W. E. Tinley, Si. Peter's Gate, Nottingham. Early in the season there seemed a sign of decadence in the cricket of Notts. The result of the first match against Lancashire was cortainly not re­ assuring, and the obvious want of a change of bowler good enough to relieve Shaw and Morley did not tend to make the prospects of the county mor< encouraging. Of late Nottingham batting has not advanced with the times, and it was fortunate for the eleven that not only Daft was in better form than he has been for many a year, but that Arthur Shrewsbury showed excel­ lent cricket throughout, and that Oscroft and Barnes were usually to the fore when runs were wanted. Tye, who had been tried and discarded by Derby­ shire, too, came at an opportune moment as a fast round-arm change bowler, and with Alfred Shaw always on the sticks, and Morley at the last in won­ derful form after a run of iil-luck, Notts made an excellent show at the close of the season. Indeed Daft’s batting and Alfred Shaw’s bowling were among the most noteworthy incidents of the year. Results of Matches. Matches Played, 10; Ji 'on, 4; Brau n, 3; Lost. 3. Opponent*, Where Played. When Played. Matches It on (4). t Lancashire 2 Surrey -3 Yorkshire l Surrey . . Club. Opponent* 1st 2nd 1st 2nd Inn. Inn. Inn. Inn. « • ■ ♦ • « • • ♦ • * » ♦ Matches J)raten (3). 1 Yorkshire Muclistr Jv 13-14-15 Jy31-Aul-2 Au 28-29-30 Oval Sheffield Ntnglmi 94 153 46 Au31-Sel-2 150 # • • ________ ______ .iNtiighraJn 26-27-28 + Middlesex ..................Prince’s .Ty 10-11-12 f Middlesex ...................Ntnghin Au 17-18-19 Matches Lost (3). ! t Lancusliire...................Ntnghm f Gloucestershire........... N _ t Gloucestershire........... Clifton 27-28-29 u 14-15-16 298 339 217 147 149 265 r—w — o> tO j | JVon by *203 158 138 1 wickt *9 w d 83 142 lOwkts *no w d 87 32,8 wkts no w d 26 100 1 Inns <S: 24 runs *60 *10 *90 128 97 165 208 173 134 175 223 214 Reinark*. *4 wckts down *1 w ick t down *8 wckts down Lost by 187* *89 6 wickts *4 w d 139 *109 6 wickts *1 w <1 400 *33 1Owlrts *no w d t Have been treated in previous reviews.