James Lilllywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1880

4 2 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. won five matches , with one defeat -singularly enough , in each instance at the handsof the Yorkshireeleven. T h etwo matchesbetweenthe counties were bothdrawn, and although the partisans of Notts might argue that the second draw was apparently all in favour of their team , such arguments are in no way conclusive . Lancashire , dependent chiefly on amateurs , had much more to contend against than her rival , and , indeed , with the best eleven at her disposal , the Palatinate rankedsecond to none in all-round excellence . Messrs. Α. Ν. Hornby, A. G. Steel , D. Q. Steel , A. Appleby , W. S. Patterson , and V. Royle, with Barlow , Pilling , Watson, McIntyre , constitute a very formidable eleven , strong both in batting and bowling , brilliant in fielding , and with certainly the best professional wicket -keeper of the day. The fact that Mr. A. G. Steel only played three times makes the successes of the Lancashire eleven the more conspicuous ; and with Crossland , Briggs , Nash , and others , there seems a very useful professional reserve at the disposition of the committee . With the exception of its one defeat at Sheffield , Notts displayed brilliant form , and although the records show six drawn games , none of these was on paper to its disadvantage . In extenuation of its one reverse , in the out match with Yorkshire , Notts could point with satisfaction to the previous contest at Nottingham , in which the home county had undeniably the best of the draw. Agrand performance at Cheltenham , when the eleven were able to boast the first victory ever gained by a county team over Gloucestershire on its own ground , compensated for a little previous ill -luck in unfinished games , and it wouldbe hardly possible to award too muchpraise to the general effectiveness of the Nottingham eleven . Shrewsbury seemed to be puzzled by the heavy grounds at first , but Oscroft reappeared red in quite his early form , with all his old brilliance of hitting ; and , not to mention the bowling of Shaw and Morley , which goes without saying , it only needs to point to such players as Daft , Selby , Barnes , Flowers , Scotton , to prove the strength of the representatives of Nottinghamshire . In the three last named, Notts certainly possesses three of the best all -round young professionals of the day, and matters certainly look cheery enough for the county for some years to come. The abandonment of the old and time -honoured contests with Surrey was a source of regret to all lovers of genuine cricket . Yorkshire won seven out of fourteen matches , and lost four. Its most noteworthy successes were in the homematches with Gloucestershire , Middle- sex , Lancashire , and Notts , but its double defeat by Derbyshire was a little difficult of explanation ; and , taken altogether , the form of the Yorkshiremen wasunreliable --at times even eccentric . Thecolts ' match brought to light a n e w bowler in E. Peate (slow round -arm left ), who was singularly successful on the wet ground, taking sixty -five wickets for an excellent average of a little over eleven runs , but there was no coming batsman to record , and it was in batting that the eleven showed weakness . Illness interfered with Lock- wood's success , andhis comparatively small scoring crippled the team undoubt- edly ; but with the exception of Ulyett , who batted brilliantly throughout , and Bates, there was no one else to be relied on. Neither Hall nor Haggas, on the heavy grounds of 1879 , came up to the previous year's form , and there was an undeniable tail to the Yorkshire eleven . A n unlucky accident deprived them of the valuable help of Allen Hill , whohad been bowling with more than his old deadliness ; but in Emmett, Bates , Peate , Ulyett , and Mr. Wood, there was little to complain of in this department , though it might perhaps have been a little better supported in the field.daron Middlesex and Gloucestershire both present chequered records . Two