James Lilllywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1880

T H E C R I C K E TS E A S O NO F 1879. 4 3 victories over Surrey were the only successes of the former , and two defeats by Yorkshirethe extentof its reverses . Bothmatcheswith NottsandGloucester- shire were drawn, but the scoring of the eleven in the two concluding games at Nottingham and Clifton showed up in bright colours the extraordinary batting strength of the team, and it was no way a surprise to find the county accredited with the highest score of the year . A little more certainty in the field might probably have turned the drawn game at Clifton into a victory , but the executive have no reason to be dissatisfied with the excellent all-roundcricket of their representatives . A very useful addition to the bowling strength of the county wassupplied in the person of Mr. A. F. J. Ford , of Cambridge University , and the close of the season saw two equally valuable recruits in Messrs . W. J. Ford , an old Cantab, a splendid hitter , good field and change bowler , and C. T. Studd, the Etoncaptain of 1879, one of the best all -round young amateurs of the day. Gloucestershire's summary presented a strange contrast to those of previous years . The season was opened auspiciously enough with an easy victory over Surrey at the Oval ; but not one of the nine subsequent engagements was attended with a favourable result , though only three of them were absolutely lost . The eleven made a very poor show at Manchester, and a surprising collapse in the second innings at Sheffield cost them their first match with Yorkshire . Mention has already been made of the fact that the season was memorable for the first defeat of Gloucestershire by a county team on their own ground, and the result of this match (with Notts ) showed in bold relief the bowling weakness of the western shire . Mr. W. G. Grace, despite that he had little practice early in the season , was, as heretofore , the mainstay of the county in every department of the game . A. splendid average ofnearly 50 runs for four- teen innings proved that , with his bat, he was quite up to the old standard , and that he never bowled more successfully can be shown by his securing 76 out of 166 wickets during the season . Midwinter hardly fulfilled the expecta- tions of the previousious year , either in batting or bowling , and though Messrs . G. F. Grace , Gilbert , Townsend , and Moberly , at times made a good score , the eleven generally were not up to the previous mark in batting , bowling , or fielding . Surrey began badly by losing all its first four matches , in addition to one with Cambridge University ; but finished up in better style without further disaster . The assistance of Blamires very materially strengthened the bowling , but Barratt's unaccountable decadence weakened them correspondingly . The almost entire absence of Mr. Game, and the loss of Messrs . Lucas andStrachan , the latter owing to an injured finger , told against the eleven late in the season , though , strangely enough , the best form shown was during July and August . Twovictories over Kent, the second over a very indifferent team, and one over Sussex , do not , perhaps , represent a very favourable budget , whendiscounted by four defeats ; but at times there was no lack of promise , and with its best team Surrey might make a fair show. Mr. John Shuter's batting , considering the state of the ground , was brilliant throughout ; and Messrs . L. A. Shuter and Read, as well as Jupp and Humphrey, show good batting figures ; but another bowler or two will have yet to be found before the county can hope for a permanent revival . The expectations formed by the successes of the Kentish eleven in 1878 were, it is to be regretted , in no wayrealised during the succeeding season , and indeed the outcome of 1879 was a little surprising , considering the strength of the team commanded by Lord Harris . The absence of the captain himself was Asevere blow to the prospects of Kent in the later contests ; but still it is diffi .