James Lilllywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1880

M U MT H E COUNTIESIN 1879. T 6 7 to the standard of former seasons , showed no marked decadence , and some of the later matches , it must be remembered , could hardly be said to have been drawn against them. Towards the end of the year, Surrey came out in some- thing like fair form , but their play during the month of Mayand June was very inferior , and though Blamires materially strengthened their bowling , there needs a considerable improvement at every point before the old glories can be revived . Derbyshire's two wins over Yorkshire were more than counter- balanced by the hollow defeats suffered on the occasion of both meetings with Nottinghamshire and Lancashire , and the excellence of its bowling is altogether discounted by the obvious weakness of its eleven in batting . Kent suffered towards the close of the season by the loss of Lord Harris , but the eleven throughout showed an inexplicable want of success , taking into account their strength , at least in batting , on paper , and their two wins were both secured by small majorities , one by only seven runs . Sussex managed to score one victory by eleven runs against Kent at Town Malling , but this was its sole success , and to its other disasters are to be added a double defeat at the hands ofbothHertfordshire andLeicestershire . D E R B Y S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1879.-President , Hon. W. M. Jervis . Vice-Presidents , E. M. Wass, W. H. Rhodes , and G. H. Strutt . Committee , Sir H. S. Wilmot , M.P. , and Messrs . W. G. Curgenven , Rev. W. J. Humble, S. Richardson , U. Sowter , T. H. Smith , P. Wallis , E. T. W. Cox, W. C. Haslam , T. C. Black , W . Marsden, G. H. Cammell, C. Dunnicliff . The retirement of Hampshire , and the withdrawal of the annual fixtures with Kent, reduced the Derbyshire programme considerably , and only six matches were down for record against ten in 1878. Every praise is to be awarded to the eleven for their well-deserved victories over Yorkshire , but the poor show they made against Lancashire and Notts brought out in bold relief the extreme weakness of their batting , and in this department the county decidedly wants a considerable infusion of strength . In William Mycroft and Haythey have two of the very best bowlers in England , but Foster was the only batsman who was in any way to be relied upon , and their batting averages are far below those of any other county . R e s u l t so fM a t c h e s. Matches Played, 6 ; Won, 2 ; Lost, 4. Club Opponts Opponents. W h e r e P l a y e d. W h e n Played. 1st 2 n d 1st 2 n d I n n. I n n. I n n. I n n W o nb y MatchesW o n(2). (4) Yorkshire Sheffield July14,15 129 45 80 67 (5) Yorkshire D e r b y Aug.4-6 1 4 6 81 63 MatchesLost (4). (1) Lancashire Manchester June5,6 6 4 57 81 42* (2) Lancashire D e r b y June23, 24 (3)Nottinghamshire Nottinghm July 10, 11 102 101 154 1 6 4 4159 40% (6) Nottinghamshire Derby Aug.18,19 5 9 3 6 110 2 7r u n s. Inningsand 2 runs. Lostby 7 wkts; * for 3 wkts. 4wkts ; * for 6 wkts. Inningsand99 runs. Inningsand 15 runs. E x t r aM a t c h. Lostby M .C. C. andGround Lord's June26, 27 8 3 7 0 1 6 8 Inningsand15 runs. F 2