James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annnual 1881

1 2 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. Shaw's average was the better being under 8½runs per wicket . The pair did a notable feat in dismissing the Surrey eleven in the first innings at the Oval for a total of 16, and Morley's analysis on that occasion was an ex- traordinary one-his seven wickets only costing nine runs . Whenrequired , Flowers too was of service with the ball , andthough someof the old members of the team hardly cameup to previous form, taken all round it is safe to state that Notts had without doubt the strongest eleven of any county in 1 8 8 0. Gloucestershire opened the season badly with a certainly rather unexpected defeat at the hands of Surrey at the Oval, but on this occasion it was not represented byits full strength and this was its one reverse . Of the five drawn games only one, to wit that at Cheltenham against Notts , could possibly be accounted to its discredit , while in all the four matches wonthe eleven had a good majority , and their victory over Middlesex at Clifton , was a very creditable performance. The defeat of the county teamby the Australians was due solely to loose fielding , and of late years there has been an obvious falling off in this department . In batting , with the three Graces , Messrs . Townsend, Moberly , Gilbert , and Midwinter to help , Gloucester- shire hadseven players equal to the best seven of any other shire ; and their bowling was certainly strengthened by the introduction of Woof, a young professional , whomadehis débût against Surrey at the Oval in 1878, and w h obowledslowleft-handround-a r mat times with considerable success. Mr. W. G. Grace's batting during Augustwhenthe wickets were in fairly good order and he was in practice , was quite as good as it has ever been, and G. F. played consistently well throughout. ' The Doctor ' (E. M.) was the only one of the eleven able to do very much against the bowling of the Australians , and in this match he got 106 runs in his own effective as well as eccentric fashion by really good hitting . Mr. Townsend, by no means one of the worst ' lob ' bowlers we have, by the w a y, was hardly so successful with the bat. Neither was it Mr. Gilbert's batting year, but Mr. Moberly played several fine innings and his help during the August matcheswas especially valuable . Midwinter bowledeffectively , especially on the heavy wickets of the northern tour, and with Mr. W. G. Grace bore the brunt of the bowling, the pair taking 117 o u tof 1 6 6w i c k e t s. Lancashire though undoubtedly strong was not able to showthe same brilliant record as in 1879, but it was rarely able to secure the best eleven, and Mr. A. G. Steel's name only figures in five innings . Mr. Hornbywas not quite so successful on the wet wickets even as in the aqueous summer of 1879 , and his propensity for hitting was a little more pronounced . Barlow's batting was, if anything, steadier than ever, but not as effec- tive , and Mr. A. G. Steel's five innings for the county only produced sixteen runs. Mr. F. Taylor, an old Cliftonian , played good innings against Surrey and Gloucestershire , and a very useful acquisition w a s found in Robinson, an ex-Yorkshireman, a very clean hitter , w h ois likely to be of great service to the county. W m. M'Intyre , whose bowlinghaddonemuchto promote the present prosperity of Lancashire , was left out of the eleven after the earlier matches, but Watsonreceived a valuable assistant in the person of Nash, a slow left round-armbowler, sure to do the county plenty of service . Watson's average of 11.49 for eighty wickets was an excellent one for a slow bowler, and with Barlow andMr. Appleby , who showed at Canterbury that his left arm had lost none of its ancient cunning , there was plenty of bowling . With all its forces S 0 a