James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annnual 1881

1 4 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. addition to the strength of the shire , but Hall, until the end of the season , didlittle , and after him the batting was very unreliable , suggesting the need of a strong remedy in this particular department. The executive , rather unwisely it must be urged, deemedit advisable to dispense with AllenHill's services for a time, but whenrecourse was again hadto him it wasfound that his bowling was still too good to be ignored , andit wouldbe difficult even nowto namehis superior amongright -handfirst -class bowlers . Peate bowled wonderfully well throughout , and Bates was at times almost unplayable on the heavy wickets , but Emmettwas not so successful as he hasbeen, andon a hardwicket the Yorkshire bowling wasnot greatly to be f e a r e d. Middlesex did not show a brilliant record at the end of the season , when out of eight matches four were found to have ended unfavourably . In batting the county had certainly a very strong eleven whenall its available forces were collected , but despite the hopes formed on Mr. C. T. Studd's successes late in 1879, and the introduction of a newcandidate for honours in the ex-Nottinghamprofessional and medium-pace bowler, W. Clarke , the bowling was still very weak. Mr. A. F. J. Ford , of Cambridge University , and Clarke, each took thirty -one wickets for a difference of only one in the aggregates . Mr. Studdwas a little morecostly , and Mr. Robertson wasmuch more expensive , but , if weexcept Mr. I. D. Walker's ' lobs , there was no other bowling of any pretension whatever. Most of the batting was done byMessrs . A. J. Webbe, I. D. Walker, and Vernon, and Mr. Webbe's score of 132 against Gloucestershire was one of the very best innings of the year . O npaper Middlesex had a very strong batting eleven , but the grounds were not altogether in favour of the batsmen in 1880, and hence the advan- tage generally was in favour of the side possessed of a fair proportion of bowling as well . Surrey was even in a more pitiable plight than it had been for some little time, and the ill success of the county should suggest to the executive the advisability of a radical change somewhere. Certainly the eleven were sadly out of luck , but , the only argument in cricket is that of results , and twowins out of fourteen matches can only be called a very discreditable show. Mr. A. P. Lucas's plainly marked preference for cricket of an inferior order , will explain his few appearances for his county , which he could have assisted very materially . Business prevented Mr. Strachan's presence in commandof the team--another heavy loss andMessrs . Readand Lindsay were only available for a part of the season . Mr. John Shuter worked hard for the county , figuring in every match, but there was an ap- parent wantof cohesion in the eleven , and all the pluck that used to be associated with Surrey seemed to have gone. Jupp played most brilliantly at times , and Pooley towards the end showed some of his old hitting powers , but the whole team seemed to lack confidence . Whenruns were required there was no one to get them, and more than once good chances of victory were ruined by disgraceful fielding . Barratt was shunted for a time in- judiciously as it would appear , and as Blamires showed a sad falling off especially when the wickets became dry, Potter had to do most of the work, which, to his credit be it said, he did well . WithMessrs . Lucas and Strachan awaythe county had to depend on three bowlers , none of very high pre- tensions , with nothing like a change, and there was small cause for wonder at its ill success , especially with a field not at all reliable . The only cheer- ing feature in the records of Surrey last year was the appearance of a likely colt in M. Read of Thames Ditton , and as he is quite young and has already