James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

1 0 L I L L YW H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S ' A N N U A L . and twice with favourable results . These things are nowmatter of cricket history , but they are worthy of special prominence here , as it was the dispute known as the " Nottingham schism " which practically decided the county championship for the year . In the previous season Lancashire was the only rival that could be found to dispute the claims of Notts to the first place in county cricket . Though the balance of the season was against Lancashire , there was little to choose between the pair , and as the Notting- hameleven was quite as strong , if not stronger , with two such useful colts as Butler and Attewell , it is reasonable to argue that had nothing interposed the struggle between the two counties would have been keener even than in 1880. Yet , as things went , no one can gainsay Lancashire's claims to be regarded as the head county of the year. Such an uninterrupted career of successes is , we should fancy, without a parallel in cricket records . Com- mencing with a well earned victory at Lord's , over Marylebone Club and Ground, the more creditable as the County had to meeta strong opposition with only an inferior team, the eleven continued the campaign with hardly a break until the 27th of August , completing a series of thirteen county matches without a reverse . Such a summary would , under any circum- stances , be a glorious one, but it is heightened whenan analysis is madeof the figures , and it only needs to be added that of the ten matcheswon, Lan- cashire had a majority of morethan aninnings in six , of 216 runs, ten wickets , eight wickets , and 50 runs in the others , and that the three drawnmatches wereleft with a very marked preponderance in its favour . To show, too , howfree from anything like a fluke was the County's success reference need only be madeto a very interesting table of the averages of the nine prin- cipal shires . Fromthis it will be seen that Lancashire , inbowling andbat- ting alike , was considerably in advance of Yorkshire , the second on the list in both departments. Indeed it would be difficult to name an eleven of recent years so thoroughly well armed in every point as was Lancashire last year, whenit had really a representative team. Batting contributed chiefly to the triumphs of Gloucestershire when at its best , as it was two years ago . The bowling of Alfred Shaw and Morley has helped to make Notts recently , but the feature of Lancashire cricket of late has been the levelness , to coin a word, that marked the eleven in every branch. Mr. Hornby, regardless of all accepted theories , in two matches was in the posi- tion of a captain without a fast bowler on the side , but still , whatever sentimental objections there maybe to the present system of slow bowling and the consequent re-arrangement of all the old fashioned notions about placing the field , there remains the stubborn fact that slow and medium paced deliveries are the most successful nowadays. Perhaps it is that there is no fast bowler of the present day whocan claim to be the equal in accuracy ofFreemanor Tarrant. The excellence of the wickets nowadays, too , causes the batsmanto be superior to mere pace,but whatever the reason , itis certain that the most effective bowlers of the modernschool are those whokeep dropping the ball persistently to the off side of the wicket , confident in a field whose placing wouldastound the brave menof past generations of cricketers , could they only revisit the scenes of their former glories . That the Lancashire executive has done wisely in utilising the prevailing fashion it must be admitted. It very rarely falls to the lot of a county to have four slow bowlers , all of them quite in the front rank, as are Mr. A. G. Steel , Barlow, Nash, and Watson, and its fortune is still more pronounced in having two of these quite good enough to play in any eleven if only by