James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

C R I C K E TI N 1 8 8 1. 1 1 reason of their batting and fielding . N o better proof of the strength of the bowling can be adduced than that against such an eleven as Gloucestershire . Lancashire was able to dispense with the services of such an effective instrument in its attack as Nash, who would, beyond a doubt, be first bowler in any of the Southern shires . In a few of the early matches, Mr. H. Miller was tried as a fast bowler and with satis- factory results , particularly against Yorkshire , at Sheffield , but Crossland was altogether a happier choice , and even if his delivery was at times open to question , no one could dispute the success with which he " yorked " out the Southern batsmenin August. W ehave entered into great length on the bowling of Lancashire , but it mustnot be inferred that batting or fielding were in any way disregarded . Of Mr. Hornby's batting powers little needbe said . Thewet wickets in August affected his average materially , but, including the match with Cambridge University , he made, in all , over a thousand runs for his County, and this , if w e mistake not, is a feat only performed before by two cricketers . N o bowling is too good for himto hit, not a ball a hair's breadth off the wicket, or over -pitched , but gets it hot, whenother more timorous batsmenwould be thinking only of keeping up their sticks . Mr. A. G. Steel was a great help in the batting in some of the later matches. His brilliant performances against Notts , Middlesex , and Gloucestershire , in succession , proved himto be one of the very best bats- m e nof the year, and his wonderful hitting for I Zingari against Yorkshire , at Scarborough , will not soon be forgotten . With the exception of his second innings of 61 against Yorkshire , at Sheffield , Barlow washardly so successful as usual early in the year , but later in the season goodscores against Middle- sex, Surrey , and Kenthelped himmaterially , andhis defence was as useful as ever . Briggs fairly wonthe Marylebonematchby his plucky play at the crisis , but his batting was hardly so successful as was hoped from that perfor- mance, and his best scores were both got against Surrey . Robinson played a fine innings against Kent, at Manchester , and his hitting was very service- able , as was that of Watson on some few occasions . Pilling , in the thirteen matches, was credited with as manyas forty wickets , and beyoud a doubt he is by far the best professional wicket -keeper of the day. So far wehave spoken in the highest praise of Lancashire in batting and bowling , but another important element in its success was the possession of a fielding side certainly without an equal . Notto mentionMr. Vernon Royle, the finest cover-point that has ever been seen , whoprevents scores of runs that wouldbe certain to a less active player ; of Mr. Hornby, whose energy is contagious , to judgebythe dash which pervades the whole of the team, there was Briggs , as safe , if not as brilliant or quick as Mr. Royle, at cover -point ; Barlow at point , Watson, useful anywhere, but particularly near the wickets , Robinson, as sure an out-field , with as retentive a pair of hands as one wouldwish to see . markedsuccess which attended the Lancashire eleven , as a whole, wasdue to the completeness with which every detail of the gamewas studied , and the harmonyand zeal with which they all worked in the field supplied a striking contrast to the listless and inanimate exhibition of some of the other county teams during the season . T h e Y o r k s h i r eo nt h ew h o l es h o w e dm o r elevel crickett h a nin eitherof the two seasons immediately preceding , and the eleven were clearly entitled to claim the second position . In 1880, out of fourteen engagements, only five werewonagainst four losses ; but last year, out of a very heavy programme of sixteen matches , ten produced victories , and only three were lost . As