James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

C R I C K E TIN 1881. 1 3 indeed , was two points above that of 1880, and though it can hardly be expected that he will retain his vigour for ever , his batting at Trent Bridge showed that he had lost little , if any, of his batting powers. At times , in his ownpeculiar style , Dr. E. M. Grace, who has always successfully defied the recognised principles of batting , helped the County with some lively hitting , but neither Midwinter , Messrs . Townsend , Gilbert , Green , Gribble , or Day came quite up to their old reputations , and the eleven gave symptoms of a tail , to which a few years ago it was stranger . Mr. Cranston , on the other hand, showed better cricket than in any previous year , and Mr. Moberly, one of the soundest and most polished batsmen w e have, increased his already high reputation by the brilliant innings he played in the homematches at the end of the year, more particularly against York- shire and Lancashire . Mostof the bowling devolved on Midwinter, Mr. W .G. Grace and Woof, and of these the first namedwas the most successful , though his average was rather costly . Gloucestershire is even moreemphatic than Lancashire in its partiality for slow bowlers ; and though Mr. Peake , of the Oxford eleven (fast round-arm), appeared in the teamlate in the season , h ewasnot good enough to be tried , except as a change , even had there been a chance. Woof's left handslow armwas more expensive than in 1880, but as he is quite youngand very steady , he is sure to train on, and his average was not improved by the loose fielding which occasionally marred the cricket shownby the Gloucestershire team. Nottinghamshire, disorganised and deprived as it was, during the greater part of the season , of all the professionals who had made it famous , could still claim a more satisfactory summarythan most of the Southern shires . The differences which tended to the disintegration of the County have already been commentedupon, but in considering the results , it should be explained that Alfred Shawand Shrewsbury only took part in the first engagement against Sussex, and that until the 1st of August, when Flowers was reinstated against Gloucestershire , neither he, Barnes, Morley, Selby nor Scotton appeared in the Nottinghamshire eleven . Henceit was that as manyas twenty-seven players were tried during the year. N obetter proof of the vitality of cricket in the County can be found than the ease withwhich a newteam was improvised , and had the " strike " lasted longer it is quite possible that with such promising youngsters as Butler , Attewell , E. Mills , Wright and Shore, Nottinghamshire would have been able to develop a second team, almost as good as that which hadbroken up. H o w Notts wouldhave fared with Lancashire or Yorkshire had no rupture occurred , can only be speculation based on the form of its principal players in other matches . Alfred Shaw's batting early in the season had been very much above any former standard , and James Lillywhite's benefit match at Brighton showedconclusively that his bowling had lost little of its length . Morley at times was more expensive than he used to be, and Barnes, who was out of health throughout the summer, wasnot so effective , either with bat or ball , as in 1880 , when he was placed first in the professional batting averages . Selby played good cricket in some of the chief matches, and Flowers, in bowl- ing, did a great performance against Gloucestershire at Clifton with a wicket to help him. Daft adhered to the announcementof his retirement by only playing in two matches , and those under pressure ; but there was no lack of youngsters quite capable of taking his place , and not to mention Wright, a left handedfast bowler, tried before , there were Attewell, not only a useful slow round -arm bowler , but likely to train on into a good batsman ;