James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

1 6 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. andit wasonly whencricket was at an end that he recovered his form. Despitethat Mr. W . W . R e a dw a stried at the sticks with a fair amountof success during an injury to Pooley's hand, the experiment of an amateur wicket-keeper is a dangerous one and should not be repeated . Maurice Read, the young professional whomadehis débût in 1880, opened the season badly, but subsequently hit well , and more than once saved his side. Mr. Lindsay was not able to help the Countyoften, but wheneverhe had the opportunity he lent willing aid , and he was rewarded with figures only second to those of Mr. Read. Barratt was terribly punished in the first matchof the season by the Middlesex batsmen, but towards the end he bowleda muchbetter length , and the less frequent recurrence of his very bad ball made him proportionately successful . Fortunately , too , Jones , w h ohadnot been one of the Countyeleven for two years , re -appeared , and his bowling, reduced in speed to mediumpace, was very effective , particu- larly when the ground enabled him to get any work on to the ball . If any- thing there was a slight improvementon the form of 1880, but the fielding was at times very defective , and the policy of retaining a bad field in the eleven because he is likely to makeruns is open to severe comment. Kentwas the victim of a succession of mishaps, whichcould hardly fail to have a very serious effect on its fortunes in 1881. Mr. Cunliffe , owing to ill health , had to leave England , and the want of his bowling , which had been of such service in the previous year , was much felt . The indisposition whichdeprived Cambridge University of the services of the Hon. Ivo Bligh necessitated his absence also in several of Kent's engagements , and the de- parture for Japan of Lord Harris , whose influence in the field was sadly missed, was followed by another equally severe loss in the illness which pre- vented the appearance of Mr. Frank Penn in any of the later matches. Undersuch circumstances , it can hardly be a surprise that the County utterly failed to realise the expectations formed by its performance in 1880. Of the ten matches played, exclusive of that with Somersetshire at Bath, only three were won, the two with Sussex , one with Derbyshire , and seven lost . Mr. W. H. Patterson rendered loyal aid, playing in morematches than any one except O'Shaughnessy and George Hearne, but two amateurs who haddonegood service before were rarely seen, to wit, Messrs . A. Penn and R. S. Jones. The former's bowling cameoff so well against Surrey at the Oval, and Sussex at Maidstone, that his absence in other engagements was the more regrettable , especially as it was in its out cricket that Kent was seen at its worst. Messrs. Renny-Tailyour and Tylecote , who also kept wicket with great credit , appeared in the County eleven in the Maidstone matches, the latter for the first time, and scored well , but their appearances were very few , the former only figuring in five , the latter in seven , innings . O'Shaughnessy hit well at times , but whatever virtue his slow round -arm delivery ever possessed was utterly gone, and the bulk of the bowling had to be done by George Hearne and Wootton. The latter excited great expectations on his débût in 1880 by the judgment in variation of pace and pitch shown for a youngster , but last year he was not so difficult , and he was more expensive than George Hearne , who, considering the amount of work he had to do, showeda very creditable summary. Of Derbyshire's eight matches only two were won, one of them against a very weak eleven of Kent, the other against a fairly strong team of Sussex at Derby. Withthe exception of a draw, in the return with Yorkshire at Bradford, all the remainder resulted in defeats , and the summaryvery