James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

5 3 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S ' A N N U A L . the H o n. Ivo Bligh , Messrs. Renny- Tailyour and Mitchell were found to dobattle with the world-famedWanderers. Withthe Gentlemen of Eng- land it was even worse, as Messrs. Tylecote , J. Patterson , Robertson, K e m p, Vernon, Mackinnon, and Foord-Kelcey were the only ones whose names wereever knownto cricketers , and it was simply ridiculous to present the matchto the public under such an extravagant title . After the completion of an innings , even the players themselves had had enough of it, and for the first time, we believe , in the history of the Canterbury week Saturday was a blank day, at least as far as the cricket was concerned. I Zingari , 290. Gentlemenof England, 68. C H A P T E R II. T h e Counties in 1881 . D E R B Y S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1881.-President , Hon. W. M. Jervis . Vice-Presidents , E. M. Wass, and G. H. Strutt . Committee, Sir H. S. Wilmot, M.P.. W .G. Curgenven, G. Small, U. Sowter, T. H. Smith, P. Wallis , W. Т. Е. Cox, W. C. Haslam, E. A. J. Maynard, G. Smith, J. Marsden, G. H. Cammell, C. Dunnicliff . Hon. Sec ., W. Boden. Assistant Sec . , S. Richardson. I t DERBYSHIRECricket , it is muchto be regretted , showed even a more unpromising aspect at the close of 1881 than at the end ofthe previous year. N opains were wanting on the part of the executive to secure young players , but no colt , at least of the professional order , cameto the front . That the County is sadly in want of new blood was evident during the season . was certainly unfortunate that Hay, one of the straightest andmost reliable bowlers even in the Northern shires , should have, owing to rheumatism it is said, so suddenly and so completely lost his accuracy of delivery . This unexpected break-downweakenedthe bowling unexpectedly , but there was little reliance to be placed in the eleven in any department, and the fielding was at times very faulty . Eight matches in all were played, as in 1880, and as then only two were won, though last year there were five defeats as against one of the previous season . The averages of the various County elevens showed Derbyshire to be the lowest on the list in batting , only a fraction better than Surrey and Sussex in bowling ; and the eleven ,