James Lillywhte's Cricketers' Annual 1884

2 8 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. hardly be called a lucky star . Accident or ill -health have robbed the County ofmanyof its best players and, as a consequence , the full strength of Kent has never been placed in the field . The eleven suffered considerably from the absence of the Hon. Ivo Bligh , Messrs . R. S. Jones andA. Pennduring several of the fixtures , andit wasonly in the later matchesthat Mr. W . H. Patterson was able to take his place regularly in the team. Lord Harris was again the mainstay of the County, and his batting was consistently brilliant throughout the summer. Perhaps the most promising feature in Kentish cricket of last season was the introduction of a new fast bowler, of w h o mgreat expectations have been formed, in Mr. S. Christopherson . O nseveral occasions he was very successful , notably against Surrey at the Oval in the last fixture of the season , andin the existing dearth of amateur fast bowlers of any pretensions , it is earnestly to be hoped that next year will see his promise of 1883 fully confirmed. Derbyshire was perhaps not seen at its best last summer, and on more than oneoccasion the eleven showed such good form as to warrant the belief that they were better than the summaryof their season would lead one to believe . Onlyonce during the season , whenthey beat Surrey at Derby, were they suc- cessful in winning the toss , and , as a consequence , they rarely showed to the best advantage . William Mycroft was suffering from such a severe attack of rheumatismthat he was not able to bowl until the last two matches, and Richardson and Brelsford , of w h o mmuchwas expected from their promise early in the season , proved to be disappointments . In bowling , where the eleven have hitherto been the strongest , they were last year undoubtedly weak, butin batting at times they proved themselves to be fairly strong, even with Messrs. L. C. DockerandR. P. Smithsomewhatout of form. Their victory over Sussex at Brighton , the wind up of their season , was a very creditable performance. The deterioration in Gloucestershire cricket has been gradual for some years past , and last season left a county, once able to hold its own against England, quite at the bottom of the list of first -class shires . Out of ten fixtures only one was won, and that the last on the programme, to wit, the homematch with Lancashire at Clifton . Midwinter's return to Australia , as was predicted , robbed Gloucestershire of one of its very best all round cricketers , and his bowling in particular was sadly missed . Mr. W. G. Grace has still few superiors as a batsman, but some of the amateurs on w h o mGloucestershire used to rely , a year or two ago have lost muchof their run-getting powers . Gloucestershire , in fact , is nothing like it was, and the weakness of its bowling , especially , militated against its success . Mr. W. G. Grace's delivery has lost much of its old spin, as is shownby the numberof runs obtained from his delivery during the season , and Woof, who was very successful , several times had to bear the bruntof the bowlingfor the County. Hampshire cricket , as before stated , showed animprovement , and Leicester- shire , mainly through the good batting of Mr. C. Marriott and the effective bowling of Parnhamand Rylott , at times also displayed very creditable form. Somersetshire only won one match against a weakeleven of Hampshire, but Essex, Norfolk, Northamptonshire , and Bedfordshire all exhibited a laudable desire towards a better class of cricket , and Essex and Norfolk rank high a m o n gthe minorcounties . T h einterest in the consolidation of cricket , even in the smaller shires , is still maintained , and Herts , Northumberland, Suffolk , Worcestershire , Warwickshire, Cheshire , Devonshire , Durham, Wiltshire , and even Rutland and Carnarvonshire all now boast county clubs . Turning to the principal contests of the year there was little cause for dissatisfaction . Cambridge, as was generally foreseen , won the Inter -Uni- versity match easily , and, indeed , they were much the stronger side , at all points . The Oxford bowler and batsmen, of w h o mmost was expected , unfortunately for them proved complete failures ; but despite their collapse in the first innings , the stand of Messrs . Page and Walker in the second , enabled Oxford to make something like a creditable show. Mr. C. W. Wright's scores