James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1885

8 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. and on public form was really the best professional of the year. Against the Australians at Huddersfield he was at the wickets for six hours , and his granddefence in the great contest at the Oval, where he was for five hours and three -quarters opposing the Australian bowling , without a really bad hit , will not soon be forgotten . Ulyett showed fine cricket for the Players in both matches against the Gentlemen. though for the County he was hardly as success- ful as usual . Lord Harris , on the contrary , never failed to score well for Kent. andhis average for the eleven he commands, was muchabove the ordinary . Mr. Newham's figures for Sussex were exceptionally good , and Mr. F. E. Lacey's , for Hants , very noteworthy . Mr. W. W. Readwas the mainstay of Surrey , and Hall fully upheld his reputation as a consistent run-getter . Mr. O'Brien came suddenly to the front , and his brilliant hitting was quite one of the features of the early part of the season . Amongthe other more prominent batsmen maybe cited the Hon. A. Lyttelton , Messrs . W. Blackman , G. H. Longman, E. J. McCormick, W. H. Patterson , E. O. Powell, V. Royle, J. Shuter , H. B. Steel (a fine hitter who came out well for Lancashire ), C. T. Studd, I. D. Walker, and A. J. Webbe. Inbowling , most of the old hands were again well to the front . ThoughBar- lowwas not so fortunate as a batsman last year, he morethan compensated for his deficiencies in this departure byhis consistent success with the ball , and with the one exception of Peate, he got more wickets than any other bowler during the season . Considering the wickets , Peate's figures were very note- worthy , and they compare favourably with his record of 1883. Emmett's performances , as a bowler , were extraordinary , considering that his public career extends over twenty years , and his average was only beaten by Alfred Shaw, whose bowling was as good as ever. Mr. Horner was the mainstay of Surrey, Woofof Gloucestershire , and Wootton of Kent. Flowers has also a creditable summary, and Watson's bowling generally proved effective for Lancashire . Attewell showed a marked advance last year , and rarely failed to get wickets against every class of batsmen . He is now, indeed , on public form, in the very front of bowlers . Kent introduced a new bowler likely tobe ofuse in A. Hearne; and Lohmannbids fair to strengthen Surrey in the department where it mostly wants strength . Thedeath -roll of cricketers is , unfortunately , a heavy one . The same week saw the departure of the Hon. R. Grimston , the Nestor of cricket , a staunch supporter not only of our national game, but of every kind of manly sport ; and of John Wisden , another player prominently identified with the cricket of a past generation . The Rev. Robert Turner King, William Mortlock , the Rev. A. R. Ward, the benefactor of Cambridge University , have , too , gone over to the majority. Cricket of our owntimes has suffered a heavy blow by the loss of Mr. E. B. Fawcett , of Cambridge and Sussex , long the champion thrower ; of Mr. C. M. Cunliffe , most popular of Kentish amateurs ; and Fred Morley , of Notts , for years the prince of fast bowlers .