James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

8 6 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. Fillingham , H. Bromley, J. D. Gorse, and James Forman. Hon. Sec. and Treasurer , W. H. C. Oates . Assistant Secretary , E. Browne, PelhamStreet , Nottingham. T H O U G Hthe season of 1885 wasnot quite of the samebrilliant character as its immediate predecessor , the summaryof Notts cricket was of a kind to thoroughly satisfy its supporters . The County Eleven were not fortunate enough to go through the campaign without a defeat as in 1884 , and otherwise were less successful than in that mostmemorableof years for the Notts Club. N o rwas their decisive reverse on their ownground at the hands of their great opponents , Yorkshire, the one disaster of last summer. Mention must also be made of a poor performance at Lord's , when, though themselves weak, in the absence of Shrews- bury and Attewell , they were altogether outplayed by only a very moderate eleven representing the M.C.C. andGround. O n the whole, though, there was little if any falling off in their all -round cricket in comparison with that of the previous year, and their record was a distinguished one in every way. Exclu- sive of the fixture with the M.C.C. the eleven figured in thirteen matches , and of these seven were won. including that against England, by no means well represented , five drawn, and only one lost . The wickets generally were in favour of the batsmen, and consequently the bowling , always one of their best points , wasnot seen to the same advantage as in some previous seasons , although the figures of Shaw, Barnes . Flowers , Wright, and Attewell are all creditable . In batting , though, the eleven were very strong , and, indeed , it will be seen that there waslittle or no tail to the team whenthe last man, Sherwin, had an average of close on ten runs . Shrewsbury played fine cricket , though in a great measure indebted to his score of 224 not out, against Middlesex at Lord's , for the premier- ship in the averages . Gunn's batting was more even , and his form was a great improvement on any former season . Flowers, Scotton , and Barnes, though the last-namedwas hardly up to his best standard , all did good service , and Mr. H.B. Daft, a worthy descendant of a batsman without a superior in his day, came out well. In bowling , considering the general excellence of the wicket , Barnes' figures are very noteworthy , and Wright, Attewell . Flowers and Alfred Shaw, though rather more expensive than usual , acquitted themselves creditably under conditions far fromfavourable to bowlers. R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches Played, 14 ; Won, 7 ; Drawn, 5 ; Lost , 2. Opponents. Matches W o n(7). (1) Sussex *M i d d l e s e x (5) Sussex *Gloucestershire . *Gloucestershire.. *Derbyshire. ExtraMatch. (7) England. (2) Surrey (3) Yorkshire (6) Surrey M i d d l e s e x *Derbyshire. Matches Lost (2). (4) Yorkshire E x t r aM a t c h. W h e n Club. Opnts. Where played . played . 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1 Nottingham M y141516 167 *115 201 L o r d ' s Brighton J y16,17,18 415 وو 2 0, 21 2 6 2 N o t t i n g h a m,, 23,24,25 291 W o nb y 80 9 wkts; *1 w d 1 2 8 133 inns& 154r u n s 93 73 inns& 96 r u n s 142 123 inns& 26 r u n s 8 4 1 1 7 inns& 250r u n s 1 1 0 156 inns& 4 6r u n s R e m a r k s . Aug.6,7,8 167 *3 76 91 10 wkts; *n o wd Clifton D e r b y ,, 24,25,26 451 NottinghamJ u11 1213 312 Matches Drawn(5). Sheffield O v a l NottinghamM y252627 123 *89 127 166 *5 wd Ju2930Jy1 122*305 269 A u g3, 4, 5 263 215 257 *8wd Nottingham ,, 20,21,22 257 *39 225 144 NottinghamA g31Sp1 2 205 125*101 *1 wd *7 w d Lostb y N o t t i n g h a mJ y131415187 209 424 inns& 28 r u n s #M . C . C. andGround. L o r d ' s M y282930 96 4 4 199 *See reviews of M.C.C., Gloucestershire ,Derbyshire , andMiddlesex. inns& 59r u n s 1