James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

2 2 4 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. T i m e s M o s ti n Inns. notout. R u n s. a nInns. Average. Mycroft, W . 1 2 6 5 2 1 6 8 . 4 Maynard, E. A. J. 1 3 0 1 2 4 3 8 9 . 7 N e w h a m, W . 1 9 2 7 4 0 *1 4 1 4 3 . 9 N e w t o n, A. Ε. 1 4 0 2 0 2 5 7 1 4 . 6 N e w t o n, S. C. 1 3 0 1 9 4 8 6 15.12 O'Brien, T. C. 3 1 0 6 5 1 5 6 2 1 . 0 Paravicini, P. J. d e 2 3 3 2 2 7 2 8 11.7 Page, H. V. 3 9 1 7 7 0 1 1 6 2 0 . 1 0 P a i n t e r 2 9 2 4 7 3 7 7 17.14 Peate, E . 4 0 1 0 3 6 7 3 9 1 2 . 7 Peel, R . 3 8 5 5 5 9 7 1 16.31 Phillips,H . 2 7 8 2 4 4 *5 5 1 2 . 1 6 Pilling, R. 1 5 6 1 2 3 *6 1 13.6 Preston, J. M . 2 9 4 4 5 2 5 9 1 8 . 2 Pullen , W . W .F. 2 0 1 3 2 8 0 *7 0 16.8 Quaife 1 5 1 1 2 3 3 8 8 . 1 1 Robinson, W . 2 0 0 4 1 2 8 0 20.12 Robertson, J. 2 5 3 2 5 1 *3 3 1 1 . 9 Rock, C. W . 1 3 2 9 9 *2 2 9 . 0 Russel, J. S. 1 0 1 1 5 7 5 1 1 7 . 4 Sainsbury, E. 1 2 0 1 1 9 4 0 9.11 Scotton, W . 3 8 2 6 5 0 6 4 1 8 . 2 Selby, J. 1 8 2 2 3 4 4 7 1 4 . 1 0 Shacklock,F. 1 6 0 1 1 6 3 0 7 . 4 S h a w,A . 1 5 5 2 4 4 5 2 2 4 . 4 Sherwin,M . 3 1 1 0 2 3 3 3 5 1 1 . 2 Shuter, J. 3 4 0 8 4 1 1 3 5 2 4 . 2 5 Smith, C. A. 1 6 3 1 3 0 3 3 10.0 Tester, W . 3 3 0 5 4 8 1 0 8 16.20 Thornton, C. I. 1 1 0 2 5 2 6 3 2 2 . 1 0 Toppin,C. 1 7 2 1 5 6 2 6 10.6 Townsend , F. 2 2 3 4 5 2 6 9 23.15 W a l k e r, G. G. 1 5 3 1 8 3 4 8 15.3 Watson, A... 2 4 7 3 5 3 *4 8 20.13 W e l m a n, F. T. 1 7 3 9 8 1 4 7 . 0 West(Middlesex ). 1 9 0 2 9 2 6 7 15.7 Whitby, H. O. 1 0 2 3 6 *11 4 . 4 Williams, W... 1 7 1 8 2 *1 4 5 . 2 Willoughby 1 5 3 6 0 1 9 5 . 0 W i n t e r. C. Ε.. 1 1 2 1 4 2 6 2 15.7 W o o d(Surrey) 2 4 4 4 6 2 5 9 2 3 . 2 W o o d-Sims, W . 1 9 0 2 0 6 4 6 10.16 W o o f, W .A. 2 7 9 1 4 7 *1 6 8 . 3 W o o t t o n, J. 2 0 4 1 8 8 2 8 11.12 Wright, C. W . 3 4 1 6 8 0 7 8 20.20 Wright,W . 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 7 1 1 . 1 3 Wyatt, G. N. 2 7 2 3 9 9 6 5 15.24 Yates, W . 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 7 1 1 . 3 T H EB O W L E R S . CONSIDERING that the grounds did not as a rule help them, the bowling averages generally are very fair . Amateurbowling was, if anything , weaker than ever, and the University match certainly did not afford any promise of supplying the great need of amateur cricket . On the whole the professional bowlers , though , cameout well. Peate was less difficult on the easy wickets , but the figures altogether , it may be added , are not quite so good . Besides Peate , Mr. W. G. Grace, Woof, Beaumont, and Lohmanneach took over a hundred wickets , and makingallowance for the heavy work they had to do their performances wereby n o means discreditable . Beaumontfigured for the first time in the Surrey