James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

8 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 . against Sussex , at the Oval, and their score of 631 is the best ever madein a matchbetweentwoof the nine leading counties . Mentionmightb em a d eof long individual scores innumerable , but all paled before the extraordinary innings of Mr. J. S. Carrick for West of Scotland , against the Priory Park at Chichester , on July 13 and 14. On that occasion he was the whole of the twodays at the wicket , and his score of 419 not out stands out as the highest innings ever recorded in the history of the game. In first -class cricket the mostnoteworthy performances were the 224 not out of Shrewsbury for Notts against Middlesex , at Lord's ; the 221 of Mr. W. G. Grace for Gloucestershire against Middlesex , at Clifton . In both cases they carried their bats through the innings . The achievements of Barnes and Gunn, in putting on 330 runs while together for Marylebone Club and Ground v. Yorkshire , at Lord's , too , deserves notice . A still more remarkable partnership , though in a less im- portant contest , was that of Messrs . L. Wilson and W. G. Wyldat Beckenham, against Bexley, on August1, whenthey made470 runs without the loss of a wicket, the best record of the kind. The batsmen, as in 1884 , were able to show to better advantage in the general excellence of the wickets , and the averages of both amateurs and professionals were unusually high. In this respect the amateurs have the better figures , and Messrs . W. G. Grace and Read can claim records unapproached by any other cricketer of the year, with the one exception of Shrewsbury, whose average is better , though he did not play in anything like the samenumberof innings . Mr. W .G. Grace has not for someyears shownso muchof his remarkable ability , and it is a wonderful proof of his powers that , despite increasing years , he still retains the first place in the public estimation in the face of so manyyounger competitors . Mr. W. W. Read fairly showed himself to be in the very front rank of batsmen, and, in fact , no one but Mr. W. G. Grace and Shrewsbury can be said , on last year's form, to be his equals. Mr. F. M. Lucas only played in eight completed innings , and his average of69was mainly due to his extraordinary score of 215, not out, for Sussex v. Gloucestershire. Still , the brilliant cricket he showedfor the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's was quite sufficient to establish his reputation as abatsman of no meancapacity , and it is a matter for regret that he was not more frequently seen in first - class cricket . Mr. A. G. Steel , though he only played very rarely , had evidently lost none of his form, and Messrs . W. H. Patterson , Newham, W. E. Roller , R. T. Thornton, A. J. Webbe, Gilbert , Key, Bainbridge , J. Shuter , Townsend , O'Brien , Hildyard , Hornby, Diver , Wright, and Hon. M. B. Hawkeall batted consistently well , Mr. Roller in particular showing a marked advance . Lord Harris , owing to his political duties wasonly able to take part in five innings , and even whenhe did assist Kent, in August, was unlucky enough to injure his right hand so badly as to be compelled to give up further participation in the game. A m o n gthe new amateurs whocame to the front last year special mention should be madeof Messrs. Brann, of Sussex ; C. D. Buxton and G. K e m p, of Cambridge University ; J. N. Tonge and W . Rashleigh , of Kent; W. S. Eadie, of Derby- shire ; and A. E. Stoddart , of Middlesex . Mentionhas already been madeof Shrewsbury's brilliant record , andh e stands alone amongthe professionals with an average of over fifty runs . A n analysis of Gunn's batting throughout the year is almost as favourable , and his reputation was very considerably advanced by his consistently fine cricket throughout the summer. Another noticeable improvement was that of F. Lee, whose batting was one of the most remarkable features of Yorkshire cricket last year. Barlow and Ulyett, though the latter was greatly hamperedby the injury to his ankle , maintain their foremost positions amongthe batsmen of the day; and Briggs , Bates, Flowers, MauriceRead, of the older hands, were hardly less successful . Barnes was not in the same brilliant form as in 1884, and Hall and Scotton were below the standard of that season . Chatterton , Wood, and Abel, though , made a distinct advance ;