James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

7 4 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. K E N T . OFFICERS FOR 1885.-President , A. Akers -Douglas , M.P. Committee , Sir W. Hart-Dyke, Bart ., M.P. , George Marsham, Alfred Penn, Lord Harris, H. Knatchbull-Hugessen, M. P. Betts , Capt. Lambert, Charles Lawrie, Hon. Ivo Bligh , Rev. C. E. B. Nepean , W. S. Norton , Sir C. Oakeley , Bart., Rev. C. Randolph, Lord Sondes , C. S. Hardy, W.Hoare, P. Hilton , H. A. Brassey , M . P. Lord Hothfield . Major-General Denne, F. A. Mac- kinnon, Col. Streatfield , E. Norman, E. F. S. Tylecote . Hon. Treasurer , Colonel Hartnell . Secretary , Mr. J. A. J. Lancaster , 59, St. George's Street , Canterbury . K E N Tcricket showed noticeable improvement last summer, and, indeed , with the exception of Surrey, no county team displayed more promising all -round form. The success which attended the eleven throughout was the more remark- able for two reasons . In the first place , in the spring there was apparently no great cause to believe that they would be successful ; and, in the second , political duties deprived themof the valuable services of Lord Harris , whohad beenthe mainstay of the eleven with the bat, during the greater part of the cam- paign. O nthe whole, the cricket shownb ythe m e nof K e n twasmostinteresting ; and, indeed , the excellence of their record was a matter for congratulation to all lovers of genuine sport . The withdrawal of Kent from the return with Lancashire at Tonbridge was meant as a protest against the latter's employ- mentof bowlers of doubtful delivery , and though the action of the committee gave rise to considerable discussion , it was generally supported . Of the eleven matches played , six were won, two were drawn, and three lost . The victory over Yorkshire , at Sheffield , was a most creditable achievement , and the return was also drawnconsiderably in their favour, though it mustbe added Kenthad all the best of the wicket. In two of the three matcheslost , too-those with Lancashire and Surrey-there was in each case only a very small majority ; in the first of forty -two runs , in the second of a wicket . Messrs . Patterson , R. T. Thornton, and R. S. Jones among the amateurs , and Frankand GeorgeHearne, of the players , were most successful with the bat. Wootton, A. Hearne, and Christopherson bore the brunt of the bowling , and each could boast excellent figures . Altogether , the outlook of Kentcricket is most hopeful . R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches Played, 13 ; Won, 8 ; Drawn, 2 ; Lost , 3. W h e n Club. Opnts. Where played . played . 1st 2nd. 1st 2nd W o nb y Opponents. MatchesW o n(8). Sheffield G r a v e s e n d M y252627 105 #63 86 81 June4,5,6 97*165 8 wkts; *2w d (1) Yorkshire (3) Sussex (4) Hampshire (7) Sussex (9) Hampshire (10) Middlesex E x t r aM a t c h. *M . C . C. andG r o u n d. MatchesD r a w n(2). (6) Yorkshire (8) Surrey Matches Lost (3). (2) Lancashire *M i d d l e s e x (5) Surrey E x t r aM a t c h. *M CC. a n dG r o u n d... 106 155 5 wkts; *5 w d 132 runs SouthamptonJy.20 21 22 133 297 193 105 Brighton Tonbridge Ag.101112 399 2 4 , 2 5336 ود 176 157 inns& 66r u n s 3 7 2 0 4 inns& 9 5r u n s Maidstone ,, 27,28,29 193 138 187 143 4wkts; *6 wd Canterbury Aug. 6,7,8 257 Canterbury Aug.3,4,5 312 O v a l 9 9 110 inns& 4 8r u n s R e m a r k s . 1 3 8*9 9 *4 wd *4 wd Lostb y ,, 13,14,15 103 288 147 441 Manchester M y282930 141 213 108 288 Lord's July 13, 14 191 188 336 *47 G r a v e s e n d 23,24 213 117 177 154 L o r d ' s ود M y 1 8 1 9 2 0205 *99 140 161 *H a v ebeentreated inpreviousreviews. 42runs 10wkts; *now d 1 w k t; *9 w d W o nb y 6wkts; *4 w d Thereturn match with Lancashire was not played on account of objections to the delivery of certain Lancashire bowlers .