James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1889

4 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. matewas less effective than usual . Abel's consistently good batting was, too , not one of the least noteworthy features of a season more than ordinarily memorable-a remarkable instance of a cricketer madeby sheer perseverance . Abel had the distinction of the best batting average in the more important county matches, and his success was highly popular with the public . Mr. W . W .Read's exceptional powers of batting have been too often proved to require newterms of praise . H e was, as he has been for manyyears , the mainstay of the eleven , and he fully upheld his reputation as a batsman of the very front rank. Batting , indeed , has been of late one of the strong points of the Surrey team, and Mr. John Shuter , whose management has been a very important factor in the great Surrey revival , Mr. Key, Maurice Read, Mr. Bowden, one of the mostimproved batsmen of 1888 , and Wood-of the greatest value on more than one critical occasion --assisted to form a batting combination which could not be boasted by any other county eleven of the year. N o rwasSurrey's record the one instance of a successful revival of Southern cricket . The menof Kent, too, proved themselves formidable antagonists to the best of their rivals ; and though their summarycould hardly be said to have shown better figures than that of Yorkshire , it was eminently satisfactory to be able to say at the end of the season that the at one time apparently indis- putable supremacy of the North had been , and successfully , challenged by two of the Southern shires , and those , moreover, two of the oldest actors on the cricket stage. O n the soft wickets so prevalent last year the excellent bowling at the disposal of the captain enabled the Kent eleven to showto very great advantage throughout . Walter Wright, whoproved himself so useful an all -round cricketer for Notts some few years ago, hadeven before last season qualified by residence for Kent ; and though in influential quarters doubts had been expressed as to his probable inclusion in the team, owing to the numberof other left -handed bowlers , his services were, as generally expected , requisitioned , and with the most satisfactory results . Wootton's absence from the eleven on several occasions gave rise to considerable comment, and the preference shown to some younger players at the expense of so useful an all -round cricketer m a ystill be doubted . O n the other hand, it might forcibly be urged that with Walter Wright, Martin, and Alec Hearne, each and all of them sure to be effective on soft grounds , another bowler was not really wanted. Whatever diversity of opinion there m a yhave been, and possibly still be, on matters of detail , facts showthat Kent altogether presented a very formidable front , and, in fact , hadgot very nearly up to the top rung of the cricket ladder again . The inclusion of Mr. C. J. M. Fox, the old Westminster, in the team, under the resi- dential qualification , was a very fortunate addition to the batting of the eleven ; and as he is able to devote most of his time during the summerto cricket , he should , judging by the continuous success of his first season , be of great use in the future . H a dKent been able to put its best combination into the field regu- larly , as was Surrey , it would have run its neighbour and old cricket rival close . A sit was, considering that Mr. W. H. Patterson , Lord Harris , and Mr. W. Rashleigh , the Oxford captain , three thoroughly tried batsmen , were only able to play very rarely , the excellent record of the Kent eleven must be regarded as extremely satisfactory . The accident which caused Bates to return homein the previous winter from Australia with an injured eye , and has incapacitated him since from participation in important matches, robbed Yorkshire of one whohad done it great service as an all -round player of late years . As the wickets were, Bates wouldindeed have been very valuable , both as a batsman and a bowler ; and the Yorkshire eleven would have been, it is not too much to say, materially strengthened by his presence . Still , though there was more than once a trace of the unevenness which has often marked the cricket of the county of late years , there wascertainly more ground for satisfaction in their performances generally than manymight have expected , judging from their prospects at the commence- mentof the season . Hunter's inability to keep wicket did not act for a time very