James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1889

C R I C K E TIN 1888. 7 eventsthe cricket wasnot as evenas onewouldhaveliked to haveseen. G u n n andBarnes , though neither at one time seemed likely to come out very well , after all showed up the best with the bat. With some few exceptions , which will be obvious , there was certainly a lack of reliable batting , and no one could be bold enoughto class the eleven as a side that could becountedonfor runs. During thelast two or three years , too , Notts has not been so formidable in bowling as it was, and on good wickets they were certainly last year not greatly to be feared . Barnes, Flowers , and Attewell all of them require careful watching , but when theground is true they do not present any great terror to an experienced bats- m a n. Shacklock , after a thoroughly good trial , hadnot proved himself to be good enough to be retained permanently in the eleven , and Joseph Briggs , though of the same style as his brother , the famous Lancashire cricketer , showed little or none of the skill which brought the latter to the front . Richardson , in- deed, proved the one success of the bowlers of morerecent date, and he proved effective throughout the season , delivering nearly five hundred overs for less thana runapiece. Theplay of the Middlesex eleven was disappointing , and would not bear com- parison with their form of the previous year. The circumstances which marked the two seasons were, as every one knows, very dissimilar , and the batting , whichhas always been the strong point of Middlesex , could not be expected to prove as successful as it did under conditions infinitely more favourable to the bowler than was the case in 1887. Yet, in spite of the difficulties under which batsmen laboured , the batting averages generally were fairly good, and it was morein the out-cricket after all that the weaknesswasvisible . Burtonw a san honourable exception to this mild condemnation , and, considering the amount of work he had to do, his performance entitled him to rank amongthe first bowlers of the day. His success , though, only served to bring the other failures out in bolder relief . Mr. E. H. Buckland proved so useful in the very few matches in which he played , as to makehis absence the more regrettable ; and, on the slow grounds , Messrs . Nepean, Ford, and Robertson hadall to be content with moderate figures . Mr. O'Brien hit in brilliant style whenhe was able to assist the county , and he was able to take the position at the head of the batting averages usually occupied by the captain , Mr. A. J. Webbe , who was, for a batsmanof his admitted excellence on difficult wickets , singularly unsuccessful-- a failure which could not but have a very prejudicial effect on the play of the teamgenerally . Last of the principal counties comes Sussex , and again every well - wisher of cricket will regret that there is not the material for more favourable comment. Until the middle of August, whenthere was only another important fixture left for decision , the Sussex eleven had not been fortunate enough to winan im- portant county match. The merit of their performance on this occasion , too , wasconsiderably discounted by the fact that Lancashire , their opponents , were playing without their best bowler , Briggs -a host in himself , whomore than any one else of late has contributed to the success of Lancashire cricket . A tthe same time it must be admitted that the ill -luck which has stuck to Sussex per sistently during the last few years was again unmistakably in evidence . Illness prevented Bean from playing in more than the first match, and Sussex was thus deprived for the whole of the season of the help of a cricketer whohad shownhimself to be one of the very best all -round players in the county. Mr. N e w h a m, benefited apparently by his Australian trip , has rarely , if ever , batted with better results ; but, though his average was fairly good, there was no one else of the regular members of the eleven able to show figures at all noteworthy . Nor, on the whole , did the bowling show very satisfactory results . Arthur Hide shared with his brother Jesse the bulk of the work, but the latter did not in either batting or bowling come up to his form of the previous year, and, as Mr. Smith never seemed to get quite right from the strain to his arm early in the season at Manchester , his comparative failure reacted prejudicially on the t e a m. Of the other counties , Derbyshire , relegated by general consent of the critics