James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1889. 8 3 B O W L I N GA V E R A G E S .-Continued. O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. Wickets. Average. Shacklock 406.4 1 4 6 7 8 0 5 5 14.10 R . J. M e e 123.1 5 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 8 . 2 B a r n e s 5 0 . 3 1 6 1 1 5 6 1 9 . 1 Scotton 5 0 2 0 1 2 0 J. A .D i x o n 2 0 1 2 0 H .B .D a f t 1.1 0 7 0 C. W. Wright 5 2 7 0 S U R R E Y . OFFICERS FOR 1889.-President , Viscount Oxenbridge . Vice -President , Earl of Bessborough . Treasurer , W. Cattley . Committee , J. B. Oakley , F. Bur- bidge , W.Burrup, Dr. Blades , G. Everett , E. B. Jones , M. W. Marshall , W. E. Roller , J. W. Hobbs ,R. Roberts ,K. J. Key, T. Winterflood , Sir R.Hanson, C. A. Stein , D. R. Onslow, Major-General Marshall , L. A. Shuter , J. Shuter, W.S. Trollope , G. Carter Morrison , J. S. Balfour , M.P. , F. Aldridge , J. Bur- rup, and W. W. Thomson. Secretary , Charles W. Alcock , Surrey Ground, Kennington Oval, London, S.E. Assistant Secretary , W .W .Read. SURREYwere placed to a certain extent at a disadvantage in opening the season of1889,bythe memoryof the brilliant all -roundcricket the eleven showedunder such diametrically opposite conditions as markedthe summers of 1887 and88. It w a saheavyresponsibility on themto have to try andmaintain the high standard of those two years , and if they failed the failure was after all only partial . They lost three matches, it is true, but there was some slight extenuation for the defeats at Manchester and Nottingham , decisive though both were , and in each ofthese cases , in having to bat second , the Surrey menhad undoubtedly the worst of the luck. There washardly the same excuse , though, for the third reverse , in the return with Lancashire at the Oval, and the record wasconsiderably tarnished , it must be admitted , by the double triumph of the Lancashire m e n. Still , tested byanordinary standard , the results of the season were onthe whole satisfactory , though the high level of the previous year wasnot maintained. In some respects the eleven were rather out of luck . Wood's tour in Africa had apparently affected his eyes to some extent , and Abel, whowas his companion in the same trip , was byno means as reliable a bat as in the previous year. Nor wereMessrs . Shuter nor W .W .Readanything like as successful , the latter in par- ticular showeda great falling off . Mr.K e y, onthe other hand, wasthemainstay of the side , and Maurice Read,but for aninjury to his hand, would in all probability have runhim still harder for first place in the averages . Henderson's correct play was always of use, at times his steadiness was invaluable . Lohmann's hitting morethan once saved the side at a critical moment; and in the two colts , Lockwood and Sharpe , the county has two promising all -round cricketers . Theformer plays a confident game,and the latter batted with great pluck at the finish of the innings on morethan one important occasion . Lohmann'sbowling wasasusual one of the mostnotable features of Surrey's cricket . Thepitches generally were hardly as favourable for the bowler as in 1888 , but the fact that hetook nearly ahundred and twenty wickets at an average of twelve runs not only shows the amount of work he did throughout the summer, but proves the value of his services to the county. BeaumontandBowleywere less successful and neither came out quite as well as in the previous year . Sharpe , the colt , ofwhommuchwas expected , was a little uncertain ; at times , though , he bowled well, andw eare inclined to think that he will still fulfil the expectations based onhis consistently good form of the two previous years for the Surrey Club .