James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

CRICKET IN 1889 . 3 entitled to ten and a half points on the recognized basis of calculation , their equality . At the same time we must own that the bulk of the public which supports cricket , as well as a large majority of active cricketers , would be inclined to give Notts a preference over both Lancashire and Surrey , and weare b o u n dto confessw i t hreason. If the matter of points , too, is to be ignored , the double defeat of Surrey b yLancashire would be admitted as justification for adjudging the second place to the latter ratherthanto the former. O ntherespective formof the twocounties throughout the season , in the opinion of many, Lancashire would bedeemed to havethe better side . Against bowling at all below the highest standard Surrey had an exceptionally strong batting team, but on all wickets and against all kinds of bowling w e should be inclined to look on Lancashire as the more reliable side all round. In Pilling they had, beyond a doubt, the best English wicket-keeper of the day; the fielding , too , was, on the whole, more reliable thanin most of the county elevens , and, in fact , the out-cricket of Lancashire wasto ourmind, if anything , superior to that of any other combination . In Briggs and Watson they had two of the most consistent bowlers of the day, with a third of almost equal merit , though of different pace, in the adopted professional , A. Mold, who fully upheld his early promise , and indeed proved himself to be, beyond a doubt, one of, if not quite , the best fast bowler of the year. The advent of two such likely newcricketers as Mold andA. Ward, who had played in two or three matches for Yorkshire in 1887 , added very considerably to the all -round strength of the team, and the latter's painstaking style enabled him at abound to attain areputation as one of the most consistent andreliable batsmen of the day. Possessed of considerable judgment, and withal plenty of pluck , Wardwas a consistent run-getter , and the excellent cricket he showed throughout the summerwas one of the most noticeable incidentsof theseason. Surrey's decisive defeat at the hands of Notts in Whit-week, indicated- though some extenuation was reasonably admissible in the fact that they had considerably the worst of the wicket that the eleven under Mr. John Shuter's commandwouldhave some difficulty in maintaining the high standard created bytheir exceptionally brilliant performances in 1888 and preceding season . The continuoussuccesses of Nottinghamshirein the earlier matchesseemedto fore- shadow a hollow race for the premiership , and it was only their unexpected falling off on the wet wickets of August that brought Surrey and Lancashire bothonce more ostensibly in the running . W ehave already stated that in the opinion of the general public both Notts and Lancashire had, taking all things into consideration , a reasonable claim to be considered better , in the order named, thanSurrey, and we believe cricketers , mostly , would endorse this opinion . Surrey's double defeat by Lancashire , and their poor show, even admit- ting the absence of some of their regular team, against Essex, detracted fromthe merits of an otherwise successful season . It m a ybe urged that in the case of the reverses at Nottingham and Manchester luck wasmuchagainst them, buton the other hand facts are proverbially stubborn , andfigures can be adduced toshowundeniably that the Surrey eleven were certainly not as reliable a side as in the previous summer. In the young professionals , Lockwood and Sharpe , the county introduced two very useful and likely all -round cricketers , and the second -eleven matches played during the season served to show that in Brock- well , Watts, Harris , Mr. C. L. Morgan, Mr. Jephson , and others , there is a sufficient amount of good material outside the eleven to prevent any apprehen- sions as to at least thenearfuture. It w a sthe failure of someof the old hands that tended to the comparative ill success which attended Surrey last year in contrast with 1888. The season was not by anymeansthe best that Mr. W .W . Readhas had as a batsman, and Abel and Mr. Shuter showed a considerablé falling off on their performances of 1888. In bowling there was little or no cause for unfavourable comment, and Lohmann, though hardly able to show such an exceptional average as on the slow wickets of the previous year , still maintains his place as one of, if not the most reliable , bowlers of the day, as