James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

CRICKETIN 1889. in the earlier matches , of Mr. L. H. Bacmeister , a left -handed bowler , who hardly maintained the promise of the opening fixtures , and did not figure in the teamin the later engagements . The general character of the all -round cricket , indeed , with this one exception , presented no new features . It was hardly probable that Burton would be able to do such extraordinary execution as was his good fortune on the bowlers ' pitches of 1888 , and the bowling was, as it has beenfor some years now, the weakpoint of Middlesex cricket . Whatthere was didnot show any great variety , certainly little or none in pace. Mr. Stoddart haslatterly come on considerably as a bowler, and he was often of use. Mr. Nepean's leg -breaks , too , were often affective -notably , against Lancashire , at Manchester, whenthey contributed in a great measure to the victory of the side-but there wasreally nothing at all formidable on a good wicket, and the fast bowler so muchwanted is still in posse . Mr. J. G. Walker was singularly unfortunate in batting ; indeed , the eleven were, perhaps , not quite as dangerous on the whole, as run-getters , though Mr. O'Brien's punishing powers were never seen to greater advantage . Themost notable feature of Middlesex cricket , though, wasthe excellent all -round form shownby Mr. E. A. Nepean. As a batsman, in particular , he added to his reputation very materially , in fact , he was one of the most reliable run-getters last season against every kind of bowling . Gloucestershire's record was considerably improved by the system of allowing half a point for a drawn game, and a slight extension of time in the matches against Kent at Canterbury ,and Surrey at Cheltenham , would have in- creased the numberof defeats to the discredit of the county from seven to nine. A sit was, of the fourteen engagements but three were won, and of these the only one of any great importance was that a most creditable one, be it added- over Lancashire , at Liverpool , in which, as manywill remember, the resolute and plucky batting of Dr. E. M. Grace turned an apparently almost certain de- feat into a really good win. Yorkshire and Sussex had to give in to Gloucester- shire once, but both of these counties were below Mr. W. G. Grace's eleven in the summary of the year's cricket , so that there was no great amount of kudos attached to either of these victories . As already stated , could the gamehave beenprolonged only for a few minutes in each case Kentand Surrey wouldeach have been able to defeat Gloucestershire twice instead of once , and if this had happened the losses would have outnumbered the wins by three to one. Mr. Cranston's reappearance in the eleven after an absence of several seasons gave Mr. W. G. Grace another really goodbat. The old hands as a rule showedthe natural effects of increasing years , and there is an evident and immediate want of newmaterial of promise . Mr. W. G. Grace, on w h o mtime sits very lightly , wasin excellent form , and his batting was full of its power and judgment , par- ticularly so on several important occasions . The eleven , far from representative in someof the earlier fixtures , was of course muchweakened bythe inability of Woofto play till Cheltenham College broke up, and a trial was necessarily given to morethan one young bowler, whodid not, however, prove to be pos- sessed of any great capacity . Roberts did a lot of workwith fairly satisfactory results , but with Mr. W. G. Grace-naturally less effective with each additional year to his disadvantage -there was no one but Woof, whowas very successful onthe wetwickets of August, whocould be classed as of anyreal ability as a bowler in the eleven . The bowling , too , several times was seen to worse ad- vantage than ought to have been the case, owing to lack of proper support in thefield. Yorkshire's record was the more disappointing , as the eleven was muchthe same as that which did duty for the county, and with muchbetter results , in 1888. Taking the members of the team individually , they certainly appeared to be quite as strong all round as some of their more successful rivals . Their continuous failure cannot really be wholly attributable to corresponding de- fects in their all -round cricket . O nthe other hand it wouldbe equally unreason- able to plead that luck was accountable for such an almost unbrokenseries of defeats . The explanation mayfairly be found midway between the two ex- tremes . It is not a little singular that the Yorkshiremen generally , even when