James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

THE AVERAGES (FIRST -CLASS ) OF 1889 . 215 C H A P T E R I X. T H EA V E R A G E S ( F I R S T-C L A S S) O F 1 8 8 9. A sa rule, in spite of the wets wicket in M a yand during the greater part of August, the batsmen generally were seen to fair advantage . The figures are , onthe whole, good-better than in the previous year, whenthe pitches were all in favour of the bowlers-though in some cases the reputations of 1888 were not upheld. Mr. W. G. Grace, Gunn, Barnes, Mr. Key, and Abel were the only batsmenwhomadeover a thousand runs, andMr. Grace again had the distinc- tion of the highest aggregate of the year. Gunn's average was, though, the best , andhis batting throughout the season was consistently fine . Barnes would ,but for his ill -success on the slow wickets of August, have been able to show as good, or even better , figures , and Notts had the credit of the three most successful professionals of the year. Mr. Leslie Wilson only took part in ten innings , and good as his summarywas, it will not bear comparison with those of the harder -worked cricketers . Mr. W. G. Grace's average of over thirty -two for forty- five innings is a practical proof that he is still with few, if any, superiors . Three times he scored over a hundred in an innings , and on several important occasions he showed himself , too , as mucha master of the best bowling as he has ever been, although he has figured for a quarter of a century in first -class cricket . Hisremarkable vitality is a subject for general congratulation . Maurice Read's free batting was seen to great advantage , and of the older hands, Messrs . O'Brien , Key, Cranston (who did good service on his reappearance for Gloucestershire ) Marchant , Patterson , were the most successful . Abel hardly cameup tohis form of 1888 , andthe same maybe said of Messrs . W . W. Read, Eccles ,Fox, and J. Shuter . Of the younger players , A. Ward, of Lancashire , and Mr. E. A. Nepeanwere conspicuous by reason of their consistently good batting . Considering that it was the former's first season in important matches , the brilliant form he showed match after match was remarkable . Heproved him- self , indeed , to be a sound batsmanon any kind of wicket-watching the ball carefully , andestablished himself at once, without the benefit of any experience against first -class bowlers , as a batsman with very few superiors . Lockwood, of Surrey , in amuchlesser degree , gave considerable promise , and is likely to train o ninto a good bat. Of the tried players not already named, Mr. Stoddart , Mr. Newham, Hall , Sugg , Peel , Flowers , Barlow , and Henderson did the most work, andwith creditable results . B A T T I N GA V E R A G E S . T i m e s M o s ti n I n n s. n o tout. R u n s. a nI n n s. Average. G u n n .. 3 8 4 1 2 9 9 1 1 8 38.7 Shrewsbury 1 6 2 5 2 2 1 0 4 3 7 . 4 Wilson, L...... 1 0 0 3 6 0 1 3 2. 3 6 B a r n e s 4 0 4 1 2 4 9 *1 3 0 34.25 R e a d(M .) 2 7 2 8 4 7 1 3 6 33.22 Grace, W .G. 4 5 2 1 3 9 6 1 5 4 82.20 O'Brien, T. C. 2 6 1 7 8 6 *1 0 0 31.11 Cranston, J. 2 6 3 7 0 9 1 3 0 30.19 K e y, K. J.. 4 0 5 1 0 7 0 *1 7 6 3 0 . 2 0 W a r d(A.) 3 1 4 8 2 2 *1 1 4 30.12 Marchant,F. 2 3 0 6 6 9 1 7 6 2 9 . 2 A b e l 4 3 5 1 0 9 5 1 3 8 28.31 . . .