James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1889. 5 3 is , therefore , to be regretted that a year so eventful in the records of the Club should not have been productive of better results for those whohad to bear the bulk of the summer's work. As a matter of fact the summaryof 1889 was not even as satisfactory as it appears on paper. Of the four drawnmatches , those against Kent and Surrey in August were to all intents and purposes defeats . In each case a few more minutes would have turned an undecided gameinto a vic- tory for the other side ; and at Canterbury , as it was, the eleven were lucky in being able to prevent an actual victory for Kent. Gloucestershire's win over Lancashire at Liverpool was a very creditable performance ; wonbythe pluck of Messrs. E. M. GraceandCroomeat the critical m o m e n t. YorkshireandSussex were also beaten once, but on the other hand Lancashire , Kent, Middlesex , SurreyandYorkshireall defeated themin onematch. O nthe wholethe season w a snot so successful as that of 1888. In the earlier fixtures the eleven were hardly representative ; and Woof, who, owing to his engagement at Cheltenham College, wasnot free till late in the s u m m e r, w a sm u c hmissed. Indeedit was in bowling that the team were, as they have been mostly of late years , deficient and, as far as one can judge, there does not seem at present to be any great amountof rising talent . Mr. W . G. Grace's batting wasone of the mostnote- worthyfeatures of the year's cricket . His continuous prominence gives cause for increasing wonder. Hewas easily first in the batting averages , while Mr. Cranston, whoreappeared in the Gloucestershire eleven after an absence of some five years , played with such consistent success as to be a good second . Though hewasonly really able to help in the latter part of the season , Woof's bowling wasmarkedbythe best results . Roberts , too, did a lot of hard work, but he w a smore expensive . The burden of the bowling fell on this pair and Mr. W .G. Grace. Resultsof M a t c h e s. Matches Played , 14 ; W o n, 3 ; Drawn, 4 ; Lost, 7. Opponents. W h e n Club. Opnts. 1st(2 n d 1st 2 n d Where played . played . inn . inn . inn. ind. W o nb y MatchesW o n(3). (3) Yorkshire (8) Sussex . (5) Lancashire (2) Sussex (9) Kent (11) Surrey (1 2) Middlesex *Middlesex .. (1) Surrey (4) Lancashire (6) Yorkshire (7) Notts Gloucester Bristol Ju 27,28,29 231 254 160 232 93 runs Aug.5,6 2 0 1 79 82 inns & 40 runs Liverpool July 25, 26 MatchesD r a w n(4). Brighton MatchesLost (7). Lord's O v a l و د (1 0) Notts (13) Kent ExtraMatches (2). (1 4) Warwickshire (15) Warwickshire Bristol Ju10,11,12 192 1368 278 *133 Canterbury A g. 8,9, 10 217 214 353 *71 Cheltenham 19,20,21 201 107 183 *112 C h e l t e n h a m Bristol B r a d f o r d Nottingham Clifton Clifton " ,, 22,23,24 282 *48 178 +240 June3, 4 ,, 6, 7, 8 July 1, 2 29,30,31 Aug. 1, 2 " 79 297 237 *140 206 92 210 +338 145 87 327 200 138 213 *126 115 91 342 1 5,1 6 105 60 87 *79 ,, 26,27,28 77 278 295 *61 3 wkts ; *7 w d R e m a r k s. *7 wkts down *4 wkts down *4wktsd o w n *3 wkts down Lostby 7 wkts ; *3 wd 250 runs inns& 9 5runs 5 wkts; *5 wd inns& 136 runs 10wkts; *n o w d 9 wkts; *1 w d My23,24,25 113 122 149 157 Lost by 71 runs Birmingham Aug. 12, 13 120 210 120 52 W o nby 158 runs 89 *87 73 102 * H a sb e e ntreatedinreviewof M.C.C. + Inningsdeclared ; 7w d. (1) Gloucestershirev. Surrey. Oval, June 6, 7, and 8. In the absence of Messrs . E. M. Grace (owing to an accident ), Townsend, Page , Pullen , and Woof, Gloucestershire was only poorly represented , and the