James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

7 8 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. an innings , and until the end of June it certainly looked as if Notts was going to be in a position by itself- " Eclipse first , the rest nowhere." Later on, though, the cricket showed a remarkable falling off , and after the first defeat inflicted by Surrey early in August , the form was very disappointing by contrast withthe unusually high pitch of excellence reached in the earlier matches . The brilliant record of the first half wasdimmedby the experience of August, which wasfruitful of disaster . Still , in spite of the comparatively poor show madeat the close , the general result of the season was one of which the county had good reason to be proud. Gunn's continuous success with the bat was one of the most interesting features of county cricket in 1889. H ewas quite the best pro- fessional batsman of the year. Until a very advanced period of the season , Barnes had fully upheld his reputation as one of the most reliable scorers against all classes of bowling . Whenthe grounds became treacherous , as they weremostly in August, he was, however, at fault , and the deterioration of his play was very marked. Shrewsbury began in brilliant fashion , but hardly came upto the very high standard he had madefor himself by his great performances in 1887. Flowers was of considerable use throughout , especially in the later matches , whensome of his fellows with a higher reputation failed . Mr. J. A. Dixon, the captain , was fairly successful ; but there was a tail in the batting , and at times it wasvery pronounced. Attewell's bowling wasthroughout of a very high class , and his average was really the best of the year in county cricket . Richardson and Shacklock , particularly in the earlier part of the season , bowled with consistent success . Flowers , too , was of great use on the comparatively few occasions on which his services were required , and there werefew better all -round cricketers . If a poll could have been taken of the cricket world, we believe Notts would have been allotted the first place among the counties last year. O L E 0 . 6 Where played . played . Opponents. R e s u l t so f M a t c h e s. Matches Played, 14 ; Won, 9 ; Drawn, 3 ; Lost, 2. 8 Club. Opnts. W h e n 1st 2 n d1 s t2 n d W o nby i n n. i n n. i m. m n. MatchesW o n(9). ود O v a l " Beckenham ,, 29, 30 (1) Sussex *Middlesex. (2) Surrey *Lancashire (3) Sussex *Kent.... (4) Yorkshire. *Gloucestershire *Gloucestershire ..... MatchesD r a w n(3). *Middlesex (6) Yorkshire. *Lancashire MatchesLost (2). (5) Surrey *K e n t . . ExtraMatches(3). (7) Derbyshire. (8) Derbyshire....... *M . C . C. a n dG r o u n d 1 3 4 Nottingham My20,21,22 2 7 7 - Lord's ,, 30, 31 Nottingham June 10,11 308 Nottingham 2 4, 25 268 2 7, 28 269 Brighton " Nottingham July 18, 19 302 Sheffield ,,22,23,24 225 134 201 Nottingham Aug. 1, 2 342 Clifton " 15,1 6 87 *79 105 Nottingham 12,1 3 161 166 105 Nottingham Manchester ,, 2 3 NottinghamJuly1, 2 D e r b y 2 9, 30 M a y23, 24 Lord's و و 601 0wkts ; *n o w d 224 *71 190 104 W o nby 10w; *n o w d 1 8 3 9 7 6 0 inns& 26r u n s 176 *86 106 157 Lost by 7wkts ; *3 w d و و * Treated in reviews of M.C.C. , Gloucestershire , Kent , Lancashire , and Middlesex . 2 1 4 1 0 6 0 1 T o L o v e l aS H B O OJ U G U E 9 142 inns & 42 runs T 54 73 inns&7 runs 98 57 inns & 153 runs 120 89 inns &59 runs 121 120 inns & 28 runs 140 119 inns & 44 runs 122 36 runs 115 91 inns& 136runs R e m a r k s . *27 *1 w d ,, 19,20,21 *108 *6 9 1 9 9 *8wd *8w d; rain Lostby 5,6,7 159 84 172*205 134runs; *8 w d 134 35 118 *53 4 wkts ; *6 w d