James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

L I L L Y W H I T E ' S C R I C K E T E R S ' A N N U A L . L A N C A S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1890.-President , Sir Humphreyde Trafford , Bart. Committee , A. N. Hornby, W. E. Openshaw, Harry Thornber, E. B. Rowley, E . Challender , R. Walker , A. G. Steel , R. Gorton , A. Appleby , G. Walsh, E. Roper, A. F. Pope, Ernest Leese , O. P. Lancashire , and John Stanning. C. E. Hulton. Hon. Secretary , S. H. Swire . Hon. Treasurer , J. MacLaren. Assistant Secretary and Collector , F. Reynolds , 26, Barton Arcade , Manchester . T H E feature of Lancashire's cricket during 1890 was its consistency . N o memberof the team could boast an everage of 30 runs per innings , while no fewer than nine players averaged over 20 per innings . Thefigures of Frank Ward, who is at the top , are not really so good as they would appear , since he only played eight completed innings . Albert Wardalso showed a falling off , and Frank Sugg was not so reliable as formerly , his biggest innings not being in aninter -county match. Far and awaythe most successful all-round performer wasBriggs , whoin addition to second place in the batting list , took 62 wickets at a cost of less thantwelveruns each; andhe wouldhavedoneevenbetter butfor the accident that befell him in the height of the season . As in 1889 , Briggs , Mold, and Watsondid most of the execution with the ball , and this formidable trio wereresponsible for 213 wickets between them, Barlowhaving delivered only fifty -seven overs . Mold's great pace, coupled with his dangerous pitch , marked him as alike the fastest and one of the most difficult bowlers in England. T h e illness of Pilling robbed the county of its great wicket -keeper , though fairly good substitutes were found in Mr. A. T. Kemble(who also proved of service with the bat) and Whiteside . Mr. A. C. M'Laren, the Harrowcaptain , was tried in the August matches , and with the best results . His batting against Sussex at Brighton was quite out of the common, and he should be of great assistance to Lancashire. Mentionmustbe m a d eof the matchwith Sussex at Manchester, in which Lancashire , after scoring 246 for two wickets , dismissed their opponents twice for 35 and24. Withregard to the results of the season , good as they were, they would have been muchmore satisfactory had time per- mitted three of the four drawngames to be played to a definite conclusion . Resultsof M a t c h e s. Matches Played , 14 ; Won, 7 ; Drawn, 4 ; Lost, 3 . Opponents. Matches Won(7) . *K e n t *K e n t MatchesD r a w n(4). W h e n Where played . played . Club. Opnts. 1 s t2 n d1 s t 2 n d i n n. i n n. i n n. inn. W o nb y Manchester May26, 27 319 Manchester Ju.30 ,Jy1,2 +246 165 86 inns & 68 runs 3 5 24 inns & 187 runs Manchester Jy.14,15,16 188 *172 164 192 7 wkts ; *3 w d Huddersfield Brighton B e c k e n h a m Manchester ,, 17,18,19 175 Aug. 14, 15 248 9 0 57 inns & 28 runs 8 6 100 inns & 62 runs 54 91 10wkts ; *no wd 68 runs 21, 22 132 *15 ,, 28,29,30 118 +120 83 87 Nottingham Ju.23,24,25 264 *110 331 +139 Manchester Jy.10,11,12 161 187 88 *2 ,, 24,25,26 60 237 215 *14 Aug. 7,8,9 358 *79 359 +165 M a n c h e s t e r Clifton (3) Sussex (5) Middlesex (6) Yorkshire (7) Sussex (9) Notts (2) Notts (4) Yorkshire *Gloucestershire *Gloucestershire (1) Surrey *Middlesex .. (8) Surrey (19) Australians (11) OxfordUniversity (12) Warwickshire (13) OxfordUniversity (14) Warwickshire * See reviews of Gloucestershire , Kent, and M.C.C. June9,10 6 1 50 69 103 16,17,18 266 111 139 311 ود Au.18,19,20 110 131 317 R e m a r k s. *4w d *2 w d *nowd *nowd 61 runs 73 runs Lostb y inns& 7 6r u n s Lostb y inns & 155 runs MatchesLost (3). Manchester Lord's O v a l E x t r aMatches . Manchester May 29, 30 78 83 316 O x f o r d June2, 3 138 142 274 *8 Matches W o n(3) Birmingham June 13,14 123 *46 136 Manchester ,, 19,20,21 475 29 8 wkts ; *n o w d Manchester Aug. 4, 5 220 50 167 inns & 3 runs + Innings declared . 10wkts; *n o w d W o nb y 230 176 inns & 69 runs