James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

9 8 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. over Sussex and Surrey markedthe opening of the season , and the exceptionally fine cricket of the two great batsmen, Shrewsbury and Gunn, appeared to have communicated itself to the rest of the eleven . Strangely enough , no sooner did those two players begin to deteriorate , than their falling off seemed to affect the goodplay of their comrades to such a degree that in the last part of the season the famousNotts eleven succumbed in most incomprehensible fashion to Surrey , Gloucestershire (twice ), Yorkshire , and Lancashire in turn. All the same, Shrewsbury comes out with phenomenal batting figures . H e was the only cricketer w h olast season scored over a thousand runs in first -class county matches alone -and Gunnis second with the splendid average of 33. Good as their records are , they would be even finer had they only maintained their form right through the summer. The young professional , Butler , comes third , but he owes this favourable position to his long innings against Sussex at Brighton . Barnes, whosebatting was one of the features of 1889 , was very disappointing , failing to obtain even a two-figure average ; but with the ball he was useful at times , andduring the season secured forty -one wickets at a cost of a little over 13 runs apiece . Mr. Dixon was again fairly successful with the bat, but there was still an unmistakable tail to the team. Attewell proved himself to be far and awaythe most reliable m a nin the team, as in addition to a batting average of 23, he took 73 wickets for less than twelve runs each--an exceptional per- formance . Flowers, Richardson , and Shacklock took 102 wickets between them, but all were expensive when compared with Attewell and Barnes . The colt Needham, too, who was tried on two or three occasions , should in the future prove of service . H ebowls fast -mediumleft -hand, and as he sometimes gets a lot of work on to the ball , he ought to develop into a good cricketer , R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches Played, 14 ; Won, 5 ; Drawn, 4 ; Lost, 5. W h e n Where played . played . Opponents. Club. Opnts. 1st 2 n d1 s t2 n d i n n, inn, i n n. inn. W o nb y MatchesW o n(5). Nottingham My15,16,17 590 186 138 inns & 266 runs. 153 152 108runs (1) Sussex (2) Surrey (3) Sussex (4) Yorkshire. *Middlesex . MatchesD r a w n(4). *K e n t *Lancashire *K e n t (6) Yorkshire... MatchesLost(5). *M i d d l e s e x *Gloucestershire (5) Surrey *Gloucestershire *Lancashire Nottingham ,, 26,27,28 231 182 Brighton Sheffield Ju9,10,11 +362 ,, 16,17,18 138 225 Nottingham July 24, 25 297 *33 G r a v e s e n d June5, 6,7 Nottingham ,, 23,24,25 331 +139 105 119 inns & 138 runs 96 69 198 runs 135 *98 264 *110 111 216 8 wkts ; *2 w d R e m a r k s . 208+157 + 2 5 2 *9 w d *4wd *4wd 176*139 *8 w d Lostb y 7 wkts ; *3 w d Nottingham Jy 10,11,12 *40 Nottingham Aug. 7,8,9 Lord's 245+179 My29,30,31 204 205 286 *124 Nottingham Jy31;Aul,2 105 143 160 118 30runs O v a l M a n c h e s t e r Clifton ExtraMatches(4). (7) Australians . (8) Derbyshire.. (9) Australians.. (10) Derbyshire Aug. 4,5, 6 83 240 253 *71 7 wkts ; *3 w d ,, 14,15,16 62 143 77 170 42 runs ,, 28,29,30 83 87 Nottingham Ju12,13,14 215 Derby July28, 29 284 Nottingham Aul8,19,20 145 138 Nottingham Sept 1, 2, 3 223 *93 118+120 68 runs 62 127 Wonby inns & 25 runs 6 2 1 5 1 و د 148 115 inns & 71 runs 2 0runs و و 174 +161 Drawn; *4w d * Treated in reviews of Gloucestershire , Kent, Lancashire , and M.C.C. + Innings declared . (1) Nottsv. Sussex. Nottingham, M a y15, 16, and 17. Thiswasnot the first time that a match between these counties had estab- lished a record in the way of run -getting . In 1889 Shrewsbury and Gunnwere