James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

2 2 6 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L, C H A P T E R V I I. T H EA V E R A G E S ( F I R S T-C L A S S) O F 1 8 9 0. In reviewing the doings of the principal performers in 1890 , it is matter for congratulation that , despite the wretchedly wet weather experienced during the first half of the season , the batsmen acquitted themselves with great credit . A s in 1889 , five players exceeded the thousand runs , these being Shrewsbury , Gunn, Mr. W.G. Grace, Mr. W .W .Read, and Ulyett . The twogreat Nottinghampro- fessionals , after opening the season in magnificent style , fell off unaccountably in the later matches ; yet Shrewsbury is at the top of the tree with the fine average of forty -one for thirty -eight completed innings , whilst Gunnhas amassed the largest aggregate of the year . Mr. Grace , who was handicapped byabadknee in the earlier part of the season , failed many times then , but in July andAugust the champion played several fine innings for his county, as well as in representative matches. H e, in fact , must once more be congratulated upona brilliantly successful season . Mr. Walter Readplayed several good innings , while the success of Ulyett , after a spell of bad seasons , was very popular . Thefigures of Messrs H. T. Hewett and W. H. Patterson , who are respectively first and fourth on the list , though decidedly good, are not so phe- nomenal as they would at first appear from the fact that they only played eighteen innings between them. Of the other older players , Messrs . Cranston , A. J. Webbe, E. M. Grace, Hornby, O'Brien , Lord Hawke, Abel, Painter , Lockwood, Lohmann, A. Ward, Chatterton , Sugg, Hall , and G. G. Hearne, all maintained their reputations . The Cantabs , Messrs . Douglas, F. G. J. Ford, Streatfeild , McGregor, and Mr. W .D. Llewellyn of Oxford, are well up in the first flight , as they deserve to be. Rawlinwasvery successful in several matches for Middlesex . Amongthe younger hands, Mr. L. A. Hamilton, Mr. Daffen , Butler, and Mr. C. F. Belcher , showedperhaps the greater promise . Maurice Read, Mr. Stoddart , and Mr. Key, were not so certain as of yore-but the most conspicuous failure of the year was Barnes , whohas actually dropped from an average of thirty -nine to one of eleven . B A T T I N GA V E R A G E S . T i m e s M o s t in I n n s. n o tout. R u n s. a nI n n s. Average. Hewett, H. Т. 8 0 3 4 4 1 1 4 4 3 . 0 0 Shrewsbury 4 3 5 1 5 6 8 2 6 7 4 1 . 2 6 G u n n 5 3 6 1 6 2 1 2 2 8 34.48. Patterson, W . H. 1 2 2 3 4 2 *1 2 3 3 4 . 2 0 A b e l 3 1 1 9 1 4 *1 5 1 3 0 . 4 6 Cranston, J.. 3 7 3 9 7 8 1 5 2 28.76 W e b b e,A. J. 3 6 1 9 9 5 1 3 4 2 8 . 4 2 Grace,W .G. 5 5 3 1 4 7 6 *1 0 9 1 2 8 . 3 8 Douglas, R. N.... 2 2 0 6 1 9 * 8 4 2 8 . 1 3 Llewellyn, W .D. 1 8 2 4 3 9 1 1 6 27.43 P a u l 1 6 2 3 7 5 *7 1 26.78 Ford,F.G. J. 2 1 2 5 0 3 1 9 1 26.47 R e a d,W .W . 4 8 2 1 1 6 9 9 4 25.41 P a i n t e r 2 8 1 6 8 3 1 1 9 25.29 Streatfeild , E. C... 2 6 3 5 6 3 1 4 5 24.47 L o c k w o o d 2 3 0 5 4 8 1 0 2 23.82 Hamilton, L. A. 2 2 1 4 8 7 *117 23.19 Chatterton 2 1 1 4 6 3 7 5 23.15 O'Brien, T. C........... 3 9 1 8 5 5 1 0 5 22.50 W a r d, (F.) 1 5 2 2 2 9 2 1 4 5 22.46