James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

4 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. engagements of the year, it may be stated in extenuation that they were severely handicapped by the absence , owing to an accident to W o o d, of their usual wicket-keeper. The introduction of Mr. E. C. Streatfeild , of the Cambridge University eleven, in the last few matches strengthened the side very materially , and the value of an additional change bowler of real value was conclusively proved by theservice he rendered . The assistance of such a promising all-round player is certain to be of the greatest use to Surrey, and the county is fortunate in being able to claim a native cricketer of such exceptional promise . Thoughsomeof the batsmen of w h o mmost was expected hardly proved to be in the best vein for scoring , still the eleven was undoubtedly very strong in batting , and, indeed , the last man, Sharpe , proved more than once to be a reliable batsmanat a pinch . The popularity of the Surrey team of late years , though, has been due to the fact that their play is as a rule never monotonous, andundoubtedly their exceptional capacity as fast rungetters has contributed materially to the interest shownby the public in Surrey cricket . In Brockwell the county has a very promising young professional , and Mr. R.N. Douglas, on the fewoccasions he was able to play, fully upheld the general standard of the team as a free bat. Surrey's success , however, was emphatically in the main the result of the joint efforts of Lohmannand Sharpe. Lohmannhas proved himself to bevery nearly , if not quite , the best all -round cricketer of the day, andlast year added to, rather than detracted from, his reputation . During the season hetook 113 wickets for Surrey at an average of under thirteen runs, and whenit is added that he was also second in the batting tables , with a very fine average of close onthirty runs, it will be seen what an important part he has played in the de- velopment of Surrey cricket . Sharpe , too , more than fulfilled the expectations formed on his promise of the previous year ; in fact he has forced his w a y at a bound into the front place among bowlers . Against every kind of eleven he was equally successful , and his record of 102 wickets at an average cost of a little over twelve runs stamps him as one of the very best bowlers of the year. Altogether Surrey's summary for 1890 showed fourteen impor- tant engagements , of which nine were won, two drawn, and three lost . It wasbeaten byNotts in its first match, and it lost its last two, against Yorkshire and Kentrespectively . One of the two drawngames, that with Kent at Canter- bury, would have in all probability ended unfavourably ; on paper, indeed , it wasa moral victory for Kent. Surrey's successes , though, were, on the other hand, unmistakable . Out of the nine matches wonit is worthy of remark that seven left the Surrey eleven at the finish morethan an innings to the good. Thecompetition for the second place amongthe counties was productive of more than ordinary interest . As in 1889 , Notts , who at one period seemed to be well in the running for the first position , fell off unaccountably as the season advanced, andits defeat by Lancashire at the end of Augustenabled the latter to claim an advantage over Kent. Briggs's all-round cricket was distinctly the best feature in Lancashire's cricket in 1890, and whether as batsman, bowler, or fieldsman , he set a brilliant example to the side . Alec Watson, veteran though he is , bowled with the sameprecision which has characterized him for the last twenty years ; and whenever the wicket helped him in the smallest degree , Mold's extreme pace and quick rise from the pitch madehim especially dan- gerous . Considering that he took eighty wickets at an average cost of less than fourteen runs , it is not too muchto say that he is the best bowler of his speed at the present time. Lancashire , like Surrey, played all the other seven leading counties out and home, and, as in the case of the southern shire , were only unsuccessful in three of their fourteen engagements . There, though , the similarity ended , as while Surrey won nine times , Lancashire had only sevenwins to its credit , and this will account for the difference in their respective positions . At the same time it must be stated that in addition to Surrey, who wonboth at Manchester and the Oval, Middlesex was the only other county which defeated Lancashire , and in that case the defeat was the more noteworthy as the winners had to follow on. Lancashire's record , though ,