James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1892

1 9 6 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. U N D E R2 0R U N SP E RI N N I N G S.-- Continued. I n n s. T i m e s n o tout: M o s tin R u n s. a nI n n s. Average. W e b b e, A. J. 2 3 1 3 0 8 3 8 14.00 Nepean, E. A. 2 2 1 2 9 1 4 9 13.85 Boger,A. J. 1 0 1 1 2 4 *4 1 13.77 Robinson, J. S. 1 2 2 1 3 7 2 7 13.70 Sainsbury, E. 2 2 3 2 5 9 3 6 1 3 . 6 3 Andrews,W. H. 2 2 0 2 9 9 5 6 13:59 Quaife 1 4 1 1 7 6 4 7 13.53 H a w k e, Lord 2 4 0 3 2 2 1 2 6 13.41 Rowell; W . I. 1 1 0 1 4 6 5 3 13.27 K e m b l e, A. T. 2 6 6 2 5 0 *2 7 13.15 Vernon, G. F. 1 8 0 2 3 4 4 9 0 18.00 Case, T. B. 8 0 1 0 4 5 5 13:00 B u t t 2 1 1 2 5 6 7 7 1 2 . 8 0 L o c k w o o d 2 1 0 2 6 7 4 9 12.71 Braybrooke, Н. М.. 2 1 2 2 4 1 *4 0 12:67 H a d o w, E. м. 2 8 2 8 2 7 5 3 12.57 Wright, C. W . 3 4 2 4 0 0 6 1 12.50 Fowler, G..... 1 2 0 1 4 9 5 1 12:41 Briggs....... 3 1 1 3 7 1 6 8 1 2 . 3 6 Hill, V. T..... 1 5 0 1 8 4 3 1 12.26 Cooper, N.C. 8 0 9 8 2 5 12.25 Newton, A. Ε.. 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 6 11.70 W a t s o n,(A.) 1 5 2 1 4 8 2 5 11.38 W e s t(J. E.) 1 6 2 1 5 8 4 8 11.28 Daft, H .B. 2 3 1 2 4 4 5 6 11.09 Wright(W.) 2 3 3 2 2 0 4 4 11.00 Page, H.V. 1 0 2 8 7 3 7 10.87 H i d e(J.) 1 9 1 1 9 5 3 0 1 0 . 8 3 B r o w n, (J. T.) 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 9 10.80 Brain, W . H. 1 7 3 1 4 8 *6 5 10.57 Wilson,L.. 2 0 1 1 9 5 3 6 10.26 M o o r h o u s e.. 2 1 5 1 6 1 3 3 10.05 T y l e r 2 1 3 1 8 1 6 2 10.05 K e m p,M. C..... 9 1 8 0 *2 4 1 0 . 0 0 T H EB O W L E R S . WHILEthe professional bowling of the year proved itself again immeasurably superior , several of the amateurs come out fairly well . Young J. T. Hearne cameto the front with a bound, and the year's working shows that he heads Lohmannin the averages , though the amount of work he did will not bear com- parison with the Surrey m a n. Lohmanndelivered nearly two thousand overs , had2,065 runs hit from him, and secured 177 wickets. Others to take over 100 wickets were Martin , Briggs , Mold-whose great pace madehim very difficult to play at times-Sharpe , Attewell , and Mr. S. M. J. Woods. Peel took 93 wickets , butonthe whole was expensive . Of the amateurs , besides Mr. Woods, Dr. W .G. Grace bowled at times in a style worthy of his best days, if he failed with the bat. Mr. Ferris had a better average than either , while Mr. Nepean and Mr. C. A. Smithhadtheir days of success . It will be noted that Rawlin is very close in the running to his confrère Hearne, while Lockwood (whocame to the front in August), Roberts , Wainwright, Humphreys, and Walter Wright all did a lot of good work. Woof and Murch, of Gloucestershire , both deserve a word of praise . Alec Hearne, his figures would lead one to infer , might have been tried more frequently for Kent. Hearne(J. T. ) L o h m a n n M o l d Briggs. 1 0 0W I C K E T SA N DO V E R. O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s. Average. 791.4 3 0 1 1 4 4 9 1 2 9 11.23 1189.3 4 4 5 2 0 6 5 1 7 7 11.66 942.2 3 3 5 1 7 2 4 1 3 8 12.68 9 7 3 . 4 3 7 6 1 6 9 3 1 2 8 1 3 . 2 2