James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1892. 7 9 least in batting . Yet there are the hard figures to show that , with the exception of its neighbour and old rival of Sussex , Kent was the least successful of the nine leading counties . The causes of this failure are not difficult to find . Someof the old andtried players , notably F. Marchantand C. J. M. Fox, were quite out of form, andon morethanoneoccasion the valuable all-roundcricket of Alec Hearne, owing to illness , waslost to the eleven . The hard work he had with the English team in South Africa during the winter had, too evidently , its effect on Martin , at least his bowling lacked the devil , which was its chief characteristic . Walter Wright, though at times successful with the ball , was perhaps , on the whole, not quite effective , and Alec Hearne, on the few occasions onwhich he was tried , proved infinitely more expensive . Generally , the all- roundcricket of the Kent eleven was very disappointing , and certainly not up to its real form. At the same time, in some respects , there were signs of distinct promise . Walter Hearne's bowling was one of the very best features of the year. Lastsummerprovedh i mto be oneof the most improvedbowlersof the day, and there seems to be every chance that he will take a foremost place amongthe bowlers of the near future . Of younger batsmen, too, there is no lack . In H. C. Stewart , W. L. Knowles, J. Le Fleming, and H. M. Braybrooke , Kent has a quartette of likely young players , all of whom, if available , should be of use. In E. Malden, also , there is a useful wicket -keeper , capable of taking the place of M. C. K e m p, at least in the earlier part of the season , whenthe latter is unable to play. Resultsof M a t c h e s. Matches Played , 16 ; Won, 2 ; Drawn, 5 ; Lost , 9 . (5) Sussex *Gloucestershire MatchesD r a w n(5). G r a v e s e n d Canterbury Manchester Lord's M a i d s t o n e Brighton Opponents. Whereplayed. W h e n played. Club. Opnts. 1st 2 n d1st 2 n d i n n. i n n. i n n. i n n. W o nb y MatchesW o n(2). June27, 28 325 110 108 Aug.1, 2, 3 (2) Lancashire *Middlesex .. (10) Yorkshire (11) Sussex.. (13) Notts June9,10 1 2 7*257 260 Aug.15,16, 17 265 *51 1 9, 20 180 287 +116 1 8 8 256 *25 91 188 inns. & 109 runs 7 wkts; *3 w d R e m a r k s. *6 w d *2 w d; 15 w d ود و د و د 2 2, 23, 24 422 229*223 *9 w d 2 9,3 0 113 Lostb y 164 92 181 253 178 runs *Gloucestershire (3) Yorkshire.. (4) Somersetshire . (6) Lancashire (7) Surrey (8) Somersetshire (9) Notts (1 2)Surrey Bristol Bradford CatfordBridge Tonbridge Tonbridge T a u n t o n ود 13,1 4, 15 20, 21 و د 14,15 25,26 2 5, 26 و د MatchesLost(9). (1) Middlesex Nottingham Blackheath June2, 3, 4 6,7,8 July11,12,13 Canterbury Aug. 4, 5, 6 O v a l * See reviews of M.C.C. andGloucestershire . 245 136 165 297 150 219 2001305 189 108 138*160 97 57 484 80 157 97*142 124 198 180*143 164 184 226 178 81 runs 136runs; 18 w d 4 wkts; *6 w d inns. & 330runs 5 wkts; *5 w d 8 wkts; *2 w d 56 runs 101 173 211 *65 10 wkts; *now d + Innings closed . (1) K e n tv. Middlesex. Blackheath , June 2, 3, and 4. Unfortunately Kent, with Alec Hearne ill , and Messrs . K e m p, Wilson , Patterson , and Rashleigh all away, had only a weak side to oppose almost the full strength of Middlesex . Theresult was a failure , and the hometeam were