James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1892. 8 6 B A T T I N GA V E R A G E S .-Continued. T i m e s M o s tin I n n s. notout. R u n s. a nI n n s. C. J. M. Fox... 1 5 2 1 9 4 3 4 Average. 1 4 . 9 2 G. J. V. Weigall 1 8 1 2 3 8 6 3 1 4 Leaney 9 3 7 3 *3 3 12.16 F. M a r c h a n t 2 1 0 2 4 6 3 5 11.71 Capt. L. A. Hamilton 8 0 7 4 2 4 9.25 Hearne(W.) .. 2 5 2 1 4 5 *2 1 6 . 3 0 E .M a l d e n . 9 0 5 3 1 2 5.88 M .C. K e m p 8 1 3 1 1 2 4 . 4 2 Thefollowing also batted :- -W. Rashleigh , 8, 4, 4; F. de L. Solbé, 0, 9, 4; P. Northcote , 3, 18 ; C. V. B. Davey, 32, 3; C. Mitchell ,14, 5; Webb(G.) *0,0 ; and G. Champion, 0, 0. Hearne(W .) Hearne(G. G.) Wright.. M a r t i n Hearne(A.)........ B O W L I N G A V E R A G E S . O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s. Average. 780.1 2 6 5 1 6 3 4 8 8 18.56 77.1 2 6 1 5 2 7 2 1 . 7 1 634,1 2 4 4 1 1 8 6 5 4 2 1 . 9 6 744.3 2 6 3 1 4 2 4 6 0 23.73 2 0 2 8 4 3 3 4 8 41.75 C. V. B. Davey,24.3-7-41-1; J. Le Fleming , 16-2-50-2; F. Marchant ,8.3-1-39-0; W .F. Best ,10-5-20-2; and Webb(G), 18-3-45-1, bowled in two innings ; and P. North- cote, 3-0-31-0; C. J. M. Fox, 9-1-36-0; W. Rashleigh , 2-0-17-0; L. Wilson , 4 - 0 - 21--0 and W. H. Patterson , 4-0-9-0, once only . L A N C A S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1892. -President , Sir Humphrey de Trafford , Bart . Committee , A. N. Hornby, W. E. Openshaw, Harry Thornber, E. B. Rowley, E. Challender , R. Walker , A.G . Steel , R. Gorton , A. Appleby , G. Walsh , E. Roper, A. F. Pope, Ernest Leese , O. P. Lancashire , J. Fairclough , and JohnStanning . Hon. Secretary , S. H. Swire . Hon. Treasurer , J. MacLaren. Assistant Secretary and Collector , F. Reynolds , 26,Barton Arcade , Manchester . O ntheir form of the previous season , there was every ground for believing that the Lancashire eleven would be quite in the forefront of Countycricket in 1892. Thatthey failed to realise such expectations the record of the year is sufficient to prove. Their failure is not so easy to explain , considering that the constitu- tionofthet e a mw a salmostidenticalw i t hthatw h i c h a ds h o w nsuchexcellent cricket in 1891. On paper it was undoubtedly a better side than the result of 1892 would seem to indicate . Yet it is impossible to overlook the stern logic of facts . The change of captaincy could in no waybe accountable for any short- comings . Onthe contrary , S. M. Crosfield , who had no easy task in succeeding A. N. Hornby, filled the position with distinct credit , and managedthe team throughout with great judgment. For any failures the all -round cricket was responsible . Thebatting was, perhaps , not quite so consistent as in the previous year. A. C. Maclaren , the old Harrovian, whoshowed such promise , was in the early part of the season out of luck , and whenhe did get into form, had to stand out of the later matches owing to an injured hand. Albert Wardand Sugg, too , were not as successful run-getters , and the batting at times wasun- reliable . The exceptions were A. Smith , Baker , and the captain . Smith's watchful cricket was of the greatest service , and Baker, one of the most improved batsmen of the year, and S. M. Crosfield were never lacking in pluck at a crisis . Briggs , Mold, and Watson bore the brunt of the bowling , and with success . Still the last -namedis well on in years , and though Baker and Smith wereoccasionally useful as changes , there is great need for another really good bowler . The out-cricket generally was worthy of high praise . A. T. Kemble's wicket-keeping was always reliable ; it is open to question whether he has any superior at the present time.