James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

CRICKETIN 1892. 3 Asalready stated , up to a certain period Notts seemed to be invincible . Until the middle of August their record was untarnished by a defeat , and there seemed every reason to justify the prediction that they would go through the season without a reverse . So far their honours had been thoroughly well deserved , the result , in fact , of all -round cricket quite out of the common. August, though, has been fatal to the hopes of Notts before , and the effect of the last fortnight was to upset the hopes of a long series of successes . Curiously enough, the history of 1891 repeated itself in 1892. It was Somersetshire which inflicted the first defeat on the hitherto invincible eleven of Surrey in the former year, as it was Somersetshire which checked Notts sequence of triumphs last summer. Luck, it is true , had muchto do in influencing the result at Taunton, but the same excuse could hardly be adduced in explanation of the defeat the eleven suffered at the hands of Lancashire at Manchester the three following days. Experience seems to show that the menof Notts are not good stayers ; in anycase , as has been already stated , they have not as a rule been seen to quite the same advantage at the end as in the early part of the season . Yet, in spite of their disappointing display at the finish , it would be difficult to prove that Notts was inferior to the best of its rivals on the formof the season . O fbatting there was no lack up even to the last man, and with such masters as Shrewsbury, Gunn, J. A. Dixon, the captain , Barnes , and Flowers , there was the nucleus of abatting side of more than ordinary strength . In their out-cricket , too, they could fairly challenge a comparison with any other team. Shacklock , whowas actually left out of some of the earlier matches, proved after all to be one of the most successful bowlers on the side . He more than justified his reappearance by his effective bowling against Surrey at Nottingham , and played animportant part in the double victory over Surrey . Strangely enough , he was in on both occasions whenthe winning run was got. Attewell ,it goes without saying , kept uphis end with credit , and his precision was as remarkable as ever, his length as true . Barnes and Flowers , too, provided , as events showed, a suffi- ciency of change, and with a better fielding side the bowling as a rule was seento bettereffect. A n ylurking notion that the brilliant cricket of the Somersetshire eleven in 1891 was something of a fluke was effectually dispelled by their consistently goodperformances last summer. Thehigh position attained bythe county was of itself a guarantee of the quality of the cricket as well as of the capacity of the teamgenerally . N obetter proof could be produced than the interest takenb y thepublic in the doings of the Somersetshire players . The reason was not far to seek-in batting of an unusually lively character , and in fielding distinctly above the average . The play of two batsmen, H. T. Hewett, the captain , and L. C. H. Palairet , to wit, put everything else into the shade . In quite different styles they were, beyond a doubt, two of the very best players of the day. Of their manygood performances , one in particular is not likely to be soon forgotten . Since 1872 the record for the first wicket in an important matchhad belonged to W .G. Grace and B. B. Cooper, who scored 283 for the Gentlemen v. Players of South at the Oval. Last August, however, Hewett and Palairet changed all that , and it will be sufficient to say their record of 346 for the first wicket beats the previous best in a first -class match by no less that 63 runs . The aggregate of the Somersetshire eleven (592), too, wasthe best of the year in animportant contest . To every kind of bowling the Somersetshire captain administered the same punishment, and his resolute hitting took the heart out of most of the bowling to whichSomersetshire was opposed at the outset . Palairet's upstanding and stylish batting was only less effective , and it will be a great surprise if he should not turn out to be one of quite the best batsmen of 1893. Beyondthese , Challen and Hedley were both reliable run-getters , and there were in addition hitters of the stampof V. T. Hill , of the Oxford eleven , G. Fowler, S. M. J. Woods, and a lesser light of the same type in C. J. Robinson . Such fielding as Somersetshire showed, too , wouldhave madeeven worse bowlers effective . As it was, in Woods and Hedley the eleven had two thoroughly reliable as well as dangerous fast bowlers ,and when to these are added the professionals , Tyler and Nichols , both