James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

CRICKETIN 1892. 7 but his fast bowling had to be called into requisition very soon again, and, in fact , it was a little too previous to have left him out. Thebulk of Gloucester- shire's run -getting was done by three batsmen , or perhaps two. W. G. himself , though no very long scores were attached to his name, was once again the main- stay of the side . In the later matches in particular , he displayed much of the consummateskill which has stamped him as the greatest master of the art of batting . In R. W. Rice , the rejected of Oxford , he was also fortunate enough to find a young amateur whois sure to take a very prominent place as a bats- m a n. Watchingthe ball very carefully , he was invaluable in the latter part of the season , and the uniform wayin which he scored against every kind of bowl- ing, stamps him as a player of exceeding promise. In S. A. P. Kitcat , an old Marlburian, Gloucestershire , too , introduced a batsman whois sure to be of use if circumstances will admit of his regular appearance in first -class cricket . WhileGloucestershire's successes in 1892 were represented by its one defeat of Kent, it was Gloucestershire which gave Sussex its solitary victory of the year. There was little cause for congratulation in Sussex cricket from any point of view. Bean, whose batting had been of such invaluable assistance to the eleven in the previous year, had apparently never recovered from the ill- luck which followed him with Lord Sheffield's team in Australia . In anycase , he never got into anything approaching his best form, and his general ill -success at the commencementof the innings naturally reacted on the other batsmen. Marlow, too , washardly as successful as in 1891, and, indeed , with the excep- tion of W. Newham, the captain , and G. Brann, there was really nothing in the batting to call for particular notice . Brann's hitting was the redeeming feature in the failure of the side . His sensational performance against Kent in August at Brightonearned forh i mat least the distinction of a record. T w ohundreds inthe samematchrepresent a very rare achievementin first -class cricket . It is worthy of remark, indeed , as a proof of the exceptional character of the achieve- ment, that W. G. Grace is the only other batsman whohas done the same thing -thatis to say, in a strictly first -class match. O fthe minorcounties , Derbyshire , Warwickshire , Essex , and Leicestershire are able just nowto put the strongest elevens into the field . T w oor three years ago Warwickshire was quite on the fringe of first -class cricket ; and even now there is perhaps not a very great amount of difference between some of the rearmostof the nineleading counties andthe first division of the second rank. A tits best , Derbyshire is represented by a good all-round combination ; and it deserves to be registered to its credit last year that the eleven made by no meansa bad fight of it in both matches against Surrey . Indeed , in respect of all-round cricket , Derbyshire was perhaps the nearest approach to what is known as first - class form, and in the variety of its bowling it might be envied by some of its more influential opponents . Atthe same time it deserves to be stated that , in the matter of an analysis of the season's results , Warwickshire had rather the best of a comparison with Derbyshire . Of the shires outside the second class , Herts and Bedfordshire in the South, andDurhamand Northumberland in the far Northhadperhaps the best records . A recent development in county cricket is Worcestershire , and with the nucleus of a strongish side , with P. H. Latham, the two Malvernians , the brothers H. K. and W. L. Foster , C. Toppin, Bromley- Martin , and others , there is ample justification for a more ambitious programme . Thegreat superiority of the professionals in bowling of late years has to a great extent destroyed the interest in the annual matches between Gentlemen and Players . Whatluck there was favoured the stronger side , and at Lord's , at all events , winning the toss practically meant winning the match. Unfor- tunately , neither there nor at the Oval were the sides thoroughly repre- sentative ; so that the result washardly a real test of the respective merits of the two schools of cricket . Atboth grounds the Players had an easy victory , and the only incident very muchout of the commonwas in the return at the Oval, where Shrewsbury made history by carrying his bat through the first innings of the Players , and for the highest score (151) as yet recorded in the series of m a t c h e seitherat Lord'sor theO v a l.