James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

T H E COUNTIES IN 1893.7 1 0 9 F. G. J. Ford delivered four wides , A. J. Webbetwo, and J. Douglas, A. E. Stoddart , H. J. Mordaunt, and Hearne (J. T.) one apiece . E. A. Nepean and H. J. Mordaunt alsó delivered oneno-ball each. N O T T I N G H A M S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1893 .-- President , Col. Wright. Vice-President , the Mayor of Nottingham. Committee , C. W. Wright, J. A. Dixon, Lord Belper , J. Robinson, R. Edwards, S. McCrae, W. Hollins , H. Turner, Dr. Williams , Captain Denison, Dr. G. B. White, J. Forman. Hon. Sec . , Captain Oates, Langford Hall, Newark. Secretary , E. Browne, Trent Bridge Ground. Though there were several individual performances of quite exceptional merit, generally the cricket shown by the Notts eleven , must have been very disappointing to those who have been, or are still actually connected with the CountyClub. Just at first it looked as if " the bright particular star " of Notts , Arthur Shrewsbury to wit, was hardly going to maintain his reputation as a batsman. This fear was happily in no way fulfilled . O n the contrary , he showedhimself to be again the samecomplete master of the art of batting he has been for the last ten years . Gunn, too, was even more successful , in fact , he wasonpublic form the best professional batsman of the year. Further , Mr. J. A. DixonandFlowers were both at their very best . In the batting , there was certainly no cause for disappointment . Aglance at the averages will be sufficient to show that in this department Notts was especially strong . It was the out- cricket to which the general failure of the team must be attributed . The bowling , whichused to be the strength of the side , hadlost its sting . W m. Attewell was plainer , at least he did not seem to be so dangerous . Shacklock and Meeat times were effective , but at others quite the reverse . Flowers occasionally came off , but taken altogether , the bowling was quite as weak as that of any county. O n occasions the fielding was brilliant , but here there was also some uncertainty . The performances of Notts last year are a striking commentary indeed, on the uncertainty of the game. Nor was there as far as one could see , any sign of promising talent coming on to give any great encouragement for the near future . R e s u l t so f M a t c h e s . Matches Played, 16. Won, 5. Drawn, 4. Lost, 7. Club. O p p n t s. WherePlayed. WhenPlayed. 1st 2nd 1st . 2nd Opponents. W o nby. Ins. Ins. I ns. Ins. MatchesW o n(5) . Nottingham M a y11, 12 NottinghamJune1, 2, 3 Bristol Nottingham July 31,Aug 1 Manchester Aug28, 29,30 MatchesD r a w n(4). Brighton B r a d f o r d Nottingham Canterbury Matches Lost (7). Nottingham M a y22,23, 24 L o r d s Nottingham Nottingham O v a l Nottingham T a u n t o n Birmingham (1) Sussex (3) Somerset (a) Gloucestershire (a) Gloucestershire (a) Lancashire ... (4) Sussex (5) Yorkshire (a) K e n t (a) Kent (2) Surrey (a) Middlesex (a) Lancashire (6) Yorkshire (7) Surrey... (a) Middlesex (8) Somerset.. E x t r aMatches. N o t t sv. W a r w i c k s h i r e E n g l a n dXIv.Australians Nottingham June25, 27, 28 416 (a) Allhavebeentreated in previous reviews. 143EnglandX Iw o n ins. & 165runs 3 8 6 1 2 1 202 278 160 22, 23, 24 273 *159 183 273 289 *60 183 June8, 9, 10 674 July3, 4, 5 1321 72 198 ins and67 runs 95 225 runs 2485wkts; 5 w d 71 ins and130 runs 1649 wkts ; 1 w d R e m a r k s. 2 2 1*2646 w d 220*120 18wdindel,*3 w d 24, 25, 26 415 *106 367 *4 w d Aug10, 11, 12 336 *1 202 259 *1wd, 18wd ,inde Lostb y 114 196 238 *737 wkts ; 3 w d June5, 6, 7 301 273 327 304 57 runs 1 5, 16. 17 July 13, 14 318 92 322 1 2 4 38 182 *924wkts; *6 w d innsa n d20runs A u g7, 8 120 172 290 *410wkts; *n o wd 17, 18, 19 251 92 184 319 160 runs ,, 21, 2 2 1 0 0 112 311 innsa n d99runs May25, 26 371 *119 206 282 Notts wonby8w *2wd 120