James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1893. 1 1 3 J A G A T ELars L a r s B A T T I N GA V E R A G E S . T i m e s M o s tin I n n s. n o to u t. R u n s. a nI n n s. G u n n. 2 7 1 1 2 2 3 1 5 6 Average . 4 7 . 0 3 Shrewsbury 2 8 1 0 2 9 7 6 1 6 4 37.53 Dixon, J. A. 2 1 0 7 4 8 1 3 9 35.61 F l o w e r s 2 5 1 6 5 2 1 0 7 27.16 Attewell (W m.) 2 5 1 5 2 5 8 9 2 1 . 8 7 B a r n e s .. 2 6 1 5 1 3 1 0 2 2 0 . 5 2 Daft(H. B.) 2 5 4 3 8 5 6 0 1 8 . 3 3 Wright, C. W. 1 1 1 1 7 9 6 1 1 7 . 9 0 S h a c k l o c k 2 0 3 2 7 2 3 2 16.00 H a r d y 5 2 2 8 1 2* 9 . 3 3 Jones, A. O. 1 4 1 1 2 0 3 8 9 . 2 3 Sherwin 2 0 9 7 8 1 5* 7 . 0 9 M e e 2 2 4 1 0 7 1 6 5 . 9 4 Wharmby, (0, 0 and 6), batted in three innings ; Baguley (0 and 16),and Wilkinson (W.) (2and1), twice ; A. R. Bennett (0) ; Armstrong (7); Carlin (5); and Attewell, (T.) (23*), o n c e. *Signifies not out. B O W L I N G A V E R A G E S . I n n s. O v e r s . M d n s . R u n s. W k t s. A v e r. Daft(H. B.) 1 0 78.3 2 1 1 8 4 1 2 1 5 . 3 3 Dixon, J. A. 7 2 0 . 4 4 5 9 3 19.66 M e e 2 6 5 8 6 . 4 1 8 4 1 4 6 0. 7 1 2 0 . 5 6 S h a c k l o c k 2 2 441.3 1 6 6 1 0 0 0 4 8 2 0 . 8 3 Attewell (W m.) 2 8 860.3 3 3 9 1 4 9 1 6 9 21.60 F l o w e r s 2 1 3 3 5 1 0 3 7 6 5 3 5 2 1 . 8 5 B a r n e s 6 51.4.... 1 0 1 2 7 4 3 1 . 7 5 G u n n 4 3 8 2 1 2 7 4 1 31.75 H a r d y . 4 4 9 1 5 1 2 6 2 63.00 (13-0-56-1 ) twice , and A. R. Bennett(27-7-50-1 ) and A. O. Jones (4-0-14-0 ) once only. (W m.) two. Baguley (14-2-49-2 ) and Wilkinson (14-2-42-2 ) bowled in three innings only . Wharmby Shacklock delivered two wides and one no-ball ; Mee, ten no-balls ; and Attewell S O M E R S E T S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1893.- President , Hon. Sir Spencer Ponsonby-Fane, Bart. Committee , The President , the Vice-Presidents , the Captain , W. H. Fowler, D J.HowardFox, Rev. M. C. Goodford , F. J. Parsons , Č. J. Robinson , G. H. Rogers , S. E. Butler , R. Bere, jun. , W. Trask, T. E. W. Wakefield , Rev. A. A P. Wickham, and one representative from each affiliated club . Match 39 Committee , H. T. Hewett, Captain ; T. Spencer , Naish, Portishead , and H. Murray-Anderdon, Henlade, Taunton, Hon. Secs.O Somersetshire , like Middlesex , feels the effects now and again of the uncertainty of amateur cricketers . In the later matches it is able to put a very strong side -at least of run-getters , into the field . Until the Universities and Schools come down, its strength is more or less of an unknownquantity . It was hardly to be expected that the team would maintain the high position they were fortunate to gain in 1892 ; at all events , they were not able to shew such a bold front. Yet the eleven was quite as strong as it was in the previous year. Mr. Hewett, the captain , was not quite as successful as a batsman, nor Mr. L. C. H. Palairet , still with such sure run-getters to help them as Messrs . Challen , R. C. N. Palairet -a great addition to the batting strength , and useful menat a pinch like Messrs . Hedley, Woods, Dunlop, and others , Somersetshire had an eleven withvery little if any tail . Whatfailure their was might be attributed to the out-cricket . Tyler was throughout of great service , but otherwise , though Nichols , andMessrs . Hedley and Woods were fairly successful , there was no bowling that could be classed as really dangerous . Mr. Woods' fast bowling did not affect so m a n ystartling changes in the aspect of the gameas in previous years . Thatwas in some waythe cause of a retrogression . Yet in spite of any apparent short comings, in other respects there was one feature in Somersetshire's cricket , which wouldalone makeit note -worthy. Few counties have been able to claim two,