James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1893. 1 1 7 L. C. H. Palairet (7-1-33-0 ) bowled in three innings , V. T. Hill (10-3-40-1 ), twice , and C. E. Winter(5-1-12-0 ), W. Trask (3.0-18-0 ), and F. J. Poynton (3-1-18-1 ) once only. S. M. J. Woods. Tyler, and Nichols delivered one no-ball apiece , Nichols five wides , a n dV. T. Hillthree. S U R R E Y . OFFICERS FOR 1893. -President, Viscount Oxenbridge . Vice-President , Earl of Bessborough . Treasurer , W. Cattley . Committee . J. B. Oakley , J.B. Scriven , W. Burrup, Dr. Blades , G. Everett , J. Colman, Jun., M. W. Marshall , W. E. Roller , A. S. Tabor, R. Roberts , K. J. Key, T. Winterflood . Sir R. Hanson C. A. Stein , D. R. Onslow , Major -General Marshall , L. A. Shuter , J. Shuter , W. 700 S. Trollope , Sir Richard Webster, Q.C. , M.P. , J. Colman, Colonel Bircham. J. Burrup, and W. W. Thomson. Secretary , Charles W. Alcock . Surrey Ground, Kennington Oval, London, S.E. Assistant Secretary , W. W. Read. Surrey's comparatively poor record -comparatively with its performances of 1888 to 1892 - last season could hardly be a great surprise to those who followed county cricket at all closely . The wonder would have been if, with all the diffi- culties it hadto face , its position had been better . Troubles indeed , came not as single spies in 1893. In the first place , the loss of such agrand all -round cricketer as Lohmannwas a blow severe enough to account for any decline . But beyond this there were other and several other striking illustrations of bad luck. Abel's eye-sight troubled him so muchthat he was of comparatively little use ; certainly nothing like up to his form. Wood, owing to illness , was unable to keep wicket in the early matches . To add to the misfortunes , both Lockwood and Richardson , were injured at different times , so that the bowling was weakened considerably . Still , in spite of all , there was not only plenty of good cricket , but what is better , signs of more than one player of promise . One of the features of last year was the fine all-round cricket of Brockwell. A s a bowler as well as a batsmanhe shewed a marked advance , and his selection on his public form to represent Englandagainst Australia was fully warranted . The consistent success of Surrey's second eleven was the best augury of the future . Atall events Surrey introduced at least two young players likely to be of great use. Hayward, whois descended froman old Surrey stock showed himself to be an all -round cricketer of no small capacity . In F. Smith, too, there is some hope of a left hand slow bowler who will train on to supply an evident want in Surrey's cricket . R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches played, 16. Won, 7. Drawn, 1. Lost, 8 . 0 1 inOpponents.f 1 0 Matches W o n(7). (a) Notts (a) Gloucestershire (a) Lancashire (2) Yorkshire (3) Sussex (a) Notts (a) Somerset. MatchesD r a w n(1). (a) K e n t MatchesLost (8). (a) Middlesex (1) Yorkshire (a) Middlesex (a) Somerset. (a) K e n t (4) Sussex (a) Lancashire ..... (a) Gloucestershire WherePlayed. WhenPlayed. Club. O p n t s. Ist (2nd 1st. 2nd W o nb y . w Ins. Ins. Ins . Ins . cft t i b Nottingham M a y22, 23, 24 238 *73 114 1967 wkts. *3 w d O v a l J u n e1, 2 180 *19 105 927wkts. *3 w d M a n c h e s t e r 8 , 9 263 *92 230 1217wkts. *3 wd O v a l و د و د 29, 30 356 *10 125 23810wkts. *no w d Brighton O v a l July3, 4 Aug.7, 8 235 *110 153 1917 wkts. *3 wd 290 *4 120 172 10wkts. *now d T a u n t o n " 1 7, 1 8 251 *24 140 1348wkts. *2 w d R e m a r k s . O v a l 2 2 5Aug3, 4, 5 2 8 8 276 *78 D r a w n. *8 w d Lostby. O v a l M a y25, 26 122 226 317 Sheffield June12, 13 7 2 59 98 *327wkts. *3 w d 91 58 runs L o r d s' و و 22, 23, 24 287 119 108 377 79 runsedd fony O v a l e n July13, 14 100 141 132 14839 runs pode Catf'd Bridge 21, 22 99 120 101 140 22 runs " O v a l و د 24, 25, 26 325 111 268 297 129 runs O v a l July 31,Ang1 146 202 265 *84 ) wkts . *1 w d Clifton A u g21, 22, 23 131 157 105 216/33 runs P u i t oalt (a) Haveall been treated in previous r e v i e w s . n l wolnaté