James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1896

LILLY WHITE'S CRICKETERS ANNUAL. direction. That the alteration increasing the limit for a follow-on front eight} to a hundred and twenty is at the best a compromise is very likely, bull, it deserves to he stated that, on the whole, the change gave general satisfaction. Altogether the new rule, it will be interesting to know, was enforced nineteen times in first-class County matches. That the result was still undecided in no less than fifteen of these shows that the effect of the alteration has been less conclusive than many had feared would have been the case. In the case of the extension of the County Championship it is also very pleasant to be able to record the result to be an unqualified success. It is hardly necessary to recall that the Marylebone Club, acting as the mouthpiece of the County Clubs, had themselves increased the number of recognised first- class Counties from nine to fourteen by the addition of Derbyshire, Essex, Hampshire, Leicestershire, and Warwickshire. The minimum of matches to qualify for the County Championship had been fixed at sixteen, and though for a moment there seemed to be a difficulty in the case of two Counties to arrange the minimum number of fixtures they were ultimately surmounted, so that there was no hitch to keep any of the competitors outside the Champion­ ship. The new Counties, too, as events proved, fully justified their promotion. Leicestershire was the least successful, but even it had a better record than Notts or Kent. Hampshire began in very promising style, but fell off towards the end of the season and came below Essex, who, after a bad begin­ ning, finished fairly well about the midway line. Warwickshire, if its bowling was not particularly strong, had a good batting side, and did better than any of the promoted Counties with one exception. The exception was Derbyshire, whose eleven showed some of the best all-round cricket of the year. They were singularly unfortunate in having as many as seven of their sixteen matches drawn, in several cases through rain, and in more than one w?ith the game decidedly in their favour. It is not too much to say, indeed, that the Derbyshire eleven furnished some of the best all-round cricket shown in the County season. In bowling they had enough and to spare, and in this depart­ ment would well bear comparison with the strongest of the other Counties. But the best idea of the season’s results will be gathered from the follow­ ing table, which gives the positions of the fourteen Counties according to the method of scoring established by the Marylebone Club :— 1. Surrey 2. Lancashire,.. 3. Yorkshire ... 4 . Gloucestershire 5. Derbyshire... p ( Middlesex ... if Warwickshire Essex Somerset ... Hamps)lire... Sussex ILeicestershire Notts Kent 8 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 14. ••• Played. .. 20 . 21 .. 26 ,. 18 .. 16 .. 18 .. 18 .. 16 .. 17 .. 16 .. 18 . 16 ,. 18 .. 18 Won. 17 14 14 8 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 3 3 3 Lost. Drawn. Points. Games. 4 4 7 6 4 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 5 3 5 4 7 6 6 4 3 1 4 3 5 4 13 10 7 2 1 0 0 —2 —2 —3 —4 —7 —7 8 in 21 18 21 14 9 12 12 12 14 15 14 13 13 14 44 44 44 M 44 4 4 44 4t 44 44 44 44 44 Lancaahire v- 8omer*et, at Manchester, July 25, &c., was never even begun Surrey 8 defeat by Leicestershire in the opening match of the season certainly did not foreshadow the position they ultimately occupied. S r continuous success until the end of July apparently assured them the first position, and afterwards the general impression was that they would be easv 'Ih lT u t Successive defeats by Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Somersetshire altered the whole aspect of the Championship in less than a fortnight,^and!