James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1896

g LILLYWHIT e ’ S CKICKETEHS ANN IAL . indebted to their fast bowler, and indeed when Richardson’s exceptional record is considered it is no discredit to Mold to say that he was only second to the Surrey man. That the County was able to take such a high position w, h practically only two bowlers is of itself to pay a very high compliment to Mold and Briggs. These two indeed were accountable for 801 of an aggregate of 865 wickets, of which Mold secured 182, or just one-half, at a cost of less than thirteen and a half runs apiece. On paper it was a bit of hard luck for Lancashire that the match with Somersetshire should not ha\e been begun. Still, of twenty-one matches fourteen were won, and a comparison of the season’s results certainly shows Lancashire to be well above Yorkshiie, and in fact a thoroughly good second to Surrey. With two really reliable bowlers Lancashire had a strong batting side, though Mr. McLaren dwarfed the rest completely in the run-getting. It was to his remarkable score of 424 against Somersetshire at Taunton that Lancashire owed the attainment of a record total of 801. Still, without this, lie showed himself to be a great batsman on any wicket. Albert Ward fell off just a wee bit at quite the end of the season. Even then his figures show how consistent he was, for he had thirty- three completed innings for an aggregate of 144 and an average of nearly forty-four runs. In Tyldesley the County introduced a new batsman of great promise, and in Paul, Baker, and Frank Sugg had three others, all of them much above the average. C. Smith, the wicket-keeper, is always a useful, if unattractive bat, and Mr. C. H. Benton generally got a fair score. Briggs, if not as successful as of old, is still a likely run-getter at any time. There was little tail indeed to Lancashire’s batting, and on bad wickets the general verdict would be that they were a more reliable side for run-getting than Surrey. That Yorkshire was not able to get higher than third place was an illus­ tration of the glorious uncertainty of cricket. A fine side at all points, with a great variety' of bowling, an eleven any of them likely to get runs to the very fast, and a fielding side equal to if not better than any other County, York­ shire’s failures were, oddly enough, not confined to one particular kind of wicket. J. T. Brown had not benefited by his trip to Australia; at least, he was not seen to the same advantage as in 1894, in spite of one or two good innings. Mr. Ernest Smith’s marriage prevented him playing in the late matches as hitherto, and his all-round cricket was. of course, greatly missed. Mr. F. S. Jackson, though he had to take second place to Moorhouse in the batting averages, was certainly the most useful man on the side, and his batting and bowling at the end of the season were alike worthy of him. Lord Hawke’s batting was more successful than in 1894, and Tunnicliffe’s scoring showed a fair level throughout. Wainwright and Peel were nothing like so effective with the bat, and the former, unlike Peel, was also a comparative failure with the ball. One of quite the most effective bowlers on a sticky wicket, Wainwright never got a length on the fast pitches, and the fact that one of the most useful all-round men on the side was out of form had some­ thing to do with the disappointing results. The brunt of the bowling was done by Peel and Hirst, and the latter showed on several occasions that he could bat as well. The fielding, as already stated, was all round very smart, and in this respect the Yorkshire eleven set a worthy example. That Yorkshire had plenty of batting was shown by the fact that six .of the eleven got over a thousand runs in first-class matches during the season. One of these, it is worthy of remark, was the colt Denton. For a young player in his first season to do this is of itself a sufficient proof that Yorkshire has in him a batsman of exceptional promise. 1 hough separated lonyo inten:atlo from Yorkshire, still it is particularly pleasant to be able to record a marked advance in Gloucestershire cricket 8 ii flic tent to give it the fourth place. How much of their success was due to -O' *r j 11 ia.iit batting of the Master, to the remarkably effective bowling in the