James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annaul 1897

5 6 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. Lohmann, as it was, hadto do most of the bowling, and though the former wasnot quite so successful as in 1895 , considering that the wickets gave little assistance on the whole, both Lohmannand he did very well. InAbel Surrey had the best professional batsman of the year . On good as well as badwickets he came off well . It would have been well for Surrey had he beenbetter supported when the ball wanted careful watching . Surrey failed , as theyhave failed in the past , because they were unable to adapt themselves to the peculiar methods requisite to makeruns on badwickets . T h e yhave rarely been a good batting side under difficulties , and lack of resource was one of, if not their great, weakness in 1896. Nextto Surrey, but at a long distance , came Essex. Mr. F. G. Bull's bowling proved a great addition to the strength of the side , and with Mr. Kortright and Meadas well there wasa useful trio of bowlers to start with O nseveral occasions the Essex team showed all -roundcricket of a high order . Their victories over Yorkshire and Surrey were thoroughly well earned , and with a useful batting side , and a fair amount of bowling , they ought to do evenbetter . One noticeable feature in their cricket last year was the promising form of a young amateur , Mr. P. Perrin . Though it was his first season against good bowling, he showed considerable confidence , and hewasso consistently successful as to warrant a confident belief that he will develop into a really fine bat. Notts showedbetter all -round cricket than it hadfor someyears; that of itself was something. Notthat there was anygreat change in the composition of the team . Guttridge , whohad left Sussex , was taken into the fold , and thebreak up of the Cheshire County Club left S. Brown free to help Notts , which he did with some success . Still , the improvement in the cricket was only partial . Someof it wasdue to the excellent bowling of W .Attewell , a part to Mr. A. Jones , whomadea considerable advance as an all -round player . The Committee , after a few matches , thought it advisable to shunt Flowers, not too wisely, as his brilliant batting showedwhenhe returned in to the eleven towards the end of the season . Asit was, Notts hadperhaps abetter side than the result of the season would imply . It was bad luck for themthat Gunnwas not in sufficiently good health to play in some of the later matches . On the other hand Arthur Shrewsbury was able to help regularly , and if not quite up to his best form of old he was still the mainstay of the sideo noccasions. Derbyshire's record compared unfavourably with that of the previous year, The eleven was very much the same, and in some cases , notably that of Storer , the individual performances were quite out of the common. T h e batting was at times considerably above the average , notably against York- shire and Lancashire at Manchester. It w a s in their out-cricket that the eleven chiefly failed . Hulme bowled consistently well , but Davidson was nothing like so successful , and Porter was far below his form of 1895 , the result of bad health . With Messrs . Evershed and Wright, Chatterton , Storer , W. Sugg, and Davidson , there was always the foundation of a big score . Aslow bowler has been a want in Derbyshire cricket of late , and greater accuracy in the field would have added to the efficiency of the team onoccasions . Storer's batting was the best feature of the cricket . Against Yorkshire hegot the double hundredand four hundreds in consecutive matches. Capt. Wynyardwasnot able to play regularly , which weakened Hamp- shire's cricket materially . Ofwhatvalue his batting was the Yorkshire