James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annaul 1897

C R I C K E TIN 1 8 9 6. 5 7 match at Southampton showed conclusively . Hampshire's performance in that matchwasits best of the year. A little more time wouldhave given the eleven a thoroughly well -merited victory , although it is fair to add that errors of their ownin the field caused the game to be drawn. Hampshire's successes included a double victory over Sussex , a creditable achievement of itself . Still , there was a lack of consistency about the cricket , partly due, perhaps , to the fact that the County was not always represented at its best . Theweakness was more in the out -cricket than in the batting . Baldwin on the hard wickets was a mere shadow of the same bowler of 1895 , and though Soar did a lot of useful work throughout there was alack of reliable changes . Kentshowed a decidedly better record than in 1895 , but that is all that canbe said. Insomeimportant respects the Countywas quite out of luck. Walter Hearne only reappeared to break down permanently , so that a great bowlerhas beenlost to cricket . ALeagueengagementkept Walter Wright awayat the end of the week, so that his services were not always available . The bowling of Mr. E. B. Shine , of the Cambridge Eleven , came opportunely into the team, and he was of considerable service . Another Cantab also made a very promising first appearance in County cricket . This was the Old Malvernian , C. J. Burnup, and he showed himself to be abatsman of no small nerve andjudgment. Hisvalue to the side is shownin the fact that h e had an average of 26.89 . Mr. Mason and Alec Hearne both upheld their reputation as run-getters , and a better pair to commence the batting could hardly be found . A. Hearne , too , bowled with success at times , but with Walter Hearnegone and Mr. Bradley only available occasionally the eleven were singularly weak in this department . It was particularly gratifying to see Lord Harris again in the team. That he is still a reliable batsmanhis fine innings against Somersetshire at Taunton proves . Mr. W. H .Patterson , too , played as sound cricket as ever whenhe was able to help, and the Rev. W. Rashleigh's free style was no less effective than of old . If it had its very best side Kent would be exceptionally strong with the bat. Thehelp of a really good fast bowler , if Martin , Wright, and Alec Hearne werealways available , would make it a formidable all -round combination . Mr. C. L. Townsend failed completely to maintain his excellent promise of 1895 as a bowler. Inthe early part of the season he was quite unsuccess- ful , and though he improved considerably later on, still he was only a shadow ofhis former self . His falling -off naturally made all the difference in Gloucestershire cricket . The bowling , with only W. G. , Mr. Townsend , and Roberts of any class , was, at the best , weak. After the Inter -University match Mr. G. L. Jessop gave useful assistance , but even then there was little to terrify batsmen. Fortunately W. G. was again at his best , or very near it, as abatsman . Mr. Sewell , whenhe played , scored well , and with Messrs . Rice ,Hemingway, Jessop , and Wrathall , and Board there was the nucleus of a run-getting side . Of course W. G. was the mainstay , but still on two occasions the County, whenhe did little , came off very creditably , which was promising . Somersetshire had to rely mainly on its old bowlers , Mr. Woods, Capt. Hedley, Tyler, and Nichols to wit. Mr. Woods' leg had prevented him showingquite at his best in 1895, and he was not particularly successful last season . Tyler, whohad not donemuchinSouth Africa in the winter, bowled effectively nowand then , and generally with credit . Capt. Hedley , too, whenavailable ,did good service . Still , on a run-getting wicket Somerset- shire's bowling was not of a formidable character . In batting , with the brothers Palairet , Messrs . Woods, Roe, and Capt. Hedley, the eleven were