James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1897. 1 0 7 M I D D L E S E X . OFFICERS FOR 1897.-President : Earl of Strafford. Vice-Presidents : L o r dG. Hamilton, M.P., V. E. Walker. Hon. Treasurer : V. E. Walker. Hon. Secretary : P. M. Thornton. Assistant Secretary : J. A. Murdoch. Com- mittee : H o n. A. Lyttelton , R. Henderson, G. Lee, J. Robertson-Walker, E. Rutter, C. M. Tebbut, M. Turner, H. Turner, W. J. Ford, C. I. Thornton, G. F. Vernon, V. E. Walker, I. D. Walker, J. G. Walker, A. J. Webbe, W .N i c h o l s o n. THREE victories out of sixteen matches would seemto give a very erroneous idea of the real strength of Middlesex cricket in 1897. As a matter of fact their actual defeats were only four , so that nine matches were left unfinished . O npaper the Middlesex Eleven at their best were as strong as any eleven of theyear. Of course the difficulty was in getting the full strength on all occasions , as is always the case where Amateursformthe back-bone of the side .. But even then Middlesex cricket was somewhat disappointing . Sir T. C. O'Brien in the early matches washardly at his best , and subsequently he was lost to the side . Still , the batting was as formidable as ever on paper . Mr. Francis Ford, in the middle of the season , did some wonderful performances , andwasnot far removedfromthe best batsmanof the year onthat form. M r. J. Douglas did so well whenhe did comeinto the team in the later matches that everyone feels a regret he is so rarely seen in first -class cricket . Thebowling washardly as reliable , and the figures of J. T. Hearne and Rawlin were not so good-a natural consequence of a long succession of fast wickets . Mr. Gregor McGregor, whenhe did play, kept wicket as well as ever. O nthe other hand exception might fairly be taken at times to the fielding , which was not infrequently faulty . R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s . Matches played , 16 ; won, 3 ; drawn, 9 ; lost , 4. Club. Opnts. Where played . When played . 1st 2nd 1st 2nd W o nb y. Opponents. I n s. I n s. I n s. I n s. Matches W o n(3) . (*) Sussex L o r d ' s Aug.12,13,14 432 #67 216 282 7 wkts.; *3w d (5) Notts ... Nottingham Aug.19,20,21 296 169 298 111 56 runs (*) K e n t Lord's Aug.26,27,28 112 213 123 149 53runs MatchesD r a w n(9). R e m a r k s. Gloucestershire Lord's Somersetshire L o r d ' s N o t t s L o r d ' s Yorkshire L o r d ' s Eastbourne T a u n t o n Bristol Sheffield L a n c a s h i r e L o r d ' s (2) Sussex (3) Somersetshire Gloucestershire (4) Yorkshire Matches Lost (4). (*) Lancashire K e n t Surrey Surrey M a n c h e s t e r Tonbridge O v a l L o r d ' s *233 *8wkts. d 202*393 *6 wkts. d 439 *4wkts. d 266*122 305+220*3w d; +4w d,i.c .. 363 190 317 *123 *9 wkts. d 175*218 178 *9 wkts. d 247 219 366 +182 *2 wd; +6wd,i.c . 1 7 6*3 4*4wkts. d Lostb y. M a y31,J u n2 135 100 176 105 46runs June24, 25, 26 J u n e28. 29 July15, 16,17 132 236 293 76 4wkts, *6wd 1 7 9 8 81 1 21 6 4 9 r u n s 271 209 424 *57 8wkts .; *2w d (*)H a v ebeentreated in previous reviews . J u n e3, 4, 5 J u n e7,8 3 8 6*253 330 +158 *6 w d, i.c ; +6 w d 3 7 7 J u n e14,15,16 375 June17,18,19 311 *222 July 1,2, 3 A u g .2, 3, 4 A u g .5, 6, 7 Aug.16,17, 18 A u g .23,24,25 132