James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

2 6 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS ' ANNUAL. important occasions placed at a great disadvantage . Moreover, in addition they were singularly unfortunate in losing the valuable services of their captain , and, perhaps , best all -round cricketer , G. S. Patterson , just , too , whenhe was apparently in really good form . Injuries , too , handicapped several of the other membersof the team seriously during the tour . All things considered , the team had a fair amount of success . They played the game from first to last like true cricketers in the best possible spirit . Someof their performances in the field were distinctly creditable . Their most notable achievement was their decisive victory over Sussex. T o get such a batting side as that of Sussex , and on such a run-getting wicket as that on the Sussex Ground, out for a total of 46, was of itself a record of which they had good reason to be proud . At Birmingham , too , they proved their capacity for playing an up-hill game, defeating Warwickshire after having the worst of the luck , with half their wickets in hand. In addition , they cameout very favourably in the unfinished games with Yorkshire , Notts, and Somersetshire , and in fact in three of the four matchesdrawnshowedto advantage rather than disadvantage . Thegeneral opinion in England when the tour first camewithin the scope of practical politics was that the out-cricket would be responsible for their failure , if failure there were to be. Results showedthat the estimate was fully justified . The wickets generally did not favour the ball at all last summer, so that the figures of even the best English bowlers suffered by comparison . But this fact enhances the record of one of the team at all events . Great expectations had been raised by J. B. King's excellent performances at home, and these were more than fulfilled by his successes in England. Indeed his bowling was one of quite the most noteworthy features of the tour. H e not only got great pace on, but wasin addition able at times to makethe ball curl in the air . As a consequence he wanted very careful watching, and as towards the end of the tour he got to vary his pace a gooddeal, he showed himself to be very muchabove the average as a bowler . More than once , too , he got runs when they were badly wanted, and indeed he was very nearly , if not quite , the best all -round cricketer on the side . But for him the bowling would have been very weak. As it was the change was lacking in quantity as well as quality . Baily, Cregar, and P. H. Clark were all of themfairly good, but noneof them of a calibre likely to get anything like a strong side out on a run-getting wicket for a moderate total . Norwas the fielding of the team at all up to thebest traditions of Americancricket . Atthe sametime, someallowance m a ybe madefor any shortcomings in this respect whenit is stated that on several important occasions some of the most reliable fieldsmen were suffering frominjured hands and other causes not calculated to showthem a t h eb e s t. As the wickets were , during at least a great part of the tour , the batting was a bit disappointing . It was something of an unknownquantity , in fact. O noccasions , notably against Notts, Warwickshire, Sussex , and in the last match against Surrey at the Oval , the play of the team was all round very creditable . Still , it was the exception rather than the rule . The absence of such an experienced and capable batsman as the captain , G. S. Patterson , was bound to affect the run -getting prejudicially . Another really goodbat, F. H. Bohlen, hadnot quite recovered from asevere illness , andwastherefore hardly seen at his very best . As it was, by far the most