James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

4 8 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL, bowling, indeed , that Middlesex was, as usual , lacking . J. T. Hearnewas of course the mainstay of the attack , but was naturally less successful on a succession of run-getting wickets . Rawlin was at times effective , but on the wholeproved more expensive . Inbatting , particularly whenMr. J. Douglas came in , Middlesex was perhaps stronger than ever . Mr. F. G. J. Ford's consistently brilliant hitting was one of the most sensational features of the early part of the season . Later on he was unfortunately not able to take his place in the eleven , from which also Sir T. C. O'Brien was absent . But as it was, the three successes were all gained in August. Mr. J. Douglas, whenhe did join the team, was happily in his very best vein for scoring , and generally the side were seen to muchbetter advantage . Mr. P. F. Warner, the old Oxonian, played in most of the matches, and did excellent service with the bat. Faulty fielding had something to do with the failure of the side m o r et h a no n c e. Warwickshirewould have taken a high position in CountyCricket had the bowling been even up to the average. As it was, on anything like a run-getting wicket , particularly such a one as that provided at Birming- ham, the County could not count on getting its opponents out for anything like a reasonable score , at all events twice in a match. Warwickshire's bowling was at the best far from formidable , and indeed might fairly be classed as the weakest of any County teamof the year. Fortunately the batting rarely failed , and the result was a quite exceptional number of drawngames. Of eighteen matches, indeed as manyas eleven were left unfinished . O nmore than one important occasion , too, the gamewas saved by sheer pluck . The successes of the eleven with the bat were , perhaps , the morenoteworthy from the fact that there was a decided tail . It was Mr. Bainbridge , the two Quaifes , Diver , Lilley , and Mr. J. F. Byrne, who furnished the bulk of the run-getting . The addition of the last named addedvery considerably to the strength of the batting . Hampshirecricket was something of an uncertain quantity . This was due mainly to the uncertainty in the composition of the team. Captain Wynyardwas unable to play on several occasions , and military duties also left Captain Quinton out of manymatches . Mr. F. E. Lacey, when he could help, which was rarely , batted as well as ever , and Mr. A. J. L. Hill's useful all -round cricket was often missed. Even as it was, Hampshire's record was better than mighthave been expected . A noticeable feature of the year's cricket was the excellent batting of Barton , who rarely failed to make agood score , and was in fact the mainstay of the batting throughout . A promising addition to the team came in the person of Mr. W. Andrew, whoseall -round cricket is likely to be of great use . Theultimate record of the Notts Eleven, in view of some of their earlier performances , was disappointing . Of 16 matches played only two were won to five lost. Thelatter part of the season was strangely unsuccessful , after the at *least partial promise of the first few weeks . But in the case of Notts , too , it was the weakness of the attack that was mostly responsible for any short- comings. William Attewell's precision was no less markedthan of old . Taking into account the run-getting character of the wickets , it is open to question whether he ever bowled better . Indeed , he not only kept the runs down, but got wickets as well , which could hardly be said of anyone else on the side . Guttridge was occasionally effective , but the change generally was not of a high quality . Dench and J. Gunn once or twice proved