James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

C R I C K E TIN 1 8 9 7. 4 9 effective , and Notts profited , as it is sure to profit in the future , by the promising all -round cricket of these youngsters . Mr. J. A. Dixon has never batted with.greater success , and with Shrewsbury , W. Gunn, Daft , Mr. Wright, Mr. Jones , and more than one likely young cricketer coming on, there should be no fears about the run-getting . It is the bowling that wantsstrengthening . Somersetshire's one ground for satisfaction was their double victory over Surrey, otherwise their record was one of almost unbroken failure . They beat Kent, it is true . at Taunton, but it was the only County bar Surrey that they defeated . Of other matches only four were drawn, so that nine of the sixteen fixtures ended disastrously . The absence of Mr. L. C. H. Palairet fromseveral matchesin the middleof the season of course weakened the batting a lot . Still , at the best there was little cause for satisfaction in the cricket at any point . Mr. Woodswas not able to bowl very much, and whenhe did was hardly at his best . Thebatting , too, lacked in some measure the dash that used to characterise it, and the average was certainly not up to the standard of 1895 or 1896. Yet it was the out- cricket that showed the chief defect . The fielding on occasions was not up to the best standard , and of the bowling the best that can be said is that as the wickets were it was comparatively harmless . K e n tandLeicestershire were alike in their troubles to the extent that each lost ten matches during the season . Still , comparison would be all against Leicestershire , as those who study their respective records will find . Kent was unfortunate in losing , just at a time when he would have been very useful , the valuable services of Mr. C. J. Burnup, of the Cambridge Eleven. With its full strength Kent can put a strong batting side into the field . Still , even at the wickets the performances were disappointing , and certainly the run-getting did not come up to the general form of the team . On paper the bowling was weaker perhaps than ever , with Alec Hearne , owing to an injury , unable to play at times , and subsequently unable to bowl at all . Leicestershire had even greater reason to complain of ill -luck. It was a great misfortune for them to lose their very best all -round cricketer , Pougher, to wit , at quite the commencement of the season , and his accident naturally crippled the eleven seriously . But even his loss will hardly account for the poor cricket shown by the team generally . Of 14 matches only one was won, and that was over Derbyshire , with all the luck in their favour . Of the other 14 ten were lost , and of the three unfinished games one at least was all to their disadvantage . In no one department was there much cause for satisfaction , and just at the moment the outlook for Leicestershire cricket does not appear very hopeful . Derbyshire had a record in County cricket unique, at all events for 1897, in that it failed to wina matchat all . Still , its performances were far more reassuring than the absence of actual success would seem to indicate . Of the sixteen matches played nine were lost , but of these nine two were only lost by a wicket , and these , be it added, were against Lancashire and Yorkshire respectively . Of the seven unfinished games, too , more than one would in all likelihood have ended favourably for them. To satisfactorily account for such a record of disaster is of course not easy . Still , it mayfairly be said that the Derbyshire Eleven were really a muchbetter all -round side than the results of the year would seem to make them. In analysing their