James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

5 2 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. factory to the leaders of the game in Philadelphia . The bowling of J. B. Kingand the batting of J. A. Lester were the most encouraging features of theactualcricket. Withthe wickets mostly in favour of the batsmen it would be surprising if the scoring had not reached a high standard . Not that there was any- thing very muchout of the common. To Yorkshire belongs the distinction of the best aggregate in first - class cricket . Curiously , too , their score of 681 for five wickets against Sussex was madeat Bramall Lane, which in 1896 wasregarded with such disfavour as to induce the removal of the Surrey match at Bradford. The innings , which was closed , produced a record for first -class cricket to date in the 378 put on by J. T. Brownand Tunnicliffe for Yorkshire's first wicket . Oddly enough , Yorkshire's enjoyment of this particular record was very short -lived . As a matter of fact , within a monthAbel and Brockwell had outdone it in the matchbetween Surrey and Hampshire at the Oval , though only by one run . In addition to Yorkshire's big total of 681 just mentioned there were two innings of over six hundred, both to Surrey, and four others of over five hundred, three of themalso to Surrey . Of individual scores the highest was J. T. Brown's 311 for Yorkshire against Sussex, at Sheffield , in the matchjust referred to . Besides this there were seven scores of over two hundredin first -class cricket . Taking into account the easy character of the wickets for batsmen it is not surprising to find that the innings of three figures in first -class cricket numberedseveral more than in 1896-133, that is , against 116. It is noteworthy , in view of the surroundings , that only one batsman , Abel , to wit, scored over two thousand runs . His aggregate showed 2,099 , and next in order cameBrownwith 1,809 . This compares unfavourably with the record of 1896 , when K. S. Ranjitsinhji was credited with 2,780 , Abel 2,218 , and W. G. Grace 2,135 . Curiously enough , only twenty -nine English batsmen wereable to get over a thousand runs against thirty -two in 1896. In con- trast to the high scoring it m a ybe mentioned that the smallest total in first- class Countycricket was Leicestershire's 35 and 35 in each innings against Surrey , at Leicester . Besides these there were four innings of under sixty during the season . In this connection it may be very interesting to point out that thirteen English bowlers were credited with over a hundred wickets , two more, by the way, than in the previous year . Of the bowlers , Richardson far eclipses all the rest , although even his record of 1897 is not his best . None the less it is a long way the best performance , as he has taken 273 wickets , or 100 morethan his nearest rival . Most notable , only four cricketers could claim the double first of a thousandruns and a hundredwickets. four in question are G. L. Jessop , Hayward, Hirst , and Wainwright . T h e Thoughessentially a batsman's year no one was able to come up to K. S. Ranjitsinhji's wonderful record of 1896. Still , three cricketers , all of them amateurs , had averages of over fifty . All the same , in point of the amount of cricket they played , the honours it will generally be considered belonged to Abel , with W. G. Quaife and K. S. Ranjitsinhji next in order . Abel was hopelessly out of luck in the middle of July , and again a month later . These two intervals of low scoring only tend to emphasise the excellence of his cricket as a whole. A m o n gthe other batsmen quite in the front prominence may be given to two W.G.'s , William Gunn and W. G. Grace, to wit. Gunn's batting , while as stylish , was moreeffective than ever.