James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 9 8. 1 2 5 W A R W I C K S H I R E . OFFICERS FOR 1898.- President : Lord Willoughby de Broke. Committee : G. Cartland (chairman), H. W. Bainbridge , E. Clements , T. Cond, R. S. Everett , W. Flewitt , A. C. S. Glover, J. Gothard, J. E. Hill , H. G. Hill , C. W. Kemp, J. C. Lane, H. Margetts , W. B. Marshall , T. W. Piggott , F. Pinney , F. Rollason , H. Rotherham , G. F. Spittle , A. H. Wiggin , R. Wilson. Hon. Treasurer : F. Messile . Hon. Secretary : W. Ansell . Secretary : R. V. Ryder, County Cricket Ground, Birmingham. THEWarwickshire Eleven were a better side really than their summarywould indicate . Onpaper they were not so good as in 1897. Their figures at least wouldsuggest an unfavourable comparison, and their position in the Cham- pionship wascertainly lower . Still , with all this the all -round cricket was, one mightfairly urge, distinctly better . Theyopened the season most auspiciously with a brilliant victory over Lancashire at Liverpool . That, until quite the endof the season , whenthey beat Leicestershire , was their only success . O n the other hand, luck was a bit against them. The weather effectually settled their chances in both matches against Hampshirewhenthey looked like being successful . Theyhad all the best , too, of the first match with Derbyshire , and showed to considerable advantage against Yorkshire at Leeds. They wereunlucky, too, in losing the valuable services of H. W. Bainbridge , not only as Captain, but also as a bat, after the middle of June, owing to an injury . J. F. Byrne, too , wasonly able to play very rarely . Thedistinctive feature of the season was the exceptionally fine batting of the younger Quaife (W. G.). H erarely failed to score well , and he fairly deserved the proud distinction he w o nof first place in the averages of the year. W. Quaife , Lilley , A. C. S. Glcver, and Devey were also generally reliable . Kinneir bids fair to be a useful addition to the batting . Santall's bowling would have been better had there beensomeone to support him. Asit was, he had to bear the brunt of the work, and even then cameout fairly well . The fielding might have been better. Opponents. R e s u l t so f M a t c h e s . Matches played , 17 ; won, 2 ; drawn, 9 ; lost , 6. Matches W o n(2) . (*) Lancashire (*)Leicestershire MatchesD r a w n(9) . (*) Leicestershire (1) Yorkshire K e n t * Derbyshire Derbyshire (*) Hampshire (2) Yorkshire (*) Essex (*) Hampshire MatchesLost(6) . Club. Opnts. Whereplayed . Whenplayed . 1st 2nd 1st (2nd Ins. Ins. Ins. Ins. Liverpool Leicester L e e d s M a y26, 27, 28 A u g .22, 23,24 W o nb y. 178 233 94 175 142runs 256*136 171 156 235 7 wkts; *3 w d R e m a r k s. 139 *49 *2 wktsd 218 *50 112 +85*5 w d, ic; +now d Birmingham M a y9, 10, 11 M y. 30,31, J.1 Birmingham| June2, 3, 4 112 Birmingham June16,17,18 *485 July 25, 26, 27 D e r b y Birmingham July28, 29, 30 Birmingham Aug. 1, 2, 3 B i r m i n g h a mA u g .8, 9,10 SouthamptonA u g .25,26,27 Leyton June9, 10, 11 Birmingham June13,14,15 Tonbridge B i r m i n g h a mJuly11,12,13 Cheltenham Aug.11,12,13 217 *173 *333 406*102 *6 2 *5 w k t sd 2 6 6+161 *3 w d; +8 w d, i.c. 285 +224 *4wd; +8wd,i.c . 195+173*3w d, i.c ; +6w d 448 *4wktsd 187 *139 107 +91 *6w d, i.c .; +3 w d 424 *166 *8wktsd Lostby. E s s e x... L a n c a s h i r e K e n t Gloucestershire Gloucestershire Surrey June20, 21,22 O v a l 124 198 356 138 177 208 *311 9 6 274 571 331 181 504 290 153 346 Sept. 1, 2, 3 1 3 8114 609 (*) Thesehaveall beentreated in previous reviews. *9 *99 I n n s. & 3 4r u n s 204r.; *7 w d, ic Inns.& 201runs 10w.; *now d 5 wkts.; *5w d I n n s.&357runs