James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

8 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. mentioned, were they indeed apparently within measurable distance of it . Under favourable conditions , Surrey were a very dangerous batting side . On the other hand, where the wicket helped the bowlers , the majority were unable to rise to the occasion . As a rule , too , there was a slackness aboutthe fielding which at times degenerated into something whichcould only be called actually slovenly . Fortunately , though Richardson in the earlier matches was in nothing like his old form , Lockwood returned to first -class cricket with equal success as a batsman and bowler. Richardson later on, too, came on again . The two fast bowlers more than once , notably against Yorkshire at the Oval, were seen at their best . Brockwell, too , was always useful as a change ; often effective when the others failed . Hayward, owing to ill -health , wasnever seen to full advantage , certainly not to such advantage as in 1897, as a bowler . On the other hand, D. L. A. Jephson's lobs were frequently effective . In batting , with Abel , Brockwell , Holland , Hayward, Baldwin , D. L. A. Jephson , K. J. Key, and Lockwood , Surrey was strong . But there was no sign of a bright particular star , in the shape of a new bowler of medium pace, to fill the blank occasioned by the loss of George Lohmann. The result of the first match played by the Essex Eleven certainly justified the belief that they were going to uphold -indeed , more than uphold -the promise raised by the excellence of their all -round cricket the previous year . Their victory over Surrey at Leyton , too, was inno way attributable to any exceptionalptional luck . They won fairly and squarely on their merits . That they failed to maintain the early promise was merely an illustration of the charining uncertainty of cricket . They were perhaps a better side than the results of the year would lead anyone to believe . That they were triers , with acertain capacity for playing an up-hill game, was proved more than once . They were beaten by Gloucestershire at Leyton by one wicket , a difference which meant a good deal to them in the final adjustment of the relative points for the Championship . The cricket generally was attractive by reason , perhaps , of a certain amount of uncertainty . Not that there was any noteworthy or conspicuous weakness . The fielding at times might have beenbetter it is true ; once , at least , it was mainly accountable for failure , otherwise there waslittle to which serious exception could be taken . There were three thoroughly reliable bowlers in C. J. Kortright , Mead, and F. G. Bull . The trio , too , presented the variety that is so useful in cricket . Bull was, perhaps , hardly as effective as in 1897 , but Mead was more so, and Kortright did some remarkable performances at times . Still , with even these three , the bowling was hardly strong enough on run- getting wickets . Afortunate discovery gave another change in the middle of the season in the person of Young-in years as well as name. With a very easy action he basgood command over the ball , and as he uses his head it is quite likely that hewill be a very useful addition to the side . Thebatting was perhaps hardly as level throughout as could have been wished . It is true that H. G. Owen, Carpenter ,C. McGahey, and P.Perrin were in consistently good form, andalways to be relied on for runs. C. J. Kortright too , occasionally came to the rescue of the side at a pinch , and A. P. Lucas , whenhe did play , was thesamesound and attractive batsman as of old. Butafterwards the batting was something of an uncertain quantity . A. J. Turner , who made such a promising débût in 1897, failed to come quite up to expectations , in spite of his first fine score against Surrey , and though Russell and Meadnot infre- quently came off , the tail was a little doubtful . 7