James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

1 0 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. -speculate on the possibilities of a side winning the championship on a series of drawngames relieved by one, or perhaps at the outside two, victories . Fortunately, the public was spared the reduction to the absurd. Evenas it wasthe final record was curious enough with 13 drawngames and only one victory as the outcome of 16 matches . A t the best the season was only one of negative success . The bowling, with the one exception of William Attewell , did not approach first -class . It was the batting of Shrewsbury and G u n nthat gave relief to a dull and uneventful season . Too much, indeed , cannot be written in the w a yof praise to these two great batsmen. Theyplayed consistently fine cricket , both of them upholding their reputa- tions to the full . Gunn's huge total of 236 not out against Surrey at the Oval wasa truly brilliant performance . It washis highest innings in first -class matches , and the largest score ever made against Surrey . But generally the cricket showed a want of life and vigour. There was nothing of what AndrewLangcalls the champagneof cricket at any time-quite the reverse throughout. In some respects Warwickshire's record presented features not unlike those which markedNotts cricket . TheWarwickshire Eleven, on the other hand, opened with a creditable victory over Lancashire . Their only other success was over Leicestershire quite late in the season . In the matter of drawn games Warwickshire was a good second to Notts . As with Notts , it was the steady , dogged determination of one or two-in this case mostly one- batsmenwhomadethe ultimate record fairly respectable . In bowling the figures presented a strange similarity in m a n yrespects . Santall was the mainstay of Warwickshire, as Attewell was of Notts, with almost identical results in each case . In the batting there was hardly the same inequality , perhaps , though W. G. Quaife quite overshadowed all the rest of the Warwickshire Eleven . Lilley made runs consistently , but W. G. Quaife wasquite the makingof the side . His consistent batting , whichplaced him ultimately at the head of the first class , was quite one of the best features of a run-getting year . In Kinneir Warwickshire seems to have introduced a promising batsman . Derbyshire , not overburdened with good luck of late years , was un- fortunate enough to lose J. Hulme, the most reliable bowler the Eleven had hadfor some time . This , following on the loss of Porter , was a piece of ill fortune which seriously affected the prospects of the side . Under the circumstances it was hardly a surprise perhaps to find the Derbyshire team comparatively unsuccessful . Here, again , it was the out -cricket that failed . G.Davidson's all -round cricket was once more the most noteworthy feature of the season . After him there was little bowling of any real quality , though F. Davidson was introduced with some success . Thefielding , too , was susceptible of improvement . Of run -getters there were several , although the batting was at times uncertain . Storer played consistently fine cricket , and was a long way ahead in the averages . But besides him there were S. H. Evershed , L. G. Wright , Bagshaw, Chatterton , and G. Davidson , all of them tried batsmen , capable of making a big score against the best bowling. The loss of such an exceptional cricketer as K. S. Ranjitsinhji was bound to exercise a very prejudicial effect on the fortunes of Sussex . For a long time , unlike the King, they could do no right . W. L. Murdochand G. Brann fortunately rarely failed to score , but they were