James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

1 4 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. ception , the omission of Tyldesley from the Players , thoroughly represented . Fortunately , though there was rain in the early morning of the second day, the gamewas able to be played out to the full limit of time, and over . A s it was, the Players had at the finish a fairly easy victory , with 137 runs to spare. Agood deal of the credit of their success wasdue to the excellent bowling of J. T. Hearne , and Lockwood . Gunn's batting , too , contributed largely to their victory . Another satisfaction to the public was W. G.'s personal triumph . His double success with the bat was the more note- worthy, as he was considerably handicapped by an injury . The other match between the Gentlemen and Players had to be played earlier than usual , owing to the number of County matches on the date originally fixed . Theill -fortune which has attended the Surrey authorities during the last few years in collecting a representative side of Amateurs was again conspicuous . The Players , too , were without any member of the YorkshireEleven, who were engaged in a Countymatch. In bowling the Gentlemen were particularly weak, and under the circumstances they were fortunate in winning the toss . O n the whole the Gentlemenhad no reason to be dissatisfied with the result of the first day's cricket . But their lack of bowling was bound to tell in time , and, as it was, they did fairly well not to have a larger majority than eight wickets against them at the finish . Of several noteworthy incidents , the most notable was the stand at the end of the Players ' first innings . Lockwood and Storer put on 96 runs for the last wicket. " But for a fortnight or so in May, and another interval of about the sameduration late in August, the weather wasjust of the character genial for cricketers as well as for the cricket public . Naturally under such cir- cumstances the batsmanhad mostly a good time of it. Atthe same time, in somerespects in point of run getting it wouldnot bear comparison with that of 1896. That was Ranji's year par excellence . Thirty-one bats-- m e nreached an aggregate of a thousand runs against thirty -nine in 1896 . Butthe difference was to a great extent accounted for by the fact that the latter included seven membersof the Australian team who visited England that summer. For the second year in succession Abel was the only batsman to makeover two thousand runs . This time " Ranji " was lost to English cricket . To replace him Sussex supplied a worthy substitute in C. B. Fry, whose cricket throughout was worthy of " Ranji " at his best . But Fry's average , fine as it was, had to take second place to W. G. Quaife . For the third successive year the younger Quaife made over a thousand runs in first -class cricket . Each season showed an increase of success , commencing with 1,053 in 1896, and going up to 1,219 runs last summer. To the two York- shiremen , J. T. Brown and Tunnicliffe , belongs once again the distinction of thelongest partnership of the year. In 1897, it m a ybe recalled , they put on 378 for Yorkshire's first wicket against Sussex , at Sheffield , only to have their record beaten within a few weeks byAbel and Brockwell , for Surrey against Hampshire at the Oval, but only by one run. This year Brownand Tunnicliffe left the previous best far behind . Their stand for the first wicket of Yorkshire against Derbyshire at Chesterfield , in August, realised 554, whichis over 150 runs ahead of any other partnership in a first -class match. Hayward's 315 not out for Surrey against Lancashire at the Oval , on August 19th , was the highest individual score of the season in first -class cricket , the biggest innings was Yorkshire's 662 against Derbyshire at Chesterfield in