John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

72 first day—a piece of very bad luck for Yorkshire. Ulyett played a first ebuss innings of 48, and Emmett took 6 wickets at a cost of only 19 ru * Mvcroft obtained live of the 9 Yorkshire wickets. Owing to the bad con’ (lition of the turf it was agucod to have a new wicket for each innings. let Inns. 2nd Inns. Total Aug. 29, Yorkshire 153 —* 153 * Sheffield. Notts 173 — 173 Drawn owing to rain. Nottingham being again represented by a strong team, this return match was looked forward to with extreme interest. Unfortunately it was ruined by bad weather. There is no saying how it might have ended, the differ- cnee on the first innings being so inconsiderable. Selby scored 57 for Not­ tingham, and Barnes 42, but both were missed. Flowers took out his bat for a well hit 25. Grinishaw headed the Yorkshire score with 41, Bates making 34, Hall 25,and Ulyett 24. Morley was suited by the heavy ground on the last day, GYorkshire wickets falling to him at a cost of 40 runs. Sept. 1 .—Scarborough.—Yorkshire v. M.C.C. and Ground.— (See M.C.C. Review.) Sept. 4. Matches.) Sept. 8 . Scarborough. — Yorkshire v. I Zingari. — (See Other Great -Brighton.—Yorkshire v . Sussex.—( See Sussex Review.) Matches played 16—won 10, lost 3, drawn 3. The batting averages come out admirably. Ulyett has gone up from 32 to B7, E. Lockwood from 30 to 35, Emmett from 26 to 29, Bates from 16 to 22 , and Grinishaw from 17 to 21. In the case of the last-named, however, the improvement is due to some additional not out innings. Iiall shows a trifling decline, from 17 to 15. 11. Lockwood’s figures are highly en­ couraging. AVith two additional matches, Peate took 110 wickets as against 100 in 1 b80, his average of runs per wicket being just a shade worse ; but it must be remembered that 1881 was a batsman’s year. Bates was more expensive than in the previous season, when he took 56 wickets at a cost of something over 13 runs each. On the other hand, a wonderful improvement is to be noticed in Emmett, who obtained 46 wickets for 10 runs each, as against only 19 wickets for a trifle under 18 runs each. Hill’s figures, too, are a great deal better than in 1880. His accident sadly weakened the bowling, his great pace making a capital contrast to the slow deliveries of Peate and Bates. BATTING Matches. Inns. AVERAGES. Most in Runs. an Inns. Moat in u Match. Times not out. Aver. l Jye tt .......... K. Lockwood •• • • »• ••♦ 13 19 693 112 112 1 37.17 •• • •• • 16 25 785 109 118 3 35.16 Emmett »»• •• • 16 24 648 89* 93 2 29.10 Bate* .......... ••• 16 25 628 108 137 1 22 Griinshaw ... * m • ■ ■ • 16 23 368 41 66 6 21.1 mA H. Lockwood •• » •♦ • •• • 9 15 268 90* 97 2 19.11 Hall .......... •• • 16 24 363 47 4 7 1 15.8 JVato .......... •#• 9 0 0 16 20 121 28* 28 11 13.4 C’ legg ......... • *• C 8 63 26* 25 1 9 Hunter ......... • *a 15 20 142 31* . 45 3 8.6 Huwlin ......... •• •• * 13 18 137 31 31 0 7.11 Thornton ... • • « 3 4 21 7 11 0 6.1 1IUI ......... »• **• 6 9 34 16 16 0 4.0 31 ipley ......... « • *• 2 4 1 * Not out. 1 1 0