John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

73 Hill peate XJ lyott •• Bates •• Ratlin BOWLING AVERAGK3 . Runs Wkts. No per per Matches. Inns. Overs. Maidens. Rnns. Wkts.Wides. Balls. Wkt. Inn s . ... 13 20 318.2 147 439 46 19 0 10.9 2 .6 ... 5 10 190.1 92 204 23 0 0 11.11 2.3 ... 1 r> 29 1003.2 439 1293 110 3 0 11.83 3.23 ... 3 4 48.2 20 95 7 0 0 13.4 1.3 ... 15 20 783.2 351 1091 72 0 0 15.11 2 .2 0 ... 3 5 47 23 74 I 0 0 74 .1 GLOUCESTERSHIRE. S e c r e t a r y , E. H . GRACE, E sq ., T h o r n d u r y , G l o u c e s t e r s h i r e . G LOUCESTERSH IRE C R ICK E T last season failed to maintain its reputation. The batting was less trustworthy, and the bowling far more expensive than in some former seasons. The results come out very fairly on paper— four victories, two defeats, and four matches le ft unfinished—but when we examine tiie play in detail, shortcom ings are apparent. The two defeats— sustained at the hands o f Lancashire and Nottingham—were of crushing severity, and two o f the four victories were gained over Surrey, the weakest of the opposing counties. O f the drawn matches one would have been a certain v ictory for Gloucestershire, and one at least a certain defeat. It is specially worth}7' o f remark that up to the time of the return with Nottingham, no county match had ever been lost by Gloucestershire on the Clifton College Ground. T o find a parallel to such success during eleven seasons the records o f county cricket may be searched in vain. In addition to the ten first-class matches which are dealt with in this review, Gloucestershire twice played and defeated Somerset­ shire. The vacancy caused by the death of Air. G. F. Grace could not be filled up, and more thau once the team stood sadly in need o f his unfailing nerve. With this one great exception all the old players were available, the return of Mr. Bush from Australia again giving the County the advantage of a first-class wicket-keeper. Air. W . G. Grace only made 10 runs fewer than in 1880, but his play was by no means so consistent. Out of his aggregate o f 595 he scored no fewer than 233 in a single match at Nottingham, his innings of 182 being the second highest o f the season in first-class engagements, l i e failed conspicuously at Manchester ami Sheffield, and when the return matches came on at C lifton and Chel­ tenham, the slow wickets interfered with his success. Tw ice , moreover, he was run out when thoroughly well set. Air. Aloberly was the same adm ir­ able batsman as in 1880, invariably making his runs in most finished style. His innings of 61 (not out) against Aliddlesex was faultless. Neither Midwinter nor Mr. Townsend played quite so well as in the previous season, hut Air. E. M. Grace was far more successful, his hitting in the two London matches reminding the spectators o f the time when he was the most t angcrous bat in England. Few amateurs in our day have so fu lly retained t leir cricket. A remarkable feature o f the Gloucestershire season was the improvement shown by Air. Cranston. This gentleman never played half ?° " ^ before, and was very nearly first-class. Few left-handed men bat n suc“ straight and orthodox form, or hit a lo o s 3 hall more vigorously.