John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

77 to his last season’s aggregate o f 221 runs for 14 innings* Mr. W ebbe has ao often shown himself master o f the difficulties o f a slow wicket, that we shall not plead the w et weather as the cause o f his ill-success. W e take it that to a considerable extent he was off his play. There is no reason, how ­ ever, why so young a man should not speedily resume his place in the front rank. That Mr. I. L>. Walker, after twenty years’ cricket, should lose his old powers would be in no way surprising, but in his case, far more than in that of Mr. Webbe, do we regard the weather as the cause o f comparative failure. Mr. Walker was never seen to any great advantage on slow soft wickets, but when the ground is hard he can still play fine cricket, as his innings of 128 against Oxford University, at Lord ’s, very clearly proved. As in the previous year, Messrs. Vernon and Pearson took part in every match ; indeed these two gentlemen are among the most keen and eager o f county cricketers, Mr. Vernon’s batting was unequal, but he played two remarkable innings— 88 against Gloucestershire at L ord ’s, and 97 at the Trent Bridge against Nottingham— and his hitting powers were then fully demonstrated. Mr. C. T. Studd did not score nearly so well or so consistently as in the Cambridge matches, but his batting at Manchester, when he scored 67 (not out) and 35 against the bowling of Barlow, Watson, and Mr. A . G. Steel, was described as being absolutely without fault. It will be seen that he heads the batting, and, his bowling being above the average, he has strong claims to be considered the most valuable member o f the team. In selecting an eleven, however, we would prefer to have Hon. A lfred Lyttelton, whose powers are unimpaired, though unfortunately he can devote only a limited portion of the summer to cricket. A fter a whole season’s absence Hon. Edward Lyttelton made a welcome reappearance, and proved that with his old opportunities for practice, be would rank, as in 1878, among the most brilliant of batsmen. The bowling of the team, though by no means deadly, was of fair average merit. Burton— a mature cricketer, who we believe had once before had a trial—proved a decided acquisition. He is a right- handed slow bowler, with an easy delivery and a very good pitch. Tw o or or three times he was surprisingly effective— notably against Surrey and Gloucestershire at L ord ’ s. The great want o f M iddlesex now, as at any time since How itt ’s retirement, is a good fast bowler. Mr. Robertson works very hard, but good batsmen play him easily on true wickets. W e had almost omitted to mention the appearance in the eleven o f Mr. C. F. II. Leslie. The famous Rugby batsman did fairly well, but neither he nor Mr. G. B . Studd approached the form shown in the University matches. Mr. C. Robson ’s batting gives considerable promise. __ 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. May 23, Middlesex 192 45 237 Lord’s. Surrey 157 79 236 Middlesex won by 10 wickets. - though not represented by anything like the best team in the county, Middlesex had an advantage all through, and in the end won very easily. A main element of success was the bowling o f Burton and Mr. Ford. In Surrey’s lirst innings Mr. Ford took 6 wickets for 48 runs, and in the second innings Burton had a splendid analysis— 33 overs, 20 maidens, 20 runs, and H ither side was there any specially good batting. For iddlesex Mr. Webbe made 57, Mr. Vernon 33, and Mr. Robertson (not \v an(^ out) ^9, while for Surrey the chief scorers were Mr. W . ♦Read 22 and 33, Mr, Lucas 37 and 15, and Humphrey 30 and 2. A t