John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

80 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE. H on . S ec ., C aptain HOLDEN, B ramcote , N oitinguam . WING TO TIIE NOTORIOUS, and in every way regrettable, disPl between the leading Professionals and the C ounty Comm ittee , N o t i i ' ham fell from the high position held during the three previous seaso^' and enjoyed only a moderate measure of success. Out of twelve match**' four each were won, lost, and drawn. Considering the enormous difficult ’ that had to be contended against, after the defection of Shaw, Shrewsbu! and the other players, the results are very far indeed from being disered l able. Indeed, it may with confidence be said that, however great was t] falling off in Nottingham cricket, no other county could have shown so boll a front under the same circumstances. Into all the details of the disput there is now little need to enter. That the players had some cause \ complain of the manner in which they were treated is possible, but lookin' at all the facts that have transpired, we can find no justification whateve for their revolt. After the first match with Sussex, the Committee offered to engage Shaw, Shrewsbury, Barnes, Selby, and Morley for the season*^ that is, for the remaining eleven matches—but these five men decline; unless a similar engagement were extended to Flowers and Scotton. I resenting this attempt at dictation the Committee were clearly right, apar entirely from any question as to the value of Flowers or Scotton in til county team. Happily the dispute has now been made up, so far at leaf: as concerns five of the seven players. Whether Shaw and Shrewsbury will ever be asked to return to the team seems more than doubtful. Deprived of those players who had done so much to maintain the reputation of the County, the Committee were of course obliged to try a number of new mcu. Some of these did good service, but it cannot be said that any first, rate ability was revealed. Butler was tried before the break-up of the team, a very proper compliment after the fine cricket he had shown in the Colts matches at the Trent Bridge and Lord’s. He took part in all the twelve engagements of the County, but scarcely sustained his early promise. His play at Lords against Shawr and Morley was in advance of any subse* quent performance when opposed by first-rate bowlers. Howrever, he has plenty of time to improve, and he would doubtless have done better had the real Nottingham Eleven kept together. To fill up the only vacant place in a strong team is a far more thankful duty than to take sudden prominence in a weak one. Four other players call for notice here—Wright, Attew'ell, E. Mills, and Shore—and of all these there is more or les 9 to he hoped. Wright, who was tried in 1870, and played once in 1880, is a: times a very difficult bowler, left-hand, rather fast, and w'ith a nasty curl on the ball. His batting is uncertain, but being a crack sprint runner he i* naturally very quick in the field. Attcwell has youth in his favour, heir, not yet twenty, and w ith advancing age may come more power of hitting As a bowler he is medium pace with a very easy delivery. He wras only difficult on slowr ground, but in eight matches he took 35 wickets—a very fair performance, even though the cost of the wickct 9 wras somew hat heavy- Shore’s figures come out badly in the averages, but of the new Nottinghfl! bowlers he is probably the best. IJe is left-handed, varies his pace wit* good judgment, and gets plenty of work on the ball. A high opinion of to ' 9