James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

99 The following bowled in one innings :—L, Wilson, 10 overs, 2 maidens, 22 i uns, 1 w i<k e t ; A. C. Gibson, 5 overs, 1 maido.n. is runs • W I T WAS N A T U R A L L Y FEARED that the departure of Midwinter would have a serious effect upon Gloucestershire cricket. So excellent an all-round player is not easily replaced. The loss of his bowling, however, proved even more severe than could have been anticipated. There was no one except W oo f who could keep down ttie run-getting, Mr. W . G. Grace’ s wickets costing about twice as many runs as in his best days. In no season since Gloucestershire first became an established cricket county has the bowling been so painfully weak. We do not here reckon the Somersetshire matches as first-class, and con­ sequently the victory over Lancashire at (Jlifton, which closed tbe season, is the only set-off against a series of disasters. The County laboured under its old disadvantage of having to play the early matches with weak teams, several gentlemen being tried who had no pretensions to appear in important contests. W e have already mentioned the falling-off in Mr. W. G. Grace’ s bowling, but the unwearied spirit with which the great cricketer fought against ill-fortune deserves unstinted praise. Without approaching his performances o f former years he yet batted extremely well, and his average of nearly 37 would for anyone else be reckoned quite first-rate. Mr. W. W. Pullen, who showed such bright promise in 1882, could only find time to play in six of the ten matches, and did not get sufficient practice to do himself justice. Messrs Cranston and Gilbert rendered valuable service, and in the early matches Mr. E. M. Grace was seen to special advantage. The appear­ ance in the team of Mr. H. Y . Page, of Cheltenham College and Oxford University, was attended';with somewhat curious results. In bowling, for which he was chiefly selected, he proved a complete disappointment, while as a batsman he far exceeded expectation. May 28.__Lord’ s. — Gloucestershire v. Middlesex.— Middlesex Renew.) . • . -May 31.__Oval.—Gloucestershire v. Surrey .—( See Surrey Review.) No play was possible after luncheon on the second day owing to heaw rain which completely saturated the ground, and on the third the match had to be abandoned. Under these circumstances all interest was taken out o f the game. There was, however, some good batting on both sides. For Yorkshire, U lyett made 80, Bates 36, and Lockwood 28, while the best scorers for the home county were Mr. W. G. Grace, 37, Mr. Cranston 31 and 5, and Mr. E. M. Grace 28. Woof took 6 Yorkshire wickets for 57 runs. S ecretary , E. M. GRACE, E sq ., T hornrtjry , G loucestershire . 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. 7 150 — 196 Gloucester. July 12, Gloucestershire Yorkshire 143 196 Drawn. Gloucestershire had lost 1 wicket