James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

Inns. Tylecote, E. F. S. • « • * 9 • 9 9 . . . 13 Tylecote, H . G. • • • • 9 9 9 9 0 ... 3 Ulyett ........ • • • 9 9 9 • 9 9 ... 62 Underdown, G. • » * •• • • » «. . . 0 Vernon, G. F. ... 9 9 9 • • • . . . 8 Vizard, W. 0 . ... 4 9 9 1 1 • • • • . . . ii Voss M l 9 9 9M l . . . 4 Walker, G. G. . . . < M l * 9 9 9 9 9 . . . 4 Walker, I . D . . . . • I t* 9 9 • I t . . . 26 Walker, J. G. . . . I t * 9 9 0 • • • . . . 13 Watson, A. I I I 9 9 9 9 9 9 . . . 29 Webbe, A. J. . . . 9 • 9 • • 1 0 9 9 . . . 11 Welman, F. T. • • • » * » l « . . . 8 Whitfeld, H. . . . • • •M l ... 17 Wild, F.......... • M • • • 0 M | ... 4 Wilde, M. • • • a * • 9 9 • • • ... 4 Willock, C. J. ... M l • 9 • I I I ... 4 Wilson, C. » • « \ . 9 . • • • ... 10 Wilson,L. • « • FM M l ... 14 Winter, C. • • • ? • • §1 » 1 ... 5 Winterbum • ♦ • • • • • 9 9 ... 6 Wood, A. II. M l 9 9 9 ••. ... 10 Wood • • • 9 9 9 • 9 9 ... 4 Woof, W.'A. • • 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 . . . 30 Wootton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 9 9 9 9 • 9 9 . . 18 Wright, C.W. . . . • 9 9 • 9 9 9 9 9 . . . 33 Wright, W. • • 9 • 9 9 • •• . . . 26 Wyatt, G. N. . . . 9 9 9 M l . . . 20 Wynyard, E. G. • • * ♦ 9 9 9 9 9 9 . . . 7 Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 9 9 9 9 0 • • • . . 8 % Times Most in notout. Runs. anInns. Aver. 0 416 107 21.2 0 23 16 9.1 1 1,672 84 30.42 0 43 24 9.3 0 141 38 17.6 2 133 49* 16.3 0 8 7 2 1 . 38 23 12.2 3 760 145 32.14 0 386 93 29.9 4 454 74 18.4 ' 2 184 72* 20.4 1 134 33 19.1 4 425 74 32.9 1 27 16 9 0 60 23 12.2 1 14 8* 4,2 2 93 19 11.6. 2 263 69 21.1 0 19 11 3.4 1 19 8 4.3 0 183 69 18.3 1 7 7 2.1 9 140 • 43 6.14 C • 76 * 18** 6.3 4 C44 • 102 * 18.32 9 316 127* 19.12 1 416 62 21.17 1 172 61 28.4 2 93 38 * 16.3 * « fpH E EXCELLENT WICKETS of the past season gave bowlers I plenty of work, and though, as usual, a large number of re- markable feats with the ball have to be recorded, the general averages are on the whole rather below the standard. Peate, the champion of the two previous seasons, has not been helped by the dry grounds, and whereas he had 162 wickets for just under 13 runs each in 1881, and 214 wickets for 11 runs each iu 1882, he has but 120 wickets for 14 runs each as his record for the past year. This falling-off is to be set down, not to a loss of form, but to a lack of advantages. Barratt, with 146 wickets, has the largest aggregate, and his analysis of 16 runs per wicket is very satisfactory considering the season. Without his aid Surrey would have fared very badly, and his form has been a decided improvement on that of 1882. Flowers, with 113 wickets at an average cost of not quite 15 runs each, shows an advance, but Barlow’s 106 have each cost five runs more than his 90 of the previous year. Crossland has 33 "wickets less than in 1882, and his average is not so good by three runs per wicket, whilst that of Nash shows a falling-off of five runs. The other great Lancashire bowler, Watson, on the other hand, has advanced from 76 wickets for 12runs each to 96wickets for 11 runs each. Morley