James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

DERBYSHIRE. IIox. S ec ., ARTHUR "WILSON, E sq ., M elbocene , near D f . rbt . T h e r e i s n o t h i n g v e r y f r e s h o r o r i g i n a l to be said about Derbyshire cricket. The County works hard to main­ tain the place won for it in its early days, and nearly always arranges a good programme. I t is much to be regretted that such well- meant efforts should, year after year, produce so small a result. Last season eight county matches were played, two ending in victory, five in defeat, and one being left unfinished. Curiously enough, the first and last matches were the successful ones. In excuse for the County, it should in fairness be mentioned that only once in eight matches did Derbyshire have the good fortune to win the toss. In the closing weeks of the season the Eleven earned real distinction in playing an up-hill game. A t the Oval against Surrey, and at Brighton against Sussex, the team showed such pluck and determination, when the chances were all against them, as to atone for many failures. Indeed, scarcely any match during the season was more brilliantly won than the return with Sussex. In their second innings the Derbyshire men had only 4 wickets to fall when 73 runs were still wanted to save a single innings defeat. Aided by a night’s rain, however, Derbyshire put Sussex out for 74, and won the match by 29 runs. A severe attack of rheumatism compelled W illiam Myci’oft to stand out of six of the matches, and the want of a bowler who could keep up an end thi-oughout an innings was greatly felt. M ay 17.—Manchester,— Derbysh ire Review.) May 21, Derbyshire Derby. Surrey v. Lancashire.— ( Lancashire 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. 80 226 306 129 126 255 Derbyshire won by 51 runs. The Surrey men were not in anything like the form they exhibited later in the season. Nevertheless, the -v icto ry of Derbyshire was decidedly creditable. On the first day Surrey gained a strong advantage, but on the second the Derbyshire Eleven batted very well and set their opponents 178 runs to win. It should be mentioned, however, that the Surrey fielding was extremely loose, several chances being- missed. In Surrey’s second innings the batting was very poor, and only Mr. W . W . Read and M r Shuter offered any resistance to the bowling. The chief scorers for Derbyshire were Mr.. L . C. Docker 12 and 52, Platts 13 and 36, Mr. R. P. Smith 19 and 8, Cropper 0 and 35, and Foster 8 and 19 j while for Surrey Mr. W . W . Read made 12 and 55 (not out), Mr. Shuter 9 and 34, and Mr. Roller 26 and 12. Cropper bowled remarkably well, taking, in the two innings of Surrey, 8 wickets for 68 runs. This was the only time during the season that Derbyshire won the toss in a county match.