James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

104 SUSSEX* S ecretary , GEORGE GOLDSMITH, E sq ., 11, P rince AtBERt S treet , B righton * L ord S h e f f ie l d ’ s u n c e a s in g e f f o r t s to revive Sussex Cricket at last met with a proper reward, for in 1834 the County took a more prominent position than it had h e ll for several years Out of the twelve first-class County matches, the Sussex men won 6 and lost 5, and, in addition, they beat the M.C.C. at Lord’s, and had all the best of their match against the Australians at Brighton. Their record for the season was indeed most creditable and encouraging. Lord Sheffield has fairly deserved s u c c e s s in his endeavours to restore the cricket of his county, for he has expended money on the cause in a most lavish and unstinted manner. For four years he has guaranteed the County all expenses over and above their receipts, and the amount each year has been about £300. Moreover, he has, with a view of ensuring good practice to the young players, engaged Alfred Shaw at a salary of about £300 a year. When we add to these facts the money he spends in matches on his own estate at Sheffield Park, it will be seen to what great lengths he carries his love for the game. We are informed that in arranging the Australian match at Sheffield Park, he gave the Colonists £250 in addi. tion to all expenses, and that altogether the match cost him £1,300. Sussex is fortunate in having so liberal a patron. His Lordship has now promised the County Club an annual subscription of £250. There can be no question that Sussex last season had a very good team—strong at all points of the game. It will be seen from the tables at the end of this review that half a dozen batsmen average over 20 runs an innings, and five bowlers under 20 runs a wicket. The weakness of the side lay in a strange inability to make runs on slow wickets. Mr. Newham, for instance, though a most brilliant and consistent batsman while the weather was fine, became practically useless when, as in the return match with Surrey, the ground wras soft and difficult. Allowing for his one or two failures, however, it is only the truth to say that no one has batted so finely for Sussex since Mr. J. M. Cotterill was in the team. Though a less dangerous run-getter than Mr. Newham on hard ground, we should be inclined to think Mr. Wliitfeld the best batsman in the eleven on all wickets. Mr. W. Blackman and Jesse Hide proved them­ selves two capital all-round men, and were of great service to the eleven. It is pleasant to say that Mr. Blackman has altered his delivery, and now bowls with scrupulous fairness. Walter Humphreys, the lob howler, met w*ith considerable success in some of the County matches, but his great triumph was against the Australians. Mr. R. T. Ellis reappeared in the team after a long illness, but was far below his old standard, and stood out of some of the later matches. It should be mentioned that in this review no account is taken of the two engagements with Hampshire. May 8.—Lord’s.—Sussex v. M.C.C. and Ground .—(See M.C.C. Review.) -Nottingham.—Sussex v. Notts .—(See Notts Review.) -Gloucester.—Sussex v. Gloucestershire .—(See Gloucestershire ay 15.* May 26.- Review .) June 12. ■Huddersfield. June 19, Brighton, Sussex v. Yorkshire (See Yorkshire Review.) _ 1st In n s . 2nd Inn* . Total. Sussex 248 290 538 Gloucestershire 248 241 489 Sussex won bv 49 runs.