James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

108 KENT. S ec .— JAMES J. LANCASTER, E sq ., 30, S t . G eorge ' s S treet , C anterbcr *. T HE KENT SEASON OP 1884 w ill be remembered, not for what was done in the County matches, but for the brilliant and remark, able victory gained over the Australians at Canterbury. other county defeated the Australians last season, nor did any county meet with success against the famous Colonial Eleven of 1882. There was, therefore, every^ reason for Kent cricketers to rejoice over their triumph. Australian matches, however, do not properly come within the scope of this review, and attention must be turned to the doings of Kent in strictly first-class county engagements. Excluding the contests with Hampshire and Somersetshire—counties which were not permitted to vote on the throwing question in 1883 at Lord’s—Kent played twelve county matches, winning four, losing six, and having two left drawn. The unfinished games were both left in unfavourable positions. The record is not a brilliant one, but, considering how rarely tne full strength of the team could be secured, the results are in no way dis­ creditable. Decidedly the best performance was the seven wickets’ victory over Lancashire at Old Trafford. It is a curious fact that the Kent players nearly always do well at Manchester. Some luck in the condition of the ground helped to win the Surrey match at Maidstone, but the victory was a good one, nevertheless. Lord Harris was more than ever the mainstay of his team. “With an aggregate score of 889, and an average of 44.9, his labours show a splendid result. One of the best of liis many good innings was his 82 in the first match against Derbyshire, the wicket being both difficult and dangerous, and altogether against long scoring. He captained the side with the same energy and judgment as in former years. When fully represented, the county had a very fair batting side. Mr. Mackinnon recovered his play in a most surprising fashion, and was of great use on hard wickets. On slow grounds his style would never be effective. Mr. W. H. Patterson is,next to Lord Harris, the best batsman now available for Kent, and whenever he found time to play his defence was most valuable. By a really superb innings of 73 (not out) he averted defeat in the return match with Surrey. The brunt of the bowling was borne by Wootton and Mr. Christopherson, and the former showed a great advance upon any­ thing he had done befoi’e. While retaining his power to break both ways, he had much greater command over the ball, and consequent steadiness of pitch. In a season of continuous fine weather it was a big achievement for a young bowler to take 79 wickets at a cost of just over 15 runs each. Mr. Christopherson was often effective, but his wickets were generally expensive. Kent was not fortunate last season in the discovery of fresh talent, hut A. Hearne, youngest of the three brothers, gives high promise as a bowler. At present he is at a disad­ vantage in not having very robust health. Bowling medium pace round- arm, he has a remarkable break from leg. At Canterbury he sadly puzzled the Australians, and had an important share in his county s memorable victory. May 12.—Lord’s.—Kent v . M.C.C. and Ground .-—(See M.C C Review.) June 2.—Sheffield.—Kent v, Yorkshire.— {See Yorkshire Review.)