James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

116 H on . S ec ., ARTHUR WILSON, Eea., M elbourne , near D erby . W HAT CAN BE SA ID of a county which played ten matches and lost them al l? Such was the unfortunate fate of Derbyshire last season. Not once was the dull monotony of defeat broken. As some excuse for a series of disasters it should in fairness be stated that in all ten matches the county only won the toss on one occasion. Even upon a strong side such a run of bad luck would have had a depressing effect, and with Derbyshire, which is not strong at any point of the game, the disadvantage of not having first innings was a very serious matter. Early in the season there seemed promise of good things, for the county played a capital match against Lancashire, but the promise was very far from being fulfilled. Derbyshire always arranges a capital programme, the executive arguing that if they once allowed the county to drop from its recognised position among the first, class counties they would never be able to recover the lost ground. The effort to keep in the front rank is deserving of praise, and everyone will hope that better days are in store. Having regard to the revivals of cricket in Surrey and Sussex, there is no reason to despair, but with the players now available we do not see much prospect of improvement. Of the men who played last season, Sugg is perhaps the only one who rises above mediocrity. Mr. Docker has never approached his perform­ ances of 1881, and is now no more than an average batsman. It will be remembered that Sugg was tried for Yorkshire in 1883 under the residential qualification, hut met with no success. Last season, for the county of his birth, he showed himself a dangerous batsman, and he may very likely make further advance as he gains in confidence and experience. Yorkshire last season would not have been sorry to have hadhis services. Cropper is avery fair all round cricketer, and Shacklock— a Nottingham man by birth—rather a good fast bowler. "Wood-Sims did very little, but something may be heard of him as a batsman. It was unfortunate for Derbyshire that the brothers Evershed were so seldom available. Their hitting was much wanted. Mr. B, P. Smith seems to have lost all his batting. Apart from county matches, Derby­ shire beat the M.C.C. at Lord's by seven runs, and suffered a one innings defeat at the hands of the Australians. The Derbyshire ground was in very bad condition, and great complaint was made about the wickets. It was stated that the centre portion would have to be relaid at the end of the season. May 22.—Manchester.—Derbyshire v. Lancashire .—(See Lancashire Review .) ?..• May 29, Derbyshire Derby. Surrey 2g ‘ ^ Surrey won by 5 wickets CauntYOT^m °tU l^ X YT h e S l a s t season on Die Derbyshire when Surrey went in for the runs, Fortunately flip ini U? b on the forehead, and had to retire, fortunately, the injury did not prove serious. After following on,