James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

% previous year. There were several disappointments during the sea: two or three players failing to come up to the hopes that had been forrr ^ of them ; hut, nevertheless, the County fully held its ground in the frr!fJ rank, and proved that the revival of 1883 was a perfectly genuine on Nearly all the players who had contributed to the success of the team r 1883 were again available, the chief exception being Henderson wh suffered severely from ill-health, and only took part in two matches* As a set-off against his absence, the committee discovered a player of high promise in Lolimann, who is a useful, hard-hitting batsman, and a good right-handed bowler, rather above medium pace. It is as a bowler that the committee are most hopeful of him for the future. Though not'quite so successful as in the previous year, Mr. W. W. Read'“was again the mainstay of the eleven. During the middle of the season he was hardly at his best, but in August he fully recovered himself, and played as finely as ever. Speaking generally, he was well supported but Mr. Diver did not do so well as was expected, and Mr. Key certainly failed to realise expectation. The greatest share of the bowling was borne by Barratt and Mr. Horner. It will be seen that in all matches the amateur took 110 wickets at, a cost of less than 15 runs each. The County was fortunate indeed to possess so steady, persevering, and thoroughly trustworthy a howler. There is scarcely any amateur now playing cricket who can keep up an end so long and so well. Without equalling his great achievements of 1883, Barratt did very well indeed— the dry wickets being, of course, greatly against him. It was hoped in the early part of the season that Jones, who had recovered from a long illness, would he of service to the eleven, but the result proved that though his bowling retained its straightness, it had lost nearly all its old spin. Mr. Roller proved a capital change howler, hut his batting was very far behind liis standard of 1883. Ill-health in the winter hath we believe, a good deal to do with his falling off. , A word of special praise is due to Wood, who proved himself a generally efficient wicket­ keeper and a very useful bat. As nearly all the men, except Barratt. are in the prime of their cricket, Surrey may reasonably look forward to a continuance of good fortune. May 19.—Oval.—Surrey v. Australians—(S May 29.—Derby.—Surrey v. Derbyshire .—(See Derbyshire Review.) June 2 .—Nottingham.—Surrey v. Notts.—(See Notts Review ,) • _ June 9, Oval. Surrey Middlesex 2nd Inns, 143 7G Total. 271 272 I at Inns. 128 196 Middlesex won by 8 wickets. The Middlesex men were fortunate in having the best of the wicket on the first day, hut they showed much finer cricket than their opponents, and richly deseryed to win. ‘ Three batsmen practically decided the match, Mr. A. J. Webbe scoring 83 (not out) and 1, Mr. O’Brien 47 and 41 (not oilt), and Mr. C. T'. Studd 34 and 20 (not put). Mr. Webbe played especially well, the only fault in his innings being a chance at point whbn he had made 73. In Surrey’s second innings. Burton took 5 wickets for 43 runs. Tor Surrey, Mr.1Bowden scored 2 and 19, Maurice Read 25 and 23, and Mr. Sliuter 6 and 32. On tfie second morning, Mr. Roller- took 6 Middlesex wickets for 20 runs.