James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1876

76 and Messrs. W. G. Grace (119) and Townsend (84) between them made just one run more than the total of the Nottingham innings. The Cham­ pion's innings was one of his very best, and against the most accurate bowling. The second wicket of Gloucestershire fell for 218, and the inn­ ings was over for 289. Ultimately the match was drawn, Notts, who were 97 runs behind on the first inning, having lost one wicket (Selby) in the second for 21 runs. Selby (60), Barnes (45), and Shrewsbury (41) contri­ buted 152 out of 187 runs from the bat, all by good play. Overs. Maidens. Buns. Wickets. Mr. R. F. Miles (Gloucester) ........... 50 2 32 35 5 Clarke (Notts) .................................. 77*1 33 88 5 1(7) Gloucestershire r. Sussex (return). Cheltenham, Aug. 23, 24, and 25. Good cricket marked every point of the game—not a usual thing even in the best matches. Gloucestershire were dismissed for the small score of 130, considering of these one half came from the bat of Mr. E. M. Grace. On the other side, Mr. F. J. Greenfield was the leader with a splendid score of 79, and at the end of an innings Sussex had an advanntage of 74 runs. The second innings of Gloucestershire was a contrast to the first, as this time five batsmen scored well, though again Mr. E. M. Grace was fore­ most writh a very fine innings of 71. Sussex in the end had 161 runs to f et to win, and when 70 runs had been posted only two batsmen had fallen. lassrs. Cotterill (37) and Greenfield (29) tried hard to stay, but the rest only lent feeble aid, seven of the side only scoring 17 runs from the bat. Gloucestershire, 130 and 234 ; total, 364. Sussex, 204 and 120 ; total, 324. Overs. Maidens. Buns. Wickets. Mr. Miles (2nd Inn. Sussex) ... 25 13 18 4 (8) Gloucestershire v. Surrey (return). Clifton, August 26, 27, and 28. Surrey was as usual imperfectly represented, and a decisive victory for Gloucestershire was a certainty. Surrey put on 64 runs (117 to 181), and this was the only feature of the innings, Southerton playing excellent cricket for 33 and not out. Mr. G. F. Grace scored alone 180 (not out) for Gloucestershire, or within one run of the aggregate of Surrey, and without a chance, although the batsman was positively caught at the wicket when lie had only made 46. Gloucestershire made a huge score of 869, and Surrey had then 188 ruus to save the innings. The utter incapacity of the eleven to achieve such a task was clearly shown. Pooley’s 29 was the largest figure, and the total only came to 104, Mr. E. M. Grace’s lobs securing seven wickets (five of which were clean bowled) for 40 rung. Surrey lost by an innings and 84 runs. Gloucestershire, 369. Surrey 181 and 104 ; total, 285.