James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1883

T H EM A R Y L E B O N E C L U BIN 1 8 8 2. 6 7 B O W L I N GO F P L A Y E R S . O v e r s. M a i d e n s . R u n s. W i c k e t s . B a r l o w(slow-round). Bates(slow round) 5 7 . 3 2 3 8 5 3 8 6 5 3 4 9 6 2 Fothergill (fast-round left ). 2 7 9 5 4 0 Flowers(slow-round) Barnes(medium-round) 9 5 4 4 1 1 2 6 2 1 9 3 4 0 Ulyett (fast-round) 2 2 8 4 2 0 Lockwood(slow round) 6 2 1 8 0 Scotton (fast-round left ) 3 1 8 0 B O W L I N GO FT H EG E N T L E M E N . C. T. Studd(slow-round) 7 2 2 4 1 1 0 Morton(fast -round) 4 5 1 1 9 4 Steel (slow-round) 9 4 3 6 1 5 3 3 5 7 Grace(medium-round). 3 1 9 6 0 3 Lucas(slow-round) 1 2 5 1 4 1 (7) Australians v. Middlesex. July 6 and 7. Neither side had quite its full strength . The Australians not only lost the bowling of Boyle but also the valuable help of Blackham at the wicket. Middlesex had not the H o n. A. Lyttelton nor Messrs . Vernon nor Ford. Middlesex had the advantage of going in first , butrain made the ground very treacherous , on the second day. Middlesex wouldhave fared badly but for Mr. C. T. Studd. H e got the highest score (23 and 30) in each innings and took seven of the twelve Australian wickets . The batting of the Australians was rather uneven. In the first innings Murdoch and Horanwhile together raised the score from 37 to 108, and the last five wickets only added 28 runs . O na dry wicket Middlesex might have made a good show with the bat, but their bowling wasvery inferior to that of their opponents , and their fielding was at times very loose . The Australians won by eight wickets . Australians , 136 and 61 (two wickets ) : total , 197. Middlesex , 104 and 91 ; total , 195. Spofforth (Australians ).. Overs. Maidens 6 9 4 1 (8) E t o nv. H a r r o w. July14and15. R u n s. 6 2 W i c k e t s. 9 The fifty -eighth match between the two Schools . Each side had won twenty-five of the previous contests , so that the game under notice was invested with unusual interest . The easy defeat of Eton by Winchester hadnot impressed even their own supporters with great confidence in the chance of the Etonians . O nthe other hand, there had been nothing in the form of the HarrowEleven, during their trial matches, to warrant the belief that they were up to, muchless above, the average . The season had certainly not been con- ducive to the perfection of practice , and the cricket of neither school was seen in its true form, in all likelihood . Still , taken all round, to our mind, the Harrovians were the better eleven . Sanderson's slow round arm was decidedly the best bowling on either side , and in this respect Harrowhad the advantage . Jardine , w h ois fast round arm, though by no means so telling as we expected , took nine wickets in the two innings ; but he was erratic , and hardly up to the best standard of this match. Richards had bad luck, both with bat and ball , but in the latter department he was evidently better than his figures showed. Spiro's batting for Harrow was the most taking on either side . Moncrieffe , Crawley , and Wardwere all painstaking , but in batting there was little to choose between the two elevens . Pemberton, of w h o mgreat things were expected by the Etonians , failed each time, and the highest scores were made by Cave, Hargreaves , Studd, and Bainbridge . All four showed good style , but Cave's second score of 49 was equal in point of play to any in the match. The Eton fielding in manycases was faulty ; but on the whole , there was little to choose betweenthe two schools , andthe honours were fairly divided . O nthe first day, D 2