James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1885

T H EM A R Y L E B O N EC L U BIN 1884. 8 1 those in 1818, 1822, 1833, 1834, 1836, 1842, 1843 , 1848 , 1849 , 1851 , 1852, 1853, 1854, 155, 1857, 1858 , 1859 , 1864, 1865 , 1866, 1868 , 1873, 1878 , 1880, and 1881 ; those in 1860, 1861, 1863 , 1867 , 1875 , 1877 , 1879 , 1882 , 1883 , and 1884, being un- finished . The Etonians do not count that in 1857, as being for players over 20 years ofage. (10) Surrey v. Middlesex. July 14 and 15. Messrs . C. T. Studd and A. J. Webbewere unable to play for Middlesex , and the former's bowling was muchneeded. The ground, indeed , after heavy rains , was all against the batsmen, and, in consequence , the scoring on both sides wasbelow the average . Middlesex had a strong batting team; but the only noteworthy feature of the play was the first innings of Mr. 1. D. Walker, who wentin first andcarried out his bat for 47, out of 111 from the bat. its success mainly to the good bowling of Mr. Horner and Barratt . by seven wickets . Surrey , 147 and 108 (three wickets ) ; total , 255 . 126and 120 ; total , 254. Surrey owed Surrey won Middlesex , Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. Mr. Horner (Surrey) Barratt (Surrey) 4 6 6 1 2 5 2 2 5 9 1 0 8 8 9 (11) Australians v. Middlesex. July 17 and 18. Messrs. C. T. Studd and A. J. Webbewere again absent from the Middlesex eleven . Otherwise the County had all its strength , and its very moderate display was,consequently , all the more disappointing . The ground was bare of herbage, and certainly not in favour of the batsman. Making every allowance , though, the poor show of such a strong batting side was difficult to understand , anda worse exhibition has rarely been seen in an important match. The first innings only took an hour and twenty minutes ; the second , five minutes longer . In the former , " extras " proved the highest scorer ; in the latter , Messrs . Lucas and O'Brien (each 26) made52 out of 81 from the bat. Murdoch's 64 not out wasup to his best form. Blackhamin this match gave up the wicket to Murdoch; but the latter was only a poor substitute , as the " extras " in two innings of Middlesex amountedto 44, out of an aggregate of 159. Spofforth and Palmer 'bowled unchanged throughout the match, a very rare occurrence . Australians w o nby an innings and 29 runs. Australians , 188. Middlesex , 53 and 106 ; total , 159. Spofforth . P a l m e r. Overs. 3 8 . 2 3 7 Maidens. R u n s. Wickets 1 8 4 3 1 2 1 4 7 2 7 (12) Englandv. Australians. July 21 , 22, and 23. Thegreatest care had been taken by the Marylebone authorities in the selection of the English eleven , and it gave general satisfaction , though many wouldhave liked to have seen Scotton included. This time the Australians were lucky enough to win the toss , and, mainly through the good cricket of Giffen (63), and H.Scott (75), were able to reach a very creditable total of 229. In abadlight on the first night England lost three good wickets for 90 runs, and the game seemed fairly won. Another brilliant display of batting by Mr. A. G. Steel , however, turned the scale entirely in favour of the English eleven , and the lead they got in the first innings proved of great value to them. Mr. Steel was batting just under four hours , and his play was of the most masterly character . H e gave a difficult chance to Boyle at short mid-on whenhe had got 48, and another to McDonnell in the long -field the ball before he was out ;