James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1885

8 8 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. owed its lead of eight runs . Mr. W. G. Grace , despite the difficulties under which he batted , played excellent cricket for his 56 not out on the opening day, though he was only able to score a single in the second innings . The victory of Sussex was due in a great measure to the effective bowling of Jesse Hide. Sussex won by seven wickets . Sussex , 179 and 59 (three wickets ) ; total , 238 . Gloucestershire , 171 and 66 ; total , 237. J. Hide(Sussex). Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 5 9 1 2 4 9 2 5 (3) Gloucestershirev. Surrey. Oval, June16 and17. Mr. W . G. Grace was suffering severely from the effect of the strain to his leg in the previous week at Lord's , and though he did bowl when his side was thoroughly in a knot , he was really unfit for the task . Messrs . Page, Pullen , Moberly, Brain, and Townsendwere also all absent , so that Gloucestershire had quite asecond -rate team. Abel could not help Surrey in consequence of illness , but otherwise the County had its full strength , and the result was after the first innings hardly in doubt. The first twenty-one wickets produced 695 runs ; but after Mr. W. G. Grace was caught in Gloucestershire's second innings , the side collapsed utterly , and the last nine wickets only added 48 runs . Overahundred runs were got for the first wicket of each side -by Messrs . E.M. Grace (67) and Gilbert (69) for Gloucestershire ; for Surrey , by M. Read (99) and Mr. Diver (65). Surrey wonby an innings and 33 runs . Surrey , 388 . Gloucestershire , 240 and 115 ; total , 355. (4) Gloucestershirev. Sussex. Brighton , June 19, 20, and 21 . Amatchproductive of unusually high scoring , forty wickets realising an aggregate of 1,027 ruus . Messrs . Ellis and Tester made137 for the first wicket of Sussex, but the rest did comparatively little , and the result was a tie on the first innings . Gloucestershire , whenthey went in a second time, wanted 291 runs to win, and the Oxonians , J. H. Brain (69) and H. V. Page (51) made such a plucky effort for them that they only fell short by 50 runs . Sussex w o nby 49 runs. Sussex , 248 and 290 ; total , 538. Gloucestershire , 248and241 ; total , 489. (5) Gloucestershire v. Notts. Gloucester , July, 14, 15, and 16. Gloucestershire , though not in its full strength , madea good fight up to a certain point , and on the first hands Notts , with Shrewsbury absent , had only a lead of three runs . Rain, though , afterwards prejudiced their chances , and the wicket played so queerly later on that the superior bowling of Notts told withgreat effect . Theground, indeed , helped Alfred Shawso muchthat he was able to accomplish his best performance of the year with the ball. Scotton was in nearly two hours for his second score of fifteen not out. Notts won by six wickets . Notts, 204 and 77 (four wickets ) ; total , 281. Gloucestershire , 201 and 79. Total , 280. S h a w(2ndinningsGloucester) Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 4 9 . 2 2 8 3 3 (6) Gloucestershire v. Lancashire. Manchester, July24 and25. 8 Owingto the death of Mrs. Grace, the mother of the celebrated brother- hood, play was abandoned soon after luncheon on the second day. A t the -timethe gamewasgiven up, Gloucestershire were two runs on, having lost one