James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1885

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 8 4. 1 1 5 wickets for only eight runs . All the eleven had tried their hands with the ball during the innings . TheEnglishmen went in to bat just after five o'clock on thesecond day, and the last wicket fell at a quarter past five on the following afternoon . Thefeatures of the innings were the exemplary defence of Scotton , andthe powerful hitting of Mr. W . W . Read. Scotton went in first andwas pinth out at 332. H ewasbatting altogether for five hours and three -quarters ; buthenever gave a chance in his ninety , and his patience hadvery muchto dowith the good show of the English eleven . Mr. Read's 117 was, in a different style , a remarkable exhibition of batting . H ewas tenth in the order of going in, andaltogether he wasat the wickets only two hours and a quarter . H e scored 100 while Scotton was making31, and his hitting throughout , especially to leg, was as fine as anyone have ever seen. After following onin a minority of 205runs, England, whenplay ceased , had lost two wickets for 85 runs. The gamewasthus left unfinished , Englandbeing 120 behind with eight wickets to fall , a drawcertainly rather in favour of Australia . In all 982 runs were scored for 2 2wickets. (6) Australians v. South of England. September 11 and 12. Theentire use of the ground andstands hadbeen granted to the Australians b ythe Committee of the Surrey CountyClub. The match, however, owing partly to the lateness of the date, and partly to the weakness of the English eleven, was not a very great success . The H o n. Alfred Lyttelton and Messrs. Brain, Lacey, N e w h a m, and K e m pwere none of themable to play, and owing to a strain Lord Harris had to give up his place . Owing to rains , too, the groundwasvery heavy, andthe batsmenwere therefore seen altogether at a disadvantage . Still the play of the English eleven was most disappointing , and in the first innings six of themfailed to get a run. Spofforth's bowling was the feature of the match , though Palmer's figures on the first day were also note- worthy. In the first innings of the South, Spofforth dismissed Mr. Grace, Painter, and Readwith successive balls . TheAustralians wonby an innings andfive runs . Australians , 163. South, 56 and 102 ; total , 158. Spofforth. Palmer(1st innings South) 3 4 1 2 Overs. Maidens. R u n s. 6 5 1 7 . 2 7 7 1 0 Wickets. 1 2 5 S U S S E X . OFFICERS FOR 1884. President , The Earl of Sheffield . Treasurer , W. G. Ashby. Committee , East Sussex : H o n. A. Brand, S.Beard, Rev. F. F. J. Greenfield , H. C. Hardy, Spencer Austin Leigh , H. Whitfeld . West Sussex : H. É. Harris , C. J. Lucas , M. P. Lucas , W. Napper, C. Sharp , Lieut. Col. Wisden. Brighton : H. Cooke, H. Dering, R. T. Ellis , E. Eager, F. Ravenhill , C. H. Smith , and four additional members from the Clubs of Chichester , Eastbourne , Hastings , and Horsham. Secretary , Geo. Goldsmith, 11, Prince Albert Street , Brighton . THEmarked improvement in the play of the Sussex eleven wasone of the most noteworthy events of last season . Throughout their cricket was of avery creditable character , and their performances , in particular against Notts, Yorkshire , and the Australians at Brighton , were among the very best of the year. The excellence of their batting was shown in the long scores they madeagainst some of the strongest bowling, andall round the play of their team was certainly above the average . Mr. Newham's batting was one of the most noteworthy features of the year, and Mr. Whitfeld , Tester , H u m - phreys , Jesse Hide, and Mr. Blackmanall did good service . Thoughthere was no very deadly bowler , there was plenty of variety , and indeed in this department they were as strong as, if not stronger than, any of the Southern