James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 8 5. 9 5/ E X T R A N E O U S M A T C H E S A TT H EO V A L . (In each case the winningside is placedfirst .) ContendingClubs. (1) Playersof Southv. Gentlemen (2) North v. South (3) Gentlemenv. Players 1st 2nd1st 2nd Whenplayed . inn. inn. inn. inn . J u n e1, 2 2 5,2 July2, 3,4 W o nb y 3 6 9 1 8 3 166 inns& 20 r u n s 267 50 96 219 8 wkts; *2w d 172 372 352 140 d r a w n; *5wd (1) Gentlemenv. Players of South. J u n e1 a n d2. A revival of a once very popular fixture after an absence of several years fromthe Surrey programme. Unfortunately , though, the Gentlemen were very poorly represented , and their bowling in particular was of the weakest descrip- tion. The Players in consequence were seen to the very best advantage , and t h eg a m ewas in their favour throughout. Jones of Essex(125), andTester (108), added 212 runs for the seventh wicket of the Players , and the last five batsmenwere responsible for 279 of the total of 369. Mr. Diver played capital cricket for 80 and17, but with the exception of the stand by Messrs . Bowden and Wyatt, who made71 before a wicket fell in the second innings , the batting of the Gentlemenwas very disappointing , especially as the wicket was in the best condition . Ten of the Gentlemen bowled . Mr. R. T. Ellis , owing to an injury, was unable to bat in either innings . The Players wonby an innings and20 runs . Players , 369. Gentlemen, 183 and 166 ; total , 349. Tester(2ndinningsGentlemen). Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 3 5 . 2 4 0 (2) N o r t hv. South. J u n e25 a n d26. 1 6 7 A match for the benefit of Richard Humphrey, whodid good service for Surreyfor several years . Unfortunately Mr. W. G. Grace was unable to play, and otherwise the South was not well represented . In addition , too, the wicket w a sslowfromrecent rains, and the better bowling of the Northtold with such effect that the gamelost most of its interest after the first day. WalterWright, whotook the place of Shrewsbury at the last moment, bowled with such success thatthe Southwere all dismissed for 96, andat the end of aninnings they were 171 behind . Whenthey went in again the earlier batsmen, too, did little , and it wasonly the good cricket of Mr. Roller , who was in three hours for his 65, and Tester (38) that enabled the South to avert an innings defeat . TheNorthwon by eight wickets . North, 267 and 50 (two wickets ) ; total , 317. 219; total , 315. Wright(1st innings South) South, 96 and Overs. Maidens. 5 4」 3 9 R u n s. 3 2 Wickets. 3 It is to be regretted that the match itself was not more interesting , but the weather , which was very cold and dull , was also against a very successful benefit , and Humphreywas indeed singularly unfortunate in every respect . (3) G e n t l e m e nv. Players. July 2, 3, and 4. Neither Messrs . A. G. Steel , Roller , nor Hornby were able to assist the Gentlemen, and the absence of the first -namedundoubtedly weakened their cricket considerably . O nthe other hand, except for the absence of Barlow, the Players were as strong as they well could have been, and the gameon paper