James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

T H EM A R Y L E B O N EC L U BIN 1885. 5 3 t w oinnings of Sussex he delivered 66 overs and two balls for 58 runs and 10 wickets. M.C.C. won by ten wickets . M.C.C. and Ground, 145 and 10 (no wickets) ; total , 155. Sussex , 86 and 65 ; total , 151. (2) M.C.C. a n dG r o u n dv. Oxford University. Oxford , May18, 19, and 20. Rain prevented any play on the third day-a fortunate circumstance , according to appearances , for the University . Though Marylebone had a fairly strong eleven , the form of the Oxonians was very disappointing , particularly their out-cricket , which was much below the average . With the exception , too , of the stand made by Messrs . Buckland (36) and Hildyard (62). who put on 70 runs while they were together , there was nothing worthy of note in their batting . Gunn(71 and 27) and Mr. E. J. C. Studd (110 and 44) punished the Oxfordbowling severely . These two batsmen contributed 181 to Marylebone's first total of 244, and the latter made as manyas 110 out of 156 while at the wickets. The match was drawn. M.C.C. and Ground, 244 and 178 (for five wickets) ; total , 422. Oxford, 168. (3) M.C.C. a n dG r o u n dv. K e n t. Lord's, M a y18 and19. M.C.C. and Groundwas only moderately represented , and Kent, though L o r dHarris and Mr. W . H. Patterson were both absent, was able to win its first match for the season , with plenty in hand. The scoring on both sides was fairly good , though only one batsman made over fifty runs in either innings . But for Mr. Hornby, Marylebone would have fared very badly . H econtributed 46 and 84 to the Club's total of 140 and 161 , being the highest scorer each time . Hishitting in the second innings , despite two chances , was very brilliant , and whilehe was in he m a d e84 out of 105 runs. K e n tw o nb ysix wickets. K e n t, 205 and 99 (four wickets ) ; total , 304. M.C.C. and Ground, 140 and 161 ; total, 301. (4) M.C.C. and Groundv. CambridgeUniversity. Cambridge, M a y21, 22, and23. a The Marylebone Eleven were so weak in bowling , as well as in batting , that the match was deprived of much of its interest , and was practically of little use as a trial . The Captain (Hon. M. B. Hawke) and Mr. C. W. Rock were both away; but, despite their absence , the University Eleven showed very fair cricket o n slow ground, and on paper had the best of the drawn game. Rain prevented any play on the second day, and the wicket was throughout so muchagainst run-getting that the scores were only small . Mr. C. W.Wright (36 and 55) was the most successful batsman on the University side . G u n n(35) and Sherwin(21) contributed 56 out of 86 fromthe bat for M.C.C. and Ground. Cambridge, 143 and 140 ; total . 283 . A. E. Leatham(Cambridge) Overs. 1 3 M.C.C. and Ground, 91 . Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 5 1 0 4 (5) M.C.C. a n dG r o u n dv. Notts. Lord's, M a y28 and 29. Shrewsbury and Attewell were both absent from the County Eleven , and in addition Scotton , Barnes, and Flowers , whohad just returned from Australia , were not in the best form. This , and a not very goot wicket , will account in a great measure for the poor show of the Nottinghamshire players (at least with the bat) against a very moderate eleven of the M.C.C. and Ground. Mr. H. B. Daft (23 and 10 not out) and Scotton (10 and 12) were the only batsmen to get double figures each time, and twenty wickets realised but 135 from the bat. The great feature of the gamewas the brilliant all-round cricket of Mr.