James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

5 4 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. } W .G. Grace. H e not only contributed 63 out of 192 fromthe bat, buttook altogether sixteen wickets at a cost of 60 runs. M.C.C. wonby aninnings and 59 runs . M.C.C. and Ground, 199. Notts , 96 and 44 ; total , 140 . Mr.W .G. Grace O v e r s. M a i d e n s . 7 8 . 1 5 1 (6) M.C.C. a n dG r o u n dv. Yorkshire. Lord's , June 1, 2, and 3. A NE X T R A O R D I N A R Y S T A N D . R u n s. 6 0 W i c k e t s. 1 6 The play of the Yorkshire Eleven was not up to the usual standard , and their out-cricket , in particular , muchbelow the mark. As a consequence , they hadall the worst of the game, and G u n nand Barneswere able to performa feat without a parallel in a match of such importance . While they were together in the second innings the two Nottingham professionals raised the score from72 for three to 402 for four wickets , having added 330 runs while they were together . This is the largest number made by two batsmen in a really first- class match. They were together for four hours and forty minutes , Barnes being not out at the finish for 140, while Gunnhad previously retired for 203. A tthe finish , Marylebone, whohad only lost four wickets in the second innings for 449, were 528 runs on with six wickets to fall . M.C.C. and Ground148 and 449 (four wickets ) ; total , 597. Yorkshire , 69. Attewell (M.C.C. ) Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 4 2 1 6 5 3 1 (7) M.C.C. a n dG r o u n dv. Derbyshire. Lord's, June 15 and 16. Derbyshire had not quite its best eleven for the occasion , and Marylebone, very fairly represented , had an easy victory . The County did well to get rid of the strong batting side which opposed them for 262, of which 82 were contri- buted by Mr. T. R. Marshall . With the exception , though , of Chatterton (28 and 37), Cropper, and Mr. L. C. Docker, the batting was only of a moderate ✓character, and to this defect their defeat wasmainlyattributable . Mr. Docker wasunfortunately not well enough to bat for Derbyshire in the second innings . M.C.C. and Ground wonby an innings and seventeen runs. M.C.C. and Ground, 262 ; Derbyshire , 131 and 114 ; total , 245. (8) M.C.C. a n dG r o u n dv. H a m p s h i r eClub a n dG r o u n d. Southampton , June 15 and 16. The Hampshire Eleven were not only poorly represented , but, in addition , with the worst of the luck in losing the toss , were unable to show to the best advantage , and were decisively beaten by a moderate team of M.C.C. and Ground. The Marylebone victory was mainly due to the excellent batting of Davenport and Mr. J. S. Russel , and the effective bowling of Gunnand Atte- well. Davenport went in first wicket down, and carried out his bat for 101. Attewell and Gunnbowled unchanged through the two innings of Hamp- shire . Gunntook eleven wickets for 85, Attewell eight for 70 runs . M.C.C. and Ground won by an innings and 113 runs . M.C.C. and Ground, 269 ; Hampshire Club and Ground, 74 and 82 ; total , 156. (9) M.C.C. and Groundv. CambridgeUniversity. Lord's, June 22 and 23. Marylebone put a strong eleven into the field , and the Cambridge team were seen to disadvantage at all points . Their batting , though Messrs . Hawke, Wright, Rock and Bainbridge played well , was, on the whole, disappointing . T h efour batsmennamedcontributed 157 out of 218 from the bat, and Mr. Hawke'ssecond score of 73 was obtained without a chance . Barnes (75), and Mr. A. G. Steel (45), were responsible for 120 out of 228 madefrom the bat in