James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

7 0 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SC R I C K E T E R S ' A N N U A L. (1) Gloucestershire v. Surrey. Oval, June11, 12, a n d13. Gloucestershire had by no means its best eleven , and on the excellent form shownb ySurreyin the earlier matches, the success of the latter seemedassured. Withthe exception of Mr. W.W. Read(73 and 10), and Wood(27, not out, and 21), the batting generally ,however, was below the usual standard , and although the out-cricket altogether , just at the finish , was exceedingly good, the effort came a little too late. Messrs. B r a i na n dGilbertm a d e8 2 of 129 w a n t e dto w i nbefore the first wicket fell , and an easy victory for Gloucestershire then appeared to be certain . Mr. W. G. Grace, who had made 55 in the first innings , however, reserved himself till the fifth wicket, and w h e nhe wascaught without a run at 110, Surrey appeared to have an outside chance. W h e neight wickets were down, seven runs were still wanted, and it was essentially the cool play of Woof at the crisis which enabled Gloucestershire to win a most exciting match by two wickets . Gloucestershire , 129 and 129 (eight wickets ) ; total , 258. Surrey, 166 and 91 ; total , 257 . W o o f(Gloucestershire ) O v e r s. 9 4 Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 (2) Gloucestershirev. Sussex. Brighton, June15, 16, a n d17, Although Gloucestershire scored well , their opponents were able to claim an easy victory. For this success they were mainlyindebted to an extraordinary display of batting by Mr. F. M. Lucas. That gentleman , a left -handed batsman, wentin fourth wicket downat nine , and was not out whenthe innings closed . H ewas in altogether six hours and three -quarters , and in his 215 (not out) there wasno chance till he had reached 150. Mr. Pullen hit freely in the second innings of Gloucestershire , and his 70 (not out) was the best score on the side . Themost remarkable feature in the batting of Gloucestershire , though , was the stand by Mr. Bushand Gregg at the close of the first innings . The latter (62) punished the Sussex bowling severely , and 74 runs were added for the last wicket. Sussex wonby an innings and two runs . Sussex , 401. Gloucestershire , 227 and 172 ; total , 399. (3) Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire. Gloucester , July, 16, 17, and 18. Gloucestershire , though well represented , had the worst of the game throughout . Yorkshire , who won the toss , were not dismissed till the second morning, Ulyett (73), Bates (70), and Lee (68) contributing chiefly to their total of 379. Withthe exception of Messrs . W. G. Grace (54 and 34), Gilbert (4 and 102), and Townsend(26, not out, and 23), the Gloucestershire batting presented no noticeable feature, andthe result was never in doubt. Mr. Gilbert's second innings was a highly commendable display of batting . H e was four hours at the wickets. Thoughthe total was207 for five wickets in Gloucestershire's second innings , Harrison , who, when he came in again , got five wickets for two runs , bowled with such success that only fifteen runs were added. Yorkshire w o nbyan innings and four runs. Yorkshire , 379. Gloucestershire , 153 and 222; total , 375 . (4) Gloucestershire v. Notts. Nottingham, July 23, 24, 25 . Notts, in winning the toss , hadall the best of the luck . The wicket , indeed , played badly towards the finish , and hence the Gloucestershire batting wasnot seen to advantage . Scotton and Shrewsbury, the first batsmen of Notts , were together for four hours and fifty minutes , Scotton having been in all this time for46out of 159. Withtheir exception , though , no one did much, and Selby alone got over 20 runs . Shrewsburywas at the wicket altogether six hours and