James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1886

7 2 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. wicket in losing the toss , and their chances were in consequence far from hopeful at any time. Attewell bowled with great success in Gloucestershire's first innings ; and, indeed , the only noteworthy feature of the batting on that side was the stand of Messrs . Brain and Gilbert in the second innings . The latter wasin anhourandten minutesin the first for four runs ; in the second two hours and forty minutesfor twenty-one. Notts won by ten wickets . Notts,167 and 3 (no wickets ) ; total ,170. Gloucestershire , 76and91 ; total , 167. Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 4 0 3 1 2 7 Attewell (1st innings Gloucester ) ..... (9) Gloucestershire v. Lancashire. Clifton , August 13, 14, and 15. 6 Mr. W . G. Grace, though he won the toss , gave Lancashire the innings , hoping to get the best of the wicket as it dried after the heavy rains ; in this , though, he was disappointed , and the ground never improved enough to help the batsmenmaterially . The scoring , indeed, with the exception of that of Barlow andRobinson, who put on 88 runs in the first innings of Lancashire , and of Messrs . W. G. Grace and Gilbert , was very low. Barlow went in first for Lan- cashire in the first hands, and carried out his bat for 62 out of 183. In the second Mr. Gilbert performed a precisely similar feat , carrying out his bat for 40out of an aggregate of 110. Lancashire wonby 41 runs. Lancashire , 183 and85 ; total . 268. Gloucestershire, 117 and110; total , 227. Barlow (1st innings Gloucester ) Briggs(2 n d وو Overs. Maidens.R u n s. Wickets. 2 9 . 3 2 7 1 3 1 7 (10) Gloucestershirev. Sussex. Cheltenham , August 17, 18, and 19. 5 3 2 3 7 5 T H EF I R S TF I X T U R E O FT H EC H E L T E N H A M W E E K . A sin the previous match, unusually high scoring was the result . 1,074 runs being totalled in the three days for thirty -four wickets . ThoughMr. F. M .Lucas, whoscored so heavily at Brighton , was absent , Mr. N e w h a malmost emulated his performance , and it was entirely his brilliant batting whichgave Sussex a most brilliant victory . Messrs . Gilbert , Townsend , Brain , and Page were the chief run-getters for Gloucestershire ; and, after Mr. N e w h a m, Messrs . McCormickand Brann for Sussex. W h e nthey went in again, Sussex wanted 236 to win, and of these Messrs . McCormickand N e w h a m madethe first hundred and thirty in an hour and forty minutes . A tthe finish Mr. N e w h a mwas still in, having got 141 out of 239 in three hours and a quarter , without a mistake . Sussex wonby four wickets , with only five minutes to spare . Sussex, 300 and 239 (for six wickets ) ; total , 539. Gloucestershire , 159 and376 ; total , 535. (11) Gloucestershire v. Surrey. Cheltenham , August 20, 21 , and22. Thoughthey wonthe toss , the Surrey batsmen madebut a poor show, and Mr. W. W . Read, Abel, and Mr. Bainbridge alone played upto their usual standard . The best feature of the Surrey batting , indeed, was Abel's performance in the first innings . H ewentin first , andcarried out his bat or 88out of a total of 198, with only a hard chance whenhe hadmadetwenty. Mr. W. G. Grace was in his best form with the bat, and his first score of 104 waswithout the shadow of a mistake . Thoughrain interfered with the wicket on the second day, even this could in no wayexplain the feeble resistance ofthe Surrey tail in the second innings , the seven last wickets only adding 37 runs. In Surrey's first innings Mr. Bushhad a hand in the downfall of five batsmen--four caught and one stumped. Gloucestershire wonby nine wickets . Gloucestershire , 277 and 38 (one wicket ) ; total , 315. Surrey , 198 and 116 total, 314.