James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1887

9 0 L I L L YW H I T E ' SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. (4) Lancashirev. Surrey. Liverpool , July 1, 2, and 3. The first defeat of the Surrey eleven last season , after a series of brilliant successes . In this instance Lancashire was well represented at every point , while it must be stated that the absence of Beaumontmaterially weakened Surrey's bowling . With the exception of Mr. W. W. Read(95 and 32), Mr. Roller (38 and 6), and Maurice Read (20 and 31), the batting of the Surrey menwas very disappointing , and, indeed , their cricket all round was much below their usual standard . Messrs . A. G. Steel (83) , Mr. Hornby (161 ), and Briggs (76) punished the Surrey bowling severely , and the first -namedcontributed in no small degree to Lancashire's easy victory . Messrs . Hornbyand Steel added 164 runs while they were together for the second wicket , and the former with Briggs increased the total by 140 on the fall of the third wicket . Mr. Hornby, whoscored 161 out of 321 while he was in, has rarely of late years been seen to better advan- tage. H ewas missed at long -slip whenhe had got 38, but his only other chance wasto long-on whenhe had got 118. This , it m a ybe added, was his second hundred for Lancashire in the week. Mr. A. G. Steel took eleven Surrey wickets , though at a cost of 196 runs . Lancashire won by an innings and 27 runs . Lanca- shire , 424. Surrey , 229 and 168 ; total , 397. (5) Lancashirev. Yorkshire. Manchester , July 8, 9, and 10 . Thoughthe Lancashire eleven were without their captain , Mr. A. N. Hornby, Mr. A. G. Steel was fortunate enough to lead them to a very creditable victory . Therewasonly a difference of 21 runs on the first hands, andthat in favour of Yorkshire . Ulyett hit in fine style , scoring 64 of the first 96 runs-nearly one- half of the aggregate . Thebest batting of the match, though, was shown by Mr. A. G. Steel , who was answerable for 135 for only once out. But for him, indeed, Lancashire would not have fared well, and his second score of 80 not out fairly wonhis side the match . Barlow's bowling , too , helped greatly to decide the issue in favour of Lancashire . Yorkshire lost by four wickets . Lancashire , 112 and 178 (six wickets ) ; total , 290. Yorkshire , 133 and 156 ; total , 289 . Barlow(Lancashire) Emmett(1st inns . Lancashire ) Overs. M a i d e n s. 8 4 . 3 5 3 Runs. 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Wickets. 1 2 7 (6) L a n c a s h i r ev. Y o r k s h i r e. 1 Dewsbury, July 29, 30, and 31 . Rainprevented anyplay at all onthe second day, andlimited it to a very short time on the first afternoon . As a consequence , the batsmen on both sides were seen to great disadvantage , and only one of the Lancashire eleven -a weakone-got double figures , Briggs scoring 20 of 48 from the bat. In all Yorkshire totalled 213 from the bat for seventeen wickets , and of these Ulyett (31 and 32) and Bates (14 and 30) contributed 107-more than one-half . Watsonand Briggs bowled with great success for Lancashire , but were outdone by Bates, whose figures werevery noteworthy . The game was drawn, Yorkshire being 166 on withthree wickets still to go down. Yorkshire , 112 and 107 (seven wickets ) ; total , 219. Lancashire , 53. O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 9 5 . 2 5 5 7 7 9 31.3 1 8 1 9 6 )....... 1 2 6 110 4 . . W a t s o n(Lancashire) Bates(Yorkshire)... E m m e t t(