James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1889

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1888. 9 5 wouldalone have been sufficient to account for afalling off in the cricket of the countyeleven . As it happened, too, in someother respects the play hardly came u pto expectations . Scotton's defence was nothing like so successful as in previous years , and though Gunn latterly redeemed his reputation by some brilliant cricket just at one time, he was quite out of it on the slow grounds. Barnes, too , was not so effective as he has been with either bat or ball ; and generally it must be admitted that the Nottinghamshire eleven did not appear to b every formidable in any department . Mr. Dixon was rarely unsuccessful with the bat. Mr. H. B. Daft, Flowers , and Attewell-the two last of w h o m, too , did good service with the ball --had creditable figures . The best bowling, though, w a sthat of Richardson, w h omorethan sustained the reputation he gained in 1887, and, indeed , proved himself to be a reliable bowler throughout a busyseason. O f fourteen matches played three were wonand six lost , but against this maybe placed the two easy victories over the Australian team-a doubledistinction of no small merit. R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches Played , 14 ; Won, 3 ; Drawn, 5 ; Lost , 6. Opponents. MatchesW o n(3). (1) Sussex (3) Sussex *Gloucestershire... *Lancashire (4) Yorkshire. *K e n t W h e n Where played . played . Club. Opnts. 1st 2 n d 1st 2 n d i n n. i n n. i n n. i n n. W o nb y NottinghamM a y1 4,15 240 Brighton 97 69 inns & 74 runs June11,12 157 *75 84 147 10wkts ; *n o w d C h e l t e n h a m ,, 14,15,16 215 112 75 inns. &28 runs MatchesD r a w n(5). R e m a r k s . Nottingham ,, 18,19,20 162 203 239 *15 *no wd Nottingham July 6, 7 143 114 152 *21 *2 w d M a i d s t o n e ,, 26,27,28 193 91 159 *82 *6 w d Manchester Au23,24,25 73 *15 102 64 *2 w d Nottingham , 27,28,29 120 *124 227 *1 w d Matches Lost (6). 9 wkts ; *1 w d inns& 5 5runs *Lancashire *Middlesex . (2) Surrey *M i d d l e s e x *K e n t (5)Yorkshire... *Gloucestershire (6) Surrey ExtraMatches(2). (7) Australians . (8) Australians . ود Lostb y W o nb y 76 175 95 147 8 wkts; *2 w d inns & 199 runs Nottingham My21,2223 187 131 237 *82 Lord's June7,8,9 175 87 317 Nottingham,, 25,26,27 201 112 283 Sheffield *32 July 23, 24 24 58 46 37 124 115 177 *65 6,7,8 138 53 122 147 NottinghamAug. 2, 3 O v a l NottinghamJune4, 5 215 *38 Nottingham Au16,17,18 441 * Thesehavebeentreated in previous reviews . (1) Nottsv. Sussex. Nottingham, M a y 14 and 15. 6 wkts; *4 w d 10 wkts ; *no w d 6 wkts; *4 w d 78 runs Neither side was well represented in this the opening county match of the season . The home eleven were without their great mainstay with the bat, Arthur Shrewsbury, and the visitors were unfortunate in not having the services of Messrs . C. A. Smith, N e w h a m, and Brann, whohad only just returned from Australia . WithSussex thus weakened, it was not very astonish- ing to find that at the close of the second daythey were beaten by an innings and 74 runs . Sussex had the advantage of batting first , but madepoor use of it, their total only amounting to 97, of which Bean made 39 by sound cricket . Notts put together 245 , a very fine innings from Gunn of 71, Mr. Daft 40, and Mr. Dixon32 forming the chief features of the innings . Sussex were consider- ably handicapped by losing the all -round services of Bean, whowas taken ill on