James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1889. 9 5 onthe second day. Yorkshire , reversing the experience of the previous match, winningthe toss , got a useful lead of 63 on the first innings , just about the majority by which they won. Thestate of the wicket prevented any very high run-getting , and, but for the faulty fielding onboth sides , this would have been reduced considerably . Lord Hawke, as befitted a captain , was the principal run-getter for Yorkshire with 37 and 9, andJesse Hide headed the list on the other side with 3 and 33 not out. Theground helped the bowlers , as already stated , andPeel took the most advantage of it, and dismissed thirteen Sussex wickets at a cost of 118 runs . Yorkshire wonby 68 runs . Yorkshire , 158 and 150; total , 308. Sussex , 95 and145 ; total , 240. Peel(1st innings Sussex) Övers. Maidens, R u n s. Wickets, 2 6 8 4 3 (3) Sussex v. CambridgeUniversity. Brighton , June 20, 21 , and 22. 7 Though Sussex had the good fortune to get first use of a run-getting pitch , and took advantage of it to make a long score of 316 , they lost after all , and by nearly aninnings . Mr. N e w h a m(88) andJesse Hide (43)-thelatter with some luck-punished the University bowlers severely when they got together ; but Mr. Dudney(71 ) and Arthur Hide (37) hit with even greater freedom, andthe score was increased by 100 runs for the seventh wicket . Messrs . H. J. Mordaunt (78) and C. P. Foley (26) put on 85 for the University's first wicket , and later on the captain , Mr. Ford, scored at a tremendous rate , making 123 runs in an hour andfifty minutes . H eonly gave one hard chance whenhe hadreached 51, andhis hitting all round was clean and well -timed. After their big total of 316 , Sussex werein a minority of 114 , and though Humphreys(22) and Mr. W. H. Andrews (28) played up pluckily at the finish . The batting generally was very dis- appointing , and they just succeeded in saving the innings . Cambridge wonby tenwickets . Cambridge University , 430 and 5 (no wicket ); total , 435. Sussex , 316 and 118 ; total , 434. (4) Sussex v. Hampshire. Brighton , July 22 and 23. TheHampshire eleven were without their bright particular star in Mr. F. E. Lacey, and, as it was, madesuch a bad start , that they never looked again like getting oneven terms . Winning the toss , they were dismissed for 122, far too small a total on such a wicket, and with their limited bowling . Sussex took full advantage of their weakness , too , and Mr. Newham(170) alone scored 48 more than their eleven . The Sussex captain was batting just three hours without a mistake of any kind. This is his highest score in a county match. Though they wentin a second time 274 to the bad, Messrs . Forster andBencraft made a good start , putting on63 for the first wicket. Towards the finish , too , Dible (56not out) and Young(32) added 76 byfree hitting , but the effort came too late , and Sussex w o nby an innings and 32 runs . Gibb, of East Grinstead , a left -hand medium-pace bowler, played for Sussex for the first time in this match. Sussex , 396. Hampshire, 122 and 242 ; total 364. Jesse Hide(Sussex ) . (5) S u s s e xυ. Overs. Maidens. R u n s, 5 0 2 8 3 2 H a m p s h i r e. Southampton , August 1, 2, and 3. W i c k e t s, 1 2 Heavy rain prevented any play in this match on the third day, and the gamewas left drawn in a rather interesting state . Sussex wonthe toss , but were this time in a minority on the first hands , a result mainly due to the good batting of the Hampshire tail , particularly of Smith (72 not out) and Mr. G. F. 1