James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1889. 5 5 thedisposal of Mr. W. G. Grace, and " the Doctor ," whohad been out of cricket owing to an injury , also reappeared , so that the team was more representative thanit hadbeenat Lord's , the Oval, and Brighton . Winningthe toss ,too,Glouces- tershire , thanks to a good start by the brothers Grace, whoput on 91 runs in underthe hour before the first wicket fell , hadalways a little in handthroughout . Yorkshire had to go in against a total of 231 , but Roberts bowled with great success , and his figures (31 overs for 46 runs and seven wickets ) were exception- ally good for a run -getting wicket . Gloucestershire had a useful lead of 71 on the first hands, and though the two Graces were soon dismissed in the second innings , the joint efforts of Mr. Brain (55), Mr. Pullen (51), and Painter (50), w h oaccounted for 156 of 228 fromthe bat, the first total was exceeded by23 runs . Yorkshire went in on the second afternoon with 326 to win, andlost three good wickets , those of Ulyett , Lee , and Preston , for 34. A strain , too , prevented Roberts from bowling on the following morning, and his absence might have proved a serious loss to Gloucestershire . Hall (75) and Peel (65 ), though alone of the Yorkshiremen, madea lengthy stay , and the former was in three hours andthree -quarters without a chance . E. M. Grace's lobs proved very successful withthe Yorkshire tail . His four wickets cost 26 runs. Gloucestershire won by 93 runs . Gloucestershire , 231 and254 ; total , 485. Yorkshire , 160 and 232 ; total , 392. Whitehead(1st innings Gloucestershire ).. O v e r s. 1 8 . 8 M a i d e n s. R u n s. 6 (4) Gloucestershirev. Lancashire. Bristol , July 1 and 2. 2 6 W i c k e t s, 5 Roberts hadnot recovered from the sprain he received in the previous match against Yorkshire , and as Woofwas not available , the bowling of Gloucester- shire waseven weaker than usual . Thebatting , too , of the hometeam wasvery disappointing , and indeed Mr. W. G. Grace (35 and 37 not out) was the only one of the team in anydegree successful in both innings . In the second innings 50 wasup with only one wicket down, but Mr. W. G. Grace found no one to stop withhim, and he sawthe whole side go, taking his bat out at the finish . Pilling , owing to an injury to his hand, was unable to bat, but his services were not required , as it proved ; and with only ten mento go in, Lancashire wonby 95 runs andaninnings . Mr. Eccles (62), Paul (60), A. Ward(53), Sugg (48), and Briggs (40) did most of the run-getting , but the best cricket was that of Ward, w h owas in three hours and a half without a chance of any kind. Briggs ' bowling wasmainly accountable for the collapse of Gloucestershire in the second innings . H etook sevenwickets at a cost of 22 runs, andat onetimegot three batsmenin four balls . Lancashire , 327. Gloucestershire , 145 and 87; total , 232. (5) Gloucestershirev. Lancashire. Liverpool , July 25 and 26 . Thoughboth sides were well represented , with the exception of the absence of Mr. A. G. Steel from the Lancashire eleven , the heavy rainfall on the day previous to the match effectually spoiled the wicket, and the bowlers hadso muchthe best of the play , that the gamewas over soon after four o'clock on the second day. Sugg's hitting enabled Lancashire to makea good start while the pitch waseasy , but after he wasout for 36-the highest score of the match, Roberts and Woofcarried everything before them, and the last seven wickets only addedthirteen runs. Gloucestershire didwell to headeventhis small total bysixteen runs , but a plucky stand by Barlow and Wardimproved Lancashire's chances materially in the second innings , and but for the recklessness in running bywhich three of the side , Barlow , Paul, and Mold, threw away their wickets , the result of the game might have been different . As it was , Gloucestershire ,