James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

5 8 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. first h a n d s. Attewella n dF l o w e r sh a db e e nthe m o s tsuccessfulbowlersin Gloucestershire's first innings , and they did the execution in the second , in which Woof (11 ) , Mr. Radcliffe (11), and Mr. Pullen (11 ), were the only double figures . As the scores hadgone Notts did not seem to have a very easy task on going in again , though they only wanted 79 to win, and had the chances given byShrewsbury and Flowers been taken, they might not have succeeded ; as it wasthe runs were got by the two batsmen-45 by Flowers , and 31 by Shrews- bury. Flowers was the hero of the match. In addition to his second innings of 45(not out), the highest of the match, he took eight wickets for 45 runs , five in the Gloucestershire second innings at a cost of only 15 runs . Notts wonby ten wickets . Notts 87 and 79 (no wicket ) ; total , 166. Gloucestershire 105 and 60 ; total , 165. (11) Gloucestershirev. Surrey. Cheltenham , August 19 , 20, and 21 . Amatch, in its actual result not unlike that of eleven days before , between Gloucestershire and Kent. Mr. Shuter , though on the ground , owing to indis- position , was unable to help Surrey, and Brockwell took his place . Rain inter- fered with the match on the first as well as the last day, and the cricket suffered materially in consequence . Mr. Cranston (111 not out) and Maurice Read(93), didmostof the scoring for their respective sides , but neither was a faultless performance , indeed both batsmen had considerable luck . Gloucestershire's second innings was remarkable only for the batting of Messrs . W . G. Grace (20) and Radcliffe (63), who were responsible for 83 of 99 from the bat. Brockwell , the colt , was mainly accountable for the collapse of the later batsmen of Glouces- tershire , and he took five wickets -three in one over-for 24 runs . Wanting 126 to win, and with only ninety minutes left , Surrey did well to get within measurable distance of victory ; and as they only wanted 14 to win whentime wasupwith six wickets to fall , a slight rearrangement of the batsmen at the finish might probably have altered the result . Gloucestershire , 201 and 107 ; total , 308 . Surrey , 183 and 112 (four wickets ) ; total , 295. Brockwell (2ndinnings Gloucestershire ) . . . . . O v e r s, M a i d e n s. 1 5 6 R u n s. 2 4 W i c k e t s. 5 (12) Gloucestershirev. Middlesex. Cheltenham , August 22, 23 , and 24. Thesecond match of the Cheltenham week, and, like its predecessor , spoiled to someextent by rain . Thoughthey wonthe toss , Gloucestershire beganbadly, andhadnotthe later batsmenlent Mr. W . G. Grace useful assistance the total wouldnot have been large . Mr. Townsend(45) and Mr. Page(43) scored freely , and chiefly through their aid Mr. Grace was able to achieve a fine performance , carrying his bat through the innings of four hours and a half duration for 127 out of 282. ThoughMiddlesex had to follow on in a minority of 104, a showermade the wicket easy for the first two batsmen, Messrs . F. G. J. Ford and P. J. Para- vicini , and 87 were scored before the latter was out. Messrs . Fordand Stoddart subsequently added 84 in fifty minutes , and the former continued to hit away till h ew a sbowledb yW o o f. H econtributed 108 out of 171 while he w a sin, and as he was only at the wickets two hours , the character of his batting m a ybe judged. H e should have been caught at the wicket whenhe hadonly made17, butdespite two subsequent chances his was a wonderfully fine display of well- timed all -round hitting . With the total 240 for seven wickets , Mr. Webbe declared his innings at an end, but Gloucestershire kept up their stumps for the seventy -two minutes that remained, and at the finish had five batsmen still to go in and wanted 89 to win . Gloucestershire , 282 and 48 (five wickets ) ; total , 330, Middlesex , 178 and 240 (seven wickets ) ; total , 418.