James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1889. 6 3 defensive cricket . Of the Yorkshire batting little could be said in the wayof praise . Wright and Martin bowled unchanged , and with such success that only oneof the team (Lord Hawke, 28) got double figures . In the follow on, too , thesamebowlers kept up their ends throughout , and the total fell short of the first innings by nine runs. Mr. E. Smith, of Oxford University , played for Yorkshire for the first time, and Nuttall and Barton for Kent. Yorkshire was beaten by an innings and 106 runs. Kent, 239. Yorkshire , 71 and 62 ; total , 1 3 3. Wright(Kent) Martin( ) " Overs. 41.3 4 0 M a i d e n s. R u n s. 1 4 5 1 1 7 6 5 W i c k e t s 9 1 0 (4) K e n tv. Notts. Nottingham, July 18 and 19 . Though Kent had not quite its full strength , Notts was without the ser- vices of Shrewsbury , who was unable to play owing to a sprained wrist . The latter were, however, fortunate in winning the toss , and as the wicket helped the bowlers to some extent on the second day, Kent had the worst of the luck. Sevenof the Notts eleven reached double figures , and the batting all through wasof a high class . The best performance , however , was that of Gunnand Barnes, whoput on 121 runs for the third wicket . Gunn(80), gave a difficult chance whenhis score was 51, but Barnes' 60 was absolutely without a mistake . Thepitch favoured the bowlers whenKent had to bat, and the only displays worthyof note were by Messrs . Rashleigh (22 and 27), Leslie Wilson (40 and 53), and Marchant (31 and 4). The two first namedin particular showed good cricket , and both Mr. Wilson's innings were free from fault . Shacklock was themostsuccessful bowlerinthe match. H etook nine wickets at an average cost of exactly eleven runs . Notts wonbyan innings and 43 runs . This was the sixth successive victory of the Notts eleven by more than an innings . Notts , 302. Kent, 140 and 119 ; total , 259 . (5) K e n tv. Surrey. Blackheath , August 1, 2, and 3. Surrey gained a considerable advantage in winning the toss , and, favoured byluck in this important respect , had a little the best of the game throughout . Though six of the Surrey eleven got into double figures , the bulk of the run- getting wasdonebytwo batsmen, Messrs . ReadandKey, whomade158 for the third wicket, and each, curiously enough, scored one half of that sum. Mr. Fox's bowling was the one other feature of the innings . H edid not go on till the total was 177, but proved so successful that five of the last eight wickets fell to him at a cost of only twenty-one runs. Helpedby some not very accurate fielding , Frank and George Hearne , Mr. Fox, and Mr. LeFleming, whomade his first appearance for Kent in this match , all scored fairly well, but the tenth wicket fell for 164, of which the four batsmen just namedsubscribed 129. As they were 88 behind Kenthad, of course , to follow on, andbut for Mr. Marchant the show wouldhave been a poor one. As it was that gentleman contributed 74 out of a total of 155 , a display of all -roundhit- ting worthy of the highest praise . Rain on the third morning made a draw quite possible , but it ceased early in the afternoon , and the 68 wanted by Surrey to winwere got for the loss of three batsmen. Surrey , 252 and 68 (three wickets ) ; total , 320. Kent, 164 and 155 ; total , 319. (6) K e n tv. Middlesex. Canterbury , August 5, 6, and 7. Good fortune attended Kent at the commencement of the Canterbury week,