James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

6 8 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. (1) Sussex *K e n t (4) Surrey ... *Gloucestershire *Middlesex .. (5) Yorkshire (6) Yorkshire R e s u l t so f M a t c h e s . Matches Played , 14 ; Won, 10 ; Drawn, 1 ; Lost , 3. Opponents. MatchesW o n(10) . W h e r eplayed. Manchester Manchester M a n c h e s t e r Bristol Lord's W h e n played. Club. Opnts. 1st 2 n d 1st 2 n d i n n. inn. i n n. inn. My23,24,25 160 *103 June 13,14 197 *14 وو 2 7, 28 284 3 2 7 15,16 398 July 1, 2 " W o nb y 155 107 5wkts ; *5 wd 84 123 9wkts ; *1w d 113 123 inns& 48runs 145 87 inns & 95 runs 145 186 inns & 67 runs Huddersfield 18,19 81 153 160 71 3 runs ود Manchester Aug.1, 2 و د و د 215 *43 117 139 10 wkts 1 2,1 3 225 64 128 inns & 33 runs 15,16 226 *73 111 187 8 wkts Maidstone ,, 19,20,21 215 inns & 35 runs R e m a r k s. *8w d (Rain) Lostby Brighton O v a l 128 52 MatchD r a w n(1). M a n c h e s t e r ,, 22,23,24 *6 9 MatchesLost (3) . Manchester June6, 7 Nottingham 24,25 74 159 96 168 120 89 268 31 runs inns& 59 runs Liverpool July 25, 26 73 102 89 *87 *3 w d MatchesW o n(7). Leicester M a y20, 21 125 *10 *84 50 9 wkts ; *1 w d O x f o r d 3 0, 31 133 *62 116 75 9 wkts; *1 w d M a n c h e s t e r Jun. 20,21 172 *114 156 129 7 wkts ; *3w d Manchester July5, 6 4 0 4- 99 161 inns& 144runs Birmingham Manchester Aug. 29 22, 23 62 *84 67 78 5 wkts; *5 w d 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 inns& 69 runs Stockport Sept. 6,7 345 5 5 111 inns& 179runs R e m a r k s. Lord's Manchester Aug. 5, 6 1 3 4 (7) Sussex (8) Surrey *K e n t (9) Notts (2) Middlesex (3) Notts *Gloucestershire E x t r aM a t c h e s. (10) Leicestershire (11) OxfordUniversity (12) OxfordUniversity (1 3) Warwickshire (1 4) Warwickshire (16) Leicestershire (1 7) Cheshire MatchesD r a w n(2). *M . C . C. a n dG r o u n d (15) Cheshire ود W o nb y May9,10,11 189 134 131 *43 *6 w d 77 * Treated in previous records of M.C.C. , Gloucestershire , andKent. (1) Lancashirev. Sussex. Manchester , M a y23, 24, and 25 . Though Sussex made a good fight during the first part of the game, fortune was a little against them towards the finish , and this turned the scale against them. Theyhad, on the other hand, the advantage in going in first on a goodwicket, subsequently injured by rain, so that on the whole, perhaps , the luck was fairly distributed . O n the first day Sussex had a little the best of the play, as Lancashire had at the close lost seven wickets for 104 , against a total of 155, to which Jesse Hide (49) was the principal contributor . The tail of the Lancashire eleven , however, added 56, and as Sussex had to bat on a drying wicket in the second innings they did not makea very good show, Bean (31 not out) and Quaife (25) making more than one -half of the aggregate of 107 . W h e nthe gamewas resumed on the third morning, Lancashire wanted 73 to winwithseven wickets to fall , and, thanks to the resolute hitting of Sugg (45) and the good cricket of A. Ward(25), the runs were got for the loss of two morebatsmen. Pilling's wicket -keeping for Lancashire was exceptionally fine . In the two innings of Sussex he dismissed seven batsmen--five caught and two stumped. Lancashire thus wonby five wickets . Lancashire , 160 and 103 (five wickets ) ; total 263. Sussex , 155 and 107; total , 262 .