James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1889. 6 9 (2) L a n c a s h i r ev. M i d d l e s e x. Manchester , June 6 and 7. The first of the three defeats suffered by the Lancashire eleven in 1889 . Bothsides were well represented , but the wicket was not in the best condition , and the scoring did not reach a high pitch . Middlesex , winning the toss , were dismissed by Briggs and Mold for 96, but Lancashire were even less successful , Mr. Nepean's twisters proving too muchfor the later batsmen, eight of w h o m together could only account for 23. Thelead of 22 runs secured by Middlesex on the first hands proved very useful as the gamewent; in fact , it helped materially to winthe game. As in the first innings , four batsmengot double figures for Middlesex in the second , but the aggregate was much more satisfactory . This was entirely due to Mr. Stoddart , whomade71 out of 112 while he was in a fine exhibition of free and stylish cricket . Lancashire had b ynomeansan easy task whenthey went in to get 191 to win, and with four of their best batsmen out for 66 things did not look very promising . Sugg and Briggs , by determined hitting , gave a more hopeful appearance to the game, butboth lost their wickets through over -eagerness the former stumped and the latter run out. Their dismissal gave Middlesex the victory , and though Watsonhit hard at the close , Lancashire , when the gameended, were short by 31 runs . Middlesex , 96 and 168 ; total , 264. Lancashire , 74and 159 ; total , 233. Mr. Nepean's bowling had muchto do with the result . In all he took nine wickets for 81, in the first innings five for 24 runs. Barlow was unable tobowl on the second dayowing to lameness , and Lancashire missed himcon- siderably as it happened. (3) L a n c a s h i r ev. N o t t s. Nottingham , June 24 and 25. Unfortunately neither Mr. A. G. Steel , Mr. Eccles , nor Barlow (owing to a strain ), were able to play , and Lancashire was, in their absence , placed at a great disadvantage in meeting the formidable combination of Notts . The latter lost the toss , but this did not prove of any serious consequence , and Shacklock bowled with such success that Briggs (38), A. Ward(20), and Paul (16), alone gave any trouble . Notts had only to go in against a comparatively small total of 120, and though Shrewsbury and Mr. Dixon were soon dismissed , Barnes (102) and Gunn(54) offered such a determined resistance to the Lancashire bowlersthat the Lancashire score waspassedbefore the third wicket fell . These twoplayers put on 101 while they were together , and Barnes ' absolutely fault- less innings , of three hours and a half , was the more praiseworthy as hewas suffering from a very badhand. Lancashire went in a second time in a minority of 148, and there was never at any time a chance of their putting Notts in again . Ward(37) and Watson(16) were, in fact , the only members of the eleven able to makeany stand , and, whenthe gamewas over, Notts hadwon byaninnings and59 runs . Notts , 268. Lancashire , 120 and89 ; total , 209. Shacklock (1st innings Lancashire ) . O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. 5 4 1 1 7 . 4 (4) Lancashire v. Surrey. Manchester , June 27 and 28. W i c k e t s. 6 Mr. A. G. Steel was able to assist Lancashire , and his presence brought good luck to the eleven , who gained a decisive and very creditable victory . The wicket was not in the best condition , and Surrey in losing the toss were placed