James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1890

7 2 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. consequently left undecided . Mr. Dixon , the Nottingham captain , was unable to play, andon the other side Mr. Eccles was an absentee . Withthese excep- tions , though , the elevens were thoroughly representative , and as the respective positions of the three leading counties possibly depended on the result , the matchwas invested with unusual importance . As already said , however, the actual play only extended over less than two hours , during which time Notts made 69 for the loss of eight wickets . Of this sum Shrewsbury , whowent in first , claimed 30 not out, andGunn20. (10) L a n c a s h i r ev. Leicestershire. Leicester , M a y20 and 21 . Leicestershire w a sunable to secure the services for this occasion of Mr. H. T. Arnall Thompson, a serious loss as, owing to rain, the wicket wasjust in the state to suit his slow round-armbowling. Thebowlers , in fact , had all the best of the game, and only one batsman on each side madethirty runs or more. Mr. Hornby's 32 was the highest score for Lancashire , and Mr. C. Marriott's 30, first score for Leicestershire . Barlow's batting , though, was the most note- worthyfeature of the match. Going in first he was at the wickets one hour andforty minutes for 29, and saw the whole of the eleven out. The ground on the second day, as it dried under the sun, wasvery difficult , and Briggs took eight of Leicestershire's wickets in the second innings at a cost of 24 runs , 10 of which weremadeby Mr. DeTrafford in one over. Hallamplayed for the first time for Leicestershire in this match. Lancashire wonbynine wickets . Lancashire , 125 and 10 (one wicket) ; total , 135. Leicestershire , 84 and 50 ; total , 134 . (11) Lancashirev. OxfordUniversity. Oxford , M a y30 and 31. Amatchof comparatively lowscoring . Mr. Jardine , the Fettes captain of 1888 , played good cricket for Oxford, whowonthe toss , and his first score , of54, wasthe highest contribution on either side . Lancashire had to go in against a small total of 116 ; but Mr. Bassett's bowling proved so effective that but two of the eleven , Mr. Hornby (31) and Pilling (27), got over twenty runs, and thecounty only had a lead of seventeen runs on the first hands. Briggs and Barlow, however , dismissed Oxford in the second innings for 75, and Lancashire gotthe61 wantedto w i nwiththe loss of one batsman. Lancashire 133 and62 (one wicket ) ; total 193. Oxford University , 116 and 75 ; total , 191 . Overs, Maidens. R u n s, 1 6 Mr. Bassett (Lancashire 1st innings ) ...... 34 5 0 (12) Lancashirev. OxfordUniversity. Manchester, June 20 and 21. Wickets. 6 Oxfordhad its best eleven for this return match, but the result was just the same, though the defeat was not quite so decisive . Though the average of the run-getting showed a slight improvement, there was no very high individual score , A. Ward's 62 in the first innings of Lancashire being considerably the best contribution of the match. Singularly enough, as in the previous match, Lancashire led by 16 runs on the first hands; butthe wicket had already shown signs of wearing whenthe University went in to bat a second time, and the superior bowling of Lancashire told with great effect in the latter part of the game. Though six Oxford batsmen got double figures in the first and seven in