James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

8 2 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches Played , 14 ; Won, 6 ; Drawn, 5 ; Lost , 3. Opponents. MatchesW o n(6). *Middlesex . *Gloucestershire (4) Sussex (6) Sussex (7) Middlesex (11) Surrey... MatchesD r a w n(5). Lord's M a i d s t o n e ,, 22, 23, 24.341*102 231 209 5 wkts; *5 wd TownMalling July 3, 4 و و W h e r eplayed. W h e n played. Club. Opnts. 1 s t 2 n d1 s t 2 n d i n n. inn. i n n. i n n. W o nb y M a y15,1 6 , 1 7 9 8183 148 94 39runs 1 7 3 1 0 0 5 9inns. & 1 4 r u n s B r i g h t o n " 1 7,1 8, 19 239 119 6 3 inns. & 5 7r u n s Tonbridge 21, 22, 23 188*242 148 280 2 wkts; *8 w d O v a l Aug. 28, 29 206 *35 101 139 8 wkts; *2 w d R e m a r k s. G r a v e s e n d June5, 6, 7 135 *98 208+157 *9 w d Gloucester 19, 20, 21 147 249 294 *91 *3 w d NottinghamJy 10, 11, 12 +252 *4 0 *4w d Canterbury Aug. 7, 8, 9 177 228 215 *149 *9 w d M a i d s t o n e " 25, 26, 27+264 1 3 3 *37 *3 w d Lostb y Manchester M a y26, 27 Y o r k 1 6 5 8 6 319 inns. & 6 8r u n s June9, 10 4 61 6 7 1 1 4*100 8 wkts; *2 w d Beckenham Aug. 21, 22 5 491 132 *15 10wkts; *nowd *M . C . C. a n dG r o u n d Lord's (1 2) Warwickshire (13) Australians (14) Australians (15) Warwickshire (2) Nottingham *Gloucestershire (5) Nottingham (8) Surrey (1 0) Yorkshire MatchesLost(3). (1) Lancashire (3) Yorkshire .. (9) Lancashire E x t r aMatches. ود M a y8, 9, 10 Birmingham Ju. 16,17, 18 Maidstone Jy 28, 29, 30 Aug. 4, 5, 6 1 4, 15,16 Canterbury B e c k e n h a m " 177 141 164 *137 95 *114 69 136 *64 77 174 189 145 205 114 128 92 212 189 85 D r a w n; *3 w d won,5wkts ; *5wd Lost,9wkts ; *1wd w o n, 108runs w o n, 30runs *H a v ebeentreated inreviews of M.C.C. andGloucestershire . + Inningsdeclared. (1) K e n tv. Lancashire. Manchester , M a y26 and 27 . The only notable absentees in the Kentish team were Messrs . Patterson and K e m p. Whiteside kept wicket for Lancashire , owing to Pilling's indisposition , and Mr. C. Holden , of the Birkenhead Park Club, also played for that county . The partnership of Sugg (66) and Frank Ward(145 ) produced no fewer than 142 runs. Both played sound cricket , and punished all the bowling severely . Sugg, w h owas in two hours and forty minutes, gave only one chance , at 43, while Ward's innings , though it contained no less than three chances , was a fine exhi- bition , lasting nearly three hours and a half . Mr. Fox, who was not put on until 287 runs had been got, clean bowled the last four wickets in ten overs for 14 runs . Kent, thanks to G. G. Hearne (47) , Mr. L. Wilson (30), and Mr. F o x (23), had100 up for only four wickets ; but Mold and Watsonproved so very destructive later on, that the remaining batsmen could only add65. Abetter show might reasonably have been expected in the follow , and with 67 up for two men this seemed probable . W h e nMoldcame on, however, a second time he worked such destruction that only 19 runs were added. Lancashire w o nby an innings and 68 runs . Lancashire , 319. Kent, 165 and 86 ; total , 251 . Mold(Lancashire) Mr. Fox(Kent) Overs. M a i d e n s. 5 0 1 7 1 0 . 2 6 R u n s. 7 9 1 4 W i c k e t s. 1 0 4 (2) K e n tv. Notts. Gravesend , June 5, 6, and 7. Thewicket was slow from recent rains , andso good was the Kentish out- cricket , that it took Notts nearly four hours and a half to make208 runs . Of