James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

9 0 L I L L Y W H I T E ' SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. manyminutes ; though both innings were very fine . So bad was the weather , that between Mondaynight and midday on Wednesdayno play at all wasper- missable ; and on Wednesday afternoon the Lancashire skipper , having declared the innings closed , put his opponents in. Every one expected a draw, and certainly nobodyanticipated that Sussex would be dismissed twice for an aggre- gate of 59 runs, and without a single double figure in either innings . Thewicket wasdrying rapidly , though, and Briggs and Watsonbowled unchangedthrough- out--a great achievement under any circumstances . The latter's figures were extraordinary . Lancashire w o nby an innings and 187 runs . Lancashire , 246 (two wickets ). Sussex , 35 and24; total , 59. Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. Briggs(Lancashire) W a t s o n( " 4 6 4 6 . 4 2 9 3 7 4 1 1 3 1 0 9 (4) L a n c a s h i r ev. Y o r k s h i r e. Manchester , July 10, 11 , and 12. The first fixture of the season between these old rivals naturally excited a lot of interest . Unhappily, however, rain seriously interfered with the play , and prevented the delivery of a ball on the third day. Lord Hawkeand Sugg were absent respectively from Yorkshire and Lancashire . In the first innings of Lancashire , Briggs was unfortunately run out by Mr. Hornby, who called him for a short run ; and in trying to get back the professional strained himself , and had to leave the field . The Yorkshiremen made a disappointing showwhen they took the bat, with the one exception of Mr. Smith, of the Oxford University eleven . Briggs (who had some one to run for him) and Paul put on 95 for the fourth wicket of Lancashire in the second innings . The former hit all round withgreat freedom, and his two scores of 52 and 54 were thoroughly well got. Paul got 65 before being run out , and he also played fine cricket . The match wasdrawngreatly in favour of Lancashire , Yorkshire having lost two wickets in their second essay , and wanting 259 to win. Lancashire , 161 and 187 ; total , 348. Yorkshire , 88 and 2 (two wickets ) ; total , 90. M o l d(1st innings Yorkshire) 1 2 R u n s. Wickets. 3 8 8 O v e r s. M a i d e n s. 2 5 . 4 (5) L a n c a s h i r ev. M i d d l e s e x . Manchester , July 14, 15, and 16. In this match Lancashire fairly avenged the defeat sustained at Lord's in June. Messrs . Nepean and Stanley Scott were absent from Middlesex , while Lancashire let off Briggs on account of his strain in the Yorkshire match. Atthe end of the first day the visitors had the advantage , having themselves scored 164 and captured eight of their opponents ' wickets for 111. The next day, however, Hewitson (56) and Watson (27) offered unexpected resistance , and Lancashire headed the Middlesex score by 24. The double success of the Middlesex profes- sional , Rawlin , who had not often played for his county before , was a feature of the match ; he scored 139 for once out, and though he hit brilliantly , his batting wassingularly free from fault . As the Lancashire eleven wanted 172 to win, there looked every chance of a close finish . After three wickets hadfallen , however, the two young professionals , Paul (71 not out ) and Yates (64 not out), got together , and as all the efforts of the Middlesex bowlers failed to part them, Lancashire won by seven wickets . Lancashire , 188 and 172 (three wickets ) ; total , 360. Middlesex , 164 and 192 ; total , 356. (6) L a n c a s h i r ev. Y o r k s h i r e. Huddersfield , July 17, 18, and 19. Thestrain received in the previous match at Manchester kept Briggs away, but as it turned out his services were not much missed . Though Yorkshire won