James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1890. 9 5 Notts, Lancashire andGloucestershire at Lord's in M a yandJune aroused the public interest not a little , as the teamwere at that time showing decidedly better form than for several years past . Mr. A. J. Webbewas playing con- sistently good cricket , and the same m a ybe said of Mr. E. A. Nepean, whose services with both bat and ball again proved invaluable in the few engagements in whichhe was able to participate . Mr. Nepeanwas not available after June, however, whilst Mr. Webbeshowed a marked falling off in the later engage- ments. Moreover, batsmen possessed of such reputations as Messrs . Stanley Scott , Stoddart , O'Brien , andFordshould , we think , have come out with better figures than averages ranging from 15.2 to 19.5 . Messrs . Vernon and Hadow, too, w h odid their county such good service in 1889 and previous seasons , were not available . It will thus be seen that the county suffered to a great extent from ill -luck . The victories over Notts and Lancashire were gained by thoroughly good all -round cricket , and the return match with Kent was only lost after a splendid struggle . Theresults of both games played with that rising minorcounty, Somersetshire , however, came as a surprise to manypeople . The success of Rawlin, notably in the return with Lancashire , encourages the belief that hewill prove of permanent use to Middlesex in both departments of the game. Thebulk of the heavy workwith the ball fell upon painstaking Burton andyoungJ. T. Hearne, whoacquitted themselves very creditably , though they werenaturally a trifle expensive . Resultsof M a t c h e s. Matches Played, 12 ; Won, 3 ; Drawn, 1 ; Lost , 8 . Club. Opnts. W h e n Opponents. Where played . played . 1st 2 n d1st 2 n d W o nb y i n n. i n n. i n n. i n n. MatchesW o n(3). *N o t t s Lord's *Gloucestershire *L a n c a s h i r e Lord's L o r d ' s My29,30,31 286*124 204 205 June5,6 120 *146 110 155 6 wkts ; *4 w d ,, 16,17,18 139 311 266 111 7 wkts; *3 w d 73runs M a t c hD r a w n(1). R e m a r k s. (3)Yorkshire. B r a d f o r d Aug12, 13 60 *71 169 *6 wd MatchesLost(8). Lostb y *K e n t Lord's *Y o r k s h i r e . Lord's O v a l 39 runs 156 runs inns. & 2 runs (1) Surrey *L a n c a s h i r e *K e n t . (2) Notts *Surrey *Gloucestershire ... E x t r aMatches(3). *Somersetshire *Australians..... (4) Somersetshire My15,16,17 148 94 98 183 Jn.12,13,14 113 49 165 153 ,, 27, 28 140 57 199 Manchester Jy.14,15,16 164 192 188 *172 Tonbridge ,, 21,22,23 148 280 188 *242 Nottingham , 24, 25 111 216 297 *33 ود 18,19 83 59 162 7 wkts; *3 w d 2 wkts; *8 w d 8 wkts; *2 w d inns. & 1 6 2runs Lord's Aug.14,15 162 101 425 C h e l t e n h a m inns. & 22 runs Lord's Lost by 78 runs Lord's Jn. 9,10,11 113 135*176 D r a w n; *8 wd T a u n t o n Aug.21, 22 108 126 107 127 A tie M a y26, 27 132 131 133 208 * Have been treated in reviews of M.C.C. , Gloucestershire , Kent, and Lancashire . (1) Middlesex' v. Surrey. Oval, June 27, 28 . N ostart was practicable until the second day, owing to rain . Middlesex (w h owerewithout their best all -round player , Mr. Nepean) batted first on an easy pitch . Messrs . Stoddart (60, a dashing display) and Webbe(46) scored 99 for the first wicket ; but the sun was now rapidly drying the ground , and Lohmannmadethe ball do such a lot that the remaining nine wickets added but