James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1891

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1890. 9 9 responsible for 178 out of 269 madebyNotts. O n the present occasion , the samepair claimed nofewerthan463out of 575fromthebat, andtheir stand of 398 runs for the second wicket , which lasted just six hours , eclipsed by 58 the numbergot by Messrs . Keyand Philipson for Oxford University v. Middlesex in 1887. Shrewsbury's remarkable innings of 267 , which contained only one chance, wascharacterized by extraordinary watchfulness , and occupied him just undernine hours. It wasunfortunate that Gunnwascaught whenwithin four ofhis second " century ; " in making his 196 he gave not the slightest chance , andplayed throughout with admirable skill and judgment. Seven bowlers were tried by Sussex , of whomHumphreys, with four wickets for 72, proved most successful ; Mr. Smith's and Gibbs' one wicket each cost 130 and 101 runs respectively , while Jesse Hide waseven more expensive , having 135 scored off h i mwithout getting a wicket . Of course the southerners stood no chance against the colossal total of Notts . Still , some good batting was shownby Bean (50 and10), Hide (37 and 44), Mr. Newham(36 and 19), and Mr. Smith (14 and 32) . Notts , 590. Sussex , 186 and 138 ; total , 324 . (2) Nottsv. Surrey. Nottingham, M a y26, 27, and 28. TheBankHoliday match, and a great triumph for Notts . Both sides were playing their full strength , and at the outset Lohmann was very successful , dis- missing Mr. Dixon, Barnes, and Flowers for comparatively few runs. Then, however, Gunnand Shrewsbury scored 67 for the fourth , andGunnandFlowers 76 for the fifth wicket , with the result that the total was up to 231 before the last m a nleft . Gunn's score of 82 was beyond all praise he was badly missed in the slips whenhe had only made 10, but this was all that could be urged against him . Shrewsbury , who scored 41 , was also seen to advantage , and Scotton (38) and Shacklock (25) contributed useful scores . The visitors , who shaped very badly against Attewell and Shacklock , lost six wickets for 59, and it wasonly some plucky hitting by Lohmannand Bowley that saved the follow . Thanks to Shrewsbury (38), Gunn (35), and Butler (26),Notts were enabled to puttheir opponents in to get 261; but this proved far beyond their powers, and they fell short by 108 runs . Lohmann(34 and 35), whowas not out each time , batted in excellent style ; of the rest , Mr. Read (26 and46), andAbel (0 and39) played best for Surrey . Notts , 231 and 182 ; total , 413. Surrey , 153 and 152 ; total , 305. Shacklock (Notts ). Overs. 6 0 M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 1 6 1 4 5 9 (3) N o t t sv. S u s s e x. Brighton , June 9, 10, and 11 . Anothercrushing defeat for Sussex , the youngprofessional , Butler , being this time the most successful performer . But for Jesse Hide (43 ) Sussex would never havescored even the moderate total of 105 ; for Mr. Dixon, on winning the toss , elected to put his opponents in, a decision quite justified by the result . The ground played better whenNotts went in, and their score at the close of the first daywas 181 for one wicket . Only two hours ' play was permissible on the second day, but on the third morning the innings was declared closed with the total 362 for six wickets . Towardsthis numberButler contributed 171 , Arthur Shrewsbury 54 , Gunn46, and Scotton 50 (not out). Butler was at the wickets for rather morethan four hours and a half , and in his fine display was only one chance, at 151. With Quaife absent (hurt ), Sussex had of course no possible chance of making it a drawn game. Notts wonby an innings and 138 runs . Notts , 362 (six wickets ). Sussex , 105 and 119 ; total , 224 . Attewell (1st innings Sussex) . . . . . . . . Overs. Maidens. 3 9 . 1 2 7 R u n s. 3 2 Wickets. 8