James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1892

T H EMARYLEBONECLUB IN 1891. 3 7 (1) M . C . C .a n dG r o u n dv. S u s s e x. Lord's , M a y7 and 8. A one-sided match, albeit Marylebone were represented by a fairly strong eleven. Theone innings of Sussex was chiefly memorable for the fine cricket of Marlow(144 ), who achieved the uncommondistinction of scoring a hundred in his first match for the county of his adoption . His stay at the wickets extended over three hours and forty minutes , and he gave no real chance . The best scorers for M.C.C. were Messrs . C. W. Wright (22 and not out 34), R. J. Pope (7not out and 30), Davenport (27 and 15), and Martin (0 and 40). Humphreys' lobs were extraordinarily effective in the first innings of M.C.C. Sussex w o nb y a n innings and 53 runs . Sussex , 268. M.C.C. and Ground, 88 and 127; total, 215. Humphreys(1st innings, M.C.C.) . . . O v e r s. 6 Maiden. R u n s. Wickets. 1 1 0 5 (2) M . C . C .a n dG r o u n dv. L a n c a s h i r e. Lord's , M a y14, 15, and 16. Nota particularly interesting game, as the bowlers , helped by the ground , hadmatters all their own way. Nobody, indeed , could get 40 runs at one attempt. For the Club, Lord Hawkewas top scorer with 37 and 26 ; on the other side , Sugg (22 and29), Albert Ward(15 and 32), and Mr. Hornby(31 and 5) weremost successful . TheRev. Vernon Royle appeared for Lancashire for the first time for a considerable period . Lancashire wonby21 runs. M.C.C. andGround, 128 and 85 ; total , 213. Lancashire , 117 and 117 ; total , 234 . (3) M.C.C.a n dG r o u n dv. CambridgeUniversity. Cambridge , M a y22 and 23. Another comparatively low-scoring match , although one providing an inter- esting finish . TheUniversity were 50 runs behind at the close of the first " hands," andalthough they failed to do any better at their second attempt , the M.C.C. hadconsiderable difficulty in making the necessary 57 to win. Gunnscored 70 runs in the match without being out. Cambridge were without Messrs . McGregorand Streatfeild , and Mr. F. S. Jackson (41 and 20) alone did well each time. M.C.C. won by four wickets . University , 126 and 106 ; total , 232 . M.C.C. and Ground, 176 and 57 (six wickets ) ; total , 233. (4) M . C . C .a n dG r o u n dv. L o r dSheffield'sE l e v e n. Sheffield Park, M a y25 and 26. T w overy powerful elevens had been selected , though , as events proved , that of Lord Sheffield was the stronger . The fixture was confined to two days on account of DerbyDay, and in addition there were several interruptions through rain . Mr. O'Brien , with 28 and 21 , alone showed to advantage in both innings of M.C.C. For Lord Sheffield's team Mr. Newham(77), Lohmann (35), and Mr. Murdoch(26)-werethe chief scorers . A smanyas four Australians were engaged in the match, Messrs . Ferris , Murdoch, Barrett , and R. J. Pope. The finish was quite exciting , M.C.C. being just saved fromdefeat . Thematch was drawn. M.C.C. and Ground, 109 and 63 (nine wickets ) ; total , 172. Lord Sheffield's Eleven, 172. Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 2 2 5 8 1 0 W. Wright (Lord Sheffield's Eleven)........ 46.2 (5) M.C.C.a n dG r o u n dv. OxfordUniversity. Oxford, M a y28 and 29. TheUniversity batting was redeemed from absolute failure by the brilliant hitting of Mr. Ernest Smith, who, going in with half the wickets downfor 24