James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1892. 7 5 (7) Gloucestershirev. L a n c a s h i r e. Liverpool , July 28 and 29. TheGloucestershire eleven were seen to great disadvantage in this match. Thoughfortunate enough to winthe toss , they failed utterly to utilise the oppor- tunity, and the result was fairly foreshadowed by their failure in the first innings . The batting was, indeed , very disappointing , so muchso that there wasonly one score on their side in the match of over 33. The exception was R. W. Rice , and his first innings was an excellent display of watchful cricket . In first wicket down, he was last out, and his 62 was the one redeeming feature of the later batting . Just before the end of the first day, Roberts hurt his hand so badly that he was unable to take further part in the game. The loss of his bowling, too, was severely felt , and with W. G. still very lame, Lancashire scored freely -that is to say, one batsman did. Of their total of 296 from the bat, A. C. Maclaren contributed 135. H e was in three hours and a half , and, though he gave two chances -the first whenhe had only got 13-his was a very taking innings . Lancashire wonby an innings and 30 runs . Lancashire , 311 . Gloucestershire , 142 and 139 ; total , 281 . (8) Gloucestershirev. K e n t. Canterbury , August 1, 2, and 3. The first match of the Canterbury week, and one of good omen for the home county . W. G. was too lame to play for Gloucestershire , and his absence was of course a great disappointment to the good folk of Kent. Heavy rain had fallen on the Sundaynight , and even up to noon on Mondayit looked as if the opening daywouldbe a blank. Fortunately the weather held up sufficiently to allow of three hours' play, andwith all the advantage of the wicket in going in first , Kent fared well . Still their total of 256 was in the mainthe success of one man. Thatmanwas Alec Hearne, and his performance was the feature of the match. Going in first , he was not out at the finish of the innings , which hadlasted four hours and a quarter . Inthis time he made 116, and there was no blemish to detract from the merit of an exceptionally good innings . Glouces- tershire were altogether out of luck in having to bat on a wicket drying under the sun, andwere all out the first time for 91. In the follow on they fared muchbetter , though not well enough to give the game any interest . Painter's free cricket was the chief incident , as he was in only an hour and a half for his 65 not out, which contained as manyas ten fours . W. C. Knowles failed to score in either innings of Kent. Kent wonby seven wickets . Kent, 256 and 25 (three wickets ) ; total , 281. Gloucestershire , 91 and 188 ; total , 279 . (9) Gloucestershirev. S u s s e x. Gloucester , August 4, 5, and 6. Three days of generally high scoring , though not of an abnormal character . Altogether 924 runs were made for twenty-five wickets , and never at any time wasthere muchhope of a definite finish . Sussex took full use of first " knock " on arun -getting wicket , and at the end of the first day the score was 247 , with only four of the side out not a surprise , with the Gloucestershire bowling weakened by Roberts ' absence . O n the following morning G. Brann and W . H. Andrewsscored at a tremendous rate , and while they were together 122 runs were added in seventy minutes . In Andrews' 67 were two hits out of the ground for six . Sussex were not out till after luncheon on Friday ; andthen the record showed 482 as the result of seven hours and forty minutes ' batting . As at Brighton , Brann was the chief contributor , though Marlow was this time conspicuous with an excellent score of 98. Brannwas in three hours and forty minutes for his 147. Thoughcareful at first , towards the finish he hit with great freedom, and his last 47 were got in thirty minutes . The effect of their long outing wasseen in the play of the early batsmen of Gloucestershire on the second