James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

9 0 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. to allow of a finish on the second night, and the runs were got for the loss of two batsmen (Sugg and Smith). Lancashire w o nby eight wickets . Lanca- shire , 116 and32 (two wickets ) ; total , 148. Somersetshire , 88 and 58 ; total , 146 . Briggs (Lancashire ).. M o l d( ).......... Captain Hedley (Somersetshire ) O v e r s. M a i d e n s. 4 2 R u n s. 1 7 8 3 W i c k e t s 1 2 3 2 . 2 1 5 4 0 8 2 0 9 3 4 6 (9) L a n c a s h i r ev. S u s s e x. Brighton , August 15 and 16 . Briggs, owing to illness , was unable to play for Lancashire , and the loss of. his bowling mighthave been severely felt . Fortunately for them, in losing the toss Sussex gave their opponents such an advantage that the result of the game washardly in doubt after the first day. First use of an excellent wicket gave the Lancashire eleven an opportunity of which they availed themselves fully . Their innings lasted until the second morning, with the result a big total of 356. For this they were mainly indebted to two batsmen, A. C. McLaren(132) and Smith (111 ). Becomingpartners with two good wickets downfor 30, they were together for three hours and twenty minutes , in which time the score was increased by 208 runs . McLaren, whowas in three hours and three -quarters , gave no chance till just before he was out . The same could hardly be said of Smith's innings , which lasted four hours and a half . His unvarying patience wasof the greatest value to the side , but his play was not free from chances . Thebatting of the Sussex eleven was very disappointing , and, as it happened, Briggs' bowling was never missed . Mold andWatson, indeed , bowled unchanged through both innings , and Guttridge (17 and 31) was the best of some small scores . Mold took fourteen of the eighteen Sussex wickets which fell to the bowlers at a cost of 160 runs . Lancashire w o nby an innings and 125 runs. Lancashire 356. Sussex 105 and126 ; total 231. (10) Lancashirev. Surrey. Oval, August 22 and 23. With A. C. McLaren absent , and A. Ward suffering from an injured hand, the Lancashire eleven were severely handicapped . They had, as it happened too, the worst of the luck of the wicket , although they had only themselves to thank for this , having the choice of innings . Just at the commencementthe pitch was rather soft , and the Lancashire batsmen had to do all they knewto play the bowling of Lockwoodand Lohmann. Supported by good fielding the two Surrey bowlers kept the runs downwell, and though Lancashire's innings lasted two hours and ten minutes , the result was only a total of 99. Though the wicket was getting faster whenSurrey went in the start was not auspicious , and half the side were out with the total only 103. The captain (J. Shuter ) made ample amends for early disappointments with a vigorously hit 56, and eventually the total reached 229, the last hourhaving produced nearly a hundred runs . Going in a second time in a minority of 130, Lancashire again fared badly against the bowling of Lohmannand Lockwood , and, in spite of a good score of 41 by Baker, whenthe ninth wicket fell they were only five runs on. Still the end was far off , and the last two batsmen (A. T. Kemble and Mold) played the Surrey bowling with such confidence that the last wicket added 58. This left Surreywith 68 to win, andthe amountw a s obtained for the loss of three batsmen. Surrey won by seven wickets . Surrey 229 and 71 (three wickets ), total 306. Lancashire 99 and 197 ; total 296. Lockwood (Surrey ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O v e r s. 55.1 M a i d e n s. 1 2 R u n s. W i c k e t s. 1 4 5 1 2