James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1892. 9 1 ( 11 ) L a n c a s h i r ev. N o t t s. Manchester , August 25, 26, and 27. Until the previous week Notts had gone through the season without a reverse . Their recent defeat by Somersetshire had, however , apparently demoralised them to some extent , to judge by their all -round cricket on this occasion , which was far below their usual standard . In this case , too , there was little or no cause for extenuation on the ground of il luck , and indeed they to a great extent threw away their opportunities by their comparatively small score at the start . Thoughlucky enough to win the toss , they only made a moderate show, and their total of 158 on a pitch that did not favour the bowlers wasrather a disappointing performance . A heavy shower before Lancashire wentin made the ground and ball slippery on the first afternoon , and Lanca- shire profited by this to score 73 for the loss of three wickets . On the following morning some excellent cricket was shown by the later batsmen , notably by S. M. Crosfield (50) and Baker (66). These two batsmen added 87 while they were together, andit was in a great measure to their partnership that the side were indebted for an addition of 204 by the last seven wickets . Notts began their second innings in a minority of 119, and began it inauspiciously , Shrewsbury playing the first ball on to his wicket . His early dismissal had a very preju- dicial effect on the rest , and in the last hour on the second day six of the best wickets had been secured for a total of only eighteen runs . Aheavy rainfall on the third morning created grave doubts whether Lancashire might after all be able to win. As it happened , soon after three o'clock the umpires pronounced the ground to be fit , and , though Sherwin played up pluckily , the four out- standing wickets fell for an addition of only 32 runs . Lancashire won by an innings and 69 runs , and won, too , just in time , as heavy rain fell during the rest of the afternoon . Lancashire 277. Notts 158 and 50; total 208. Mold (Lancashire ) Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 5 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 (12) L a n c a s h i r ev. C h e s h i r e. Nantwich, M a y16 and 17 . Lancashire , winning the toss , had the game in hand throughout . The scoring was very low on both sides , and three innings only realised an aggregate of 376 , or less than thirteen runs a wicket . The highest individual contribution of the matchwas G. Kemp's43 for Lancashire ; the best for Cheshire in the first was Wright's 33. Pointon carried his bat through the first innings of Cheshire . This was the one notable incident on the side . Watson's bowling proved altogether too much for the Cheshire eleven , as the figures below will show. The Lancashire eleven were without Briggs . Lancashire wonby an innings and 34 runs . Lancashire , 205. Cheshire , 105 and 66 ; total , 171 . Watson( Lancashire ) O v e r s. M a i d e n s. 6 6 . 3 3 9 R u n s. 6 8 W i c k e t s. 1 5 (13 ) Lancashire v. Oxford University. Oxford, M a y26 and 27 . Abrilliant finish , and one very creditable to the University , who only pulled through after a most exciting game. Heavy rain produced a wicket in favour of the bowlers throughout , and the largest total of the first three innings was