James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1892. 9 3 (16 ) Lancashirev. Warwickshire. Birmingham, June 27 and 28. The luck of the game went in this instance to the stronger side , and Warwickshire , who were without Major and Cresswell , had also the bad fortune to lose the toss . The choice of innings , too, gave Lancashire a big advantage, andthey utilised it to some purpose , scoring 357 in exactly five hours. Ofthis total 177 , or just one half , were subscribed by two batsmen , Sugg (105) and Briggs (72) . Their partnership produced some fast run -getting , and 135 were added in an hour and a half , of which Briggs ' share was 72. Aserious mistake in the field gave Sugg all his runs , as he was missed at point the first ball . Still his innings was altogether a judicious admixture of offensive and defensive cricket . Smith was batting two hours and twenty minutes for his 57. Though just for a short time towards the close of Warwickshire's first innings the wicket was wet and easy, on the whole it favoured the bowlers , and Lilley (21 and 32) and H. W. Bainbridge (11 and 16) were the only batsmen able to get double figures in each innings . Rain very nearly saved Warwickshire , and as it wasit fell heavily just after the winning hit had been made. Lancashire won by an innings and 105 runs . Lancashire , 357. Warwickshire , 130 and 122 , total , 252. Briggs (Lancashire ) O v e r s. 6 3 . 2 M a i d e n s. R u n s W i c k e t s 2 0 9 6 (17) L a n c a s h i r ev. C h e s h i r e. Manchester, July 4 and5. 1 1 A sin the previous match the result of the game was never in doubt. Lanca- shire , whowonthe toss , were fairly well got rid of for a total of 177. Though there was not a cipher on the side , still seven of the eleven together only made 34, and more than one half of the 172 from the bat camefrom Briggs (58) and Smith(not out 40). Cheshire's display at the wickets , bywayof contrast , was very disappointing . In an hour and twenty minutes the whole side were out for 48, of which nine came under the category of extras . In the follow on Brown(56) and Davenport (36) made92 between them, but the other nine were only accountable for 20, and of these eleven were to the credit of one batsman. Eight Cheshire wickets fell to Mold at an average cost of less than six runs . Lancashire wonbyan innings and 9 runs . Lancashire , 177. Cheshire , 48 and 120 ; total , 168 . (18) L a n c a s h i r ev. D u r h a m . Norton, July 8 and 9. The Durham eleven , on the whole , made a fairly respectable show against a powerful if not quite representative eleven of Lancashire . Inbatting they were seen to considerable advantage , particularly in the first innings , and the cricket of the brothers Crosby (H. S. 43 not out, and A. B. 87) made up for any short- comings of the rest . H. S. Crosby's play was one of the best features of the match. H e made73 for Durhamwithout being once out. Thebowling was Durham's weakest point . In all Lancashire scored in the one innings 312 (300 from the bat), of which Sugg (106) and Smith (50) were responsible for just one half . Rainin the end stopped the game, with Durhamin wantof ten runs to save the innings and four wickets in hand . Lancashire , 312. Durham, 187 and 115 (four wickets ) ; total , 302 ,