James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1892. 9 9 (1) N o t t sv. S u s s e x. Nottingham , May26, 27, and 28 . Awicket affected by rain previous to as well as during the match, and, as aconsequence , scoring considerably above the average . Notts gained a distinct advantage in going in first , andthe early part of the gamewas alone unproduc- tive of even a fair amountof run-getting . Notts were able to show 100 with only three scorers out, and they were lucky to get a good start while the wicket waseasy. Bean and Marlow, in their turn , made runs while the ground was wet after a heavy shower, and the first Sussex wicket fell at 33. After this , though, thebowlers were able to makethe ball d o muchwhat they liked , andthe last twenty-nine wickets only reached an aggregate of 239 runs. In the fourth innings Sussex were only able to make75, and of these 50 were contributed by G. S. Wilson (18) and Butt (32). The former was the only Sussex batsman bowled, and he was dismissed in this wayeach time. Notts wonby 63 runs . Notts, 143 and 96 ; total , 239. Sussex , 101 and 75 ; total , 176 . Attewell(Notts). Flowers ( , ) ..... Tate(Sussex) . O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s 5 4 2 4 8 2 8 44.1 2 2 7 4 9 5 2 . 2 2 6 6 5 8 (2) Nottsv . Surrey. Nottingham , June 6, 7, and 8. Neither side had quite its full strength , with Flowers unable to assist Notts , and Maurice Readand W o o dboth awayfrom the Surrey team. The loss of Wood'swicket -keeping in particular was a great disadvantage to Surrey , andthis without any reflection on the capacity of his substitute . TheNottinghamCom- mittee had seemed a little doubtful as to the advisability of playing Shacklock , it was said . It wasfortunate they did , as the success of the hometeamwas in a great measure the work of the two bowlers , Attewell and Shacklock . The latter , indeed , was the hero of the match, for he not only made45 without being out,but hadthe best analysis , taking ten wickets at a cost of 43 runs . Attewell's all -round cricket was of equal value . In addition to an aggregate of 52 runs for onceout, hedelivered 69 overs for 82 runs andten wickets. Just at the outset the ground was a little slow; but while making every possible allowance , Surrey's display was very disappointing . Their batting in particular was much below their best standard . Of 156 from the bat in the second innings , J. Shuter (63), K. J. Key(41), and W. W. Read(27) were responsible for 121 , and their playwasthe one redeeming feature of Surrey's cricket . The wicket wasmuch faster for the fourth innings , and Notts got the 143 wanted to win for the loss of only three batsmen-a creditable performance . Notts, 124 and 143 (three wickets ) ; total , 267. Surrey , 97 and 169 ; total , 266 . (3) N o t t s v. S o m e r s e t s h i r e . Nottingham, June 23, 24, and 25 . Heavy rain interfered so much with the game, even at the commencement , that the s u mof the first day's cricket w a sthe dismissal of five batsmenof Somerset. The earlier part of the match was, indeed , all in favour of the bowlers , andGunn's 27 was the highest score on either side at the end of an innings . Some brilliant hitting by H. T. Hewett (73) and G. Fowler (34) marked the opening of Somersetshire's second venture . There , though , their success ended , as Attewell's bowling proved far too much for the later batsmen, and indeed eight of the side only made31 between them. WithShrewsbury, Gunn, and Barnes out for 56 of 145 wanted by Notts to win, there was an out-side chance of a good match . As it was, J. A. Dixon , the captain (not out 74), and Flowers (not out 34) soon placed the issue beyond doubt , and Notts gained a creditable