James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

5 8 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' A N N U A L. (1) M.C.C.a n dG r o u n dv. Sussex. Lord's , M a y5 and 6. Cold, cheerless weather and a wicket all in favour of the bowlers , a con- junction not conducive to spirited cricket , hence a short game, extending only a little into the second day. Beanhad not returned from Australia , and with C. A. Smith and G. Brann away, Sussex had not its best side . On the other hand , M.C.C. was well represented in batting , as well as in bowling . As it happened, Martin and J. T. Hearne of themselves furnished a sufficiently strong attack , and the pair were unchangedduring the two innings of Sussex . Oddly enough, too, they made the stand of the match, and their scores of 31 and26 in first innings of M.C.C. were the highest on either side . The bowling of Parris , a left -handmediumpace bowler, whohad played twice before for the County, was the best feature on the Sussex side . G. L. Wilson , who went in second wicket down, was not out each time, scoring 13 and 17 respectively . M.C.C. wonby70 runs . M.C.C. , 127 and 57; total , 184. Sussex, 66 and 48 ; total, 114. Parris (Sussex) Martin (M.C.C.) O v e r s. 2 9 . 4 M a i d e n s. 7 R u n s. W i c k e t s. 4 8 1 2 4 3 2 3 5 1 1 3 (2) M . C . C .a n dG r o u n dv. L a n c a s h i r e. Lord's, M a y9 and 10. Moldwas unable to play for Lancashire owing to illness , and Briggs , who had just reached homefrom Australia , after travelling overland from Brindisi , was naturally not in the best condition . In consequence , the brunt of the Lancashire bowling fell on the veteran Watson , and the County was lucky to get rid of a batting side which included Gunn, Barnes, and Chatterton , on a good wicket , for 238. M.C.C.'s success was in a great measure the workof one man, Chatterton . H ehad been scoring with remarkable consistency with Mr. W . W. Read's teamin South Africa , and his first appearance in England only added to his reputation . He carried his bat through the innings for 109 , in whichwasno actual chance. Albert Ward's second innings saved his side from collapse . First in, he was last out, having scored 64 out of 106 from the bat. Attewell , who had, like Briggs , just reached England, contributed in no small degree to M.C.C.'s victory by his bowling . M.C.C. wonby ten wickets . M.С.С. , 238 and29 (no wicket) ; total , 267. Lancashire , 155 and 110 ; total , 265 . Attewell(M.C.C.) O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. 5 3 . 4 2 7 7 3 (3) M.C.C.a n dG r o u n dv. Derbyshire. Lord's , M a y12 and 13. Wickets. 1 0 Chatterton , whose batting had been so successful for M.C.C. earlier in the week, was this time out of luck for his County, and his failure madeall the difference to the side . M.C.C. had a strongish batting eleven , and seven of themgot into double figures . Of these T. C. O'Brien had the best figures , and his score of 58 wasthe result of less than an hour's work. Considering that in the first innings four of their best batsmen were out for 11 , Derbyshire did well to reach a total of 172 , a result for which Hulme(48), Storer (46 not out), and Davidson (39) were mainly responsible . Storer's batting wasdistinctly the best feature of the gamefor the side of Derbyshire . Hemade79 in the match for once out. M.C.C. wonby nine wickets . M.C.C., 274 and 41 (one wicket ) ; total , 315. Derbyshire , 172 and 142 ; total , 314.