James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1893

T H EM A R Y L E B O N EC L U BIN 1892. 5 9 (4) М . С . С .a n dG r o u n dv. Y o r k s h i r e. Lord's , M a y16 and 17. Thoughwithout Peel, not as yet homefrom Australia , F. S. Jackson , and E. Smith , Yorkshire were able to makea good fight against a moderate side of M.C.C. As a matter of fact , there was no great amount of bowling in the Marylebone eleven , and Yorkshire ought to have done better with the bat under such circumstances . As it was, three comparatively untried players did the bulk of the scoring , and A. Sellars (20 and45),Fletcher (31 not out and 27), and Hirst (20 and not out 43) contributed no less than 186 of 325 from the bat. Hirst's performance , too, was the more noteworthy , as he was actually the last batsmanto go in. Fortunately for M.C.C. , Barnes was in his very best form. Inthe first innings he made61 out of 125 from the bat, and in the second 71, or 132 in the match. As the last three batsmen in the first innings of M.C.C. did not makea run between them, M.C.C. were perhaps lucky to get through with four wickets to spare . At the finish of M.C.C.'s first innings Fletcher did the hat trick , dismissing Geeson, Board, and Burton with successive balls . M.С.С. , 144 and 197 (six wickets ) ; total , 341. Yorkshire , 152 and 188 ; total , 340 . A .Hearne(1st inningsYorks) O v e r s. M a i d e n s. 2 4 9 (5) M . C . C .a n dG r o u n dv. N o t t s. Lord's , M a y19 and 20. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 3 4 6 A very creditable victory for a not over strong side of M.C.C. Gunn w a snot well enough to help Notts, and Shacklock was also not included in the eleven . Inthese circumstances places were found for three colts , Wilkinson , Armstrong, and Moss, in the County, but without any gratifying results . Rain interfered considerably with the play on the first day, and M.C.C. , who for the fifth time in succession had choice of innings , had all the best of the luck. The wicket had worn a good deal whenNotts went in for the fourth innings , and thoughthey only had 105 to get to win, they found this too heavy a task . Helped by the ground , J. T. Hearne's bowling proved too much for the majority , and excepting Barnes, Attewell , and O. Redgate, no one got double figures . Six of the best batsmen were out with the total only 46, and it said a good deal for the tail that they were able to get so close . It was Hearne's bowling whichfairly wonthe game for M.C.C. H e took nine of the wickets (seven of thembowled) at a cost of less than five runs apiece . M.C.C. won by 14 runs. M.C.C., 145 and 146; total , 291. Notts, 187 and 90; total , 277. O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. 1 7 J. T. Hearne(2nd innings Notts )). . . 33.4 (6) M.C.C.a n dG r o u n dv. K e n t. Lord's, M a y26 and 27. 4 1 W i c k e t s. 9 Rainbefore as well as during the match was all against run-getting , and Kent, whoonly had a moderate side , had, in addition , the worst of the wicket, as the gamewent. ThoughM.C.C. wasonly weakin bowling , with the ground as it was, J. T. Hearne and Pougher were quite enough for the purpose , and, indeed, the result w a sneverin doubt. R a i ncausedthe wicket to be easier while M.C.C. were batting , and A E. Stoddart (52), T. C. O'Brien (47), and Chatterton (44) were all in evidence , contributing between them 143 of 198 from the bat. At one time 150 was up with only three wickets gone , but the tail werein difficulties on a drying pitch , and only 57 were added before the innings closed . Kent scored 77 twice , and had it not been for F. Marchant (36) and C.