James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

T H EM A R Y L E B O N EC L U BIN 1 8 2 3. 8 3 (11) E n g l a n dv. Australians.) July 17, 18 and 19. Unfortunately an injury to his hand at the last moment prevented W.G. Grace, whohad represented England in every previous match against Australia fromplaying . Otherwise , the English eleven was representative , andbut for the heavyrain on the third afternoon the Australians might have lost . The heavy rainjust before the match, too, rendered the choice of innings a little doubtful , and it was thought at first that A. E. Stoddart , who captained the English eleven , would have done better if he had put the Australians in . As it was, although Turnerwas able to make the ball do a good deal, the English batsmen were in four hours and three -quarters for a total of 334, a very creditable total under the circumstances . The credit of the performance rested with F. S. Jackson (91) Shrewsbury (106). The former was missed at 52 and once subsequently . These werethe only faults in a brilliant display of free cricket . Shrewsbury was batting altogether four hours, and there was no actual chance to mar a characteristic display of correct and watchful cricket . Hewas, too , the mainstay of England's second innings , and his double score of 106 and 81 represented one of quite the best performances of the season . Gunn (77) helped to add 152 runs during his second partnership with Shrewsbury. The early batsmen of the Australians fared so badly against Lockwood's bowling that half the side were out for 65. The stand of the innings was by Gregory and Graham, who, in an hour and forty minutes together put on 142 runs . Graham was not out till he had made 107, an innings whichfor pluck and judgment has not often been surpassed . Whenrain stopped thegamethe Australians wanted 299 to win with all their wickets in hand so that theyhad certainly not the best of the draw. The score and analysis will be found in Australian matches in part I. (12) Australiansv. Middlesex , к иазизло July 24 and 25. Fromvarious reasons several of the chief amateur players of Middlesex begged to be excused from this match . Messrs Webbe, Stoddart , Foley , McGregor , and Henery were all absent , and to make matters worse their places were only poorly filled . Asa consequence , the gamelost all the interest it would otherwise havehad, andthe only benefit to anyone was the chance it gave the Australians of showing their capacity as run-getters . The commencement of the match produced some- thing of a sensation , as Bannerman, Lyons, and G. Giffen all fell to J. T. Hearne's bowling, without a run. In the second innings , whenHearne and Rawlin were collared the Australian batsmen hada merry time of it. Trott made 145 in two hours and a half ; Gregory 111 in nearly three hours ; and Turner 65, not out, in eighty minutes . In the end Middlesex was beaten by 390 runs . Australians 147 and 457, total 604 ; Middlesex 78 and 136, total 214. Overs. ( 10Mnds.igne 5 J. T. Hearne (1st . Ins . Australians ), 24 C. T. B Turner (1st . Ins . Middlesex ), .. 1 1 . 3 4 . G .H .Trott(2nd. ) .... 10.3 3 M O N T A D A(13) R u g b y v. Marlborough. M o t o z K A u g .2 a n d 3. R u n s W . 1 5 8 3 6 4 . J6 3 3 5 There was little to choose between the two elevens on the form of the match. Still Marlborough had the best of the draw, a creditable performance considering that they were 63 behind on the first innings . W. Mortimer , who played such fine cricket in 1892 , was again the mainstay of Marlborough . His scores of 38 and 98 represented by far the highest aggregate of the match . On the other side , J. F. Marshall (32 and 45), R. W. Nicholls (6 and 68), and W. H. Eckersley (22 and 28, not out), were the most successful batsmen . At the finish , Rugby wanted 81 to win with four wickets to fall . Rugby, 228 and 165 (6 wickets ) ; total , 393 . Marlborough , 165 and 308 ; total , 473.