James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1893. 8 7 with 127 up for the loss of two wickets , and Painter and Ferris well in, their victory seemed assured . As it was, Humphrey's lobs altered the whole appear- ance of the game, and, in spite of some plucky cricket by Messrs . E. M. Grace and D eWinton, Sussex won a most exciting match with only three runs to spare . Humphreys' bowling determined the result altogether . H e took seven of the last eight wickets at a cost of only thirty runs , a remarkable performance . Sussex , 202 and294 ; total , 496. Gloucestershire , 297 and 196 ; total , 493. (3) Gloucestershirev. K e n t. Maidstone, M a y25, 26, and 27 . afetust The Gloucestershire eleven were seen to better advantage perhaps in this : than in any match of the season . The best stand of their first innings was for the ninth wicket and Roberts gave Captain Luard such unexpected help that 97 runs were added while they were together . Kent's batting , on the whole, was disappointing , and indeed the highest score on the side was Mr. W. L. Knowles' second innings of 49. In the victory of Gloucestershire , Messrs . W. G. Grace and Ferris played a very important part . W . G. scored 88 for once out, but Ferris's all -round cricket was of even greater value . Besides making 63 runs he took eight Kent wickets at a cost of 81 runs . Gloucestershire wonby eight wickets . Gloucestershire 218 and 106 (two wickets ), total 324 ; Kent 130 and 193, total 3 2 3. 1973 (4) Gloucestershirev. Surreyladies of iris O Oval, June 1 a n d2. Thewicket was so far difficult that the majority of the batsmen never seemed. to be able to time the ball with any certainty . The great exception was W . G. Grace, whocarried his bat through Gloucestershire's first innings . While the rest of the side were never at home with Surrey's fast bowling , he played. Richardson , Lockwood, and Brockwell with consummateease , and his 61 (out of a total of 105) was as good an exhibition as hehas ever given. Theother stand wascuriously by the last wicket of Surrey . Richardson and Brockwell , indeed , hit with the greatest resolution , and in seventy minutes no less than 105 runs wereadded. It was Richardson's matchand no mistake. In addition to a n invaluable score of 69, he took eleven wickets at a cost of seven runs a piece . Surrey wonby seven wickets . Surrey , 180 and 19 (three wickets ) ; total , 199. Gloucestershire , 105 and 92; total , 197. O v e r s. M a i d e n s. 1 1 Murch(1st innings Surrey )............ 33.3 тогуэй (5) Gloucestershirev. K e n t Bristol , June 6 and 7. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 7 4 6 7 8 10 Owingto rain the match wasreally limited to the second and third days. As aconsequence the game could not be completed a matter for regret , perhaps , for Kent, wholooked to have a little the best of the draw. ThoughKentbeganwell bydismissing Mr. W. G. Grace as well as Mr. Ferris without a run, Gloucester- shire did fairly well, as the wicket was, to reach a total of 122. O n the other handKentdid little better , and the only noteworthy incident in their innings of 167,was a capital score of 61 by Mr. E. M. Blair , of the Royal Engineers , a first appearance in county cricket . The improvement in Gloucestershire's batting whenthey went in a second time wasthe work mainly of Messrs . Radcliffe and W .G. Grace. T h eformerhit out in his mostvigorous style, scoring 61 out of 89 while he was in. A t the finish Kent had one hour and twenty minutes for batting , and in this time Alec Hearne and Wright made57 of 199 wanted to win. without the loss of a wicket . Walter Hearne was unable to play for Kent. Gloucestershire , 122 and 243 for one wicket (innings closed ). Kent, 167 (for nine: wickets , innings closed ) and 57 (no wicket ) ; total , 224 , ole mzilA A C