James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

1 0 2 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R S ' A N N U A L . )9( Lancashirev. Y o r k s h i r e . u p o m ات ارقام Manchester, August 7 and 8. Heavy rain had made the ground very soft , and, as its condition never improved , what would have been a most interesting game practically became a question of bowling . As a proof of the difficult nature of the wicket throughout , it need only be added that the highest total of the four completed innings was64, and the best individual score , Baker's 21, for Lancashire . Brownwas the prin- cipal run-getter on the side of Yorkshire , with an aggregate of 17, and altogether only 223 runs were made in the four innings , or an average of about 5 runs for each wicket . Under such conditions the slow bowlers were seen to the very best advantage , as the figures below show. The finish of the game was singularly exciting . With only 57 to win, Yorkshire had made 40 for the loss of only four batsmen. The Lancashire eleven , though , played up with great pluck, and as the result of a grand finish wonwith only five runs to spare . O nthe first day (Bank Holiday) 22,554 paid for admission , a record for the ground. Lancashire , 64 and 50; total , 114. Yorkshire , 50 and51 ; total , 112. Peel (Yorkshire ) Wainwright(Yorkshire ). Briggs (Lancashire ). O v e r s. M a i d e n s. 4 9 . 1 7 3 6 . 2 2 9 2 1 1 R u n s. 3 9 8 Wickets. 1 0 4 6 0円 (10) L a n c a s h i r e, S u s s e x. Brighton, August17 a n d18. Bean, whohad scored so heavily in the previous match at Manchester , was unfortunately ill , and Sussex missed his resolute batting greatly . The cricket of the Sussex eleven was particularly disappointing after the form they had recently been shewing , andthe result after their first innings was really never in doubt. Thebatting , which had been consistently good throughout the summer, was this time a comparative failure , and the only scores over twenty in the double innings were Mr. Wilson's 49 and Marlow's 37. On the other hand, the Lancashire batsmen treated the Sussex bowling lightly . Albert Ward, Sugg, and Mr. Crosfield each m a d eover fifty , and six others got doublefigures . W a r dw a sin three hours and a half for his 126, which was absolutely free from fault . Mold's bowling , too, had much to do with the success of Lancashire , who won by an innings and 113 runs . Lancashire , 385 ; Sussex , 151 and 121 ; total , 272. Mold(Lancashire ) .. Overs. Maidens. R u n s. 4 5 1 4 9 9 (11 ) Lancashirev. Notts. Manchester , August 28, 29, and 30. Wickets. 1 1 Perhaps the best performance of the Notts eleven during the season . Winning the toss , they had all the best of an excellent wicket , and utilised it by remaining in the whole of the first day. Still , the whole of their success rested with the three professionals -Shrewsbury , Flowers , and Gunn-who between them were accountable for 253 of 274 madefrom the bat . Shrewsbury andFlowers , in different styles , the one by watchful and correct , the other by punishing cricket , gottheir runs without a mistake . In illustration of their opposite methods , it maybe stated that Shrewsbury's 101 occupied him four hours and a quarter , Flowers ' 107 two hours and fifty minutes . Flowers , too , bore the brunt of the bowling for Notts , and,indeed ,in the two innings only two batsmen A. Ward(82 and8), andTinsley (17and54) got over fifty runs . Notts won by nine wickets . Notts , 289 and60 (one wicket ) ! total , 349. Lancashire , 183 and164 ; total , 347. Flowers(Notts) 6 4 . 4 Overs. Maidens. 2 4 R u n s. 1 2 8 W i c k e t s. 1 1