James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

1 2 2 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N U A L. (7) S o u t hof E n g l a n dv. Australians. Oval, June 15 a n d16. Though the Surrey Committee had some difficulty in getting a strong side to oppose the Australians , with Middlesex and Somersetshire and Sussex all playing , theeleven proved more than equal to the occasion . The Australians , it mustb e stated , were without Messrs . Blackham and G. Giffen , whose absence weakened the cricket of the side greatly . Bad fielding at the outset seriously prejudiced their chances , too , for at least the total of the South was considerably augmented by the mistakes . W. G. , whoopened the batting , made 60, but not in anything like his best form. Alec Hearne's play was really the best feature of the first innings of the South. He was in four hours , and his 120 was an exceptionally well -played score , with more freedom than usual . The Australian batting was certainly not up to the best standard . H. Trumble's 26 was the highest score in the first innings , but the best display was W. Bruce's second score of 53, the result of attractive and punishing batting . The South wonby ten wickets . South, 305 and 8 (no wicket ) ; total , 313. Australians , 142 and169 ; total , 311. (8) Surreyv. Australians. Oval, July27 and 28. ThoughSurrey were without their captain , Mr. J. Shuter , as well as Mr. C. М . Wells, Lockwood, and Wood, they were able to pull through after a very exciting finish with two wickets to spare . Considering that the wicket at the outset was slow from heavy rainfall , the scoring was creditable to both sides , resulting in an aggregate of 944 runs. The most noticeable feature of the first hands was the success of the two young Surrey cricketers , Haywardand Street , the latter a son ofJamesStreet , the old Surrey bowler , whomadehis first appearance for Surrey in this match. They added 95 for the second wicket , but this stand was outdone by Brockwell and Baldwin who put on 123. Even then their batting was inferior to that of Henderson, who carried out his bat for 60 without anything like a mistake . The wicket was, for a time at least , wet and easy during the second innings of the Australians . Of this G. Giffen took full advantage , although his innings of 82 was attended bymore than a fair share of luck. As the wicket was at the finish , Surrey had no easy task to get 115 to win. In spite of Turner's excellent bowling , however, they did get them with two wickets to spare , a result mainly due to the steady play of Mr. W. W. Read, Brockwell , Hayward, and Henderson. Surrey , 356 and118 (eight wickets ) ; total , 474. Australians , 162 and308 ; total 470. (9) S u r r e yv. Leicestershire. Leicester , Aug. 10 and 11. Adefeat at Leicester has not been unknownto Surrey of late years . Another was in store for them in this match, which was played on a wicket entirely in favour of the bowlers . The scores indeed will prove this , for not one of the three completed innings reached 70 runs . As the game went , Leicestershire had the best of the wicket at the finish , and Pougher's 24 (not out), which wonthe game, was the highest individual score of the match. Woodcockand Pougher were un- changed in the first innings of Surrey , and with the exception of seven balls from Brockwell , Richardson and Sharpe bowled throughout the match for Surrey. Pougher's all -round cricket played an important part in the victory of Leicester- shire , a matter of five wickets to spare . Leicestershire , 43 and 56 (five wickets ) ; total , 99. Surrey , 34 and 64 ; total , 98. Pougher (Leicestershire ) Richardson (Surrey) O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. 3 5 . 4 2 2 1 7) 3 8 W i c k e t s. 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 1