James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1893. 1 2 3 Y (10) E n g l a n dv. Australias. Oval. A u g14, 15, and 16. upAmatch for the benefit of Maurice Read, the well -known Surrey professional , and a big success too , financially , as well as from a cricket standpoint . The Aus- tralian fielding was again faulty at the outset , and Mr. A. E. Stoddart , who opened England's innings with W. G., hadmore than his fair share of luck ; still with W . G. in his very best form runs came so fast that at luncheon 134 was up with no wickets down. Though Shrewsbury , who camein on Stoddart's dismissal , was in good form , the best batting of the innings was shown by the Cambridge captain , F. S. Jackson . He hit all round the wicket with great confidence and judgment , andhis 103 was only marred by one mistake . In the first innings the Australians were seen at quite their worst , and the result of some very disappointing batting wasa total of 91. The follow -on offered a remarkable contrast . This time, Trott Bannerman, Graham, and Giffen , all played up to their several reputations . The best stand was by Trott and Graham, who put on no less than 106 runs in seventy minutes . Trott's 92 was a particularly good display with only one hard chance whenhe had got 80. Still , the complete failure of the Australians in the first innings prevented them saving the game, which ended in a decisive victory for England by an innings and 43 runs . England , 483. Australians , 91 and 349 ; total4 4 0. Briggs (1st . innings , Australians ) Overs. 1 4 . 3 (11 ) S u r r e yv. E s s e x , Leyton, August24 and25. M n d s. R u n s. Wkts.w 3 4 5 1 5 TheSurrey eleven , even allowing for the absence of Mr. W. W. Read, as well as Lockwood , Richardson , and Brockwell , who were all representing England. against Australia at Manchester , gave a very indifferent display of all -round cricket . The extra fast bowling of Mr. C. J. Kortright was the cause of their failure at least with the bat . The majority , indeed , did not look like playing him at all , and the highest individual score in their two innings was 18. Onthe other hand, the only really noteworthy feature in their out cricket was the creditable bowling of F. Smith , a recent addition to the Surrey team . Mr. A. P. Lucas , himself an old Surrey player , was the chief run-getter on the Essex side , with an aggregate of 67. Essex won by 102 runs . Essex , 62 and 170 ; total , 232. Surrey , 54 and 76 ; total , 130. Mr. Kortright (Essex) F. Smith(Surrey) Overs. Maidens. R u n s . 2 9 . 1 9 6 4 4 9 . 2 1 8 6 9 Wickets. 1 3 1 1 (12) Surreyv. Derbyshire. Oval, August 28, 29, and 30. Surrey getting first use of a run-getting wicket secured a useful lead which had muchto dowith determining the result . Oftheir first total of 336 ,180 were contributed byMaurice Readand Brockwell . These two batsmenput on runs at a rare pace , so quickly , in fact , that 164 were added in an hour and 50 minutes . Maurice Read's 102was a characteristic display of punishing cricket , although in point of quality it was inferior to Brockwell's 72, which was really without a mistake . The Derbyshire batting on the whole was decidedly above the average . Still , Chatterton , Slater , and Mr. L. G. Wright did the bulk of the run-getting , con- tributing between them 188 out of the 371 madeby the team from the bat in the match . Surrey won by seven wickets . Surrey , 334 and 62 (three wickets ) ; total 396. Derbyshire , 232 and 162 ; total , 394. A