James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1894

1 2 6 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R SA N N U A L. E X T R AM T C H E S . Tangon, thats ( In each case the Winningside is placed first ); te l a s t Opposing Clubs. 1st. 2nd1st. 2nd Where played . When played . Ins . Ins . Ins . Ins . (1) CambridgeUniversity Brighton (2) Oxford University . Brighton (3) Australians (4) Hampshire (5) Hampshire و د W o nb y. June22, 23, 24 291 158 232 *215 2 wkts. *8 w d 26, 27, 28 $341 *41 134 247 10 wkts. *n owd §inns. c l o s e d. July1 3,1 4 107 114 254 *68 lost 8wkts. *2 w d 20, 21, 22 $217 194 168*163 drawn. * 5 w § ins. c l o. 6 w SouthamptonAug.3, 4, 5 160 SS 158 110 lost 20runs Brighton Brighton و د ( 1) S u s s e xv. C a m b r i d g eUniversity бо дох Brighton, June22, 23, and24. 20 Thematches between Sussex and Cambridge University have generally been productive of high scoring -in one instance to the extent of a record . In the present case there was a double interest , not only for the fact of some fairly good run-getting , but also for an excellent finish , resulting in favour of Sussex by two wickets . Mr. J. Douglas was an easy first for the University in the matter of batting, andhis two innings of 49 and 72 represented the best aggregate of the match. O nthe other side Bean(82and 13), Marlow(82 and6), andMr. Newham(42 a n d5 6), didthe mostfor Sussex with the bat. T h e best bowling, too, w a sb y one of the county eleven , Guttridge , who took in the match nine wickets for 8 9 runs. Mr. C. M. Wells' bowling for Cambridge was not quite as successful . Still , his nine wickets were obtained at a cost of just under 14 runs apiece . Sussex, 291 and 158 (eight wickets ) ; total , 449. Cambridge University , 282 and 215 ; total, 447. (2) S u s s e xv. OxfordUniversity, Brighton, June26, 27, a n d28. The Oxford eleven were without their captain , who was playing in Shrews- bury's benefit match, at Nottingham, and his absence weakened the batting con- siderably . A s it was, though the wicket was a trifle slow at the outset , the University , with every possible allowance , ought not on their best form to have been dismissed for such a comparatively small total as 134. Their failure enabled Sussex to get a long lead , and indeed there was still one wicket to fall whenMr. Murdochclosed the innings at 341. In this were eight double figures , the highest ofwhich were Mr. W. G. Heasman's 66, and Mr. Newham's60. In their second innings, Oxfordwere seen to m u c hbetter advantage, in fact, the scoring w a sso uniform, that of seven double figures , the highest was Mr. Fry's 50. Sussex w o n by ten wickets . Sussex 341 (nine wickets , innings closed ), and 41 (no wickets ) ; total , 382. Oxford University , 134 and 247 ; total , 381. (3) S u s s e xv. A u s t r a l i a n s. Brighton, July 13 and14. A n y prospects of high run-getting were effectually dispelled by the condition of the wicket. T h e bowlers, indeed, had all the best of the cricket , so much so that the highest total of the three completed innings was 154. A s the pitch was, the batting , which was the strong point of Sussex, was severely handicapped . be . In the first innings Mr. G. L. Wilson carried out his bat for 37, and in the second the best figures were the 33 of Mr. W. G. Heasman. On the other hand, Humphreys' lobs troubled the Australians considerably , and even J. J. Lyons (47) and G. Giffen (31), whoaccounted for more than half of their total , did not shape at all well against