James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1895

9 0 LILLYWHITE'SC R I C K E T E R S' A N N A U L. in a n d M o l db o w l e dwith such success that the other ten b a t s m e nw e r e all dismissed in an hour and a quarter for 38. Sussex in this match, a great loss to the side . 141 runs . Lancashire , 355. Sussex , 174 and M o l d(2ndinnings Sussex) O v e r s. 13.4 Marlow was unable to play for Lancashire w o nby aninnings and 38 ; total, 212. M a i d e n s. 4 (3 ) L a n c a s h i r ev. M i d d l e s e x. Liverpool, June7, 8, and9. R u n s. 1 7 W i c k e t s. 7 A match full of fluctuations , wonin the end after an exciting finish by Middlesex with only one wicket to spare . The Lancashire captain winning the toss decided to take the field , thinking the wicket would improve. Instead , the early batsmenwere all seen to advantage so m u c hso that the first seven all got double figures . Lancashire , too , madesuch a good start thanks to Mr. MacLaren, A. Ward, and Sugg that 76 had been made with only the first namedout . Then came a remarkable collapse , and Hearne and Rawlin bowled with such success that the innings was completed for an addition of only 23 runs . In the follow -on the three Lancashire batsmen just namedwere again seen to advantage with the result that the arrears of 107 were wiped off with one wicket down. Later on, Briggs and Baker hit freely , but the tail did little so that the total only reached 226. Rainfall hadaffected the wicket considerably when Middlesex went in on thesecondafternoonwith1 2 0to w i n. I n a n h o u ra n dtenminutesM o l dm a d e the ball do such a lot that Messrs . Stoddart , Webbe, Lucas , Foley , and Haymanwere all out in ten overs for only six runs. Withhalf the wickets d o w nfor 38 Middlesex had no certainty on the third morning. Aheavy shower though , made the wicket easier and a badmistakein the field whichgaveMr. MacGregora life w h e nhehad got seven out of 44 turned the scale . J. T. Hearne, the last mancame in with four to win andgot themfromthe first ball. Lancashire, 99 and 226, total , 325. Middlesex , 206 and 121 (nine wickets ) ; total , 327 M o l d(Lancashire) O v e r s. 5 8 . 1 M a i d e n s. 4 (4) L a n c a s h i r ev. S u r r e y. Manchester, June14, 15, and16. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 1 2 4 1 3 Thoughthey w o nthe toss and so got the best of the wicket Lancashire failed to utilise their opportunities . Going in first they were only at the wickets till just after luncheon on the first day. In this time they scored 120, of which Mr. MacLaren(24), Sugg (21), Baker (22), and Timsley (26) contributed 93. Surrey o n the other hand, did very well as the wicket was to reach a total of 214. Lockwood(57) and Abel (32), the first two batsmen, put on 66 in little over an hour, and of the balance Brockwell was responsible for 59. Going in again , thanks to somefree cricket by Briggs, Lancashire had m a d e104 for five wickets w h e n rain stopped play on the second afternoon . On the following morning the later batsmenonly added 31 and in making the 42 wanted to win, Surrey lost four of its best batsmen. Surrey wonby six wickets . Surrey , 214 and43 (four wickets ) ; total , 257. Lancashire , 120 and 135 ; total , 255. Richardson (Surrey).. O v e r s. 4 9 . 2 M a i d e n s. 1 2 (5) Lancashirev. Notts. Nottingham, June25 and26. R u n s. 1 1 4 W i c k e t s. 1 2 This match had hardly begun before Mold strained his ankle ,so badly that he had to give up further part in the match. The loss of his bowling was, of course , severely felt by Lancashire and Notts profited in consequence . WithMold away Lancashire did well to get their opponents out for a total of 244. As it was the