James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1895

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1894. 1 0 9 Somersetshire had a quartette of useful bowlers . Mr. Wood, however, was not able to do as m u c hworkas usual owingto a badleg, anda really first -class bowler wouldhavestrengthened the side materially . R e s u l t sof M a t c h e s. Matches Played, 16 ; Won, 6 ; Drawn, 3 ; Lost, 7. (1) Sussex (a) K e n t Club. O p n t s. Opponents. Whereplayed. Whenplayed 1st 2nd 1st 2nd W o nb y Ins. Ins. Ins. Ins. MatchesW o n(6) Brighton M a y17, 18 122*132 129 1241wkt.; *9 wd Canterbury Bristol June11, 12 159*153 188 1213wkts.; *7 wd " 14,15,16 253 *82 123 2116wkts.; *4 wd T a u n t o n Jy.30,31 .Aug.1 110 230 220 83 37 runs. ” Aug.2, 3,4 Aug.27, 28 1 9 4166 119 131110runs 141*110 115 1355wkts.; *5 wd T a u n t o n July23, 24, 25 Aug.13,14, 15 168*260 ود و د و د (a) Gloucestershire (a) K e n t (4) Sussex (a) Gloucestershire MatchesD r a w n(3). (a) Lancashire (a) Notts.. (6) Yorkshire MatchesLost (7). (a) Middlesex (a) Notts... (a) Lancashire (2) Yorkshire (3) Surrey (2) Middlesex (5) Notts. Lord's Nottingham M a n c h e s t e r Huddersfield O v a l T a u n t o n 24,25,26 R e m a r k s. *2 w d. Inns. del. 207*154 200 1274 *7 w d; 1 4 w d 99 *3 *n owd Lostb y M a y14, 15 5 8 113 142 *32 10wkts.; *n o w d 222 21 runs 3 1 132 231 Inns. a n d68runs 7 49 4 173 I n n s. a n d5 runs July12, 13,14 148 202 149 و د 1 7 " 1 9,2 0 ود 26, 27, 28 207 196 260*1449wkts.; *1 w d A u g .6,7, 8 و و 9 . 1 0 2 0 6 109 231 10319 rúns 101 116 129 *9 0 4wkts.; d 6 *w (a) Hasbeen treated in previous reviews . (1) Somersetshirev. S u s s e x. Brighton, M a y17 a n d18. Though without Messrs . R. Palairet , Challen , Hedley, and Roe, Somerset- shire w o nafter a most exciting finish . The scoring all round was below the average of the Sussex ground , and curiously there was only a difference of ten runs between the lowest and highest of the four innings . Thebest individual contribution of the match was Mr. Murdoch's second score of 42, and his was the best aggregate with 73. Somersetshire with 132, had made85 when the third wicket fell . So effective , however, was Guttridge's bowling , that the next six wickets only realised 44. Threeruns werestill wantingto winw h e nthe last m a n came in, and as the Rev. A. P. Wickhamgot these , Somersetshire wonwith only a wicket to spare . E. H. Killick , of Horsham, a fast bowler, made a very creditable first appearance for Sussex . He took six wickets in Somersetshire's first innings for only 28 runs . Somersetshire , 122 and 132 (nine wickets ) ; total 254. Sussex , 129 and 124 ; total , 253. O v e r s. 2 1 M a i d e n s. 1 4 8 R u n s. Wickets. 1 6 3 5 5 7 Mr. Woods(2nd innings Surrey ) Guttridge (2nd innings Somersetshire ) .. 20 (2) S o m e r s e t s h i r ev. Y o r k s h i r e . Huddersfield , July 19, 20. Somersetshire's second successive match completed in a day. The wicket played very queerly after the heavy rainfall , and Hirst's fast bowling got up at times very much. As a consequence , the majority of the Somersetshire batsmen were not seen to advantage . Indeed , only Mr. V. T. Hill (25), in the first , and Tyler (21) in the second , got over 20 runs ; O n the other hand, Lord Hawke(56), Peel (44), and Hirst (31 not out), were all fairly successful for Yorkshire . Hirst's all -round cricket had muchto do with their victory , as his bowling figures will prove. Yorkshire won by an innings and five runs. Yorkshire , 173. Somersetshire , 74 and 94 ; total 168. Hirst(Yorkshire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O v e r s. 23.1 M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 8 5 3 1 0