James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1895

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1894. 1 2 3 (1) W a r w i c k s h i r ev. H a m p s h i r e. Birmingham, July 5, 6, and7. Warwickshire had, as it proved , by no means an easy task in this match. The ground was in favour of run getting , and 1110 runs in all were scored for forty wickets . Though Warwickshire had to face abig total of 347 (namely the work of Mr. J. E. Hill , Mr. Docker, and Lilley ) whentheir turn came, they had made as manyas 312 whentheir last batsman was out. Chief credit for this performance rested with Bacon, whosignalised his first appearance for the county with a capital 114. Great help, too, was given by Messrs . AHill and Quinton, who scored 118 betweenthem. Eight of the eleven got into double figures whenWarwickshire batted a second time, with the result a total of 252. Messrs . Robson (56), and Hill (61), m a d ea good start for Hantsin the fourth innings, but the rest of the side failed before Shilton, w h e nsix wickets at the finish cost 70 runs. Warwick- shire wonby 88 runs . Warwickshire , 347 and 252 ; total , 599. Hampshire, 312 and199; total , 511. (2) W a r w i c k s h i r ev. SouthAfricans. Birmingham, July 9, 10, and11. Rainwas an important factor in the result of this contest . The county went in first , and gave such a good account of themselves as to send up 252 as the outcomeof the innings . Lilley was in two hours and ten minutes for 60. Although the South Africans began promisingly in reply , Mr. Sewell and Mills both appear- ing to advantage , the later batsmendid so little that the innings closed for 147. Pallett secured five wickets for 25runs. Following on 105 to the bad, the South Africans had made88 at a cost of four batsmen whenrain put an end to the game, which was abandonded as a draw. Warwickshire , 252. South Africans ,147 and 88 (four wickets ; total , 235. (3) W a r w i c k s h i r ev. Cheshire. Birkenhead, June8, 9, and10. There were a great contrast between the first half of this game and the later stages . Warwickshire having been disposed of for 98, Cheshire in their turn succumbed to the excellent bowling of Whitehead and Pallett for a paltry score of 57. Warwickshire subsequently did so muchbetter as to make200 in their second essay . Cheshire , too , showed a markedimprovement in the fourth innings , having scored 144 for the loss of half their wickets when the gamewas finally left drawn. Warwickshire , 98 and 200 ; total , 298. Cheshire , 57 and 144 (five wickets ) ; total , 201 . (4) W a r w i c k s h i r e v. C h e s h i r e. Birmingham, August 20 and 21. Having disposed of their opponents for 81, Whitehead securing eight wickets for 30 runs , Warwickshire furnished aremarkable batting contrast . Mr. Bainbridge and Walter Quaife put on 102 for the first wicket , Diver subsequently batted freely for 67, andw h e nthe score hadreached 318 for eight wickets Mr. Bainbridge closed the innings . Mr. Holden (109 ), and Davenport played such excellent cricket when Cheshire went in again, however, that after all the match ended in a draw. Warwickshire , 318 (eight wickets , innings closed ). Cheshire , 81 and 187 (two wickets ; total , 268. (5) W a r w i c k s h i r e v. H a n t s. Southampton, August9, 10, and11. This return match produced some interesting cricket anda reversal of the previous verdict . Warwickshire having led off with an innings of 197, in which Walter Quaife was the highest scorer with 84. Hampshire replied with 257. The