James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annaul 1897

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 9 6. 9 3 (8) Gloucestershire v. Somersetshire. Taunton , June 29 and 30 and July 1. This time Gloucestershire had the game in hand throughout . Theywent in first , and eight of the eleven made56 between them. Still , the other three scored heavily . Mr. W. G. Grace was at his very best in making his 186 , and Board (83) and Mr. Townsend (53) in their different styles played well . Onthe other side , Mr. Wood, one of Somersetshire's most reliable run -getters , failed each time , and though Mr. Lionel Palairet (58) in the second innings did fairly well, hewas not up to his best form. Next to him D. Smith, who got 41 in the second innings , was the highest contributor for Somersetshire . Gloucester- shire wonby an innings and 83 runs. Gloucestershire , 392. Somersetshire , 119 and190; total , 309. Roberts (1st inns . Somerset)... Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 2 2 . 1 1 1 5 (9) Gloucestershire v. Warwickshire. Bristol , July 9, 10 and 11. 3 5 Gloucestershire , with a moderate side , were fairly outplayed on the excellent wicket provided . W. G., going in first , did fairly well , but Mr. Townsend(57) proved to be the chief contributor to Gloucestershire's total of 178. L a wwasunable to bat owing to an injury , but he was not missed, as it happened . Mr. Bainbridge (77), Diver (71), and W. G. Quaife (58) together made morethan the Gloucestershire Eleven, and at the end of an innings Warwickshire were 134 ahead . The feature of Gloucestershire's second innings was the excellent cricket of Board. H ewent in whenthe gamewas apparently lost , andhis 124 represented morethan one-half of the total . At the finish Warwickshire had 118 to win, and had not Mr. Bainbridge (39) and Diver (45) been in excellent formagain they might have beennear losing . Asit wasthey wonbyfive wickets . Santall in the matchtookten Gloucestershirewickets at a cost of 121 runs. Warwickshire, 312 and 118 (5 wickets ) ; total , 430. Gloucestershire , 178 and 251; total , 429. (10) Gloucestershirev. Notts. Nottingham , July 20, 21 and 22. Butfor the two W.G.'s Gloucestershire's scoring would have been even smaller than it was. W.G. , jun . (62) was the highest run-getter in the first , andhis father (55) in the second . Next to them came Murch, who made29 andnot out 8, so that it will be seen the batting was very disappointing . On the other side Shrewsbury was the hero of the match , although Attewell's bowling was as important a factor in the success of Notts . Shrewsbury went through the first innings of Notts , scoring 125 of 249 from the bat. Notts won easily bynine wickets . Notts , 277 and 12 (1 wicket ) ; total , 289. Gloucester- shire , 168 and119; total , 287. Attewell (Notts) Overs. Maidens. R u n s. 3 9 . 3 3 7 2 3 Wickets. 8 (11) Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire. Sheffield , July 27 and 28. Though Gloucestershire had very nearly if not quite its best side , the Yorkshiremen had the game in their own hands from the first . Therun- getting at the outset was below the average on both sides , and Mr. Jackson's 30 for Yorkshire was the best score of the first innings . W h e nYorkshire went in again they showed different form . Brown failed to get a run, but everyone else got double figures . Still , of the total of 296 Mr. Jackson (91) and Hirst (62) were accountable for no less than 153. Gloucestershire , with359 to get to win, hadreally hardly an outside chance. A s it was, Mr. Jessop (33) alone got over 20, and the whole side were out for 92. Yorkshire w o nby266 runs . Yorkshire , 141 and296; total ,437. Gloucestershire , 79 and 9 2; total , 171. P e e l(Yorks) . . . Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 1 0 4 3 - 4 1 2