James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

T H ECOUNTIESIN 1 8 9 7. 9 9 (1) Lancashire v. Notts. Nottingham , May24, 25 and 26. A thunderstorm not only stopped play early on the second day, but pre- vented the continuance of the match. During the short time the gamelasted 382 runs werem a d efor thirteen wickets. Lancashirehadthe goodfortune to winthe toss , and on a good wicket were in nearly the whole of the first day. Still , the only really notable feature of their batting was the fine free cricket of Baker. H ewas at the wickets just over three hours for his 153, which was, oddly , exactly one-half of the aggregate from the bat. O nthe first night Notts had lost Mr. Dixon and Daft for 40, and on the second morning, before the storm, the total had been increased to 64 for the loss of another batsman(Pike), Shrewsbury being not out 31. Dench, a Colt , bowled with success for Notts , taking five of Lancashire's ten wickets for 62 runs . Lancashire , 318. Notts , 6 4(3wickets). (2) Lancashirev. Middlesex. Manchester , May31, June 1 and 2. Anothermatchto a great extent spoiled by rain . N oplay waspossible on the second day, and Lancashire's good fortune in batting before the rain did muchto determine the result . Asit was, the bowlers hadmuchthe best of it, and the highest total of the last three innings was only 135. Under the circumstances , the forcing batsmen were seen to the greatest advantage , notably F. Sugg(71 and 9), Tyldesley (46 and 13) , Mr. S. M. Tindall (0 and 33) onthe side of Lancashire , Messrs . F. G. J. Ford(41 and0) andA. E. Stoddart (26 and 29) of Middlesex . J. T. Hearne and Phillips (Middlesex ), Briggs , Mold andHallam(Lancashire ), were the most successful of the bowlers . Lancashire w o nby46 runs. Lancashire , 176 and 105 ; total , 281. Middlesex , 135 and 100 ; total, 235. Phillips (Middlesex) Overs. Maidens. 2 9 6 (3) Lancashirev. S u r r e y. Manchester, June 17, 18and19. R u n s. Wickets. 7 9 9 Luckfavoured Surrey considerably in going in first , and after their total of 301 the only chance for Lancashire on the bowler's wicket was to save the game. This they were unable to do, though they played up pluckily , particu- larly the tail in the second innings . Surrey's score of 301 was madeup chiefly b yBaldwin(93), Abel (68), Lees (34 not out) and Mr. Chinnery (31). Though rainprevented anyplay on the second day, Lancashire , whohad lost half the side overnight for 43, could not stay in long enough to avert defeat . Baker played very fine cricket for 64 out of 96 in the first innings , and in the second the later batsmen, notably Tyldesley and Smith (each 34), Briggs (27), and Hallam(23), tried hard to prevent Surrey's success . A sit was, Surrey wonby a ninnings and 24 runs . Surrey , 301. Lancashire , 96 and 181 ; total , 277. Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. Richardson (1st inns .Lancashire ) 18 8 (4) Lancashire v. Somersetshire. Taunton, June21, 22 and23. 3 6 5 Thoughthe Somersetshire Eleven began so well as to get a lead of 53 on thefirst innings , Lancashire were able to win, if only with a little in hand. T h echief features of Somersetshire's batting were the two excellent innings of Nichols (74 not out and 50) and the plucky cricket of Mr. A. E. Newton (43 and 20 not out) at the finish . Mostof the Lancashire batsmen got into double figures in one innings or the other. Still , there was no very noteworthy per- formancewith the one exception of Baker,whose second score of 84 did much to give Lancashire the victory . Cuttell (47) and Mold(26 not out) madea rare stand for the tenth wicket in Lancashire's first innings . Lancashire wonby four wickets. Lancashire , 180 and 203 (6 wickets ); total , 383. Somersetshire , 233 and149 ; total , 382 .