James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 9 7. 1 0 1 (9) Lancashirev. Somersetshire. Manchester, July 22, 23 and 24. TheSomersetshire Eleven made a poor show at all points , and were quite outplayed . The advantage of first innings did not profit them much, for barring Nichols (36) no one got thirty runs . N o rwere they seen to better effect whenthey went in again . This time the total was increased by nineteen , but of the 159 the tail contributed the greater part , Messrs . A. E. Newton (32) and R. B. Porch (48) together , 80 of them. Mr. MacLaren(70) and A. Ward(40) put on 95 for Lancashire's first wicket , and later on Frank Sugg (93) and Tyldesley (68) punished Somersetshire's bowling severely . Lancashire wonby aninnings and75 runs. Lancashire , 374. Somersetshire , 140 and 159 ; total , 299. (10) Lancashirev. Leicestershire . Manchester, Aug. 9, 10 and 11. W i t ha bowler's wicket Leicestershire hadthe badluck to lose thetoss , which effectually disposed of any outside chance they might ever have had. As it was they did well to get rid of Lancashire for a total of 200, in which there were nine double figures . W h e ntheir turn came to bat the wicket helped the bowlers greatly , or at least Briggs and Hallamboth took advantage of it . Mr. H. H. Marriott was responsible for 35 of their first total of 79. In the follow on, a muchbetter showwas made, but this was due chiefly to the tail , of w h o mMr. F. W.Stocks (40) was the mostconspicuous . Lancashire wonby nine wickets . Lancashire , 200 and 53 (1 wicket ) ; total , 253. Leicestershire , 79 and172; total , 251. Briggs (Lancashire ) Hallam(Lancashire ) ... Overs. Maidens. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 56.4 4 9 . 4 1 7 3 1 1 0 6 4 6 9 5 (11) Lancashire v. Yorkshire. Manchester , Aug. 12, 13 and 14. T h ewicket , never easy, was certainly difficult at the outset , so that Yorkshire did not gain by going in first . Mr. Jackson (59) made a good start , but none of the rest could do muchwith the bowling of Cuttell and Hallam. FrankSugg's fine innings of 122 gave Lancashire a great advantage , so much that they led by 126 on the first hands. Heavyrain stopped the game on the second day, and Yorkshire had to bat on the following morning on a difficult wicket . Five of the best menwere out for 19 , but Lord Hawke (35 not out) and Mr. Milligan (24) improved matters so muchthat Lancashire had very nearly to go in again . As it was they wonby an innings and 26 runs . Lancashire , 286. Yorkshire , 160 and 100; total , 260. Cuttell (Lancashire ) Hallam(Lancashire ) Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 6 1 . 2 4 3 3 0 9 1 8 1 9 8 3 7 (12) Lancashirev. Sussex. Brighton, Aug. 16, 17 and 18. Sussex were quite out of luck. In the first place they lost the toss , then Bland, their best bowler, had to retire ill , and lastly they had all the worst of the wicket . Mr. Hornby allowed Killick to take the place of Bland, though the latter had delivered three overs . Mr. MacLaren (76) and Ward(54) again madea good start , but the feature of Lancashire's innings was the brilliant score of Baker (186 ). Mr. S. M. Tindall's 86, too , was a fine display of free cricket . With all the worst of the wicket the Sussex batsmenfared badly against the Lancashire bowlers . Ranjitsinhji (11 and 58) and Mr. Murdoch (42 and 19) were the exceptions . They alone got double figures each time . Lancashire won by an innings and 186 runs . Lancashire , 488. Sussex , 131 and 171 ; total , 302 . Cuttell (Lancashire ) O v e r s. M a i d e n s. R u n s. 4 1 . 3 1 9 8 0 W i c k e t s . 8 E