James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1898

1 2 4 LILLYWHITE'SCRICKETERS' ANNUAL. hewasnot in the best of health . But apart from him, the batting was hardly as reliable . Mr. Brann never played better , or indeed as well , and Messrs. Murdochand Newhamwere always equal to a good score . Bean, too , did well , but Marlow was far from at his best , and Killick did not at all uphold the reputation he made in 1896. O n the other hand, the bowling was decidedly better . Bland, of Lincolnshire , whohad qualified by residence , was a great addition . His fast bowling was always of use, at times very destructive . Another noteworthy feature of Sussex cricket in 1897 was the consistent excellence of Butt's wicket -keeping. * * * Opponents. R e s u l t so f M a t c h e s . Matches played , 20 ; won , 5 ; drawn , 9 ; lost , 6. MatchesW o n(5) . Somersetshire K e n t H a m p s h i r e Somersetshire (2) Yorkshire * * * * Matches Drawn(9). E s s e x ... Gloucestershire M i d d l e s e x L a n c a s h i r e E s s e x Gloucestershire Hampshire (*) K e n t... (*) Surrey Matches Lost (6) (*) Notts (*) Surrey (*) N o t t s Club. Opnts. Whereplayed . Whenplayed . 1st 2nd 1st 2nd Brighton W o nb y. I n s. I n s. I n s. I n s. J u n e10, 11 188*103 75 213 1 w k t.; *9 w d Tonbridge June21,22 , 23 172 *196 156 211 Brighton July22, 23, 24 438 1 3 41 2 8 T a u n t o n A u g .5, 6, 7 207 *37 165 77 Brighton A u g .9,10, 11 327*1191 7 5269 6 wkts.; *4 w d I n s. & 1 7 6r u n s 9 wkts.; *1 w d 6 wkts.; *4w d M a y27, 28, 29 226 *37 190 1 4 7 Leyton Brighton Eastbourne Manchester Brighton Bristol Portsmouth Brighton Brighton J u n e7, 8 July1, 2, 3 July15,16,17 July22, 23, 24 A u g .2, 3, 4 Aug.19,20,21 Aug.23, 24, 25 Aug.30,31,S 1 Nottingham M a y10,11,1 2 O v a l M a y20, 21, 22 July8, 9,1 0 July12,13,14 Hastings July 8,9 R e m a r k s. *4 w k t s. d. 2 4 5 *1 8*1 w k t. d 305*220 266 +122 *4w d,i.c.; +3w d 476*254 420 219 *380 475 3 6 7 249 306 *6 w k t s. d *5 w k t s. d 156 *83 218 +105 *1 w d; +8w d,i.c. 320 116 340 154*251 159 *7 w k t s. d 255 119 *448 232 232 295 *448 190 155 146 268 164 210 *681 Inns. &74runs; *7w d, i.c. 279 r.; *5w d,i.c . 69 runs I n s. & 307r u n s *5wd, i.c. Aug.12,13,14 216 282 432 *67 7 wkts.; *3 w d A u g .16,17,1 8 131 171 488 I n s. & 1 8 6r u n s Lostb y. (1) Yorkshire Sheffield (*) Middlesex L o r d ' s (*) Lancashire Brighton E x t r aMatches. (3) Philadelphians Brighton June17,18 , 19 46 252 216 *83 (4) CambridgeUniv. Brighton June24,25, 26 412 *20 159 270 (5) OxfordUniversity Brighton June28,29,30 90 120 250 I n s. &4 0r u n s 8wkts.; *2 w d W o nby. 9 wkts.; *1 w d Lostb y. (*) These have been treated in previous reviews . (1) S u s s e xv. Yorkshire. Sheffield , July 12, 13 and 14 . Sussexwithout K. S. Ranjitsinhji was, of course , greatly weakened. Still , it wasmore in the bowling than in the batting that they failed . Winning the toss they madea very poor display , Mr. G. Brann(57) and Vine (33) alone getting over 15. The Yorkshiremen made a very different show. Brownand Tunnicliffe punished the Sussex bowling severely , so much so that the score was 348 before the latter , who hadmade 147, was out, a n e wrecord for the first wicket. B r o w n, w h ow a s in for six hours and a quarter , was eventually caught for 311. Later on Wainwright (104 not