James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

9 8 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. (9) Lancashirev. Sussex. Manchester, July 7, 8 and 9. Rain had affected the wicket so muchthat on the first twodays batsmen found run-getting a matter of great difficulty . Sussex had the good luck to winthe toss , but were only able to get a lead of 22 runs. So far the bowlers hadhadall the best of the cricket , and until the end of the third innings the highest score had been Baker's 58 for Lancashire and C. B. Fry's 57 and 27 for Sussex. Towardsthe finish the wicket had improved considerably , and the Lancashire batsmen found scoring mucheasier . Indeed , they looked like making the 181 wanted to win pretty well all through after the second wicket . Tyldesley (83) did muchto assure their success , and Cuttell (57 not out ) fairly determined the result . Baker's all -round cricket for Lancashire was specially noteworthy. In addition to his excellent first score of 58 he took six wickets in the second innings of Sussex for only 78 runs . Lancashire won by five wickets . Lancashire , 122 and 183 (5 wickets ) ; total , 305 . Sussex, 150 and 152 ; total , 302 . (10) Lancashire v. Yorkshire. Sheffield , July 11, 12 and 13 . A benefit for E. Wainwright , a professional who had done brilliant service for Yorkshire . A Sheffielder himself , it was no surprise that with splendid weather the match should have been an exceptional success . A n excellent wicket gave every hope of a long game, and this was fully realised . Yorkshire had first innings , which they utilised to the tune of 316. But this only gave them a lead of 28, as Lancashire played up in fine style , notably Cuttell , who carried out his bat for 85, and Sugg (70). Brown (144) and F. W. Milligan (62) were principal contributors for Yorkshire in the first innings .gs In the second F. S. Jackson (134 not out )and Tunnicliffe (102 ) gave the Lancashire team a lot of leather -hunting . Both played fine cricket , scoring very freely . Ultimately Lord Hawkedeclared with the total 253 for two wickets . Three hours were then left for play , and, as Lancashire could not make the 271 wanted to win in the time , they naturally played for a draw. At one time it looked as if they might lose . But with five wickets down Cuttell (40) and W. B. Stoddart (20) came to the rescue , and , both carrying out their bats , the game was saved . Yorkshire , 316 and 253 (2 wickets , innings declared ) ; total , 569. Lancashire , 288 and 140 (5 wickets ) ; total , 428 . (11) Lancashirev. Leicestershire . Leicester , July 21, 22 and 23. Though they scored well throughout Leicestershire made nothing such agood all -round show as in the previous match at Manchester . Lancashire , going in first , laid the foundation of a victory by scoring 484. Mold (1) alone failed to get double figures , and the scores of the nine batsmen w h o were out varied from W . B. Stoddart's 18 to A. Eccles ' 139. Cuttell again proved the value of his all -round cricket with a useful innings of 75. The Leicestershire Eleven had a bard up-hill game to play , and did fairly well under the circumstances . Still , the credit was entirely due to two of the side , Brownand Coe. Theformer made169 for once out, andhis twoscores of 59 not out and 110 were most creditable . Coe, too , played useful cricket each time , to the tune of 61 and 47 respectively . Lancashire had the game well in hand from the first , and wonby an innings and 24 runs . Lancashire , 484. Leicestershire , 172 and288 ; total , 460.