James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1898. 9 9 (12) Lancashire v. Somersetshire. Liverpool , July 25, 26 and 27 . In the first stages of the game Somersetshire fairly held their own. Subsequently , however , they failed completely , with the result that Lancashire wonwith a fair amount in hand. Going in first Somersetshire did well with a total of 314 , to which L. C. H. Palairet (71 ), Gill (59), and G. Fowler (58) were the chief contributors . Lancashire's batting was fairly level , as eight of the eleven got double figures , increasing from Sugg's 15 to Tyldesley's 63 . A tthe end of an innings Somersetshire had an advantage of 17 runs . There their successes ended. Against the bowling of Cuttell , Mold, and Briggs most of themfailed in the second innings . Theexception was S. M. J. Woods, whohit freely , as is his wont, for 51. Eventhen Lancashire hadby nomeans a certain win, and, indeed , they had to thank Sugg (43) and A. Eccles (41 not out) mainly for winning , as they did , with five wickets to spare . Lancashire , 297 and 151 ( 5 wickets ) ; total , 448. Somersetshire , 314and 131 ; total , 445. (13) Lancashirev. Yorkshire. Manchester , Aug. 11 and 12. Unfortunately for Baker, the Lancashire professional , to whom the proceeds of the match were given, the wicket was utterly spoiled by the heavy rainfall just previously . Still , the weather held up for two days , so that the result was fairly favourable from a financial standpoint . Though the first day's cricket was all in favour of the bowlers , the game was so even as to be full of interest . A tthe end of the day Yorkshire were 14 behind witha wicket in hand, and, as 16 were added the next morning, Lancashire wentin again two runs to the bad. This time the wicket was even more difficult than before , and A. Ward(19) and Cuttell ( 11 ) were the only batsmen able to get double figures . A s the ground was, it was apparently by no means certain that Yorkshire would get even the small sum of 63 wanted to win. As it happened , a surprise was in store , for Brown (32 ) and Tunnicliffe (28) hit them off , and Yorkshire wonwith ten wickets in hand . Lancashire sadly missed the bowling of Mold, who was unable to play . Ernest Smith , whohad not played for Yorkshire before this season , was very useful with the ball . Yorkshire , 114 and 63 (no wicket ) ; total , 177. Lancashire , 112 and64; total , 176. E. Smith(Yorkshire) ... . . . O v e r s. M a i d e n s . 1 4 . 4 5 (14) Lancashirev. Sussex. Brighton , Aug. 15, 16 and 17. R u n s. Wickets. 2 0 6. Lancashire , in losing the toss , were placed at a disadvantage from which they were never able to recover . Sussex, going in first , had an excellent wicket , of which they only made fair use . A sit was, most of the credit of their score of 220 was due to P. H. Latham, who made a successful first appearance for Sussex with a fine innings of 93. Heavyrain during the first night helped the Sussex bowlers greatly on the following morning . The Lancashire batsmen , indeed , could do little with Tate , and were all out for 64 . Ofthese Tyldesley (25) and Cuttell ( 17) accounted for 42, and the other nine only made 18 between them. In the follow -on Lancashire made a much better show. This time seven batsmengot double figures , though Baker (63)