James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

1 0 6 LILLYWHITE'S CRICKETERS' ANNUAL. (1) Middlesexv. Sussex. Brighton , July 25, 26 and27. If only for the exceptional performance of C. B. Fry for Sussex , the match wouldhave been memorable. T w ohundreds in the samegamein any cricket havebeen rare , muchmoreso in first -class matches. HenceC. B. Fry's record deserves special mention. In the first innings he made108 out of 335 from the bat, in the second 123 (not out) of 224 for seven wickets . His two innings quite overshadowed the rest of the Sussex batting ; indeed Killick's not out 7 6 andButt's 52, both in the first innings , were the only other scores over fifty for Sussex . Middlesex were mainly indebted to H. B. Hayman(66) and A. Е. Stoddart (69), for their first total of 283. The Sussex Captaintain declaring his second innings at 224 , left Middlesex with 299 to win. Their onlyly chance was to stay in , and this they managed to do, though towards the finish matters . beganto look a little awkwardfor them. Sussex tried for the first time Walter Humphreys, jun., who, like his father , is a lob bowler. In the three days 1,019 runswerescoredfor 34 wickets. T h ematchwasdrawn. Sussex, 357and224 (7 wickets , innings declared ) ; total , 581. Middlesex , 283 and 150 (7 wickets ) ; total , 433. (2) Middlesexv. Somersetshire. Taunton, Aug. 1 and 2. A brilliant first innings of 104 out of 221 by L. C. H. Palairet , and two useful scores of 65 and 51 by F. A. Phillips , were really the only noteworthy features on the Somersetshire side in the match. The bowling certainly did not seem to present any difficulty to the majority of the Middlesex Eleven . Theearly batsmendid not do very much, it is true, excepting A. E. Stoddart (51) andF. G. J. Ford (47). But later on F. H. E. Cunliffe (62)andC. M. Wells (101) punished it severely , and the total of 354 wasthe morecreditable fromthe fact that Rawlinwashurtandunableto bat. Somersetshireat onetime in the second innings hardly looked as if they would put Middlesex in again. Butfor a little hitting by V. T. Hill (24) towards the end they would not in all probability , and, as it was, Middlesex had only twelve to get . J. T. Hearneand Trott shared the Somersetshire wickets . Middlesex w o nby ten wickets . Middlesex , 354 and 12 (no wicket ) ; total , 366. Somersetshire , 221 and 144 ; total , 365. (3) Middlesexv. Yorkshire. Leeds, Aug. 15 and 16. Yorkshire's chances , on their form of the season , were very great , notwith- standing the goodall -round form Middlesex hadrecently been showing . They were, too, apparently muchimproved whenthe toss was decided in their favour , A sit was, though they were 14 runs to the bad at the end of the innings , Middlesex hadan easy winin the end. Rainhad affected the wicket consider- ably at the outset , and the highest individual score whenan innings hadbeen completed was Brown's 30 for Yorkshire . W h e nthey went in again the York- shire batsmenfound the bowling of J. T. Hearne and Trott far too muchfor themonthedifficult wicket . Trott , indeed , was unplayable , and the Yorkshire- m e nwere all out for 45. Five of the Elevenfailed to score , and after Tunni- cliffe's 31 Brown's five was the highest figure . The failure of the Yorkshire batsmensuggested that Middlesex might have some trouble to get the 60 wanted to win. Instead , J. Douglas, P. F. Warner, A. E. Stoddart , and F. G. J. Ford all stayed , with the result that Middlesex gained an exceed- ingly creditable victory with eight wickets to spare . Middlesex , 128 and 62 (2 wickets); total , 190. Yorkshire , 142 and 45; total , 187 . A .E. Trott(2ndinns. Yorkshire) Overs. Maidens. 14.1 8 1 3 R u n s. Wickets. 7