James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1899

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1898 7 9 (10) Gloucestershirev. Yorkshire. Sheffield , July 25 and26. W .G. Gracewas too lame to be able to play, andwithout him the match lost a good deal of its interest . Gloucestershire , under the circumstances , did well, after losing the toss , to get Yorkshire out for 331. Yorkshire's batting generally fell short of the season's high standard . Excepting F. S. Jackson , w h oplayed an exceedingly fine innings of 160, no one did much; in fact Lord Hawke's36 was the best score . Thebatting of the Gloucestershire Eleven wasevenmoredisappointing . C. O. H. Sewell carried his bat through the second innings for 88 out of 127. In the first , F. H. B. Champain (57) and W . M c G. Hemingway(49) were responsible for 106 of 185 from the bat. Yorkshire wonbyaninnings and 12 runs . Yorkshire , 331. Gloucestershire , 192and127; total , 319. (11) Gloucestershire v. Lancashire. Manchester, July 28 and29. Aplucky up-hill gameby Gloucestershire , after having all the worst ofthe early stages . Lancashire made the best of their chances on going in first . Whilethe wicket wasfairly easy they scored 122 for three wickets , of which Tyldesley's share was 72. Subsequently G. L. Jessop's bowling proved very effective , and the last seven wickets only added 26. Gloucestershire's display onthe sticky wicket against the bowling of Cuttell and Mold was very poor. W . S. A. Brown, who was tenth on the list , contributed ten, and W. M c G. Hemingwaynine of 40 got fromthe bat . Lancashire's second innings wasamuch more creditable affair . Baker was the most successful with 59, with able support from F. Sugg (45) and Briggs (47). With 378 to get to win Gloucester- shire lost five wickets for 82. Butthe tail had seriously to be reckoned with, as events proved . F. H. B. Champain , who carried out his bat for 113— asplendid innings-and Boardput on 78 for the last wicket . Lancashire won b y66runs. Lancashire , 148 and273 ; total , 421. Gloucestershire , 44 and 311 ; total , 355. Cuttell (Lancashire ) Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. 5 5 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 (12) Gloucestershire v. Sussex. Bristol , Aug. 1, 2 and3. Amatchof fairly high scoring throughout . Gloucestershire wonthe toss , but did only moderately against Sussex bowling to be dismissed for 244. Board, the last m a n, again did well , carrying out his bat for 47, the next best score to R. W .Rice's 61. W. L. Murdoch(60) and C. B. Fry (93) put on 132 for the first wicket of Sussex , and subsequently Marlowplayed in quite his old and best form for 77. Gloucestershire's second innings was a great improvement o nthe first . W. G. set his side a good example with 93 not out, and of the rest R. W. Rice (63) and C. O. H. Sewell (67) were the most successful . Gloucestershire declared , but it was practically of no use. drawn. Gloucestershire , 244 and 341 (8 wickets , innings Sussex, 364 and 20 (no wicket ) ; total , 384. (13) Gloucestershire v. Middlesex. Bristol , Aug.4, 5 and6. T h egamewas declared ), 585. Amatchpractically finished at the end of the second day. Rainprevented any play afterwards , and the game was left unfinished with only one innings toeach side . A sfar as play went there was little to choose , as Gloucester- shire were 38 o n at the finish with all their wickets in h a n d. There wassomegood batting in the match. C. L. Townsend's 131 for Gloucester- shire bore off the palm. But there were several other good innings , notably C. M. Wells' 77, A. E. Stoddart's 70, and J. Douglas's 82 for Middlesex , and R. W .Rice's 60 for Gloucestershire . Gloucestershire , 379 and 11 (no wicket ) : total , 390. Middlesex , 352.