John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

81 , rs was expressed by several first-rate judges. Mills is a hard hitting fit-handed batsman, and a fairly good fast bowler. It is as a batsman he . ^o^t likely to advance. As captain of a disorganised team, Oscroft I t charged a difficult task with no lack of judgment, and something more / n a word of praise is due to Wild, who, when relieved from the responsi- {epr of keeping wicket, is still a useful batsman. Oscrofts benefit match, blhich had been fixed under the title of “ Nottingham ?\ England/' wal Unavoidably postponed in consequence of the rupture in the County Eleven. . let Inns. 2 nd Inns. Total. May 26, Notts 311 — 311 Nottingham. Sussex 133 109 242 Notts won by an innings and 69 runs. The only match last season in which Nottingham was represented by its full strength. As might have been expected the visiting team was romplely overmatched. Nine Nottingham batsmen reached double figures, the chief scorers being Gunn 74, Shaw 41 (not out), Butler 40, Oscroft 35, and Selby 31. The Sussex captain made a mistake in allowing Humphreys to bowl so much. From 27 overs of his lobs no fewer than 88 runs were scored, and he did not take a wicket. Mr. M. P. Lucas and Lillywhite offered the best resistance to the howling of Shaw and Morley, the amateur making 62 and 11, and Lillywhite 5 and 32. June 2.—Manchester.—'Notts r. Lancashire.— (See Lancashire Review .) June 9.—Lord’s.—Notts v. Middlesex.—( See Middlesex Review.') 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total: June 13, Notts ' 377 20 ’ 397 Nottingham. Surrey 208 187 395 Notts won by 9 wickets. The Surrey bowling on a good wicket was quite harmless, and Notting­ hamon going in first scored at a great pace. Brown made 74, Gunn 68, Butler 50, Wild 49, E. Mills 46, and Oscroft 40. It was generally thought that Gunn, who opened the innings with Oscroft, played the best; his hitting was very brilliant. Surrey’s batting contrasted most favourably with the bowling. Mr. W. W. Read scored 93 (a splendid innings) and 11, M. Read 39 and 11, Mr. Pontifex 17 (not out) and 36, and Mr. A. P. Lucas 16 ana 72 (not out)—an almost fautless display of cricket. Is t inn s . 2nd Inns. Total. June 27, Notts 71 35 106 Nottingham. Yorkshire 113 — 113 Yorkshire won by an innings and 7 runs. The Nottingham team was too weak to have any chance of success, And the match, usually a leading feature of the Trent Bridge season, lost nearly all its attraction. Rain had so affected the wicket as to put long scoring out of the question. Bates and Peate bowled unchanged through l>oth innings of Nottingham. The former took 11 wickets for 47 runs, £nd Peate 8 wickets for 57 runs. A still more remarkable piece of bowling, however, was that of Walter Wright for Nottingham. In 15 overs (9 maidens) he obtained 6 wickets at a cost of only 10 runs. Ulyett made 35/ and Lockwood 29, these being the best scores in the game. 21.—Oval.—Notts v. Surrey.— (See Surrey Review .) July 25.—Brighton.—Notts v, Sussex.— (See Sussex Review.) 6