John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

95 siastic, and excel more or less at all points of the game. Mr. Bettcsworth’s slow bowling excited hopes on his iirst appearance that were scarcely realised in subsequent matches, a badly injured finger interfering with his success. Ilis batting, however, was nearly always good, and to him fell the silver cup presented by Lord Sheffield for the best average in all matches, lie plays an up-hill game with remarkable confidence, as was proved by his not out innings of 53 against Surrey at the Oval. Mr. Blackman is a less finished player, but his pace often makes his bowling effective, and he possesses powers of hitting which, with good coaching, may lead to very' happy results. As a reward for twenty years’ service, James Lillywhite received a benefit, of which an account will be found elsewhere. Since he first entered the team in 1862, Lillywhite has never missed a County match. May 16.—Lord’ s.— Sussex v. M.C.C. and Ground.— (See M.C,C. Review .) May 23.—Derby.—Sussex r. Derbyshire.— (See Derbyshire Review .) May 26.—Nottingham.—Sussex v. Notts.— (See Notts Review.) June 20.—Sheffield.— Sussex v. Yorkshire.— (See Yorkshire Review .) 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. July 18, Sussex 170 296 466 Brighton. Kent 327 141 468 Kent won bv 6 wickets. •* Fine batting on both sides, hard ground, and moderate bowling, resulted in 934 runs being scored for the loss of 34 wickets. Jn all, no fewer than 25 double ligures innings were played, sixteen of these being for the losing side. For Kent, the Hon. Ivo Bligli hit with all the brilliancy that marked his batting in 1880, and made 78 and 58; Mr. W. H. Patterson scored 78 and 0, Mr. Benny'-Tailyour 17 and (not out) 37, O’ Shaughnessy 46 and (not out) 6, Mr. M. P. Betts 39, and G. G. Hearne 3 and 33. Messrs. Bligh and Patterson ran up 143 for the first wicket. For Sussex, James Phillips played finely for 33 and 77, and Mr. W. Blackman made 13 and 89. The amateur’s second innings was an extraordinary one. It onlyr lasted 55 minutes, and comprised one five, 14 fours, and 7 twos. let Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. July 25, Sussex 210 100 310 Brighton. Notts 174 172 346 Notts won by 36 runs. Bain seriously affected the wicket on the third day', or Sussex would in all probability have been successful. The match produced some first-rate all-round cricket. For Nottingham, Gunn made 2 and 91 (a very brilliant } innings), Butler 52 and 1, and Oscroft 35 and 24. Mr. Ellis played admir- a»dy for Sussex, scoring 88 and 26, and received valuable aid from Mr. I Greenfield—54 and 2. Attewell's bowling was the main cause of Nottingham’ s victory. In 94 overs he took 13 wickets at a cost of 134 runs, July 28.—Maidstone.— Sussex r. Kent.— (Sec Kent Review .) n■ ' h August 1.—Oval.— Sussex v. Surrey'.— (See Surrey Review .) i*■