James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

75 of a fluke. Had the same teams played five matches in succession, it is likely that \ orkshire would have won them all. Still it is unquestion, ably the fact that, the Sussex men Avon hy thoroughly good all-round cricket, and especia y by the straightness and uniform excellence of their bowling. Yorkshire, in the second innings, scored at the|rate of only 30 runs an houi. Ihe immediate cause of success was the lob bowling of Hump ]n eys, who took 3 of the last 6 wickets at a cost of only 1 5 runs. In Yorkshire's first innings, A. Hide obtained G wickets for 45 runs. For Sussex, M r. E. J. McCormick scored 20 and 42, Jesse Hide 4 and 58, W . Humphreys 33 and 3, L i l ly w h i t e 29 and 4, and A. Hide 24 and 5. Peate hit very hard for the losing side, scoring 29 (not out) and 3 0 . H a ll and Lockwood made a great effort to save the game, the former taking out his bat for 42, and Lockwood scoring 44. June 14.— Lord’s.—Yorkshire v. Middlesex .—(See Middlesex Review.) 1st Inns. 2ndInns. Total. June 25, Yorkshire 90 95 185 Sheffield. Notts 87 45 132 Drawn. Notts had lost Gwickets. A match completely spoiled by bad weather. Had there been time, Yorkshire would doubtless have gained a victory. As usual in matches between Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, the scoring was very small. On the first day there was little in the state of the ground to account for such poor batting. Peate, Shaw, and Walter Wright carried off the bowling honours. The Yorkshireman in the two innings took 8 wickets for 42 runs. Shaw obtained 8 for 49 and Wright 8 for 84 runs. For Yorkshire Ulyett made 8 and 40 and Grimshaw 28 and 14, and for Nottingham Gunn scored a capital 42 (not out) and 3. July 2.—Nottingham.—Yorkshire v. Notts.—( See Notts Review.) July 5.—Manchester.—Yorkshire v . Lancashire.— (See Lancashiie Review.) July 12.—Gloucester.—Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire.—( See Gloucester­ shire Review.) 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. July 16, Yorkshire 93 119 212 Sheffield. Lancashire 83 127 210 Yorkshire won by 8 wickets. A very fine performance on the part of Yorkshire. Lancashire, strongly represented, was beaten by thoroughly good cricket. On the first day tlie bowlers had matters all their own way, and 22 wickets fell toi 195 runs. Of these 22 wickets, no fewer than 18 were bowled down, O 11 the second day the batting all round was decidedly better. The Lancashire men set their opponents 118 runs to get to win, and it was considered a very open question whether or not these runs would be obtained. However, IJlyett and Hall proved quite equal to the occasion, and practi­ cally decided" the match before they were separated, the score being up to 94 when the first wicket fell. The bowling on both sides was remark­ able. For Yorkshire, Ulyett, in the first innings, took 5 wickets tor Jb runs, and accomplished the “ hat trick.” Harrison obtained 5 wickets for 22 and 3 for 37 runs. For Lancashire, Crossland took 4 )vic^ ts lul 10, and one wicket for 34 runs, and Barlow S for 85 and one for-89 runs The chief scorers for the home team were, Ulyett 15 anc > a an 1 30, and Bates 19, while on the side of Lancashire, Bailow ma t ~ <nu