James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1884

successful. Most consp icuous im provem en t was shown by Mr. W. 3J, Holler, Mr. K ey , and Abel, and th e coun ty was fortuna te in bring ing out three p layers o f h igh prom ise—Mr. E . J . D iver , Mr. M. P. Bowden” and Henderson. The cen tre portion o f th e Oval had been ca re fu lly relaid and th e w ick e ts p layed adm irab ly th roughou t the season, presenting a* marked con trast to those o f 1882. N ew ton , th e ground keeper, fairly deserves m en tion for h is un rem itt in g care. I t is a remarkable fact that Surrey did n o t lose a s ing le coun ty m a tch on th e Oval la s t season. May 14.—N o ttingham .—Surrey v . N o t ts .— ( N o t t s .) May 21.—Derby .—Surrey v . D erbysh ire .— ( D e r b y s h i r e R ev iew .) let Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. Surrey 367 208 375 May 31, Oval. 198 372 Gloucestershire 174 Surrey won by 7 w ickets . A t five m inu te s after four o ’c lock on th e second day Surrey w en t in to ba t w ith 206 to g e t to w in , and in as n ea r ly as possible an hour and fifty m inu tes th e runs w ere obtained for th e loss of three w ickets . The credit o f th is remarkable v ic to ry—one of th e m ost b r illian t tha t Surrey had ga ined for 20 years—belonged to Maurice Bead and Mr. W. B ead . The former made 113 (no t ou t) and Mr. B ead 79 (not out). They became partners w ith the score a t 67 for three w ickets, and put on between them 141 runs in about an hour and five m inu tes . The last 80 runs were h i t off in rather less th a t 35 m inu tes . Maurice Bead gave a chance in th e long field when he had made about 60, and ought to have been caught and bow led when he had scored 74. For the most part, however, the ba tting was m agn ificen t . For G loucestershire, Mr. E. M. Grace scored 71 and 7, Mr. G ilbert 51 (n o t ou t) and 25, Mr. W. G. Grace 33 and 37, and Mr. W. F. Cave 5 and 42. In Surrey’s first inn ings, Abel made 46 and Henderson 34. Henderson, moreover, had a splendid analysis in G loucestersh ire’s second in n in g s—19 overs and a ball, 8 maidens, 17 runs, 6 w ickets. 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. June 7, Surrey 274 5 279 Oval. M iddlesex 183 95 278 Surrey w on by 10 w ick e ts . Middlesex had to play w i th a decided ly w eak team , and Surrey had the best of the game from start to finish. The w ick e t played w e ll through­ out and the breakdown of th e M iddlesex batsmen in the second innings was unaccountab le. Barratt and Johnson bow led remarkably w e ll, and Mr. B id ley a lone offered them any resistance. There was some capital b a tt in g for Surrey. Mr. W . W. B ead made 73, Mr. B o iler 53, Maurice Bead 41, and Mr. Shuter 39. For M iddlesex, Mr. Pearson scored 58 and 6, Mr. B id ley 4 and 53, Mr. W a lker 30 and 8, Mr. Parav ic in i 21 and 9, and Mr. Bobertson 29 and 0. Barra tt took 11 Middlesex w ickets for 116 runs, and Johnson 6 for 74 runs. June 14.*—Oval.—Surrey v. Cambridge U n iv e r s ity .— (S e e University Matehgs.J 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. Ju ly 2, Surrey 301 — 301 Oval. Sussex 80 102 182 Surrey won by an inn ing s and 119 runs. Sussex p ra c t ica lly lo st the m a tch in th e first hour and a half. Going in on a good w icket, the team was d ism issed for th e pa ltry to ta l of 80. i