James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

101 patches otliei ian those m which Lancashire was engaged against ^rHt-class teams, m \ ow could bat as well as ever, and his failure was very 1 due to the great amount of bowling he had to get through. That, at least, was Ins own opinion. In bowling, he was the mainstay 0f the eleven, Ins tecord of 81 wickets for just under 11 runs each being one of the vei v jest of the season in County matches. Cricketers have heard with regiet of Mr. Hornby’s threatened retirement, and it is to be hoped that, m the interest of Lancashire, he may reconsider his inten­ tion. The controversy about throwing was less bitter than in 1883, the fact of Nash being left out of the team removing a good deal of the friction. Strong objection, however, was, with perfectly good reason, still taken to Crossland. Indeed, it is only the truth to say that the absence of the fast bowler from some of the return matches was hailed with a feeling of unmistakable relief. Reference has already been made in the Nottinghamshire review to the reason of there being no meeting last season between Notts and Lancashire. A number of new men were tried for the County, by far the best of them being Mr. E. E. Steel, who both in batting and bowling closely copies his famous brother. Mr. H. B. Steel, who appeared for the county in 1883, showed great improve­ ment, and obtained a very fine average. Without being a sound batsman, be is a most dangerous hitter, and makes full use of his great height and strength. » May 19.—Lord’s.—Lancashire v. M.C.C, and O-round .—(See M.C.u, Review.) 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. May 22, Lancashire 243 99 342 Manchester. Derbyshire * 185 115 300 Lancashire won by 42 runs. Though beaten by 42 runs, the Derbyshire men probably played better cricket than in any other match in which they took part last season. On each side there was a fine display of batting, Briggs playing a dashing first innings of 112 for Lancashire, and Sugg scoring 73 and 26 for Derbyshire. Sugg has perhaps never shown such high-class cricket. At the finish Lancashire owed a great deal to Barlow, who, in Derbyshire’s second innings, took 7 wickets in 28 overs at a cost of only 30 runs. May 29.—Oxford.—Lancashire v. Oxford University.—(See University Matches.) June 5.—-Manchester.—Lancashire v. Australians.— (See Australian Review.) June 9, Manchester. 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. Lancashire 01 240 301 Kent 156 146 302 Kent won by 7 wickets. A really brilliant performance by a moderate Kent eleven. By capital all-round play on the first day, Mr. Christopherson and Wootton gained a material advantage for the southern county, and on the thiid day the match was won by the batting of Lord Harris, George Hearne, and Mr R S. Jones. Lancashire, after following ou against a majority of 95 runs ‘made a plucky fight, there being seven double figures m the second innings total of 210. Mr. Roper made 65, Pilling 38 (not out), Ward 32, Mr. Lancashire 31, and Mr. Hornby 25. For the winners,