James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1885

«<) June 19, Lord’s. Middlesex Kent 2 nd Inns. 368 101 T o ta l. 494 252 Mr. Webbe 36 and 63, Mr. Paravicini 19 (not out) and 53, and Mr. Ilenery jinnd 43 (n0^ ^ ^winter made 43 and 20 for Gloucestershire, and Mr. Giaco 38 and 19, A feature of the game was the great success of Mr. I« P* Walkei " lobs. In all, the Middlesex captain took 10 pickets at a cost of only 72 runs. ^In the first innings-of Middlesex, Mr. ffi V. Page frequently an effective howler on slow ground—obtained (3 wickets at a cost of only 34 runs. 1st Inn s . 156 151 Middlesex won by 242 runs. A very good match on the first innings. Afterwards the Middlesex men had everything their own way, running up a big score at their second attempt, and dismissing their opponents very cheaply. On the winning side, Mr. T. S. rearson scored 46 and 83, and Mr. Stanley Scoit 5 and 93 (not out), both gentlemen playing admirably. Their best supporters were Mr. Webbe (37 and 18) and Mr. Henery (8 and 46). Pur Kent, George Hearne made 59 (not out) and 5, Lord Harris 17 and (not out) 35, and Mr. Christopherson 35 and 4. Mr. 0. T. Studd took three Kent wickets for 34 runs and seven for 37 runs, his bowling being extremely good. July 14, Lord’s. 2 nd Inn s . 128 108 T o ta l. 254 255 1st Inns . Middlesex •' • 126 Surrey . 147 } / | " . Surrey won by 7 wickets. Heavy rain had fallen at the end of the previous week, and the return match between the two Metropolitan counties was played on a very slow wicket. Middlesex was well represented, and even allowing for the difficulties of the ground tire batsmen ought certainly to have done better. Mr. I. D. Walker scored 47 (not out) and 1, Mr. Eidley 7 and 46, and Mr. Eobertson Gand 30, but no one else did anything worthy of notice. Mr. A. P. Lucas played for the first time against his old county, but only scored 4 and 4. For the winners, who played by far > 8 wickets for the small-cost of 59 runs., July 17.—Lord’s.—Middlesex v. Australians.— Australian Aug. 7.—Canterbury.—Middlesex v. Kent.— (See Kent Review.) Aug, 14.—Nottingham.—Middlesex v. Notts.— -(See Notts Review.) Aug. 18. Sheffield.—Middlesex Yorkshire.—( Yorkshire Revieiv.) Aug. 2 1 .—Cheltenham.—Middlesex Gloucestershire.— - shire Review. ) Matches played, 10—won 4, lost 3, drawn 3. - The Hein. Alfred Lyttelton i s ,again at the head of the Middlesex batting table, but does not approach his average of the previous year. Such a phenomenal record was not to be repeated. Mr. Eidley, though be played fairly well, also shows a great decline. As a compensation, there was the batting of Mr. O’Brien. Mr. I. D. Walker played consistently well, but, in the absence of such a score as he made against Gloucestershire in 1883, his average has fallen from 34.8 to 27.10. Mr. Pearson, on the other hand, has gone up from 14.6 to 28.3. To the effect