In memory of William Gilbert Grace

[Lillian Thomson]

It was on this day (July 18th) in 1848 that the immortal WG was born. I recently read an old magazine cutting written in 1965 to mark the 50th Anniversary of his death that described him as the "Father of Modern Cricket". Whether that title still rests easily on his shoulders another 40 years down the line is open to debate, but there's no doubt that his name will live on for as long as this great game of ours is played.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Hear hear. A true legend.

 

[honestbharani]

Yep. Cricket needed characeters like him to get popular.

 

[SJS]

Hear hear. A true legend.

There are some 'highly knowledgeable gentlemen' here who quote 'impeccable" and unimpeachable (but long deceased) sources to claim that he was also the Grandfather of Matchfixing

 

[Barney Rubble]

There are some 'highly knowledgeable gentlemen' here who quote 'impeccable" and unimpeachable (but long deceased) sources to claim that he was also the Grandfather of Matchfixing

Never heard anything of the sort myself - but then if anyone was going to hear about it, it wouldn't be me. I would like to think that sportsmanship was placed so highly in those days that a player of his stature would not even acknowledge the existence of match-fixing, let alone indulge in it.

 

[a massive zebra]

I always find these stats mind boggling.

http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Seasons/Seasonal_Averages/ENG/1871_f_Batting_by_Runs.html
http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Seasons/Seasonal_Averages/ENG/1873_f_Batting_by_Runs.html
http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Seasons/Seasonal_Averages/ENG/1876_f_Batting_by_Runs.html

No one else, not even Bradman, has been that more than twice as good as all his peers. A cricketer is inevitably a product of his times, and obviously if we were able to send a time machine back to fetch W.G. and put him into a Test match today, he would undoutedly struggle. But a cricketer of Grace's calibre born into modern times would probably still become the greatest cricketer in the world, if given the opportunities. The demands of the game, the skills required, and the equipment, have not changed very much.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Same fella who remarked how windy the day was when he got bowled and stood his ground, putting the bails back on?

 

[greg]

Wherever the idea of some mythical (?) age of sportsmanship in cricket came from, I don't think it had anything to do with Grace

The supposed playing of cricket in a gentlemanly and sportsmanlike manner probably has a large bearing of the English reputation for hypocrisy. I think it's certainly a major bugbear with other cricketing nations (mainly the Indians but, I think, to a lesser extent the Aussies) when an Englishman decides to lecture on the subject!

 

[SJS]

Never heard anything of the sort myself - but then if anyone was going to hear about it, it wouldn't be me. I would like to think that sportsmanship was placed so highly in those days that a player of his stature would not even acknowledge the existence of match-fixing, let alone indulge in it.

I hadnt too till today. And I thought I knew everything

But clearly there are those who know-it-all

 

[chekmeout]

Yup.. that's him all right

 

[SJS]

1884 1st Test Eng v Aus - What the Papers Said of the England 1st innings

1884 1st Test Eng v Aus - What the Papers Said of the Australia 1st innings

1884 1st Test Eng v Aus - What the Papers Said of the England 2nd innings


Superb links for history buffs

 

[Steulen]

Same fella who remarked how windy the day was when he got bowled and stood his ground, putting the bails back on?

That one has always intrigued me. How on earth did he get away with it?

It reeks more than a little bit of the "some are more equal than others" attitude that the world has so much trouble getting rid of.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That one has always intrigued me. How on earth did he get away with it?

It reeks more than a little bit of the "some are more equal than others" attitude that the world has so much trouble getting rid of.

He didn't. The umpire replied, "Yes it is windy. So you'd better hold onto your hat as you walk back to the pavilion" or words to that effect.

 

[marc71178]

That one has always intrigued me. How on earth did he get away with it?

Because more than often it was a very small profile game.

 

[Hazza]

Nonetheless- a quality cricketer of his time, and always the first master of the game for me.

 

[pskov]

Once when he was given out LBW, he stood his ground telling the umpire "All these people have come to watch me bat, not to watch you umpire!".

Also, in August 1876 he made 344 against Kent (the first ever first-class triple century), two days later scored 177 against Notts and another couple of days after that 318 not out versus Yorkshire, culminating in 839 runs in three innings, only out twice, all in one week.

By all accounts and statistics, he was easily the greatest batsman, bowler and fielder of his day.

 

[C_C]

Look, SJS, you can try to play the appeaser but the fact remains- some of the 'superstars' from that era admitted to matchfixing on a regular basis and said everyone did it.
The good doc had the reputation for it as well.....and it isnt such a 'oh my gawd' situation- cricket in the 1800s was NOT equal and did NOT have the level of professionalism it has today. Instead, it had a whole buncha nobility involved along with superstars who rubbed shoulders with the nobility...and if you think that a cotton joe kid from Manchester would bamboozle a noble or superstar in Lords, think again. For it shows a remarkable denial for how things were in a class-structured society.

 

[greg]

Cricket arguably only gained its widespread appeal in the first place because it was the perfect medium for betting.

 

[C_C]

actually cricket gained its popularity due to the boom in railway networks through the early 1800s britain.
No doubt betting encouraged it, but often something benign today traces its roots to something sinister....... I dont see why i have to condone it.
i dont consider those players credible at all - wide matchfixing for the lords and nobles, inclusion of players based on social standing and not merit,racism, zero professionalism, etc.
Not only was the quality substandard empirically, that era had very little morality and consistency as well.

 

[archie mac]

actually cricket gained its popularity due to the boom in railway networks through the early 1800s britain.
No doubt betting encouraged it, but often something benign today traces its roots to something sinister....... I dont see why i have to condone it.
i dont consider those players credible at all - wide matchfixing for the lords and nobles, inclusion of players based on social standing and not merit,racism, zero professionalism, etc.
Not only was the quality substandard empirically, that era had very little morality and consistency as well.

It is my favourite time 'The Golden Age of Cricket' I know there were a lot of problems, but have a look at our times. If I had the choice of watching any Cricket series in history; I would with out any compulsion vote for the 1902 series. No WG but maybe I could take in a county game featuring the Doc.