Talk:W. G. Grace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

ACS - Wisden

>> Grace scored over 100 runs on 124 occasions, the hundredth score being 288, made at Bristol for Gloucestershire v. Somersetshire in 1895.

A nasty example of the ACS - Wisden dispute. The 124 hundreds comes from ACS. But the 288 - which was celebrated as WG's 100th 100 at the time - is only his 98th according to ACS. But we are stuck with this. Changing neither the 124 nor the 288 makes sense. Tintin 12:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Tintin, I don't agree. WG's total of centuries is historically 126 and history is more important than mere statistics which are only a means of illustrating or summarising history. It is not a case of Wisden versus ACS but of history versus statistics. If history says WG scored 126 then statistics must accept it but add a caveat. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

36 miles

He once hit a ball 36 miles after a shot landed on a passing steam train.

Any reference for this ? Have heard such a story about someone else but not Grace Tintin 12:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Says in the Double section he took 191 wickets in 1895, but then states below 'highest of 192 wickets in 1895.' Sort it out

Second testimonial details

From W. G. Grace#Profession:

...the second, collected by the M.C.C., the county of Gloucestershire, the Daily Telegraph, and the Sportsman, amounted to about £10,000, and was presented to him in 1896.

Sportsman, which redirects to Sport, isn't a very good link here. I would guess that this is the Sportsman, a daily sports newspaper which ran from 1865-1924. [1] [2]. Is that the most likely meaning in the C19/EB1911 context? Or can anyone positively confirm this? If so, the link could be disambiguated (though we don't have a relevant article yet). Also, would it have been Gloucestershire in general or Gloucestershire County Cricket Club in particular that was involved? --rbrwr^± 11:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Flowery Description

So, W.G. "was powerfully proportioned, loose yet strong of limb." A bit Mills & Boon.

From the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, actually. --rbrwr^± 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is comforting to know that their language is no better than ours :-) Tintin 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Date of picture the date of one of the picure was said unknown yet in the picure there was a date of 1883

Is this a notable feat?

"Playing against Kent at Gravesend in 1895, he was batting, bowling, or fielding during the whole time the game was in progress, his scores being 257 and 73 not out."

That he bowled and fielded during Kent's innings seems pretty obvious. So basically he almost carried the bat twice in this match. A feat, surely, but worth mentioning?

Its rarer than you might imagine. It has happened 11 times in first class cricket. --LiamE 21:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Gloucs scored 106 for 1 in the second innings. So hardly 'almost carried the bat'. Was his 100th first class hundred this one, or was it the innings of 288 earlier in the season (don't trust cricinfo & cricketarchive, they list it as his 99th). Tintin (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was 288. Tintin (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Last f-c match

The article rather gives the impression that Grace's f-c career ended in 1900, referring to that date at least once. It also refers to a career of "nearly forty years" in the intro. His last f-c match wasn't until 1908, and even as late as 1903 he played as many as 16 matches: [3] JH 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed (favourite cricket fact of the week coming up for the 3rd time), WG was the captain of the Gentleman of England when they played against Surrey in 1905, in the match in which Jack Hobbs made his first-class debut. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks, largely to make it clear that his f-c career extended to 1908. I may do some more later, as it seems to me that the article contains a lot of duplication and also that items aren't always in the most logical place. JH 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How Good a Bowler?

This assessment is indisputable for Grace is the only player in cricket's history who can claim to have been world-class at both batting and bowling as specialist activities; rather than being world-class because of all-round ability per se. For example, Gary Sobers was a world-class all-rounder and also a world-class specialist batsman; but he was not a world-class bowler, albeit a very good one.

He was obviously a very good bowler, but I think that describing him as "world-class" may be pitching it a bit high. An average of a shade under 18 is undeniably good, but allowance must be made for the generally poor quality of the pitches. Of his approximate contemporaries, Johnny Briggs averaged just under 16, Attewell just over 15, Tom Emmett about 13.5 and Alfred Shaw a phenomenal 12. So I would say that, like Sobers, Grace fell into the "very good" category. JH 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He was world-class at his peak. His average fell away because he played for 44 years and this was the same with his batting, as the article already states. If he had retired in say 1880 his averages would have been phenomenal and he would still have a quite a long career. It is interesting that he was always a roundarm bowler though overarm began when he did. --AlbertMW 06:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This assessment is indisputable for Grace is the only player in cricket's history who can claim to have been world-class at both batting and bowling as specialist activities

He ceratinly was world class at both at his peak but to say he was the only player to be world class at both is frankly rubbish. Firstly his record stems from his first class cricket whereas other players compared to him were tested in the far more rigorous arena of Test cricket. Graeme Hick and others would be considered world class by their first class figures but came up a bit short in Tests. One would assume that by world class one would have to be in the top 5 as a bowler or a batsman so as to be picked in a best of the world side. Both Ian Botham and Garry Sobers would have been. At his peak Botham was rated as the best bowler in the world and the 3rd best batsman, Sobers the best batsman and 5th best bowler, ergo they both could have been picked for a world team on either dicipline. Looking at first class cricket you have Frank Woolley who played in a far more competitive era than Grace. Their records are directly comparable. Grace took more wickets at a slightly better average than Woolley. Woolley scored more runs and centuries again at a slightly better average than Grace. Indisputably the only player world class at both? Hardly. --LiamE 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that any definition of world-class is bound to be POV so the paragraph should be removed. As I wrote it, I will do the necessary.

I would point out to you that cricket in WG's time was extremely competitive. Spofforth was not called the Demon for nothing and WG himself was probably the most competitive player of all time: how many players do you know of who kidnapped another team's player to strengthen your own?  :-) --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Title of this article

The title is not strictly correct in Wikipedia terms as it should reflect the name in general usage. In this case, the name is "WG Grace" as "WG" was his familiar name (soubriquet, if you prefer) and the two letters are thus joined (or hyphenated). The article itself makes clear that he was called "WG" by all except his immediate family. The title at present is a formalised version as would appear in a scorecard, so it is the equivalent of "J. B. Hobbs" or "D. G. Bradman" whose articles are rightly titled "Jack Hobbs" and "Don Bradman".

I have read a discussion in "WIkiProjectCricket" which indicates a clear consensus for "WG Grace" as a style. This is just an "obiter dictum" really because the important point is the subject's accepted name. Style is a separate issue that applies to whole articles, not just the titles.

Furthermore, an authoritative biography I have just read, by Eric Midwinter, is entitled "WG Grace: His Life and Times".

I am therefore moving the article to WG Grace. --AlbertMW 06:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to this move. In my view, P. G. Wodehouse, J. K. Rowling, P. D. James, Jerome K. Jerome and George W. Bush are all named correctly. Can you please provide a link to the discussion you cite at WikiProject cricket? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what was actually decided was that "W. G." was the preferred style, but that "WG" was also acceptable... but that there was no reason whatever to move an established article. We don't have perfect consistency on Wikipedia in a lot of areas (eg national varities of English) and I really don't think it's that important to have it here either. On a personal note, I'm someone who prefers the look of "WG", but I still object strongly to the move that's been undertaken, because there's just no point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loganberry (talk • contribs) .

The previous discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/archive22#Name of W. G. Grace's article, and in fact reached the opposite conclusion from what Albert claims. We confirmed a previous decision that either "WG Grace" or "W. G. Grace" is acceptable, but that it is unacceptable to change from one to the other. I've reverted the move. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue should have been discussed by all interested parties on this page before being reverted. That is evidently what RobertG was expecting when he requested more information. The revert is high-handed and is extremely rude to AlbertMW and anyone else expecting a discussion. No revert should have taken place until a full discussion had been completed and everyone interested had a chance to take part.

Furthermore, and this is becoming a common complaint, the so-called "cricket project" has no authority or control over cricket articles and categories. Your alleged "consensus" is inapplicable. Anyone can edit and no one is bound by any "decision" of the cricket project talk page: any such "decision" is a guideline at most for use amongst yourselves. The only consensus that is applicable to this article is one among the people who are genuinely interested in the article, providing it does not contravene any stated Wikipedia policy.

As it happens, I don't agree with AlbertMW because I think the convention with initials should be W G Grace as used by the BBC, by Peter Wynne-Thomas in the book that is quoted in the article and by countless other literary, business, internet, you-name-it interests. However, I think Albert has made a good point about "WG" being a name rather than a set of initials helping to form a pseudonym like J K Rowling, who is not actually called "JK" whereas Grace was called "WG" (except by his family who called him "Gilly"). It is true that if the initials are in fact a name, they should be joined together into a single "word" or should be hyphenated. I am therefore prepared to set aside my personal preference here and support WG Grace as the title of this article. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A contentious edit or move of this nature is usually reverted to the status quo ante to allow for further discussion. We could get bogged down in discussing whether it is ruder to make a contentious edit where the issue has been canvassed before, more than once, with no clear consensus either way, or to revert it, but shall we concentrate on the issue instead? (Yes, I know, he was probably not aware of the previous discussions, be bold, bold, revert, discuss, etc).

This kind of point has effects outside this article, so should be discussed in a more central place. Rather than having the full discussion here, shall we take this back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket again, or one of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style subpages (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) perhaps)? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue for WikiProject Cricket is the one about its members acting out of order. If Mr Turner can quote WP:NAMEPEOPLE below, why didn't he do it earlier? Why did he act as if the project has some kind of authority over or ownership of this article? Anyway, there is no need to discuss the title of this article any further. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in having a centralised discussion because Wikipedia-wide policy is perfectly clear, and stated at WP:NAMEPEOPLE: only "W. G. Grace" is permissible. The cricket project guideline does contravene stated Wikipedia policy by allowing "WG Grace" as an alternative. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you quote Wikipedia policy in the first place instead of trying to impose your project's non-existent authority on the matter? Wikipedia policy counts, WikiProject Cricket does not. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia policy I accept the title must be W. G. Grace. Still think it is technically incorrect in this case because his NAME was WG Grace and his INITIALS were W. G. Grace - exactly the same as Jack Hobbs and J. B. Hobbs. Anyway, no point in arguing about it - it's unimportant.

I think the matter could have been handled better by the WikiProject people. I agree with Jack there is a wider issue. They have a perception of themselves that they OWN the cricket articles and have a mandate over them to wave in the faces of editors. It's true an individual editor can refer me to a documented Wikipedia policy and I'm bound by that. I'm not bound by any "consensus" that has been arrived at by a WikiProject.

The WikiProject has no authority, no control, no ownership rights. It can only suggest guidelines. If its members try to impose their will by quoting WikiProject "decisions" they are completely out of order. They should have the courage to act as individuals if they wish to edit or revert something. I suggest someone raises that on the WikiProject talk page. --AlbertMW 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. But I doubt if anyone will raise it unless you do it yourself. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there's no sense in which any editor or group of editors owns any article, or can impose anything. However, there is value in having all the cricket articles follow a common style, and for that style to be decided by the consensus of the people interested in the cricket articles. That's all that's happening, not some sinister cabal. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Grace, a Kentish Cricketer?

I see that the Categories in the WG article include "Kent cricketers". A bit of research, on www.cricketarchive.com shows that he played once for Kent against "England", and three times for "Kent and Gloucestershire" against "England". I think that makes the Category misleading. What do others think? JH 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's alright. I'm sure that there are plenty of cricketers who've played just one match for Kent (and, admittedly, no-one else) and fall into the "Kent cricketers" category. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 07:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the Article

The article could do with some tidying up. The ordering of the sections is not always very logical. Also information is not always in the most logical section for it. (For example the section "Profession" about his doctoring moves on to cover other subjects.) There is also some duplication. (His death is covered in two different places, for instance.) I don't have the time to do any major tidying up myself, unfortunately. However I have just done a bit of work on the article. I've put a "citation needed" flag against the mention of the great-great-great-grandsons, as I haven't been able to find a reference to them on the Web. I've altered the bowling style to "roundarm medium". That's how CricketArchive describes it, and he seems to haved slowed to medium from fast fairly early in his career. I've also expanded the bit on his doctoring a little, and added an anecdote about his mother as it shows her calling him "Gilbert". (This comes from the chaper on Grace in Alan Gibson's book.) JH (talk page) 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He also dabbled with a bit of legspin later in his career.Robertson-Glasgow 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Past His Best?

It seems a commonplace that Grace was born too early to be a great Test cricketer but was he really past his best when Test cricket started (1877)? I theorise that this is exaggerated and not completely demonstrable.

He was only 29 years of age when the first Test was played, which puts him at the very peak of his form - and although the participants didn't know that it would become the first Test match, the reason for Grace's absence was not because he wasn't among the best in England but rather because the Lillywhite tour to Australia would not have paid him enough money.

Think that Grace played 1st class cricket for another 30 years including a stellar season in 1895 when he was 47 years old and this opionion may be exposed as the myth that it is.

Obviously his overall Test record might have been better had he toured in 1876-7. But it's no myth that he was in decline from about 1880 onwards. With the exception of his Indian summer in 1895 and 1896, his first-class average is nowhere near as good in the 1880s and 1890s as it had been in the 1870s. If you look at the averages season by season on Cricketarchive this shows up very clearly. He outclassed his comtemporaries in the 1870s much as Bradman did in the 1930s. JH (talk page) 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's something I found on my hard drive, taken from Alan Gibson's The Cricket Captains of England:

So when W.G. began Test cricket, his best years were behind him. But what years they had been! Methven Brownlee compiled a table of the leading batsmen of the decade 1871-80 inclusive. It is an arbitrary choice of period, no doubt intended to flatter his subject, but it makes his point. Here are the first ten in his batting list.

Name	Completed Innings	Runs	Average
W.G.Grace	342	16877	49
J.M.Cotterill	50	1563	31
W.W.Read	71	2011	28
Hon. A.Lyttelton	92	2536	27
A.N.Hornby	214	5827	27
A.J.Webbe	142	3850	27
W.Yardley	96	2592	27
F.Penn	144	3826	26
G.F.Grace	241	6312	26
Lord Harris	181	4630	25

The others who scored more than 5000 runs were Lockwood, Jupp, I.D. Walker, and Ulyett, all with averages below 25. Lockwood's 8720 was the highest, just over half Grace's total. In this same period Grace took 1174 wickets, more than anyone except Alfred Shaw. His average of 14 left him fifteenth in the list....

Brownlee provides similar tables for the following decade. Grace is now primus inter pares, no more. He still scored the most runs (14541 at 35), but not so very many more than Read (12853 at 34), and Ulyett (11847 at 25); and Shrewsbury, though with 6000 runs fewer, had a higher average by five points. In the bowling list, Grace is down to forty-first.

JH (talk page) 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Long-overdue protection

This article seems to have come under a ridiculous amount of vandalising lately, so I've added some minor protection to it. Cheers, Robertson-Glasgow 06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Which somebody removed within 5 minutes! JH (talk page) 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If anybody can remove it, it is no protection ! Tintin 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Moondyne 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's grand news, Moondyne. Thank you. I've observed that John, in particular, has been doing a lot of pointless tidying-up in recent times. Hopefully, with this fortification in place, the article will be safe from the idiot hooligans so abundant lately, leaving John and others to make more productive use of their talents. Robertson-Glasgow 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ACS - Wisden revisited

See the first section above. We now have the body of the article saying 126 centuries, as per the traditional/Wisden figure, but the infobox saying 124, as per ACS/Cricinfo/Cricketarchive (with corresponding differences in the total runs and average). The snag with using the ACS figures is that the date of Grace's hundredth hundred in 1895 is based on the traditional figures. OTOH the ACS figures are the only version for which an online source can be linked to. I think perhaps we need to include a link to the Wiki article in which someone thrashes out these issues. (Unforunately I can't recall its title off the top of my head.) Not to seem ungrateful, thanks to AMBerry for the inclusion of the improved infobox. JH (talk page) 19:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to AMBerry for changing the infobox to use the Wisden data. JH (talk page) 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for reverting to Wisden and I think the new box is a big improvement too. It's also a big job pending because if WG can have a box like this, all the other players will want one too  :-)

That's the idea! We've just finished it (see WT:CRIC#New Infobox complete. Please help 'everybody else' receive the benefits of this box!! –MDCollins (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Wisden-ACS, the article John cannot recall is Traditional career totals which, interestingly, was written by someone who is in the ACS but who has managed to present a very objective view including the accusation on one side of "rewriting history" and the other of "failing to correct long-standing errors".

Whatever claims the ACS may make for itself, the fact is that it has no authority whatsoever in terms of match classification and its opinions are — opinions only. It may claim to have a consensus about a match status but that view is not binding even on ACS members. Another point about the ACS is that it is generally a tertiary source, as is Wikipedia.

Wisden is essentially a secondary source and it is, as everyone knows, the doyen of cricket sources. Wisden itself does not have "authority" but it is widely known even among non-fans, unlike the ACS, and it is widely respected.

I am for the most part happy to accept figures that have been agreed by the ACS. I have no quarrel with the Jack Hobbs figures, for example, because I think the Vizzy tour of Ceylon definitely consisted of major cricket matches. But I do not agree with the ACS at all about WG. Their line here is that history was wrong so they must rewrite it. I agree that they can add a caveat to WG's figures but not amend them because of the historical significance of WG's hundredth century and the overtaking of his centuries total by Jack Hobbs.

The principle that arises from this is that we must defer to Wisden. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:W. G. Grace/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The quality of the cricket-related content is high, but the language could be clarified a little for the general reader. The total lack of inline citations is a definite drawback. More attention could be paid to his life outside out of cricket, and the sections regarding his various career accomplishments could be shortened a little. The frequent praise of the subject also calls into question the NPOV of the article, and makes me think that right now it reads too much like praise from a fan to be what is generally thought of as an encyclopedia article. I might suggest reading some of the other good articles and featured articles about sports figures, like Brian Close and A. E. J. Collins, for ideas on the proper tone of the article. As it is, there is far too much information for the article for anyone to think of it as being "Start" class or lower, but serious and enough drawbacks to keep it from being "Good Article" status without some major editing. And the need for inline citations is critical. Badbilltucker 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Anyone who comes across this review now should note its 2006 date. The article has moved on considerably since then and is currently B-class while, in contrast, the Brian Close article has been demoted from FA to C-class. BlackJack | talk page 07:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)