WG Grace, on 93, declares because he never got that score before
There were a lot of things WG Grace was capable of, but declaring his team innings closed in a ‘dead match’ because he had never made a certain score was fantastic even by his outrageous track record.
There were a lot of things WG Grace was capable of, but declaring his team innings closed in a ‘dead match’ because he had never made a certain score was fantastic even by his outrageous track record. However, he did exactly that on August 3, 1898. Abhishek Mukherjee looks back.
Of the many anecdotes that revolve around WG Grace, many were, in all likelihood, made up. For example, we cannot say for sure whether he made a boy bat at No. 11 just because he had bragged about the fact that he had never made a duck (“not enough experience”). We also do not know whether he haughtily told the umpire that the crowd had come to watch him bat, not the other man officiate.
On the other hand, some of them were true: for example, he held the wound together for half an hour when Gloucestershire cricketer Arthur Croome gashed his throat against a spiked railing in front of the Old Trafford pavilion — till surgical needles were found — this, after his fingers and thumb were numb from a day’s bowling.
This is one of those true stories. When I first came across the anecdote I found it so fantastic that I found it difficult to believe. Jonathan Rice wrote in Wisden on Grace that “in 1898 he declared an innings closed when he was on 93 not out, as 93 was the only score between nought and 100 on which he had never finished an innings.”
1898. WG was just past his fiftieth birthday. Obviously he was well past his halcyon days of the 1870s: he bowled less and less; the beard grew in volume and cult status; and his girth hardly made him look like the greatest cricketer of the 19th century. Over a century after his death, there is not much claim otherwise.
Then came that Indian summer of 1895 when he rediscovered his form. He scored 2,346 runs at 51. He got 9 hundreds, a number he had surpassed only in 1871. One of these 9 hundreds was the hundredth of his career: he was the first to reach that figure. This was two years after his son (named William Gilbert, just like his father) had made his First-Class debut.
He bowled with renewed vigour from the next season, taking 52 wickets at 24 and 56 at 22 in the following one. He also averaged 43 and 39 with bat. For a man in his twenties these would have splendid numbers: for one approaching fifty these were almost out of the world.
He had taken 12 wickets against Somerset just before he had turned fifty. Playing for Gentlemen against Players in the next match (that began on his birthday) he scored 43 and 31*; and in the next match, against Nottinghamshire, he amassed 168 and 38*. Then came the Sussex match at Ashley Down Road, Bristol.
The match was unremarkable in itself. Gloucestershire were bowled out for 244 (Cyril Bland and Walter Humphreys took 4 wickets each while neither Gilbert Jessop nor father and son WG Grace delivered). Sussex responded with 364, riding on an opening stand of 131 between CB Fry and Billy Murdoch. Neither Grace Sr nor Jessop got a wicket.
Fry scored 93 in that innings. However, it would not be the most-remembered 93 of the match.
Grace dropped himself down the order in the second innings. Cyril Sewell and Reginald Rice wiped out the 80-run deficit. The great man finally emerged at 189 for 4 on the third (and final) afternoon. Two more wickets fell quickly (including Jessop for a duck), and Gloucestershire suddenly were left with a 112-run lead with 4 wickets in hand.
However, Grace made sure the crowd had something to cheer about. He was not going to play for time. He took his time, allowing wicketkeeper Jack Board to play his strokes before Board and Harry Wrathall fell within quick succession. Gloucestershire led by 168 with 2 wickets in hand…
But then, there was no bowler in the world who could dislodge Grace that day. The more he played his shots and got his runs, the further the target moved away from Sussex. Stanley Brown played a good hand (Grace Jr was scheduled at No. 11), but he did not need.
The pair added 93. Almost coincidentally, Grace reached 93 as well. Then — out of nowhere — he walked away: he had declaredthe innings closed.
Was there a chance of a result? The lead was 261, but there was little time left, so it could not have been that. Sussex batted for only 10 overs. It was clear that victory was not in Grace’s mind: he was after something completely different.
He had, you see, never scored 93, which meant he did not have the ‘full set’ between 0 and 100: how could he allow such anomaly in his career? Surely acquiring the entire set was more important than a, er, hundred? That was almost certainly how Grace saw things…
It was indeed the case. After making a duck in his first First-Class innings, WG was done with all but 11 of his ‘set’ by 1880. Three of these — 64, 80, and exactly 100 — were done in 1881, while 56 and 86 were taken care of in 1882.
Did WG think of the ‘set’ seriously at this point? Probably not. His golden days were past him, and he was not likely to throw away a hundred for a ‘set’. In all likelihood he also had his eyes on his hundredth hundred, and all six numbers were close to hundred (including four in the nineties).
[read-also]506010[/read-also]
Thus, the next four came in a trickle: 76 in 1885, 74 in 1886, 97 in 1887, and 95 in 1888.
That left him with only two. When Gloucestershire followed on against Sussex (who else?) at Spa Ground, Gloucester, in 1892, he hit medium-pacer George Bean back to him. It was the first 99 for The Doctor in First-Class cricket.
And then, once the hundredth hundred was done away with and he had that one last hurrah in 1895, there was little Grace had to play for: so why not go for that ‘set’, then?
For the interested, here are the dates corresponding to the first instance of every single- or double-digit First-Class score by WG Grace. Do note that the dates correspond to the first day of the match and not necessarily the day on which the score had been reached.
Date on which WG Grace recorded a score between 0 and 100 for the first time in First-Class cricket
Note: The date is the starting day of the match, not necessarily the date on which WG made that score
M
I
Score
Team
Against
First time on
1
1
0
Gentlemen of the South
Players of the South
June 22, 1865
2
3
12
no
Gentlemen
Players
July 3, 1865
2
2
23
Gentlemen
Players
July 3, 1865
3
4
3
Gentlemen
Players
July 10, 1865
3
5
34
Gentlemen
Players
July 10, 1865
4
6
48
Gentlemen of England
Gentlemen of Middlesex
July 17, 1865
5
8
35
England
Surrey
August 21, 1865
6
9
2
Gentlemen of England
Oxford
May 21, 1866
7
12
11
Gentlemen
Players
June 25, 1866
7
11
25
Gentlemen
Players
June 25, 1866
8
13
7
Gentlemen
Players
June 28, 1866
9
15
19
South
North
July 2, 1866
11
18
6
South of the Thames
North of the Thames
August 6, 1866
12
19
30
Gentlemen of the South
I Zingari
August 8, 1866
12
20
50
Gentlemen of the South
I Zingari
August 8, 1866
14
22
75
England
Middlesex
June 10, 1867
16
25
18
Gentlemen
Players
July 8, 1867
16
26
37
no
Gentlemen
Players
July 8, 1867
18
28
29
England
MCC
June 1, 1868
18
29
66
England
MCC
June 1, 1868
19
30
10
South of the Thames
North of the Thames
June 8, 1868
22
33
55
Gentlemen of the South
Players of the South
July 23, 1868
24
37
24
England
Surrey and Middlesex
August 17, 1868
27
42
51
MCC
Surrey
May 31, 1869
28
44
14
South
North
June 3, 1869
29
46
31
MCC
Cambridge
June 14, 1869
29
45
32
MCC
Cambridge
June 14, 1869
31
48
43
Gentlemen
Players
June 24, 1869
31
49
83
Gentlemen
Players
June 24, 1869
38
61
96
South
North
August 9, 1869
41
64
49
MCC
Surrey
May 16, 1870
42
66
54
MCC
Oxford
May 26, 1870
42
67
73
no
MCC
Oxford
May 26, 1870
44
70
26
Gloucestershire
Surrey
June 2, 1870
47
76
8
MCC
Cambridge
June 20, 1870
48
79
20
MCC
Oxford
June 23, 1870
48
78
62
MCC
Oxford
June 23, 1870
53
88
84
MCC
Surrey
July 25, 1870
56
91
4
South
North
August 8, 1870
57
94
46
no
Gentlemen of MCC
Kent
August 11, 1870
58
95
77
Gentlemen of the South
Gentlemen of the North
August 18, 1870
59
97
42
United South of England Eleven
United North of England Eleven
August 22, 1870
62
103
98
MCC
Yorkshire
May 22, 1871
67
109
1
Gloucestershire
Surrey
June 8, 1871
68
110
88
MCC
Middlesex
June 12, 1871
70
114
15
MCC
Oxford
June 22, 1871
73
119
16
Gentlemen
Players
July 6, 1871
76
124
21
MCC
Surrey
July 20, 1871
77
125
59
MCC
Sussex
July 24, 1871
79
128
78
Gloucestershire
Nottinghamshire
August 3, 1871
80
131
40
South
North
August 7, 1871
84
136
79
Gloucestershire
Nottinghamshire
August 21, 1871
85
138
81
no
WG Grace’s XI
Kent
September 21, 1871
86
140
65
South
North
April 29, 1872
88
143
87
South
North
May 16, 1872
91
148
13
Gloucestershire
Surrey
June 3, 1872
96
156
9
Gentlemen of the South
Players of the South
June 27, 1872
101
164
44
MCC
South
July 22, 1872
104
167
67
Gloucestershire
Nottinghamshire
August 1, 1872
106
170
68
South
North
May 15, 1873
116
185
70
Gentlemen
Players
July 17, 1873
119
190
5
no
MCC
Surrey Club
July 31, 1873
121
193
57
no
Gentlemen of MCC
Kent
August 6, 1873
125
200
69
no
WG Grace’s XI
Kent
September 25, 1873
135
216
22
Gentlemen
Players
July 2, 1874
141
226
94
Kent and Gloucestershire
England
August 3, 1874
144
230
27
Gloucestershire
Surrey
August 24, 1874
145
231
53
Gloucestershire
Sussex
August 27, 1874
148
235
28
no
South
North
May 17, 1875
149
237
71
MCC
Yorkshire
May 24, 1875
150
238
82
South
North
May 27, 1875
153
244
36
Gloucestershire
Sussex
June 10, 1875
157
252
17
Gentlemen
Players
July 1, 1875
159
255
92
South
North
July 15, 1875
174
284
72
Gentlemen of the South
Players of the North
May 18, 1876
177
290
38
South
North
June 1, 1876
178
291
45
South
North
June 5, 1876
183
300
90
Gentlemen
Players
June 29, 1876
185
303
33
Gentlemen
Players
July 6, 1876
190
312
60
Gloucestershire
Nottinghamshire
July 27, 1876
192
317
91
Kent and Gloucestershire
England
August 7, 1876
198
326
39
South
North
September 7, 1876
198
325
41
no
South
North
September 7, 1876
203
336
58
South
North
May 21, 1877
207
342
52
Gloucestershire
Sussex
June 11, 1877
213
351
61
South
North
July 23, 1877
224
369
47
MCC
England
May 13, 1878
233
384
63
Gentlemen
Players
July 4, 1878
259
428
85
Gloucestershire
Middlesex
August 14, 1879
278
459
89
Gloucestershire
Yorkshire
August 23, 1880
283
468
64
Gloucestershire
Middlesex
June 13, 1881
284
470
100
Gentlemen
Players
June 30, 1881
290
482
80
Gloucestershire
Middlesex
August 11, 1881
306
507
56
Gloucestershire
Yorkshire
July 31, 1882
308
510
86
Gloucestershire
Lancashire
August 10, 1882
370
620
76
Gentlemen
Players
July 2, 1885
420
703
74
England XI
Australians
September 13, 1886
435
731
97
Gloucestershire
Yorkshire
July 25, 1887
453
765
95
MCC
Oxford
June 4, 1888
577
986
99
Gloucestershire
Sussex
August 4, 1892
742
1265
93
no
Gloucestershire
Sussex
August 1, 1898
We now know that the reasoning was backed by data. However, we still do not have proof that this was the only reason for WG to declare the innings.
Was this a good enough reason? If not, let me ask two simple questions:
1. WG’s fondness for numbers, especially ones pertaining to his own career, is well-documented. If he did not notice that 93 was ‘missing’, who did? Who maintained data of a nature this obscure?
2. Even if one assumes it was a coincidence, why would a run-glutton like WG declare with no result in sight but a century 7 runs away?
I leave these questions to the reader.
Brief scores:
Gloucestershire 244 (Reginald Rice 61; Cyril Bland 4 for 97, Walter Humphreys 4 for 91) and 341 for 8 decl. (Cyril Sewell 67, Reginald Rice 63, WG Grace 93*; Walter Humphreys 3 for 80) drew with Sussex 364 (CB Fry 93, Billy Murdoch 60, Francis Marlow 77; Stanley Brown 4 for 100) and 20 for no loss.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.