SPORT ANCIENT AND MODERN 



been gathered, the western county had the 

 nucleus of their future side. Dr. E. M. Grace 

 had already passed the first prime of his batting 

 before the Australians ever visited this country, 

 but in earlier limes he was a wonderful run-getter, 

 obtaining huge scores by clean hard hitting, though 

 his style was unique. He never grounded his bat, 

 but used to stand upright holding it across the 

 face of the stumps. At point he was marvellous, 

 and in the days of lob-bowling he enjoyed great 

 success with the ball. 



To dilate on the cricket of his yet more 

 illustrious brother, the champion, is even to-day 

 superfluous. What Dr. W. G. Grace has 

 achieved in the cricket field can never be emu- 

 lated, and he has done more than any other 

 individual to create enormous interest in the 

 game. Mr. G. F. Grace, cut off in his prime 

 in 1880 through sleeping in a damp bed, though 

 he never equalled his brothers, was none the less 

 a sterling cricketer, being a formidable bat, a 

 capital fast bowler, and the best out-field of his 

 time, the catch with which he dismissed Mr. G. J. 

 Bonnor at the Oval being still quoted as being 

 perhaps the finest ever made in the deep field. 

 Mr. Frank Townsend was a lively bat, possess- 

 ing a very pretty cut. Mr. J. A. Bush proved 

 a really fine wicket-keeper, but his left-handed 

 batting often furnished good-humoured diversion 

 to the crowd. Mr. George Strachan, a service- 

 able bat, smart field, and change bowler, divided 

 his cricket between Gloucestershire and Surrey. 

 Mr. R. F. Miles was a slow left-handed bowler 

 who enjoyed great efficacy on occasions, especially 

 on a soft wicket. 



It was not until 21 August, 1871, at Trent 

 Bridge, that Gloucestershire was for the first 

 time defeated, having until then six victories and 

 a draw to its credit, but in that match ' W. G.' 

 made 79 and 1 16. Against Surrey Mr. T. G. 

 Matthews was eight hours at the wicket whilst 

 obtaining a score of 201, going in first and being 

 last out in a total of 400. In this match 

 ' W. G.' kept wicket, dismissing five opponents. 

 At Lord's, against M.C.C. and Ground, four 

 Graces played, Mr. Henry Grace, an elder 

 brother, being included. A keen tussle in 1872 

 saw Surrey victorious by a single wicket, whilst 

 'W. G.'s 1 chief county score was 150 against 

 Yorkshire. In 1874, at Cheltenham, ' W. G.' 

 and 'G. F.' dismissed Surrey for 27, and at 

 Brighton the elder scored 179. On both occa- 

 sions Yorkshire was beaten with an innings to 

 spare, ' W. G.' making 167 and 127, and taking 

 twenty-two wickets. Already the eleven had 

 assumed its characteristics, that of playing fine 

 cricket so far as the Graces and two or, three 

 others were concerned, whilst three or four 

 places seemed allotted to any amateur available. 

 Gloucestershire has tried more cricketers since 

 its foundation than any other county, also fewer 

 professionals. Indeed, until Midwinter appeared, 

 the side was exclusively amateur. 



The year 1 87 5 saw the three Graces headingthe 

 batting averages and scoring more runs than the 

 other sixteen amateurs who appeared on the side. 

 In previous summers the once-famed Oxonian, 

 Mr. T. W. Lang, had several times lent assist- 

 ance. Mr. G. Neville Wyatt was also seen, 

 though he did better work later for Sussex ; 

 and Mr. A. H. Heath, whilst still a schoolboy, 

 received a trial. 1876 was a year of greater 

 triumph, for not a single defeat could be set 

 against five victories and three draws. Besides 

 177 v. Nottinghamshire and 104 v. Sussex, 

 Dr. W. G. Grace went in first and carried out 

 his bat for 318 out of 528 v. Yorkshire. He 

 was batting eight hours, and only gave one 

 chance. This was the largest individual score 

 made in an inter-county match until Mr. A. C. ; 

 Maclaren scored 424 at Taunton for Lancashire ' 

 v. Somersetshire in 1899. Five days earlier, on 

 the concluding day of the Canterbury week, 

 Dr. W. G. Grace, for Gentlemen of M.C.C. v. 

 Kent, had made 344 without a chance. This 

 is still (1906) the fourth best score in first-class 

 matches. Truly the Dominie's epithet, 'Pro- 

 dee-gious ! ' comes to our lips, especially as those 

 were not the days of mammoth scoring. 

 Mr. W. O. Moberley enjoyed a long partner- 

 ship with 'W. G.' and obtained his first hundred 

 in the Yorkshire match. Though he never 

 found a place in the University Eleven, he was a 

 far better bat than many who have represented 

 Oxford, and for many years he materially assisted 

 his county. Mr. J. Cranston was also tried, and 

 proved himself an excellent bat and good field. 

 He left the county in 1883, and his best per- 

 formances were after his return in 1889. Few 

 left-handed bats ever played with such a uni- 

 formly straight bat. Mr. W. R. Gilbert, a 

 cousin of the Graces, for some seasons proved 

 a serviceable player, being a steady bat and slow 

 bowler, occasionally effective. Still dwelling on 

 1876, the analysis of Mr. R. F. Miles at Brigh- 

 ton must be quoted seven for 30 and five for 

 25 and between his two great batting achieve- 

 ments just mentioned, Dr. W. G. Grace, against 

 Nottinghamshire, after scoring 177, took eight 

 wickets for 69 in the second innings. Altogether 

 in that August, in first-class fixtures, he aggre- 

 gated 1,261 runs with an average of 140*1, 

 besides taking twenty-eight wickets for 22 runs 

 apiece. 



Gloucestershire played England at the Oval 

 in 1877, the first time any county had done so 

 since 1866, but the victory by five wickets was 

 not of much account owing to the wretched 

 national side collected. The match was repeated 

 in 1878, when a dull game ended in the defeat 

 of the county by six wickets. In 1877, how- 

 ever, Gloucestershire were again unbeaten, having 

 eight victories and a draw. The figures were 

 far less sensational than in the previous year, 

 Dr. W. G. Grace being more to the fore with 

 the ball than with the bat, his county analysis 



37 



