The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1

First topic message reminder :

Following on from Gregers' idea to implement our very own Hall of Fame at 606v2, here is the thread where all the deliberating will take place.

As you know, there is a Hall of Fame already set up by the ICC, though looking through it there are some names in that list which are debateable as to whether they really belong in such company. That, then, is up to us to decide. Let's make our Hall of Fame elitist in every way, ensuring that only the most worthy of candidates are elected.

I propose that we elect 30 founder members of our Hall of Fame before the voting gets underway - whose position in cricketing history we can all agree on. Remember, this Hall doesn't have to only include players but can include managers, figureheads or anyone else that we feel has had a significant impact upon the sport to deem them worthy of a place.

In order for a candidate to gain election to the Hall, they will need a yes vote of 75% or more. Anything less will see them fail to get in, although if they get between 50 and 75% of the vote they will be voted on again at a later date. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and therefore no currently active players will be considered.

Every fortnight 5 candidates are considered. Voting deadlines and forthcoming candidates are listed at the bottom of the the stickied thread in the Honours Board section.

Forum members can nominate candidates by posting in the current thread, which is stickied in the main cricket section.

My suggestion for the inaugural 30 is as follows. It is intended that these be the 30 very best and uncontroversial inductees, so please put forward any suggestions that you may have as to possible changes to this list, before we get started. We need to get the right names in this initial 30. In no particular order:

1) Don Bradman 2) Ian Botham 3) Sydney Barnes 4) Sunil Gavaskar 5) W.G Grace 6) Jack Hobbs 7) Richard Hadlee 8) Imran Khan 9) Malcolm Marshall 10) Garfield Sobers 11) Shane Warne 12) Muttiah Muralitharan 13) Viv Richards 14) Clive Lloyd 15) Keith Miller 16) Andy Flower 17) Brian Lara 18) Bill O'Reilly 19) Wasim Akram 20) Glenn McGrath 21) Michael Holding 22) Richie Benaud 23) Adam Gilchrist 24) Allan Border 25) Curtly Ambrose 26) Dennis Lillee 27) Frank Worrell 28) Victor Trumper 29) Kapil Dev 30) Jim Laker

So, let me know your thoughts and possible changes to this 20, and then we will get on with the business of the first ten names that are up for nomination. Any questions let me know.

Right guys, time for our next set of 5 candidates, as taken from the ICC Hall of Fame.

Ian Chappell - captained Australia between 1971 and 1975 before taking a central role in the breakaway World Series Cricket organisation. Chappell made a hesitant start to international cricket playing as a right-hand middle-order batsman and spin bowler. He found his niche when promoted to bat at number three. He earned a reputation as one of the greatest captains the game has seen. Chappell's blunt verbal manner led to a series of confrontations with opposition players and cricket administrators; the issue of sledging first arose during his tenure as captain and he was a driving force behind the professionalisation of Australian cricket in the 1970s.

John Arlott called him, “a cricketer of effect rather than the graces”. An animated presence at the batting crease, he constantly adjusted his equipment and clothing, and restlessly tapped his bat on the ground as the bowler ran in. Basing his game on a sound defence learned during many hours of childhood lessons, Chappell employed the drive and square cut to full effect. He had an idiosyncratic method of playing back and across to a ball of full length and driving wide of mid on, but his trademark shot was the hook, famously saying "three bouncers an over should be worth 12 runs to me". A specialist slip fielder, he was the fourth player to take one hundred Test catches. Chappell averaged 42.42 in Tests with the bat, and 48.07 in ODI cricket.

Since his retirement in 1980, he has pursued a high-profile career as a sports journalist and cricket commentator, predominately with Channel Nine. He remains a major figure in Australian cricket: in 2006, Shane Warne called Chappell the biggest influence on his career.

Belinda Clark - Clark is a former female Australian cricketer, who played international cricket from 1991 to 2005. She was the first person to score a double century in a women's One Day International, and averaged 45.95 in Tests.

Together with Karen Rolton, she has ensured that the Australian women's cricket team has been just as dominant as the men's in the 1990s and 2000s. Clark was named Wisden Australia Cricketer of the Year in 1998, and has captained the Australian women's Test side since 1994. She was also chief executive of Women's Cricket Australia.

On 16 September 2005, Clark announced her retirement after playing in 118 one-day internationals and 15 Tests. She took on a new role as manager of the Australian Cricket Academy in Brisbane.

She was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day honours list in January 2000, "for service to cricket, particularly through the Australian Women's Cricket Team, and to the promotion and development of the game for women and girls."

Denis Compton - By the late 1930s Compton was a leading England batsman and remained at the top of his profession for some twenty years. His dashing approach to batting and the sheer enjoyment he exuded endeared him to a generation of cricket lovers. As an all-rounder Compton was a right-hand bat and a slow left-arm Chinaman bowler.

In 1947 he thrilled a war-weary English public by breaking record after record in scoring 3816 runs; he scored 18 centuries. 753 of those runs came against the touring South Africans. This season was the summit of a glittering career that began on the ground staff at Lord's; selection for Middlesex followed in 1936 and England the following year.

He scored his first Test century aged just 19 in 1938 against Don Bradman's touring Australians. Later in the same series he scored a match-saving 76 not out at Lord's; this innings was scored on a rain-affected pitch and greatly impressed Don Bradman. In 1939 he scored 2468 runs for the season, including 120 against the West Indies at Lord's.

As with many other sportsmen of his generation he lost some of his best years to the Second World War, during which he served in the army in India.

In England toured Australia in the 1946-47 Ashes series and though they were beaten by the powerful Australian team, Compton distinguished himself by scoring a century in each innings of the Adelaide Test. Back in England in 1947 he had a glorious season.

Two of his finest innings were played against the formidable Australian side of 1948. In the First Test at Trent Bridge he scored 184 in the second innings after Australia had established a first innings lead of 344, and it looked as though he might save the match for England until he lost his balance to a short-pitched ball from Miller and hit his wicket. In the Third Test at Old Trafford, he made 145 not out in the first innings, when no other batsman made more than 37.

Compton has the fastest triple century ever scored in first class cricket to his name, scored on an MCC tour to South Africa in 1948/49, a shade over 3 hours.

Despite an injury ravaged tour to Australia in 1950/51, Compton finished his cricket career after playing 78 Test matches with 17 centuries at an average of 50.06. In all first-class cricket he scored 123 centuries.

Colin Cowdrey - Former Kent and England captain Cowdrey was the first cricketer to play in 100 Test matches and held the records for the most runs by a batsman and most catches by a fielder in Test cricket. His 22 Test centuries is an England record shared with Wally Hammond and Geoff Boycott and he toured Australia a record six times between 1954-55 and 1974-75. At Edgbaston in 1957 he added 411 against the West Indies with Peter May, the highest stand for England in Tests. Cowdrey's highest first class score was 307 against South Australia in 1962-63, a record for the MCC and for any tourist in Australia. He was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1972, a Knight in 1992, a Life Peer by the cricket-loving Prime Minister John Major in 1997. As a batsman he was noted for his classical technique and sweet timing of the ball.

Cowdrey made his England debut on the 1954-55 tour of Australia and New Zealand and made his maiden Test hundred at Melbourne in the Boxing Day Test match 1954. In 1963, facing the West Indies in a Lord's Test match, he came in to bat with a broken wrist in plaster (fortunately he did not have to face a ball; if it had been necessary, he said he would have done so holding the bat with one hand). Had he not batted, England would have lost, but his appearance caused the match to be drawn.

At the beginning of the 1973 English season Cowdrey headed the list of the then all time highest aggregate Test match run scorers with 7700 runs. He ended his career after playing his final Test against Australia in 1974-75.

In total he played 114 Tests and scored 7624 Test runs at an average of 44.06, including 22 centuries (the 241 runs he had scored against the Rest of the World in 1970 no longer count as Test match runs).

Following his retirement in 1976, Colin Cowdrey worked closely behind the scenes at Kent, became President of the MCC in 1986 and was Chairman of the International Cricket Council from 1989-1993. He was President of Kent County Cricket Club in 2000.

Alan Davidson - Alan Keith Davidson, AM, MBE (born 14 June 1929, Lisarow, Gosford, New South Wales) is a former Australian cricketer of the 1950s and 1960s. He was an all rounder: a hard-hitting lower-order left-handed batsman, and an outstanding left-arm fast-medium opening bowler. Strongly built and standing six feet tall, Davidson was known for his hard hitting power, which yielded many long hit sixes. His left arm bowling was a mainstay of the Australian pace attack of the 1950s and early 1960s, and from the late 1950s widely regarded as one of the finest pace bowlers in the world, with a classical bowling action which imparted late swing. Davidson was considered along with Wasim Akram as one of the two greatest left arm fast bowlers in history, and bowled with great control, conceding less than two runs per over. Only two other post-war bowlers have a superior bowling average. Davidson was known for his anticipation in close catching positions and his accurate and strong throwing arm from the outfield. His ability to take improbable close range catches saw him earn the nickname "The Claw".

Davidson made his Australia debut in the 1953 tour of England, playing in all five Tests in the Ashes series, finishing the series with a modest return of 182 runs at 22.75 and eight wickets at 26.50. He also scored his maiden first-class century during the tour. His fledgling international career stagnated over the next three years. Although Davidson was selected in the squad for the next four series, he suffered several injuries and inconsistent form, playing in only 7 of 19 Tests during this time, and taking only 8 wickets. Up to this point, he had played 12 Tests, none of them Australian victories. His individual performances were also unimpressive despite his first-class success, producing only 317 runs at 18.64 and 16 wickets at 34.06.

Davidson's career was then transformed after Australia's veteran fast bowling spearheads Keith Miller and Ray Lindwall retired and were dropped respectively after the tour. Davidson led an inexperienced pace attack on the tour of South Africa in 1957–58—his new ball partner Ian Meckiff was making his debut. In the First Test, he took 6/34, his maiden Test five-wicket haul, after narrowly evading being expelled for breaking a curfew. Davidson went on to take a total of 9/82 in the Fifth Test and end the career-transforming series with 25 wickets at 17.00 as Australia won 3–0.

During the 1958–59 home series against England, Davidson took 24 wickets at 19.00, including a total of 9/95 in the Second Test as Australia won 4–0. During the 1959–60 eight-Test tour of the Indian subcontinent, Davidson overcame conditions unfavourable to fast bowling to take 41 wickets at 17.78 as Australia won four matches and lost one. In the Second Test against India in Kanpur, Davidson took his career-best match and innings bowling figures with 5/31 and 7/93. In the second innings, he bowled for an entire day's play without interruption and lost 11 kg during the match. In a career total of six Tests in India, Davidson took 30 wickets at an average of 15.77.

Davidson reached his all round peak during the 1960–61 home series against West Indies and was regarded as the key player in Australia's victory. In the First Test in Brisbane, Davidson became the first player to take ten wickets and accumulate more than a hundred runs in a match despite a broken finger on his bowling hand. He took 5/135 and 6/87 and after scoring 44 in the first innings, made 80 in a counter-attacking seventh-wicket partnership of 134 with captain Richie Benaud as Australia sought victory in the run-chase rather than attempt to survive for a draw. Davidson was run out for 80 as Australia lost their way in the final minutes, causing the first Tied Test in history. He took five-wicket hauls in the three other Tests that he played, including Australia's victory in the Fifth Test to take the series 2–1. Despite missing a Test due to injury, he scored 212 runs at 30.28 and took 33 wickets at 18.55, almost half the average of the next best bowler. He ended the first-class season with 551 runs at 55.10 and 45 wickets at 20.62.

After having limited success on the previous two tours of England, Davidson took 23 wickets at 24.87 in 1961 as Australia prevailed 2–1. He took 5/42 in the Second Test at Lord's and then hit a counter-attacking 77 not out in the Fourth Test after the hosts looked set to take the series lead. Davidson's innings gave Australia a defendable total and they sealed the Ashes with a late comeback and victory. During the 1961–62 Australian domestic season, Davidson scored 521 runs at 40.07 including two centuries, and took 42 wickets at 13.62, playing a leading role as his state won the Sheffield Shield for the ninth time in a row. Davidson retired from cricket after the 1962–63 series against England, having taken 24 wickets despite injuring himself despite bowling in just over four Tests. The series was drawn, the only non-victory for Australia since Davidson had become their leading bowler. During the last five years of his career, Davidson took 170 Test wickets at 19.25 in 32 Tests, only four of which were lost. After his departure, Australia struggled, winning only one Test series in four years. He ended his career with a Test batting average of 24.59 and a bowling average of 20.53 in 44 matches.

In retirement, Davidson served on the boards of various organisations across fields as varying as charity, medicine, industry and sport. He was a national cricket selector for five years and was the President of the New South Wales Cricket Association from 1970 to 2003.

early thoughts are

Chappell - no, but it's close. Just not sure there's quite enough there. Do enough "good to very good and maybe a great"s add up to HoF greatness?

Clark - really need to find out more about her before making a decision.

Compton - yes. Excellence at test level, sheer weight of runs and incredible consistency at county level, and as one of the first "improviser"s with the bat, surely a pioneer of the game.

Cowdrey - no. could be shouted down over this one, but lacks that little extra I think we need for HoF (similar to the way mike argued Barrington lacked it).

Davidson - yes. A truly great bowler who was also a very decent bat. Starring role in arguably the greatest test of all time.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Colin Cowdrey

.... (the 241 runs he had scored against the Rest of the World in 1970 no longer count as Test match runs).

You only included that to wind me up!

Some further thoughts on the latest nominees (perhaps not too serious before the mods get called in ):

* Should we hold against Colin Cowdrey that he was responsible for Chris Cowdrey, one of England's worst ever players and captains?

* Surely Ian Chappell is automatically excluded on the grounds that he is the brother of the disgraced Greg?

* For the integrity of our Hall of Fame and 606 v2 itself, we need to ensure that we are not at all sexist in our voting. By the way, any of you chaps know if this Clark girl is a looker?

having had a brief look at Belinda Clark's records and such, my first thought is to vote yes for inclusion in the HoF.

- combined the role of player, Australian captain and CE for Women's Cricket Australia.

- captained the side to two WCs and another WC final appearance.

- first player (of either gender) to score an ODI double-century

- averaged over 45 in both tests and ODIs, leading run-scorer for Aus in both formats (and also most ODI appearances for Aus).

- 45 catches in ODIs suggests she's a pretty useful fielder too.

But you didn't answer my question?
PS Mad - hope you saw my ''early hours'' response about Russell. Best, Guildford.

guildford

She is a looker, just not a very good one

just for you then, I'll let you make your own mind up

clicky

I did indeed see your response to the Russell debate, guildford, and thought it was pretty much spot on. Two of your sentences I was in 100% agreement with:
"A flawed genius would be my view."
"Russell lost out too often due to the failings of others with the bat."
all too true, and interestingly Stewart says much the same thing in his autobiography if I remember correctly.

Stella wrote:guildford

She is a looker, just not a very good one

If someone named after a lager says that ....

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:guildford

She is a looker, just not a very good one

If someone named after a lager says that ....

She's a ten pinter alright.

Cheers, Mad.

Strangely for a keen Surrey follower, I haven't read Stewart's autobiography.

Back to these nominees, looks like Ms Clark could make a decent living in dental advertising if she ever gives up cricket!

it's a good read guildford, particularly the bit about the selection process for the 99 world cup. It seems both him and David Lloyd wanted Chris Lewis in the squad for his match-winning abilities (even if they weren't on display at the time), but were told by the selectors (Tom Graveney I think) they couldn't have him. i've always found it staggering that the captain and coach could be over-ruled like that by a man who, at the end of the day, isn't the one who's working with the squad on a day-to-day basis.

A very good read otherwise is Hussain's "playing with fire", gives you a fascinating insight into the Hussain-Fletcher partnership which arguably turned England cricket around, and also they're some very interesting pieces about the Zimbabwe fiasco in 03.

Sorry, straying off-topic a bit, but hey, it's friday afternoon after all.

Ian Chapell: NO. very tough to say no, but i dont think his batting was enough to get him into our hall of fame. very good batsman yes, but not world class. so its a NO from me.

Belinda Clark: YES. Women's cricket dosent really play test cricket. Except for the ashes where its only one test, and other countires dont play tests. However to average 45 in 15 tests in women's cricket is a phenomenal effort and therefore its a YES from me.

Denis Compton: YES. A true legend of the game. Very reliable batsman for county and country, averages over 50 with the bat for club and country and was extremely relieable. YES.

Colin Cowdrey: NO. Same as Chappell, very good player, but IMO, not good enough to get into the hall of fame, tough choice though NO

Alan Davidson: YES. Fantastic with the ball, and more than useful with the bat. Very relieable for Australia and for his state, and world class IMO. YES

not disagreeing with your votes cf, as they're about along the same lines as I'm thinking, but shouldn't other things come into consideration when considering Chappell? Sure on batting alone I think we'd all agree he's struggling to make the HoF, but surely you need to also consider his captaincy, slip catching and commentating?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Sorry, straying off-topic a bit, but hey, it's friday afternoon after all.

Thanks for the book details, very interesting. I had forgotten the Lewis non-selection fiasco! Bizarre. Lewis was always a strange one. Shaved all the hair off his head when on tour with England in the West Indies, then fielded all day without a hat and missed the rest of the game and the next one with sunstroke. Currently serving time at one of Her Majesty's prisons for some drugs run. You couldn't make it up!

Don't worry about ''straying off-topic a bit''. A good forum should be like a good dinner party, drink and conversation freely flowing. Ok, we don't have the drink and that makes me sound far grander than I am but I'm sure you get the point. Now about to post briefly on the ''top ten keepers'' thread ....

Agree with most of the votes so far.
Ian Chappell- Good captain, good batsman. All-time great, no not IMO.
NO

Belinda Clark-Don't know much about her to be honest, but from reading her profile on cricinfo I'd be inclined to vote YES.

Denis Compton-The Brylcreem boy, 1947, winnig runs in the 1953 Ashes, the sweep, dodgy running, average of 50+. YES

Colin Cowdrey-Promised much at the beggining of his career but didn't really deliver. Doesn't qualify for me. NO

Alan Davidson-2nd lowest average of any bowler to take 100+ wickets since the war I believe, good lower order batsman and know as 'the claw' for his magnificent fielding. Also, so I have read, an incorrigable hypochondriac.
YES

My early provisional thoughts (bit more serious than earlier!):

Ian Chappell: PROBABLE NO.

Belinda Clark: PROBABLE NO.

Denis Compton - DEFINITE YES. Bonus point to Hoggy for his Brylcreem Boy reference!

Colin Cowdrey: PROBABLE YES.

Alan Davidson: DEFINITE YES.

Looks like I'll be swimming against the tide with Clark and Cowdrey - getting used to that!

Confirmation with reasons to follow once properly assessed ....

Looks like Compton and Davidson are going to make the cut fairly easily if early tendencies is anything to go by. guildford you're going to have to be very convincing on Cowdrey...

Evening all.

At a cricket conference this week-end so will keep this brief for now.

First thoughts:
Chappell: no. For very much the reasons everybody has given. He was a good batsman, a very good captain, a good-to-very good fielder, and a very good commentator. But he wasn't/isn't great at anything. Harsh but there you go.

Clark: YES. Women's cricket's finest ever player (arguably joint with Claire Taylor), and done a huge amount for the game. I shall actually be very upset if she doesn't get in.

Compton: YES. With apologies to Barrington who finished his career with a much better test average, but simply Compton's style (rumoured with inventing the sweep shot) and his season in 1947 as well as being a great player get him in my HoF.

Cowdrey: NO and not that close. A good player but no more. Wouldn't get into an all-time England 11 and it's hard to see what lasting mark he's left on the game.

Davidson: Very embarassingly I don't know that much about him apart from his efforts in the tied test, so shall sit on the fence for the moment.

just to clarify Mike, but I assume the Taylor you're referring too is actually Claire Taylor, the one who was named one of Wisden's five cricketers of the year in 2010. Clare Taylor was a perfectly good England medium-pacer a little bit before, but surely not arguably the best of all time. Pretty much agree with the way these votes seem to be going right now.

First thoughts are
Chappell: No
Clark: open to persuasion (she only got to play 15 tests? Presumably that is simply down to there not being many such fixtures....?)
Compton: Yes; Good stats, flair, iconic figure
Cowdrey: solid establishment figure in MCC, good player; I'm inclined to think no. Batting stats are good but not exceptional - some way short of Barrington!
Davidson: Probably

Looks like we might struggle to find a mega disagreement

Hi Mike,

Re: Belinda Clark. The main issue I have is that I know very little about her and the environment she's been in as a player and subsequently. This is due to my ignorance and I apologise to her and all on this forum for that. However, for me to vote for her, I have to be convinced she is a worthy member. That's my approach with all nominees.

On the playing front, her career stats and achievements are impressive. However, I am not certain of the quality of opposition she faced; that's relevant as a century off Holding & Marshall counts for more in my book than a ton off Jimmy Ormond & Ed Giddins. I would be very grateful if you could educate me here and also as to what main cricket accomplishments are down to her post playing

Let me emphasise, before people start buying tickets for another 15 rounder , that this is not a repeat of the Greg Chappell saga. There, we held two very different views and you were wrong! Here, I'm seeking evidence to form the right view.

Despite banter earlier today, I have no issue with ladies joining the Hall of Fame. When we make our own nominations next year, I am keen that we recognise other types of cricket hero (the very best writers, broadcasters, charity workers (especially for Blind Cricket), loyal unsung backroom people, etc), regardless of their sex and regardless of whether they even played the game seriously.

No need for an early reply - appreciate you are away. I won't be rushing to judgment nor to vote.

Re: Colin Cowdrey. It very much looks like I'll be pushing water up a hill but I'll try to make the Case for Cowdrey over the weekend. I believe he deserves that at least. Even if you stick with your NO vote, I hope it'll be of some interest. A complex man who enjoyed great privilege and suffered great tragedy ....

Ian Chappell NO - Regarded by many as one of the all time great Test captains,and with a steely determination to make sure his team won. He is quoted as saying "I would prefer my team to be described as a bunch of bar stewards than nice guys" which imo show's us that he had a blunt but strong character. He was also said to be very verbally confrontational with his opponents and this was later to become known as sledging, which is by some attributed to Chappell. The term "ugly Austrailians" came about because of this. He is now a cricket commentator, and i am sure all of you will have heard his straight talking and very frank views which will show you how he was when he played.
He gets a no from me because as captain he only had a 50% win ratio: P30 - W15 - L5 - D10. His batting although mixed with aggression and sound defence finished up with an ave of 42.42, which is good but not great and his bowling was only used occasionally.
With all things weighed up i think he was a very good cricketer, but not a true great.


Belinda Clark NO - This is a lady who has many records in the sport, ie most Test runs (for an Austrailian), most ODI runs (for an Austrailian), captain of Australia the most times and many more. Clark played 15 Tests ending with an ave of 45.95 which is very, very good in womens cricket.
The NO for Clark is because of the last two words in my last sentence - WOMENS CRICKET

I have heard of Clark prior to this list, just as i have heard of many of the current England womens team, but how many England fans around the country would have ever heard of Clark ?. How many would go too watch women play ?.
It is what it is, it's just there. (just been called a chauvinist by the wife), not true.
Obviously you can not compare men and women cricketers, but i find someone who is good (but not a true great) could stand out in womens cricket because of some of the standards of play in some international teams. You could say that about the mens game, but i think it is a lot more relevant in the womens case. And because of that reason, Clark's ave with the bat of 45.95 is very good but not truely exceptional.
If the womens game was still run solely by the IWCC and not merged with the ICC in 2005, Clark would without doubt be at the summit of their HoF list. It would not sit right with me to give Clark a YES, when giving a NO to other very talented cricketers who play against a much better standard of player.
An all time great in Womens cricket - YES But a NO from me for reasons stated.






Denis Compton YES - WOW, a hell of a sportsman was Compton playing both football (Arsenal) and being an all time great cricketer. He was a good footballer winning the league 1948 and FA Cup 1950 but was limited in the amount of games in which he could play. But in cricket he was a great, he scored his first century at the age of 19 and went of to make 17 in all , which would have been many more if it were not for the war and would probably be England's highest century maker in Test cricket.
He finished his Test career with an ave of 50.06 (with only 7 (retired) england players above) and his first class career with 51.85 from 515 first class games and a 28 year first class career span.
He was also an all rounder in cricket, in first class cricket taking 622 wickets at 32.27 and also gaining 25 Test wickets.
Compton's absent-mindedness was legendary. Colin Cowdrey writes that Compton turned up for the Old Trafford Test of 1955 against South Africa without his kitbag. Undaunted, he sauntered into the museum and, borrowing an antique bat off the display, went on to score 155 and 79 not out.
After retiring from sport, Denis Compton became a journalist and later a commentator for BBC Television. He was made a CBE in 1958. He became the first former professional cricketer to be elected President of Middlesex County Cricket Club in 1991. He served two terms, until a week before his death aged 78.
The MCC named the twin stands at the Nursery End at Lord's Cricket Ground, in Denis Compton's honour.



Colin Cowdrey NO - A right handed batsman noted for his classical technique and sweet timing of the ball. The joint leading cenury maker with 22, but taking 29 more Tests than Hammond and 10 more than Boycott to do so.
He was the captain of England 27 times with an average P27 - W8 - D15 - L4
Finishing his Test career having scored 7624 runs and an ave of 44.06. Overall Cowdrey was a very good cricketer but not one for an all time great list.



Alan Davidson YES - Davidson was considered along with Wasim Akram as one of the two greatest left arm fast bowlers in history, but was also a useful bat. He played 44 Test matches and took 186 wkts at a brilliant ave of 20.53. He has the lowest wicket ave of any cricketer in Test history having played more than 35 Tests. His economy was fantastic too at only 1.97 for the whole of his 44 Tests due to his great control.
A very useful ave of 24.59 with the bat, together with his bowling gets him a YES.

OK that's it, going to get upset very shortly. Very little energy this evening (long day) so it will have to wait for the morning.

Skyeman, with respect and with all my usual tact and diplomacy, your reasons for excluding Belinda Clark from the HoF are complete Love sacks. More on that tomorrow morning.

Mike, i do have other reasons, hopefully you will then change your mind and vote NO. Don't burst your Love sacks at this suggestion

I will be very shocked if Clark makes it onto the list.

i voted for belinda clark, skyeman.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Looks like we might struggle to find a mega disagreement

Spoke too soon!

To be fair skyeman I can't agree with your reasons for voting against Clark, which basically amount to "she's a woman".

If you follow women's cricket, there's no way you can not have heard of her, as Mike says she's arguably the greatest player of all time. Your argument that it's maybe easier to have great stats playing against "lesser" opposition is IMO all wrong too, given that you could make a similar argument for plenty of English or Australian players upto about 1950, perhaps more so, because they would only have played against one team (and they were some weak English and Aussie sides in that period). I don't even agree about the standard of women's cricket being that much lower. Obviously they bowl less quickly and hit less boundaries, but that's about it. The reason she didn't play many tests is simply because women can't play many tests (women's cricket isn't professional, so they all have to take time off work to play).

Ultimately you can look at first Clark's records:
- most runs for Aus in both tests and ODIs, thus longivity.
- first player (of either gender) to score a double-hundred in an ODI.
- averaged over 45 in both forms of the game. This is truly great in the women's game.
- captained the Aus team to two WC successes, and one WC final. Nobody's done better in the men's game.

When you consider that she was also Chief Executive of Women's Cricket in Australia for many years (while also captaining the Aus side!!!) it becomes even more remarkable, as she contributed to the Women's game getting more recognition around the world.

Basically, there seem to be no on-field or off-field arguments for excluding Clark, and just saying "because she's a woman" is more than a tad sexist in my view.

Whilst i do acknowledge the playing career and then the advocating of womens cricket in Australia to be a very good achievement, i could not possibly give Clark anything but a NO as my vote, This is not only for my reasons stated previously, which shall we say, you did not agree with, but for the following as well.

ODI's

This format of the game in Clark's time was the most played. Clark played 118 odi's in total and finished her career with an average of 47.49, which would seem to be stunning. That is until you realise that the bulk of the 118 odi's that Clark played in were against only three teams ie England, New zealand and India (94 in total). These three teams if you look back were the only really worthwhile competition who could give Australia any sort of a competitive game. Clark's average in these 94 matches drops considerably to 39.33, which if it were an England men's batsman you would say he had a good but nothing special average.
The other 24 odi's were played against teams such as Denmark, Pakistan, Ireland and the Netherlands and Clark's ave rises to 100.20. These other teams did just not have any realistic hope of playing cricket to a decent standard and were routinely thrashed. Clark's 229no was against Denmark, who only played their first international in 1989 and then failed to exist in 1999. Denmark's record was abysmal and the standard of cricket very low.
England's men sometimes play the lower ranked teams ie Scotland or Ireland (outside the World Cup) but they will get a contest and they do have plenty of talented cricketers of their own. When they do play them Eng don't score huge team totals or individually break all time records, because as stated these teams still play to a certain calibre.
My point is that the difference in standards between the top and lower men's teams than that of the womens is imo vast. This very much shows in Clark's averages.


Test Match

Clark only got to play 15 wth an ave of 45.95. Again mainly played against England (10) ave 28.20.
And only ever playing 15 Test matches (through no fault of her own) does also effect my decision because every other nominee i have voted for, it has mainly been about Test cricket and having played a certain amount of matches.

Having only played 15 Test's and having a good, but nothing amazing ave, and going back to the ODI's, regarding the standard of cricket. There is no way i could ever give a YES vote.

I may be very wrong on this and everyone else gives Clark a YES, but that is my opinion and i stand by it.

cricketfan90 wrote:i voted for belinda clark, skyeman.

LOL, I know you did cf, but hopefully you will change your mind and come over to (it would seem) the dark side

on your first point though, an average of roughly 40 in the women's game is still excellent, probably worth an average of about 45 in the men's game. And also if you exclude Murali's records against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (the two weakest nations) his average rises a fair bit, and his record looks less extraordinary (though still great by all means). Pakistan weren't that poor a team either I don't think, so you could (should) include them in the top tier bracket.

The fact that her double-hundred was against a weaker team is fine, but it's still a remarkable knock, and if someone in the men's game had hit one against Holland we would still recognise it as an extraordinary achievement in my view.

I repeat, for me, one of the two greatest women cricketers of all time, there's no way we can leave her out.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

I repeat, for me, one of the two greatest women cricketers of all time, there's no way we can leave her out.

Yes along with Betty Wilson and Claire Taylor for sure.

Maybe this should simply be a Men's All Time Greatest Cricketer's Thread... we could do a separate one for Women's Cricketers which would keep things nice and tidy.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Ultimately you can look at first Clark's records:
...
- first player (of either gender) to score a double-hundred in an ODI ...

Mad - thanks for all the details you've supplied about Belinda Clark. I'll have a proper look at them a bit later and then consider further. The ODI double hundred is certainly impressive.

Currently working on The Case for Cowdrey ....

Mad for Chelsea wrote:on your first point though, an average of roughly 40 in the women's game is still excellent, probably worth an average of about 45 in the men's game. And also if you exclude Murali's records against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (the two weakest nations) his average rises a fair bit, and his record looks less extraordinary (though still great by all means). Pakistan weren't that poor a team either I don't think, so you could (should) include them in the top tier bracket.

The fact that her double-hundred was against a weaker team is fine, but it's still a remarkable knock, and if someone in the men's game had hit one against Holland we would still recognise it as an extraordinary achievement in my view.

I repeat, for me, one of the two greatest women cricketers of all time, there's no way we can leave her out.

MfC, I can not agree that an ave of 40 in the womens game would be worth more,(if it were the men) because as stated the standards between the top and lesser teams of both are vastly different.
Holland, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the men's game, even from the start of their ODI/Test appearences, were on a different level to the likes of Denmark, Sri Lanka and Ireland from the womens game when Clark was playing.

If Clark does make our list, it will be fine with me, as she will have gained over 75% of the vote.

skyeman wrote:
MfC, I can not agree that an ave of 40 in the womens game would be worth more,(if it were the men) because as stated the standards between the top and lesser teams of both are vastly different.

Holland, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the men's game, even from the start of their ODI/Test appearences, were on a different level to the likes of Denmark, Sri Lanka and Ireland from the womens game when Clark was playing.

First point, should have made clearer, meant average of 40 against the stronger nations is worth more in the men's game. The average of 40 I was quoting was against the three stronger teams.

Second point, SL made 398 against Holland in one of Holland's earlier game, and this stood as a record for at least ten years if I remember rightly, which suggests there was quite a big gap there.

I knew i might get a few posts against my decision to give Clark a NO vote, but i have come to my conclusion after looking at a lot of evidence. And on that evidence, Imo, Clark was very good, but not enough for me to give a YES.

I have put my case forward, and i look forward to hearing more views (regarding YES/NO vote) on Clark from posters yet to vote.

I Chappell - No.
A very good bat and great commentator but maybe not a HOFer.

Clark - No.
How could I say yes to Clark when I said no to Chappell? A women's great maybe but that isn't enough for her to leap past others.
I believe Baseball has a Men's and Women's HOF. Maybe Cricket should follow.

Compton - Yes.
Great bat and charachter.

Cowdrey - No.
A very good player doesn't warrant a HOF place.

Davidson - Yes.
The second best Left Armer behind Akram and some would debate that.

Stella wrote:I Chappell - No.
A very good bat and great commentator but maybe not a HOFer.

Clark - No.
How could I say yes to Clark when I said no to Chappell? A women's great maybe but that isn't enough for her to leap past others.
I believe Baseball has a Men's and Women's HOF. Maybe Cricket should follow.

Compton - Yes.
Great bat and charachter.

Cowdrey - No.
A very good player doesn't warrant a HOF place.

Davidson - Yes.
The second best Left Armer behind Akram and some would debate that.

Blimey Stella , i thought i would be the only one to give a NO to Clark. Your reasoning was also one of my factors, ie Boycott playing over 100 Tests with an ave of over 47, and got a NO from me. How on earth could i give Clark a YES.

Ian Chappell - Pretty much agree on everything that has been said in regards to Chappell. Good at many things but great at none for me. His post career exploits don't make up for his decent but not great cricket career. So a no from me.

Dennis Compton - Clear, clear yes. A remarkable player, who definitely had that "X factor" when playing. And I know it is just a cricket HoF, but to overlook the natural ability required to play two sports to such a high standard would be foolhardy and it just adds to his credentials for me.

Colin Cowdrey - A tough one. 7000 Test runs, 43000 FC runs and the first man to 100 Tests are all great achievements, undoubtedly. Still holds the record for most centuries in Tests by an Englishman, although probably for not much longer, his good record and longevity makes him a good candidate for the Hall. But something isn't quite right. There is just the feeling that he could have been so much better. He could have done more. And for that reason, it is a reluctant no.

Alan Davidson - Again, no debate. Clear yes.

Belinda Clark - I have left her till last as she is the most difficult to assess out of this batch. Undoubtedly a fore figure in the women's game for many years but I just have a nagging doubt as to how good the standard of women's cricket was in the prime years of her career. I just feel that the women's game has come on tenfold in the past 6/7 years and whether if she was playing now she would have the same impact. But then the question is how bigger part did she play in developing the women's game? Increasing the skills on show and increasing the knowledge of it, how much of an impact did she have on this? Her playing record alone does not get her in for me simply because I think the standard of women's cricket has increased vastly in the last few years. And scoring 200 against Denmark, in the words of Shania Twain, "don't impress me much". If a male had done it against Bermuda or USA, I have to disagree Mad, I think we would see it as a good innings but not a great one. I will draw a rugby parallel here, as if asked who the record try scorer of all time is I would say David Campese. Not the Japanese fella who scored all his against Thailand and Vietname. Opposition does matter, and I feel that the strength of women's cricket is so much better than it was 10 years ago it is ridiculous.

Thus I am going to hold of my vote on Clark till I can see how much of an impace she made off the field, and at first glance it is going to be very tight. In a seperate women's HoF, she would be a cert but in this one it is 50:50.

skyeman wrote:

Hey Stella , i thought i would be the only one to give a NO to Clark. Your reasoning was also one of my factors, ie Boycott playing over 100 Tests with an ave of over 47, and got a NO from me. How on earth could i give Clark a YES.

Because you have to compare players with their peers. Boycott doesn't get in because, when compared to his peers (ie modern batsmen), he was not among the very best. Yet players like Trumper or Grace, who had lower averages, are included because they were undoubtedly great when compared with THEIR peers.
The same, it can be argued, is true of Clark. In comparison to modern male batsmen, her record may not be that great. But in comparison to her peers, other female cricketers, her record and acheivements ARE outstanding. Therefore, for me, she deserves inclusion in the HoF.

I would like to confirm my "probable" vote for Davidson is now a yes. Not an enormously long career but his achievements during it - and particularly his highly impressive bowling average - are decisive.

Still watching the debate on Clarke Some very good and thoughtful points being made both for and against inclusion .....

can I just add to defend Davidson (not that it looks like he needs it ) the starring role he played in the tied test? Without him WI would maybe have won this one comfortably, and it would have been unremarkable. However, thanks to AD, it became (arguably) the greatest test of all time. Surely that's an important contribution to cricket and thus a good argument for inclusion?

Very good point Hoggy, but this voting is for our HoF list where only the best of the best should get in. And on that point Clark's ave in Tests and amount played comes nowhere near to those greats imo.
So as you say, Clark was one of the best with her peers, so maybe we should have a womens HoF list.

skyeman wrote:Very good point Hoggy, but this voting is for our HoF list where only the best of the best should get in. And on that point Clark's ave in Tests and amount played comes nowhere near to those greats imo.

WGs test average was only 32 Trumper's was only 39. They're both in the HoF.

Meanwhile, please don't give up on Cowdrey! Keep watching, folks ....

looking forward to it guildford

Here is my passionate defence of Clark's inclusion in the HoF. I divide it into two parts, first of all I state the case for Clark based on her efforts on the field and her influence over the game, then I shall answer some of the factors which have made others vote against her (some of which are absolutely ludicrous).

Why should Clark get in?

Her stats alone make her a great of the women's game. That is not in dispute. An average of 45 in tests puts here in the top 15 or so averages, whilst her one-day average is only bettered by Karen Rolton (and only fractionally at that). She is the leading run scorer of all time in ODIs and in the top 10 in tests. And of course, she was the first ever cricketer to reach a double century in an ODI.

She also is probably the most successful captain of all time in any form of the game, having won 83 out of 101 ODIs as captain (another women's record). She captained her country to two world cup wins (and scored crucial runs in the matches) and indeed I believe only lost one match as a world cup captain (in the final in 2001 but this may need checking).

More importantly though was what she did for the game of cricket overall. In a similar way to what WG Grace and then Victor Trumper did for modern batting in the men's game, Clark brought the women's game forward immesurably. The fact that when you watch a women's game now you could imagine watching a minor county match is in no small measure due to Clark's influence. She was a fearless moderniser, both in batting style (before her arrival a women playing a delightful cover-drive for 4 was almost unheard of) and of course with her captaincy.

Now to address some of the criticisms.

1) The standard of cricket.
But of course this is an argument we can make about anyone we haven't seen play. Indeed as an absolute, the standard of cricket has almost constantly improved, so should only modern greats be accepted? Of course not, we compare players with their peers, and judge greatness on how far ahead of their peers those players being considered are/were. That is the only sensible measure (short of time machines). Clark was as far ahead of her peers than anyone bar Bradman has been in the men's game.

People say the women's standard in general is less high. Of course they are comparing different beasts but in general I agree that comparitively to their physical capabilities, there are still some aspects (such as fielding) where the women's game lies behind that of the men's, even if in some aspects they are actually ahead of the men (e.g. the standard of wicket-keeping). However it is far closer in standard than it was say at the start of the 90s, and to this we owe a lot to Belinda Clark.

2) only 15 tests.
Sorry but this is ridiculous. She only played 15 tests because that was all she could play due to circumstances. We may as well reject Compton for missing out on tests during WW II.

3) Her record overall isn't gobsmacking.
Neither was Grace's yet no one would argue against his inclusion in the HoF. You can't compare her average with a man's as the game is different. Averages in general in the women's game are lower due to worse pitches, less pace on the ball added to less strength which makes the big shots harder to hit, slower outfields, etc. Comparing Clark to her peers, her overall record is great.

4) Her record against Minnows.

First of all, the difference in standard between the top women's sides and the minnows, and the same difference in the men's game is higher in the women's at the moment. It is no greater than the difference in the men's game in the late 70s say.

Secondly Clark did have a better record against the lesser teams, but so what? So did Murali, so did Bradman (I bring him up as he averaged quite a bit less against England than overall). So do most players. This is normal. Her average remains excellent (when viewed against her peers!) against the top sides.

Conclusion:

I never thought I'd see so many respected posters make such cheap points against the inclusion of Clark into the HoF, with the arguments basically boiling down to "she's a women, she's not as good as the men". The point of the HoF is to judge those who have made an outstanding contribution to the game of cricket (as players, coaches, or even others). I can't believe that when faced with the evidence and considering it objectively people can honestly say Clark doesn't deserve her place.

Apologies for the long post.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

skyeman wrote:Very good point Hoggy, but this voting is for our HoF list where only the best of the best should get in. And on that point Clark's ave in Tests and amount played comes nowhere near to those greats imo.

WGs test average was only 32 Trumper's was only 39. They're both in the HoF.

Good point again, but you can not compare the likes of Grace and Trumper with Clark (where would i begin).

skyeman wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

skyeman wrote:Very good point Hoggy, but this voting is for our HoF list where only the best of the best should get in. And on that point Clark's ave in Tests and amount played comes nowhere near to those greats imo.

WGs test average was only 32 Trumper's was only 39. They're both in the HoF.

Good point again, but you can not compare the likes of Grace and Trumper with Clark (where would i begin).

Why not?
They can all be classed as being greats in respect to their peers, so why can't they be compared?

Mike i can see clearly how passionate you are with your defence of Clark. Just a couple of quick points.

(1) Comparing Compton missing out on Tests because of world war two and Clark only playing 15 Tests was ill thought. The reason Clark missed out on more Tests was because of a lack of interest in womens cricket, thus not a lot of money. Maybe, one reason for this is that people thought the standard was not good enough.

(2) Clark's difference in average when playing the top 3 sides and then the rest is a mind boggling 61.00. I am sure Bradman, Murali or anyone else in the men's game does not have a difference like that when playing the top sides and then the minnows.
Clearly making my point that outside a few teams, the womens standards were abysmal when Clark was playing.



Conclusion:

I never thought I'd see so many respected posters make such cheap points against the inclusion of Clark into the HoF, with the arguments basically boiling down to "she's a women, she's not as good as the men". The point of the HoF is to judge those who have made an outstanding contribution to the game of cricket (as players, coaches, or even others). I can't believe that when faced with the evidence and considering it objectively people can honestly say Clark doesn't deserve her place.


I think i have now demonstrated that this is not the case.

I know you shoot from the hip Mike, but so do i, imo Clark is just not good enough for me to give her a YES vote.

1) Don't think so. One of the reasons I pointed out is women aren't professionals, so they take time off work to play, and thus will play less tests than ODIs. Another reason of course is that the people who run cricket are a bunch of backward thinking sexist dinosaurs (see reaction to Claire Taylor being named one of the five Wisden players of the year).

2) Bradman for instance averaged a whole ten runs less against England than his overall average. Clark averaged five runs less than her overall average against the top 3. This is pretty similar in fact (when you consider their respective averages). Plenty of players cash in against the minnows and we don't hold it against them.

I honestly think Mike has a point in his conclusion, though he puts it crudely and somewhat unfairly. I don't see how when you look at the facts you can say Clark hasn't made an "outstanding contribution to cricket" and IMO this is what being part of the HoF should be all about.