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.

[quote="Mad for Chelsea"]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.[/quo


I know they are not professional MfC, which only reinforces my point, as to why not. Thus Clark only playing 15 Tests.
MfC, I have said in every single one (well,nearly) of my posts that Clark has major achievements and good batting records.

It is unfortunate, but Clark still gets my No

The Case for Cowdrey

Quiz questions are normally the responsibility here of CricketFan90 so I hope he won't mind me asking one.

Q: Why didn't Sir Gary Sobers attend the funeral of Sir Donald Bradman in Adelaide?

A: He chose instead to fly from his native Barbados to London and attend the memorial service for Colin Cowdrey held at Westminster Abbey.

I'll let Sobers explain further as he did that day and start The Case for Cowdrey far better than I ever could:

''Donald Bradman was a great, great cricketer but Colin was a great, great man. My eyes aren't as good as they once were and my hands and legs give me a bit of bother these days so I couldn't make both trips. But it wasn't a difficult decision to reach. I had to be here to say farewell to a good friend and a true gentleman.''

As well as his cricketing achievements, Cowdrey deserves to be remembered as a symbol of modesty, loyalty and determination.
As for his ability and modesty, I’ll let Sobers continue:

‘’I don’t think Colin ever appreciated what a truly great cricketer he was. He was a team man from the peak of his cap to his bootlaces, so although he could be as elegant as anyone who has ever played the game, he frequently subdued his own instincts for the good of his team.’’

Sobers then added this story:
‘’We played in the same Commonwealth XI once in India where we both made hundreds and Colin’s innings that day was one of the greatest I have ever seen. When he completed his century I shook hands with him in the middle and said ‘why don’t you play like this more often?’ and he gave me this shy smile and replied ‘because I only learned to play like this from watching you at the other end’. That was Colin; no matter what he achieved he remained completely unassuming.’’

As for loyalty, he served Kent as a player for twenty-seven seasons from 1950 to 1976. He became their captain in 1957 and had that role for fifteen years. In 1970 he led Kent to their first County Championship since 1913.

With regard to loyalty to his country, Cowdrey toured Australia a record six times between 1954-55 and 1974-75, each time under a different captain and four times as vice-captain. Cowdrey missed out on Ashes captaincy due to a mixture over the years of illness, injury, bad luck and the feeling that he was ‘’perhaps too nice and not decisive enough’’. I am no psychologist but I think his early childhood and life must have had a profound effect and probably goes some way to explaining his considerable shyness. Around the age of six in the late 1930s he was packed off from his home in India , where his father was a wealthy tea planter, to a prep school in England. Due to the war and distance involved, he did not see his parents again for another seven years. That must have been traumatic. When picked much to his surprise for his first Ashes tour at the age of twenty-one, Cowdrey dined with his parents on the ship just before it embarked for Australia. He was never to see his father again who died from a heart attack a couple of weeks later. I assume he somehow returned for the funeral. There was certainly no period of extended mourning for him as he made his test debut in the first test and his maiden test century in the third.

His loyalty was complemented by his determination. At the end of 1974 Cowdrey was looking forward to Christmas at home with his young family when at the age of forty-two he received a call from the England selectors to fly out as an emergency replacement as our batsmen crumbled in every sense to the might of Lillee and Thomson. As his sons feared for their dad’s safety, he apparently said to them, ‘’I think it will be rather fun’’. Only a few days later Cowdrey walked to the wicket as England’s first wicket went down in the next test. Cowdrey strode past the crease and walked up to the Aussie bowler Jeff Thomson. To Tommo’s amazement, he held out his hand and said, ’’I don’t believe we’ve met. The name’s Cowdrey.’’ In my book, that’s the greatest greeting of all time and knocks ‘Dr Livingstone, I presume’ off top spot. I would like to add that Cowdrey went on to hit a century. Unfortunately, he didn’t although he scored a creditable 22 and 41 in that test. In the words of the distinguished cricket writer John Thicknesse, ‘’Cowdrey played Thomson as well as anyone.’’

Any reference to Cowdrey’s determination would not be complete without reference to him saving the Lord’s test against the West Indies in 1963. Although, as it turned out he didn’t face a ball, he came to the crease with a broken wrist in plaster. Had he not appeared, England would have lost. He said that if it had been necessary he would have faced the ball holding the bat with one hand and I, for one, will always believe that.

In describing Cowdrey’s personal strengths – with the help of Sir Gary Sobers – I have covered some of his cricketing achievements. To briefly flag a few others:

• He was the first cricketer of any country to play 100 tests.
• Of all Englishmen, he holds the record for the most test centuries, twenty-two, with Walter Hammond and Geoffrey Boycott.
• He scored a test century against all the test teams he played both home and abroad.
• He scored over 50,000 runs in test and first class cricket. His final test average was 44. To compare with a few other ‘’greats’’ to my mind. That average is the same (bar decimal points) of Gordon Greenidge and greater than those of Desmond Haynes, Graham Gooch and John Edrich.
• His partnership of 411 with Peter May against the West Indies at Edgbaston in 1957 remains England’s highest ever partnership. This partnership effectively and prematurely ended Sonny Ramadhin’s career as an international cricketer- he was never the same bowler again.
• He captained England in 27 tests; winning 8 , drawing 15 and losing only 4. This included a 1-0 series win against the West Indies in 1968; a side including Sobers, Kanhai, Hall, Griffith and Gibbs.
• Jointly with Ian Botham, he holds the record for the most test match catches, 120, taken by any English player (excluding wicket keepers). Cowdrey’s incredibly fine catching record appears to have been totally overlooked in all previous posts.


After his playing career, he served both the MCC and ICC in various roles. This is not really my area of expertise or interest. However, I am happy to trust the widely respected John Thicknesse when he writes that as Chairman of the ICC, Cowdrey ‘’saw through changes that made it a serious international body rather than an imperial relic’’.

Just as in the ‘’Greg Chappell saga’’, I do not ask you to vote the same way as me. Nor will there be any ill feeling on my part if you don’t. However, I will appreciate it if you consider my views. I believe this ‘’great, great man’’ (Sobers’ words) deserves that at least.

skyeman wrote: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.

1) Of course they are comparable: they both played significantly fewer tests than they deserved due to circumstances beyond their control. You can't blame Clark for the lack of interest in Womens cricket when she played, and as I said she has done much to improve the standard and hence the interest. As MfC points out, lack of interest comes mainly from lack of drive by the governing body and the demography of cricket fans (mainly particularly in this country middle-aged to elderly conservative men).

2) Bradman averaged some ridiculously high number against South Africa, does one hold that against him? Regardless of performances against minnows, an average of 39 in womens ODI cricket is great. Why is the fact she was even better against the lesser sides held against her?

A few comments largely about Alan Davidson.

For his 180 plus test wickets at a remarkable average of just over 20 plus other contributions to the game on and off the field, Davidson is certainly a YES vote for me.

I did know he played only around 40 tests (44 upon checking) which isn't that many compared to a lot of our ''greats'''. However, what did surprise me upon consulting the record books is that his test career lasted over ten years, beginning in 1953. Like Benaud, his test career only really took off when he toured South Africa in 1957-58. Amazing to think what his average would have been if he hadn't played those earlier and less successful tests.

Probably a statement of the bloomin' obvious but - whether a player is classed as a ''great'', certainly in terms of test averages, is very much influenced for a border line case as to when his national selectors happened to first choose him and also when they chose to end his test career. A player getting more games when not at his peak (ie before he was properly ready for test cricket or past his best) should end up with a lower average than one of the same ability who played only when at his peak. [I genuinely wrote that with Davidson in mind although it also applies to Cowdrey and the impact of the '74-'75 Ashes tour on his test average.]

Now off to put in a shift down the Woking salt mines. Hope someone will have commented on The Case for Cowdrey by the time I'm back. Sorry it turned into a bit of a novel but there was a lot to cover - I even left some ''quite interesting'' things out!

Guildford, you certainly pull out all the stops when putting your case's forward, and this one for Colin Cowdrey is quite compelling.
In my own research, i had seen most of the batting stats that you have stated, but your quotes from Sir Sobers, i had not seen.
Cowdrey was definitely an gentleman among gentlemen and very well regarded by his peers.

He was the first cricketer to reach 100 Tests, which was some feat, especially back then when there were not as many Teats played per calendar year. And he did, practically score a century every five Test matches.
The man was a class act all round, but he falls just short in some of the criteria i have used in my voting so far.

Good effort though

Skyeman - I'm just quickly looking in from the Woking salt mines (well known to the regular Surrey posters) whilst the Kommandant is at the front gate collecting a new roll of barbed wire for the perimeter fencing.

I feel some of the criteria you use must be very steep but genuinely thank you for your comments. Far better to be disagreed with than ignored!

Hope to hear from some of the other guys before stumps tonight.

Must go - can hear the Kommandant's size thirteen boots approaching ....

Guildford
You put the case for Cowdrey's inclusion very eloquently.
But for me, despite his qualities as a man and as a team player, and despite his acheivement's, he still falls short of the accolade of all-time great, as his overall record is not great and it could have been so much better if he'd been able to truly fulfil his talent.

Hoggy - thanks for your feedback on my post and, more particularly, about Cowdrey. I don't disagree with you when you say he didn't ''truly fulfil his talent''. However, for me, he did enough.

If there was any tiny doubt for me, the thing that tipped the balance in Cowdrey's favour was his 120 test match catches. A record for any Englishman (jointly with Botham). Catches win matches but not, apparently, a place in our Hall of Fame!

By the way, I accept Sobers went a bit overboard in his comments but what do you expect at a memorial service? The key thing for me was that Sobers was there and said to the press (not just privately) that ''it wasn't a difficult decision'' to miss Bradman's funeral for it.

I'll cover here a couple of other comments about Cowdrey from two other distinguished posters.

''.... could have been so much better .... could have done more'' - the ''wise beyond his years'' poster, JDizzle.
This ties in with Hoggy's point. I tried to hint in my ''novel'' that perhaps Cowdrey's traumatic childhood plus possibly the death of his father had a bearing on what he went on to achieve or not. I certainly don't know what impact these events had (nor do I claim to) but think they merit being in the mix as we consider things.

''Wouldn't get into an all time England XI'' - Mike, my sparring partner from last time out.
I accept that also but don't think it's too relevant. Only 5 or, at the most, 6 batsmen would be in an all time England XI. I'm expecting more than that number to be admitted to our own Hall of Fame. We already have 3 (Hobbs, Grace and Barrington) with a 4th (Compton) seeming certain to follow.

I'm going out again soon but should be back around 10:30. I'll give my final votes and reasons then if anyone wants to look in and throw a few cabbages ....

when will our votes for these 5 cricketers be counted?

Guildford - re Cowdrey. All the points you make are valid. I had him down as a near miss and after your comments I have him down as a very near miss - the point about his catching does get him that bit closer.

I suppose the one caveat I would enter is that I would attach some weight, but not decisive weight, to what Sobers said. The comments Sobers made are commendable - and moving - but were made in the context of a death of someone who he saw as a friend as well as a great man. If there were two possible funerals / memorial services to attend and one could only manage to attend one I would have thought most people would go to the service of the person with whom they had the strongest personal ties.

One curiosity is that I have a fragmentary memory from my youth of a commentator (not sure which) on the radio waxing lyrical that Cowdrey's bat was "sounding mellow". That put the mockers on him and I recall that almost immediately afterwards he was LBW to Ashley Mallett. Looking at the scorecard of the 1968 Oval Ashes test in which Dolly scored 158 I see that Cowdrey was LBW off Mallett for 16 made off 48 balls with three 4s. That was probably what I was remembering.....He played himself in carefully and then got out.

Guildford, on my mobile in a hotel at the moment without proper Internet access, but my wore you've put in a compelling case for Cowdrey. I had him down as a close and reluctant no, but you've forced me to reconsider with your fine post. I'll take a look tomorrow or Wednesday (not going to be overly active on here in the next couple of weeks due to this bloody secondhand but I'll get my cases forward asap).

Cheers

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Guildford - re Cowdrey
.....He played himself in carefully and then got out.

Thanks, Corporal - the extract above seems a metaphor for Cowdrey's career.

In case you didn't already know, Corporal, I thought you would be particularly interested and amused to learn that as soon as Cowdrey could hold a small child's bat, his father arranged for a boy servant on the family's Indian tea plantation to bowl to him daily. Talk about a good start in life!

Fists - thanks for your post which crossed with my last one.

Corporal - meant to say that you are of course right about it being natural to choose to attend the funeral / memorial service of the person with whom you have the closest personal ties. I still though think it significant that Sobers chose to speak so publicly to the press in the way that he did and the words he used.

evening guildford, bit busy at the mo, but will have a look at your case for Cowdrey in more detail some time tomorrow. Certainly seems a compelling case!

My decisions on the latest famous five.

Ian Chappell NO A gutsy player and captain. Also clearly had sufficient ability to knock (or, more likely for him, hammer) on the door to our Hall of Fame but not quite enough in my book for it to be opened. Unlucky.

Denis Compton YES Tremendous career stats made with style and panache. Definite and straightforward decision.

Colin Cowdrey YES My ''novel'' yesterday and related posts today refer. This ''YES'' started out as a probable and became increasingly definite the more I researched.

Alan Davidson YES Magnificent average with over 180 test wickets - my post after breakfast today refers. The only slight concern I would touch on is that if we ever had to reduce the membership of our Hall of Fame I would probably want to look at him again and probe why he didn't play more tests.

Belida Clark ABSTAIN As JDizzle, one of the youngest but also one of the wisest of our posters, wrote, this nomination is ''the most difficult to assess''. So true.

I expect some, if not many, may be exasperated by what could be well seen as a cop out and a waste of a vote. All I can say is that it is a deliberate and considered decision after much thought. I don't apologise to Miike for the decision but do regret any irritation it may cause. Mike passionately believes in this nomination and I respect that. I also hope I haven't upset the wife of skyeman (she thought skye was being ''chauvinistic'' the other day) - I suspect Mrs skyeman already has a lot to contend with!

I accept you can only excel against your peers but still feel unconvinced by the quality of some of Clark's opponents. I go back to my comment a few days ago (I thought it was rather good but no one commented on it! ) that a ton off Holding & Marshall counts for more in my book than the same off Jimmy Ormond & Ed Giddins.

Am I being sexist here in being rather dismissive of the female opposition? I obviously hope not and don't plan to be but appreciate the accusation could be made (does any sexist realise he's sexist? ).

If we ignore the quality of opposition and admit certain female cricketers, how far should we go? Should we consider age groups (say, over sixties)? Naturally, they also play against their peers. Would it be ageist and wrong to exclude them? In the past, I have helped in a very small way with the playing of Blind Cricket. It would never have occurred to me to include such players but, perhaps, that is also wrong?

I think more issues arise the more this is thought about.

Unless a woman player is truly outstanding, I am inclined to vote ''NO''. I think a case can be made either way as to whether Clark was truly outstanding as a player or, one notch lower, exceptionally good. The element of doubt leads me towards a ''NO'' vote, at least as a player. That would be harsh but harsh decisions have to be made at times and a ''YES'' should only be delivered if certainty goes with it.

I am much more inclined to vote ''YES'' for an individual, regardless of their sex, if they have undertaken outstanding work to promote (in the broadest sense) cricket for a particular group (eg, women, over sixties, the blind, disabled). Provided their efforts and achievements can be proved, I will be proud to do so.

As for Belinda Clark, I am still unsure of her successes as Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia. I confess to being largely ignorant and not much of a follower of this area of the game. Mike wrote in a post the other day, ''when you watch a women's game ....'' and went on to praise Clark. Unfortunately, I hardly ever watch a women's game. That may be poor but it's a fact. Even though it is due to failings on my part, Clark is not a known great success to me in her CE capacity and so I can't vote ''YES''. However, to vote ''NO'' would indicate a knowledge on my part that I neither have nor claim. It would also unfairly skew the percentage of the votes cast. This is why she gets from me an ''ABSTENTION''.

I also hope I haven't upset the wife of skyeman (she thought skye was being ''chauvinistic'' the other day) - I suspect Mrs skyeman already has a lot to contend with!



Guildford - KFC comes to mind with your abstention (just kidding)

Some very good points as to why you felt an abstention was in order. KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC.......

Told the wife your comment above, and boy, did she laugh whilst agreeing with you. I would know if were a sexist/chauvinist. And the little woman can sod off and make the tea.

Guildford
Not trying to have a go at you for your abstention on Clark, but I'll just point out one issue that I'm sure Mike will raise when he sees your post.
On your point that you are not sure about the quality of the opposition she faced, is it not true that non of us can be sure of the quality of the opposition faced by a number of people under discussion in this process, as we didn't actually see them play?
Of course, as Mike has pointed out to me in other discussions, and with some validity, we are TOLD by cricket reporters of the skill/pace/guile of bowlers faced, for example, by WG, but such reports are bound to emphasize the skills of such bowlers if they were the most skilfull bowlers seen UP UNTIL THAT POINT IN TIME. It doesn't neccessarily mean that such bowlers were skilled/quick/guileful to any where near the same level as modern bowlers (although Mike and I disagree on this point a little, and I would argue, on pace particularly, that the difference is not that great).
My point still stands, however, that to dismiss Clark on the basis of not knowing how good her opposition was, means that you SHOULD dismiss a number of other players on the same basis.
What you can say, both about Clark and WG etc., is that they faced the best opposition that was around at the time, the same opposition (more or less) as faced by their peers and that their records in comparison with those peers was great (although, of course, some had comparatively greater records than others). Because of that you simply need to assess whether Clarks's record, IN COMPARISON TO HER PEERS , was great enough to merit her inclusion in the HoF.
For me it was.

skyeman wrote:I also hope I haven't upset the wife of skyeman (she thought skye was being ''chauvinistic'' the other day) - I suspect Mrs skyeman already has a lot to contend with!



Guildford - KFC comes to mind with your abstention (just kidding)

Some very good points as to why you felt an abstention was in order. KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC.......

Told the wife your comment above, and boy, did she laugh whilst agreeing with you. I would know if were a sexist/chauvinist. And the little woman can sod off and make the tea.

Skye - thanks for your response although I'm a little puzzled as to what the Keswick Film Club has to do with things.

I'm pleased Mrs Skyeman liked my comment. I have no doubt that in recognition of her fortitude throughout the year you will be buying her a top quality vacuum cleaner or something similar for Christmas!

lol im suprised that that my votes never got questioned. There's usually someone who picks up on my votes.

cricketfan90 wrote:lol im suprised that that my votes never got questioned. There's usually someone who picks up on my votes.

CF - Don't worry about it! Another season like last as captain and you might even be in our Hall of Fame!

haha thanks lol

[quote="guildfordbat"]

skyeman wrote:I also hope I haven't upset the wife of skyeman (she thought skye was being ''chauvinistic'' the other day) - I suspect Mrs skyeman already has a lot to contend with!



Guildford - KFC comes to mind with your abstention (just kidding)

Some very good points as to why you felt an abstention was in order. KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC.......

Told the wife your comment above, and boy, did she laugh whilst agreeing with you. I would know if were a sexist/chauvinist. And the little woman can sod off and make the tea.

Skye - thanks for your response although I'm a little puzzled as to what the Keswick Film Club has to do with things.

I'm pleased Mrs Skyeman liked my comment. I have no doubt that in recognition of her fortitude throughout the year you will be buying her a top quality vacuum cleaner or something similar for Christmas! [/quotE


Guildford - I phoned the Keswick Film Club and the very polite lady at reception told me that the staff canteen did indeed serve CHICKEN

Mrs Skyeman always tells me that it was I that should have been born Scottish instead of the other way around. She is probably correct because she is getting nothing more luxurious than a saucepan set

Guilford,

That is a fantastic piece about Cowdrey. Judgement by his peers plays an important part, particularly for those of us who are too young to have seen him play (as a parallel, I am sure so many of us rate O'Reilly so highly in part due to Bradman's assessment of him).

It was almost enough to convince me to change my vote. Let me explain. His records are all essentially records of longevity. Even the catches one. Now longevity is something to be proud of, and this shouldn't ever count against him, but the fact is many people have replicated this either beforehand (e.g. Wilfred Rhodes's career was ridiculously long) or since. The fact he was first to a lot of records is perhaps the best point in his favour, but perhaps also due to circumstances (it is almost certain that had he been playing now he wouldn't have been recalled for that Aus tour). Many people have equalled or bettered a lot of his feats (or in the case of catches surely will do soon). There is no stand-alone outstanding statistic which warrants his inclusion for me.

You argue that you don't think making an all-time country 11 is a requisite for the HoF. I argue it very much is on pure cricketing terms, except for countries with too many outstanding candidates for one area (e.g. Australia and spin, West Indies and pace bowling). I am not sure England's all-time middle-order is that strong, so think the fact that Cowdrey's exclusion from even the short list certainly factors in.

On Belinda Clark:
hoggy has very much made the case that arguing about quality of opposition will always lead to inconsistencies.

The only thing I would add is you say Clark hasn't made any outstanding contribution to promote women's cricket. I too have absolutely no idea what she has achieved as CEO of Aus women, but I would argue in her case, her outstanding contribution was made on the field, by bringing women's cricket into the modern game. Certainly before Belinda Clark, it would have been almost impossible to imagine the women's game being on TV, or at Lords before the T20 final. That it now is is in no small part down to Clark.

I would on a more general level certainly be willing to consider outstanding players from visually impaired etc. cricketers. My knowledge is limitted but if people make the case for them I will look into it seriously.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Guildford
Not trying to have a go at you for your abstention on Clark, but I'll just point out one issue that I'm sure Mike will raise when he sees your post.
On your point that you are not sure about the quality of the opposition she faced, is it not true that non of us can be sure of the quality of the opposition faced by a number of people under discussion in this process, as we didn't actually see them play?
Of course, as Mike has pointed out to me in other discussions, and with some validity, we are TOLD by cricket reporters of the skill/pace/guile of bowlers faced, for example, by WG, but such reports are bound to emphasize the skills of such bowlers if they were the most skilfull bowlers seen UP UNTIL THAT POINT IN TIME. It doesn't neccessarily mean that such bowlers were skilled/quick/guileful to any where near the same level as modern bowlers (although Mike and I disagree on this point a little, and I would argue, on pace particularly, that the difference is not that great).
My point still stands, however, that to dismiss Clark on the basis of not knowing how good her opposition was, means that you SHOULD dismiss a number of other players on the same basis.
What you can say, both about Clark and WG etc., is that they faced the best opposition that was around at the time, the same opposition (more or less) as faced by their peers and that their records in comparison with those peers was great (although, of course, some had comparatively greater records than others). Because of that you simply need to assess whether Clarks's record, IN COMPARISON TO HER PEERS , was great enough to merit her inclusion in the HoF.
For me it was.

Hoggy - good post. I think Mike would also agree although his tone might have been a tad stronger.

To be absolutely clear, I was inclined to vote ''NO'' in respect of Clark as a player. As I acknowledged, that would have been harsh but sometimes such decisions need to be made. The reason I went for ''ABSTAIN'' was due to my ignorance over her impact at WCA.

As a player, I do think the quality of a player's peers and opponents is a factor to be considered. For me, a test century scored against Australia when their best players were performing in the ''Packer Circus'' is devalued. That is not the century maker's fault nor is it a reason not to consider him for our HofF but to me it should go in the mix. On the other hand, David Steele (wonderfully described as ''the bank clerk that went to war'' - the Sun's finest and probably only contribution to cricket journalism) spent his entire one year test career facing the might of Lillee, Thomson, Holding, Robers and Daniel. To emerge from that that as he did with a test average of virtually 40 could well be considered by some to be ''great''.

Very good a player as Clark clearly was, I'm just not convinced that everything - including my suspicions as to the weaknesses of some of her opponents - adds up to her quite being a ''great''. I may be setting an incredibly high standard but it's my vote (or abstention!) so it's my standard to set.

I take the point about the difficulties of judging a player you haven't seen. However, a bit of reading and research can certainly help there. I like to think my Case for Cowdrey was a sensible one (it is immaterial to this post whether it was compelling or not). As a large part of Cowdrey's career was before my time, I had to rely on books, internet searches and remembered comments of others.

Mike might be entitled to say that I should have done the same research concerning Clark's role as Chief Executive of WCA. Unfortunately for him and Clark, my interest is in players and not chief executives.

At risk of wanting my and eating it, I do hope my ''ABSTENTION'' - which, I emphasise, was about Clark the Chief Executive of WCA -does not become a precedent for voting about players. To be on this forum, we should know a bit about cricketers or, at least, be prepared to find out a bit about them.

My views as always are sincerely held. I appreciate and respect that applies to others who may well totally disagree with everything stated.

Mike - lot of internet probs at moment. Did my reply to Hoggy before and then lost it. Needed to send it straightaway again as soon as I could. I'll now look at your post and reply assuming computer then allows!

Mike Selig wrote:Guilford,

That is a fantastic piece about Cowdrey. Judgement by his peers plays an important part, particularly for those of us who are too young to have seen him play (as a parallel, I am sure so many of us rate O'Reilly so highly in part due to Bradman's assessment of him).

It was almost enough to convince me to change my vote. Let me explain. His records are all essentially records of longevity. Even the catches one. Now longevity is something to be proud of, and this shouldn't ever count against him, but the fact is many people have replicated this either beforehand (e.g. Wilfred Rhodes's career was ridiculously long) or since. The fact he was first to a lot of records is perhaps the best point in his favour, but perhaps also due to circumstances (it is almost certain that had he been playing now he wouldn't have been recalled for that Aus tour). Many people have equalled or bettered a lot of his feats (or in the case of catches surely will do soon). There is no stand-alone outstanding statistic which warrants his inclusion for me.

You argue that you don't think making an all-time country 11 is a requisite for the HoF. I argue it very much is on pure cricketing terms, except for countries with too many outstanding candidates for one area (e.g. Australia and spin, West Indies and pace bowling). I am not sure England's all-time middle-order is that strong, so think the fact that Cowdrey's exclusion from even the short list certainly factors in.

Thanks for the feedback, Mike. Totally agree with you about judgment by peers and the Bradman / O'Reilly example.

No stand-alone outstanding statistic? Possibly you're right there although the 411 partnership with Peter May against the Windies and Sonny Ramadhin must have been something incredible at the time (1957 - so before even me!). [Corporal - appreciate this considerably predates you as well but do you, with possibly your knowledge of May, know anything more about this? I read it effectively ended Ramadhin's test career.]

For me me though, Mike, it's very much about the cumulative impact of his stats and career.

You say his longevity ''shouldn't ever count against him''. However, I wonder if it just might for some. If Cowdrey had declined (politely, as ever!) the request of the England selectors to jet off to Australia for his last nine test innings againt Lillee and Thomson, his final test average would have ended up as 45.5 rather than 44.1. That might just have tipped the balance as to him being judged a ''great'' or ''nearly gentleman''.

Following up your comment, I certainly can't imagine Kevin Pietersen when aged forty-two doing the same!

You might be right about England's all time middle order. It will be interesting to see further nominees and comments.

Brief response re Clark to follow.

Great debate by the way.

Mike Selig wrote:Guilford,

On Belinda Clark:
hoggy has very much made the case that arguing about quality of opposition will always lead to inconsistencies.

The only thing I would add is you say Clark hasn't made any outstanding contribution to promote women's cricket. I too have absolutely no idea what she has achieved as CEO of Aus women, but I would argue in her case, her outstanding contribution was made on the field, by bringing women's cricket into the modern game. Certainly before Belinda Clark, it would have been almost impossible to imagine the women's game being on TV, or at Lords before the T20 final. That it now is is in no small part down to Clark.

I would on a more general level certainly be willing to consider outstanding players from visually impaired etc. cricketers. My knowledge is limitted but if people make the case for them I will look into it seriously.

Mike - much of what I wanted to say was covered in my earlier post to Hoggy. I have no wish to denigrate Clark's contributions to women's cricket nor its importance and note your admiration in that regard. I simply don't know enough to meaningfully comment.

Your words ''visually impaired'' are more delicate and tasteful than my reference to ''Blind Cricket''. Unfortunately, that is what it was called in a harsher and less considerate age when I was first involved. I don't know any such players but do plan to make a related nomination next year relating to increasing awareness and fund raising for such matches.

Fascinating debate. I haven't yet voted on Clark. At the moment I'm tending (just) to vote no. I'm not actually clear what is the practical effect of a positive abstention. If you need 75% support to get into the H o F does registering an abstention equate to a no vote? Or is your position simply ignored, with the result determined by those who vote yes or no.....?

It'd be ignored, however I ask that you get off that fence and vote sir

Cracking debate thus far, gentlemen.

Evening Corporal,

I was assuming an ''Abstention'' would mean my position was simply ignored - otherwise, it seems to be the same as a ''NO'' which I wished to avoid. All too tricky!

Re: my email to Mike at 3:55 this pm. Not banking on anything (that would be unfair) but wondered if you knew anything of Cowdrey's 411 partnership with May? As I said before, appreciate before your time but you know a heck of a lot about Surrey's past greats such as May.

Guildford, a yes or no is the only acceptable decision

Well, in that case my vote for Clark is a marginal "No" (unless and until I change the vote ) . In all honesty, having maintained my "no" vote for Cowdrey in the face of the excellent rearguard campaign mounted by Guildford it would go against the grain to vote yes for Clark.

The problem as others have said is the difficulty of comparing like with like.

Very true and I appreciate the difficulties. I am yet to vote myself, and am finding it a very tough task this week with two major decisions to be made.

Corporal and all - I asked you all to consider the Case for Cowdrey. People certainly seem to be doing/have done that and I appreciate it. I never asked anyone to vote for Cowdrey. That is a decision for every individual poster to make.

I don't want you or anyone to feel obligated to turn down Clark because Cowdrey has a ''No'' vote.

Following the order from Fists, I will show Cowdreylike obedience and vote ''YES'' or ''NO'' in the next few minutes .... [icon for drum roll?!]

guildfordbat wrote:Evening Corporal,

Not banking on anything (that would be unfair) but wondered if you knew anything of Cowdrey's 411 partnership with May? As I said before, appreciate before your time but you know a heck of a lot about Surrey's past greats such as May.

The 411 partnership was an outstanding partnership of epic proportions - albeit my memory of it is a little hazy as all my efforts at the time were going into learning to walk Cowdrey is a difficult one - I have a feeling that HoF would be enlarged overall by several dozen if he was included. I think Cowdrey is a very worthy candidate and clearly very close to the line. I would put him closer than Boycott....

Goodnight, fellas. Hopefully catch up with you tomorrow if work is a little quieter.

that 411 run partnership was I believe the time when playing spinners with your pad became the norm. I'm sure I read somewhere in a report that Ramadhin "shouted himself hoarse for an LBW that never came".

Or am I getting confused?

Mad - that seems right about Ramadhin as the 411 partnership was effectively the end of his test career.

Corporal - thanks for those further details. Boycott will always be a long way off getting a ''YES'' from me due to his ''innate selfishness'' (per Hoggy, I believe).

My vote coming next ....

guildfordbat wrote:

Following the order from Fists, I will show Cowdreylike obedience and vote ''YES'' or ''NO'' in the next few minutes .... [icon for drum roll?!]

I explained before that Clark gets a ''NO'' from me as a player because of the perceived weaknesses of some of her opponents. In the hope that night owl Corporal will swoop again, I yet again make my comment that a century off Holding & Marshall is a far greater indicator of greatness than a ton off those two former Surrey and England internationals Jimmy Ormond and Ed Giddins.

I wanted to ''ABSTAIN'' as I really don't know (due to my admitted ignorance) what impact she has made as Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia and thought on balance that was fair. However, that is apparently not allowed under the Memorandum & Articles of 606 v2. It has been suggested that she - either as a player or Chief Executive or both - has had a massive impact upon the perception and promotion of women's cricket. I accept that at a corporate level; playing at Lord's, televised games. However, I have doubts as to her impact and influence at a lower level much closer to or even at home.

The Bat Girls (the eldest is now 21) have all regularly played and enjoyed ball games at various levels (socially with family, friends, more formally representing school, university and county in the case of Bat Girl 2). I have never heard one of them or anyone playing with them at any time refer to Belinda Clark. Contrast that with how forty odd years ago I and my childhood friends used to regularly talk of Sobers, Gavaskar, Boycott, Snow and Underwood.

It may well be very unfair but the above para suggest to me that the journey has started (for which Clark certainly gets credit) but more steps have to be taken to adequately spread the word. As a result, Clark for now gets a NO albeit with some reluctance and no little respect .

guildfordbat wrote: .....In the hope that night owl Corporal will swoop again, I yet again make my comment that a century off Holding & Marshall is a far greater indicator of greatness than a ton off those two former Surrey and England internationals Jimmy Ormond and Ed Giddins.

That is undeniable -tho' did not Ormond bowl a fairly heavy ( ) ball!

fists when are the votes for these 5 being counted? then moving on to the next 5....

2 weeks from the date of the last lot. Which I believe is a week tomorrow.

I haven't actually given my votes yet. Still thinking about the Cowdrey one. Does his longevity make up for the fact that as a cricketer he wasn't truly outstanding? That partnership of 411 with May, what was its impact on cricket? If indeed it is the one where batsmen first started playing off-spinners with their pads, then surely this had a great impact on the game? Without it, would Warne have had the same impact? Decisions, decisions...

Mad - I don't know either way about the overall impact on cricket itself and possible changes to the LBW law but have found out a bit more about the approach taken by May and Cowdrey together with the effect on the series and Ramadhin.

I include a few extracts not to try and influence but because I detect a real interest. The wording I've put in bold in the first extract supports your earlier stated understanding of what happened.

''It is said that the advice of Bill Bowes, the old Test player, to treat the bogeyman [Sonny Ramadhin] as an off-spinner and play him off the front foot was that heeded. May, the England captain, and Cowdrey employed the policy to the letter. The ball repeatedly beat the forward defensive stroke and hit the front leg, thrust forward as a shield. Soon throats became sore from appealing for lbw decisions to umpires, as customary in England, reluctant to give them with the point of contact far from the stumps.'' - Tony Cozier, ''The West Indies: Fifty Years of Test Cricket''.

''But this was more than a drawn cricket match. It had strong psychological connotations. England believed that they had the measure of Ramadhin, and whether they had or not, believing was half the battle.'' - Gordon Ross, ''A History of West Indies Cricket''.

''Never again will he [Ramadhin] have the power to mesmerize the England batsmen. May and Cowdrey have discovered how to play him. In doing that, and in driving the lesson home, they have destroyed the Tourists' attack for the whole series.'' - Robert Rodrigo, ''Peter May'' (presumably written immediately after this partnership).

During England's second innings (in which this England partnership record was set) Ramadhin bowled 98 overs. He had already bowled 31 overs in England's first innings. This meant he bowled 774 balls in the match, a world record then and one which still stands today unlikely to ever be broken.

Whatever your views on Cowdrey being a ''great'', you will probably accept his partnership with May prevented Ramadhin from becoming one.

Trivia footnote: During this research, I found out that Ramadhin is still alive into his eighties and living in Lancashire. Furthermore, he is the grandfather of the Lancs player Kyle Hogg.

Ha, great work guildford. Rushing out now but shall discuss this with you tomorrow.

Folks - Mad was also correct that the pad play employed by Cowdrey and May against Ramadhin precipitated a change to the lbw law. However, the gestation period before any change came into effect, initially experimentally, was thirteen years.

Doulas Miller, cricket writer and former Chairman of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, wrote earlier this year in his article Leg Before Wicket:

''In cricket's earliest days it had been frowned upon for a batsman to use his legs in defence of his wicket .... However, as some critics had foreseen, before long pad play was thriving. Herbert Sutcliffe was a shrewd exponent and in the post-war years Peter May and Colin Cowdrey exemplified the technique as they famously defied Sonny Ramadhin in their stand of 411 in the Edgbaston Test of 1957. For hours they thrust the pad outside the line of the stumps, knowing that they could do so with total safety ....
It was not until 1970 that the problem of pad play was addressed by amending the Laws, initially experimentally. If they wished to remain safe from the umpire's raised finger, batsmen were now required to be playing a shot ....''

I'm not convinced this particularly helps my Case for Cowdrey but it confirms the ulimate aftermath of his partnershp with May and, I'm sure we're all pleased to know, ends my research.

thanks for that guildford, it does indeed confirm what I suspected about that stand, much appreciated. Need to think still about the Case for Cowdrey before giving my votes.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Need to think still about the Case for Cowdrey before giving my votes.

Mad - I would expect nothing else.