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.

For me:
Hammond: Emphatically YES: One of the Top Twenty Cricketers of all time.

Headley: Yes. The best pre-WWII West Indies cricketer, paved the way for the 3 x "W"'s and the historic run of West Indian cricketers. Stat's only tell half the story; the "Black Bradman" is a "Yes" for me.

Neil Harvey: Yes. One of the top cricketers of the twenty post-war years, held the Australian middle order together following Bradman and Morris. Apart from his low-key accumulation of runs, he was the first outfielder I remember who was noted for his fielding in an era when mobility in the field was almost incidental. Colin Bland took this specialisation and excellence a step further and one-day cricket made athletic outfielders the norm. But Harvey could have played, and fielded, in any era. "YES"!

Grimmett: A very difficult "No". His stats are compelling but he was often one half of an O'Reilly / Grimmett partnership, largely the junior partner at that. If we expand at any time to Top Hundred, Grimmett would surely get the nod, but not at this stage. NO.

Greenidge: Probably the most difficult "NO" I'd ever give. I remember playing against a visiting team from Hampshire in the very late 60's and they told us all about the young lad who was on the Hampshire staff; at that stage it was thought he'd be able to play for England. Regardless, the rest is history, but I'm offering a "No" for two reasons:
1).He was not the player that Barry Richards was when they were in partnership for Hampshire and Richards is not in.
2).How many West Indies batsmen from the 50's thru 80's era can you choose? Are some the beneficiaries of attacks worn down by the excellence of others (iffy for an opener, I understand that), but I would elect to a Hall Of Fame only the very best of a collection of cricketers, and other W.I. batsmen would get the nod from me before Greenidge.
Top 100? Probably. But Top 50 or 60? Not quite.
"NO"! Sorry!!

An article that helped with my vote by former Aus cricketer and author Ashley Mallett.


When the author went to him in April 1967, Grimmett asked him to bowl to him. After playing two balls comfortably off the front foot, bang in the middle of the bat, the old man advised Mallet to give up bowling and become a batsman. Grimmett further proclaimed that he could play Mallett's bowling blind folded. Mallett was stunned. He was just seven months away from his first class debut (just over a year from donning the baggy green) and this must have been very deflating.

Mallett immediately produced a handkerchief; Grimmett put it on his eyes, chuckled and took his place at the wicket. Mallett bowled a perfect off break, pitched outside the off stump, turning into the batsman and Grimmett met it with a dead straight bat once again. Grimmett was delighted but then took mercy on the youngster and then explained to him that his bowling was too predictable.

Now comes the best part of the story.

Grimmett asked Mallett to assume that he was standing on top of a bridge on a dark night and below him a car was approaching; would he, by looking at the lights of the car, be able to tell the approximate speed of it. Mallett responded in the affirmative. Grimmett agreed and then asked if instead of being on a bridge, he was stupid enough to be down in a manhole in the middle of the road with his head sticking out just under the level of the lights of a car coming in his direction, would he still be able to tell the speed?

When Mallett replied in the negative, Grimmett agreed again and then explained 'looking down, it is possible to judge speed. But when the object is travelling towards you at just above eye level, judging the speed is difficult,"

Grimmett's comments were designed to illustrate that a spinner operating at a trajectory above eye level was far more difficult to play than one bowling a 'flat' delivery.

"If the batsman can look down on the ball he will know immediately if the ball is over-pitched or slightly short. Your trajectory must be above the level of the eyes most of the time. That makes a batsman's judgment of length difficult."

"The Grimmett lesson in flight was the best cricket lesson of my life", asserts Mallett.

skyeman wrote:An article that helped with my vote by former Aus cricketer and author Ashley Mallett.


When the author went to him in April 1967, Grimmett asked him to bowl to him. After playing two balls comfortably off the front foot, bang in the middle of the bat, the old man advised Mallet to give up bowling and become a batsman. Grimmett further proclaimed that he could play Mallett's bowling blind folded. Mallett was stunned. He was just seven months away from his first class debut (just over a year from donning the baggy green) and this must have been very deflating.

Mallett immediately produced a handkerchief; Grimmett put it on his eyes, chuckled and took his place at the wicket. Mallett bowled a perfect off break, pitched outside the off stump, turning into the batsman and Grimmett met it with a dead straight bat once again. Grimmett was delighted but then took mercy on the youngster and then explained to him that his bowling was too predictable.

Now comes the best part of the story.

Grimmett asked Mallett to assume that he was standing on top of a bridge on a dark night and below him a car was approaching; would he, by looking at the lights of the car, be able to tell the approximate speed of it. Mallett responded in the affirmative. Grimmett agreed and then asked if instead of being on a bridge, he was stupid enough to be down in a manhole in the middle of the road with his head sticking out just under the level of the lights of a car coming in his direction, would he still be able to tell the speed?

When Mallett replied in the negative, Grimmett agreed again and then explained 'looking down, it is possible to judge speed. But when the object is travelling towards you at just above eye level, judging the speed is difficult,"

Grimmett's comments were designed to illustrate that a spinner operating at a trajectory above eye level was far more difficult to play than one bowling a 'flat' delivery.

"If the batsman can look down on the ball he will know immediately if the ball is over-pitched or slightly short. Your trajectory must be above the level of the eyes most of the time. That makes a batsman's judgment of length difficult."

"The Grimmett lesson in flight was the best cricket lesson of my life", asserts Mallett.

Very interesting. I'm finding Grimmett very difficult to judge. Having done a bit of research I managed to find some archive footage on the British Pathe website of him bowling in what looks like his back garden, and putting massive amounts of flight on the ball.

Does anybody have any elaborations to make on Neil Harvey - we haven't really discussed him yet, have we

Skye - excellent post, great story and very relevant.

In my view, we're not being fair to past greats (or near greats) or ourselves and being a bit daft in rushing to vote before all facts are on the table let alone properly considered.

Sorry if I sound mildly irritated. That's probably because I'm mildly irritated.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:cf not trying to have a go, but in what ways do you think Gibbs was better than Grimmett?
Grimmett has a superior average and strike-rate, more 5fers (from far fewer matches), more wickets per match AND invented a delivery which has become an important weapon in the armoury of modern leg spinners.

Hoggy - whist we disagreed on Gibbs, I can't fault your logic here.

Surely, strike rates are not particularly relevant in comparing bowlers on different types of wicket in different eras? Nor are run-rates for that matter.

Cricket today is extraordinarily different to cricket of a generation or two ago, expectations are different as are the ways we judge players and teams.
I can't get past the notion that Grimmett was not the better slow bowler on his own team. Greenidge was often not the best batsman on his team, but Harvey was Australia's best bat, and fielder, for a decade.

kwinigolfer wrote:

Greenidge: Probably the most difficult "NO" I'd ever give. I remember playing against a visiting team from Hampshire in the very late 60's and they told us all about the young lad who was on the Hampshire staff; at that stage it was thought he'd be able to play for England. Regardless, the rest is history, but I'm offering a "No" for two reasons:
1).He was not the player that Barry Richards was when they were in partnership for Hampshire and Richards is not in.
2).How many West Indies batsmen from the 50's thru 80's era can you choose? Are some the beneficiaries of attacks worn down by the excellence of others (iffy for an opener, I understand that), but I would elect to a Hall Of Fame only the very best of a collection of cricketers, and other W.I. batsmen would get the nod from me before Greenidge.
Top 100? Probably. But Top 50 or 60? Not quite.
"NO"! Sorry!!

Kwini - not convinced how relevant your point 1) is. Richards will almost certainly be elected to our Hall of Fame when he is nominated (unless posters penalise him for not playing Test cricket at a time when he was not permitted to play Test cricket for reasons not of his making!!). Greenidge was not as brilliant as Richards but I don't see that by itself as any reason to exclude him. Most on this board appear to agree that Richards was one of the greatest openers of all time if not the greatest.

I follow your reasoning in point 2) but believe you downplay Greenidge's status in WI batting history. To blatantly name drop two, Jimmy Adams and the ever wise Richie Benaud agree with me here. More to follow.

kwinigolfer wrote:
I can't get past the notion that Grimmett was not the better slow bowler on his own team. Greenidge was often not the best batsman on his team, but Harvey was Australia's best bat, and fielder, for a decade.

Kwini - by this logic, aren't you in danger of saying you can't have both Holding and Marshall in the Hall of Fame? In my book, greatness is not eliminated by having another great in the same side.

Must say I am very surprised by the amount of NO votes for Grimmett, from what I have read about him so far, the man was a genius.

guildfordbat wrote:Skye - excellent post, great story and very relevant.

In my view, we're not being fair to past greats (or near greats) or ourselves and being a bit daft in rushing to vote before all facts are on the table let alone properly considered.

Sorry if I sound mildly irritated. That's probably because I'm mildly irritated.

Guildford - don't forget it was your persuasive efforts that led me to reverse my vote leading to Chappell being barred admission to HoF for the time being at least. So hopefully, others will regard at least some of their votes as a provisional intention as well....

In this round, apart from Hammond my votes are all up for grabs, (though it would take quite a lot to turn Grimmett into a no).

My gut instinct says yes for Neil Harvey but it's very difficult to be consistent.....!

Interesting that even allowing for WWII no one has queried Headley's inclusion on the basis of only 22 tests and less than 10,000 first class runs. But I think he deserves a yes on the basis of his outstanding figures and the way he changed West Indian cricket.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I'm slightly leaning towards no for Greenidge - but not a decisive no and I could be persuaded otherwise..... . I imagine the yes camp will concede it's not as clear cut as several other W Indian greats such as Viv Richards, Sobers, Marshall....

Corporal - conceded at least by me.

At risk of rewriting Animal Farm, all W Indian greats are worthy but some are more worthy than others.

However, just as we both considered Gibbs was sufficiently worthy, I feel the same about Greenidge.

guildford,
Two fine ripostes! Perhaps the danger of assessing players in isolation rather than more in groups by era.
Based upon my assessment of their relative merits, I'd put Roberts and Marshall ahead of Holding! And they didn't overlap quite as much. I certainly wouldn't have the entire phalanx of WI fast bowlers of the late 70's, 80's and 90's all rated in the very top echelon to the exclusion of others from a different era who didn't hunt in pairs, or threes.

skyeman wrote:Must say I am very surprised by the amount of NO votes for Grimmett, from what I have read about him so far, the man was a genius.

An example;

As a young boy Grimmett came across a magazine article of a man bowling on a beach, digging a hole with his right foot every time it landed on the soft sand and his getting deeper and deeper with every ball till suddenly the leg break started turning in towards the batsman! This gave him an idea of developing the wrong one, based on the dropping of the shoulder and he started working on it by himself.

kwinigolfer wrote:I can't get past the notion that Grimmett was not the better slow bowler on his own team.

I don't see why this should preclude him from selection, given the fact that the other slow bowler in his team is widely regarded as one of THE best spin-bowlers ever.
Would that mean, for example, that Barry Richards couldn't be included in the HoF because he, arguably, wasn't as good as Graham Pollock, or that Joel Garner or Michael Holding couldn't be included because they weren't quite as good as Malcolm Marshall?
Sometimes teams are lucky enough to have more than one all-time great performing a similar role. IMO the Australian team of the 1930s was one such team, in the shape of Grimmett and O'Reilly.

Some thoughts from me, but no definite answers yes.

Hammond - definite YES. Don't think many will argue with me here.

Headley - another definite YES. Very fine player who despite losing many of his years to WWII still finished with a remarkable record.

Grimmett - YES. For me he was better than Gibbs, and given that Gibbs was handed a reluctant NO I must include Grimmett. Credited with inventing the flipper (I think) which certainly had an impact on leg-spin bowling and cricket in general. Finally the Don had him in his all-time test XI.

Harvey - a little unsure, but heading towards a YES vote at the minute.

Greenidge - probably the toughest call for me this week, while his record isn't extraordinary (even allowing for later years not being so good), it's very good, and you could say him and Haynes were the precursors of the attacking openers. Sitting on the fence for this one so far.

PS: to whoever said the fact that he wasn't Hampshire's best opener should count against him, I shall be VERY upset (and I suspect guildford and a couple of others also) if one Barry Richards doesn't make our HoF when his time comes.

guildfordbat wrote:

Kwini - not convinced how relevant your point 1) is. Richards will almost certainly be elected to our Hall of Fame when he is nominated (unless posters penalise him for not playing Test cricket at a time when he was not permitted to play Test cricket for reasons not of his making!!).

Guilford, I agree entirely with your point, but some posters (not naming Skyeman here at all) if they wish to be consistent shall have to take into account Richards not playing many tests and use it against him...

Personally I am astounded people are voting "no" for Grimmett based on O'Reilly being arguably the better bowler (he probably was). Are we then to exclude any Australians whose career overlapped with Bradman? Or as Guilford has pointed out exclude all West Indian fast bowlers who bowled alongside Marshall?

Grimmett has an extraordinary record for a spin bowler (spinners average more per wicket than fast bowlers for a variety of reasons). As Hoggy has pointed out, he invented the flipper, without which Warne vs Cullinan wouldn't have been such a one-sided battle. Bradman picked him in his all-time test XI ahead of Warne and others (admitedly alongside O'Reilly).

Sure, doubt may remain over quality and variety of opposition, but again we are holding against someone the circumstances under which he played. It is not Grimmett's fault that Test cricket at his time was essentially reduced to 3 countries. Are we to hold it against Hammond that he didn't bat against a great West India quartet? The idea is absurd, the only way to proceed in such arguments is to judge people's records against who was around at the time, not who wasn't.

If we are looking for "excellent record and something extra" then Grimmett ticks all the boxes.

Ooops should have read the thread more thoroughly, I see Guildford already raised the same point with kwini as I did in my last post.

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Kwini - not convinced how relevant your point 1) is. Richards will almost certainly be elected to our Hall of Fame when he is nominated (unless posters penalise him for not playing Test cricket at a time when he was not permitted to play Test cricket for reasons not of his making!!).

Guilford, I agree entirely with your point, but some posters (not naming Skyeman here at all) if they wish to be consistent shall have to take into account Richards not playing many tests and use it against him...

Personally I am astounded people are voting "no" for Grimmett based on O'Reilly being arguably the better bowler (he probably was). Are we then to exclude any Australians whose career overlapped with Bradman? Or as Guilford has pointed out exclude all West Indian fast bowlers who bowled alongside Marshall?

Grimmett has an extraordinary record for a spin bowler (spinners average more per wicket than fast bowlers for a variety of reasons). As Hoggy has pointed out, he invented the flipper, without which Warne vs Cullinan wouldn't have been such a one-sided battle. Bradman picked him in his all-time test XI ahead of Warne and others (admitedly alongside O'Reilly).

Sure, doubt may remain over quality and variety of opposition, but again we are holding against someone the circumstances under which he played. It is not Grimmett's fault that Test cricket at his time was essentially reduced to 3 countries. Are we to hold it against Hammond that he didn't bat against a great West India quartet? The idea is absurd, the only way to proceed in such arguments is to judge people's records against who was around at the time, not who wasn't.

If we are looking for "excellent record and something extra" then Grimmett ticks all the boxes.

Got to agree with this Mike. As I've said above IMO Grimmett and O'Reilly were BOTH all-time greats who complimented each other perfectly.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
PS: to whoever said the fact that he wasn't Hampshire's best opener should count against him, I shall be VERY upset (and I suspect guildford and a couple of others also) if one Barry Richards doesn't make our HoF when his time comes.

[quote]

Then I better say now

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:It should also be noted that in his last twenty-seven Test innings, he only twice reached fifty (although one of these innings was rather special as I'll cover tonight). If you take his final fourteen Tests out of the calculations, his Test average rises to comfortably above 47. Greenidge played his last Test innings on his fortieth birthday. I'm not saying this should be ignored but it should be recognised that at this time he was being selected very much for his influence and proven mastery.

Guildford - I await further update with interest. Agree one has to be careful about deploying that argument. I'm wondering for example whether Gooch's average would have gone up a few if one discarded his earlier performances for England when perhaps he wasn't fully ready for selection. Or Ponting's average maybe in the process of drifting downwards at the moment. Bit difficult to know where to draw the line....

Corporal - I made the point before, primarily in respect of Davidson although it also related to Cowdrey, that whilst it might be bloomin' obvious, it was probably worth noting a player's greatness if determined just by stats would depend quite a bit on the Test selectors picking him at the right time. If Cowdrey, for example, had not been selected as a replacement to face Lillee and Thomson at the age of sixty-two (or similar!), his final Test average would have been a fair bit better. In my view - for purposes of our Hall of Fame - Cowdrey's loyalty and bravery in accepting the call up more than made up for his batting average finishing a couple of runs or so lower. However, others may have looked no further than his final Test average before deciding to vote ''NO''.

I'm really just emphasising that all things should go into the mix in making a YES or NO vote.

If Greenidge had told his national selectors to ''get lost'' two years before his actual last Test, would that have made him greater? Not in my view although his final Test average would have been higher.

I'm pushing this point because I don't see any valid reason for Greenidge being considered for a NO vote other than perhaps his final Test average. To place total emphasis on that would be unfair and inappropriate in my view.

Some comments on Neil Harvey (No. 87) in CMJ's book of 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "Few batsmen, and no younger ones, have started with such a surge of brilliance as Neil Harvey. By the age of 21 he had already scored five Test hundreds"
- "his class was never better demonstrated than it was against the fast bowling of Tyson and Statham in 1954-55, when Harvey scored 94 not out with quiet mastery in a total of 184 all out"
- "The blade of his bat seemed to meet the ball in the middle, even when he was hitting square of the wicket"
- "he could defend in a crisis as a four-and-a-half-hour 69 out of 140 against Jim Laker and Tony Lock at Headingley in 1956 demonstrated"
- "Told by a selector that he could have made 300 just after he had been caught for 50 he retorted: 'Whoever wants to make 300?
- Made 96 against Pakistan on a 'coconut matting' wicket at Dhaka, now in Bangladesh when noone else could master Fazal Mahmood
- "Throughout his career he was a superb cover fielder"

A good case there and it seems he was a player who had an ability to score 'tough runs'. Still not fully decided on him though - the question is whether an average of under 50 (and under 40 against England, the strongest opposition in this era) is Hall of Fame worthy in an era when Barrington averaged almost 60

Richards and Pollock could only (and presumably without checking did) play four Tests together.
Before making the comment about Richards, I checked the OP and didn't see anything in there about Test Match performances only. If it's there in a later post, mucho apolgies.

Can I just say that if we're looking at elite players over an extended (century plus) period, it's a bit dodgy to include clusters of greats from the same Team, whether Aussies in the 30's or West Indies Teams of 20 and 30 years ago?

It is partly why I reluctantly nixed the claims of Greenidge and Grimmett, and certainly not because of denying either their excellence or influence. It would be easy to say Yes to all as they're all deserving of recognition.

PS: Fists, Also understand I'm late to this party and this is a terrific series of threads!

From my initial 3 YES votes, 1 undecided and 1 NO vote, after plenty of reading it is quite possible I will be giving all 5 a YES.
With 1 of the votes for YES going against all my previous criteria, more to follow.

Just another stat in support of Grimmett.
In the history of cricket only 4 spin bowlers, Murali, Warne, Kumble and Harbhajan have taken 5 wickets or more in an innings more often than Grimmett.
And he only played 37 tests!!!!
Talk about being a match winner

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just another stat in support of Grimmett.
In the history of cricket only 4 spin bowlers, Murali, Warne, Kumble and Harbhajan have taken 5 wickets or more in an innings more often than Grimmett.
And he only played 37 tests!!!!
Talk about being a match winner

Great stat.

skyeman wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just another stat in support of Grimmett.
In the history of cricket only 4 spin bowlers, Murali, Warne, Kumble and Harbhajan have taken 5 wickets or more in an innings more often than Grimmett.
And he only played 37 tests!!!!
Talk about being a match winner

Great stat.

Agree. Might swing my vote on him.

While we're on him, here are CMJ's thoughts on him, his 54th greatest cricketer of all time.

- "a leg-spinning boffin, so closely did he study and work at the art. One can almost imagine him doing experiments with test tubes at his home in Adelaide"
- "practiced bowling for hours on end in his garden, having trained his fox trainer, Joe, to fetch the balls for him from an empty net"
- "It took time for his skill to be appreciated, no doubt because of the oddness of his action, which had none of the classical perfection of later experts such as Richie Benaud and Bruce Dooland"
- "bowled leg breaks across a range of subtly varied speeds, mixed them with a quite easily spotted googly, which he used for tactical variation, and also with a deadly, dipping topspinner. In addition he invented the flipper, the product of hours of profound study and constant practice"
- "When he went to England for the first time in 1926, he turned the ball more than he had done at home and took more than 100 wickets"
- Took all 10 wickets in an innings against Yorkshire at Sheffield
- "Finished with 129 more Sheffield Shield wickets - 513 - than his nearest rival before or since, Terry Alderman"

skyeman wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just another stat in support of Grimmett.
In the history of cricket only 4 spin bowlers, Murali, Warne, Kumble and Harbhajan have taken 5 wickets or more in an innings more often than Grimmett.
And he only played 37 tests!!!!
Talk about being a match winner

Great stat.

That is all very well but you are overlooking that CF doesn't rate him.

guildfordbat wrote:

skyeman wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just another stat in support of Grimmett.
In the history of cricket only 4 spin bowlers, Murali, Warne, Kumble and Harbhajan have taken 5 wickets or more in an innings more often than Grimmett.
And he only played 37 tests!!!!
Talk about being a match winner

Great stat.

That is all very well but you are overlooking that CF doesn't rate him.

You made me laugh again!!!

As for 10 wickets in a match by spinners, only Murali, Warne and Kumble, who all played 130+ tests, have achieved the feat more often than 'Grum' (or 'The Gnome' as he was sometimes called)




I'm here all week

Astonishing stats Hoggy.

kwinigolfer wrote:Richards and Pollock could only (and presumably without checking did) play four Tests together.
Before making the comment about Richards, I checked the OP and didn't see anything in there about Test Match performances only. If it's there in a later post, mucho apolgies.

Can I just say that if we're looking at elite players over an extended (century plus) period, it's a bit dodgy to include clusters of greats from the same Team, whether Aussies in the 30's or West Indies Teams of 20 and 30 years ago?

It is partly why I reluctantly nixed the claims of Greenidge and Grimmett, and certainly not because of denying either their excellence or influence. It would be easy to say Yes to all as they're all deserving of recognition.

PS: Fists, Also understand I'm late to this party and this is a terrific series of threads!

Kwini - thanks for your slightly earlier ''2 fine ripostes'' post.

Qualification for the Hall of Fame certainly isn't confined to Test match performance although some (again not mentioning Skye) place enormous significance on the number of Test match appearances and go from there.

For me, there are probably four great teams (using the term loosely as, South Africa apart, players came and went during the period of supremacy) in the history of Test cricket - broadly, Bradman's Australians, Goddard's S Africans of '69-70, Waugh's Australians and Lloyd's Windies. I think it's totally appropriate to pick a cluster of players from each of these teams if it was their individual greatness that significantly contributed to the team's greatness.

Surely, you're not suggesting some form of positive discrimination where we should choose Roach instead of Marshall or a current Bangladesh batsman instead of Cook or Bell?

Strongly agree about this being a terrific series of threads. To clarify a previous comment (that's doublespeak for an earlier whinge), nothing wrong with early votes as long as they're viewed as provisional. Otherwise, there's little point having the debate. Much as I'll be pushing soon for Greenidge's inclusion, I'll be interested to listen to others who might disagree and why.

- Corporal, I'm not sure this Emoticon is actually becoming of a senior military type like yourself but I appreciate the gesture.

EDIT: Whist former S African captain Trevor Goddard played for the '69-'70 Test side, they were captained by Ali Bacher. My apologies.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

PS: to whoever said the fact that he wasn't Hampshire's best opener should count against him, I shall be VERY upset (and I suspect guildford and a couple of others also) if one Barry Richards doesn't make our HoF when his time comes.

''VERY upset'' won't even get close!

In the entire history of Test cricket, only 42 batsman have an average over 50, and only 13 before 1965 (and 3 of the 13 having not played more than 17 Tests)
Just trying to make the point that an ave of 50 is not the be all and end all as to an HoF spot, especially for the period before 1965.

skyeman wrote:In the entire history of Test cricket, only 42 batsman have an average over 50, and only 13 before 1965 (and 3 of the 13 having not played more than 17 Tests)
Just trying to make the point that an ave of 50 is not the be all and end all as to an HoF spot, especially for the period before 1965.

Apart from the modern equipment and technology or professional status, is the reason for the higher amount of batsman who now have a 50+ average because of the flatter tracks around the world now. If so, earlier batsmans stats could be held in even higher regard.


Incidentally, Neil Harvey was prior to 1965. With an ave of 48.41

One of the greatest innings ever in the history of Test cricket was the 214 not out by Gordon Greenidge in less than a day for the West Indies to defeat England by nine wickets at Lord's in the second Test of the 1984 series. According to CricInfo, England had had ''the temerity'' to declare and set the Windies a target in excess of 340.

If you have any interest in cricket, you need to watch this clip. In the commentary box, Tom Graveney refers to ''a magnificent innings'' from Greenidge whist Richie Benaud haills it ''a great innings''.

In 2004, Benaud paid Greenidge a far greater compliment when he set about picking an All Time XI from all countries and all eras. He shortlisted three players for each position, meaning he named a possible six players for the roles of the two opening batsmen. The two Benaud settled on were Jack Hobbs and Sunny Gavaskar. However, his four reserves (in no particular order to my knowledge) were Arthur Morris, Victor Trumper, Len Hutton and Gordon Greenidge. In other words, Benaud regarded Greenidge as being one of the top six opening batsmen of all time. If that seems to be pushing it, now might be a time to look at the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XO-96NSsAw

More to follow.

Thank You Skyeman,
I think you made the point I was struggling to be articulate with!

Excellence in one's own era is the best barometer of greatness - I think it particularly applies to Harvey in that some of the tightest series he played in were not exactly run fests. (An argument for Graveney in an earlier series of course.)

guilford,
Interestingly, in Benaud's '"My Spin On Cricket", he selected Hammond in his 2nd All-Time Team, and Headley and Greenidge in his 3rd All-Time Team. No Harvey and no Grimmett! Very harsh on those Aussies!

kwinigolfer wrote:Thank You Skyeman,
I think you made the point I was struggling to be articulate with!

Excellence in one's own era is the best barometer of greatness - I think it particularly applies to Harvey in that some of the tightest series he played in were not exactly run fests. (An argument for Graveney in an earlier series of course.)

guilford,
Interestingly, in Benaud's '"My Spin On Cricket", he selected Hammond in his 2nd All-Time Team, and Headley and Greenidge in his 3rd All-Time Team. No Harvey and no Grimmett! Very harsh on those Aussies!

Kwini, your earlier post actually made me think about things a little more (regarding eras) and has probably changed Harveys vote from an undecided to a YES, and I shall take more things into account with future nominees.

Murali and Warne, Gibbs, and Grimmett in thier respective periods of time were considered by some of thier peers to be the best ever, that should be taken more into account.

Gordon Greenidge (No.98) from CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time'

- "A pocket Hercules in the tradition of George Headley and Eveton Weekes. He was less consistent than either but thrilling to watch"
- "A character who seldom seemed at ease with himself off the field"
- "A compact, utterly correct technical batsman, with all the renowned orthodox style of the best West Indians, Greenidge hit the ball incredibly hard, both square of the wicket with resounding hooks and square-cuts, and straight or through the covers off the front foot, never hesitating to hit in the air if necessary"
- "twice hit thirteen sixes in an innings"
- "As a young man he was occasionally reckless". "As he matured, however, so his batting gained discretion"
- "Greenidge and Haynes shared sixteen opening partnerships of more than 100 in 89 Tests together"

Incidentally, my research reveals that Greenidge also made a comeback at age 58 in 2009 to play in the 'Barbados Cup of Legends' and scored 61 not out against an England bowling attack featuring the much more recently retired Cork, Gough, Headley and deFreitas

So far I am tempted to say that somebody who was "occasionally reckless" and not hugely consistent falls just below the standard required for Hall of Fame recognition.

Must admit I'm struggling to dish out any no votes this round.

Grimmett is as a must as far as I'm concerned, a pioneer of the art of spin bowling, and incredible figures to boot.

Greenidge edges closer to a no, but being part of arguably the greatest opening partnership we have ever seen adds significant weight to his claim, for me.

Kapil Dev was a much better batsman but Sir Richard Hadlee was a much better bowler. He got his wickets in far fewer tests. No doubt this team is chock full of quality batsman so an all-rounder more noted for his bowling takes precedence for me.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Kapil Dev was a much better batsman but Sir Richard Hadlee was a much better bowler. He got his wickets in far fewer tests. No doubt this team is chock full of quality batsman so an all-rounder more noted for his bowling takes precedence for me.

Someone get a glass of water for Kiakaha!

Fists of Fury wrote:

Greenidge edges closer to a no, but being part of arguably the greatest opening partnership we have ever seen adds significant weight to his claim, for me.

Fists - I'll try and edge Greenidge back to a slightly safer position in a few minutes and then early this evening mount a full rescue mission.

Much appreciated, Guildford, and I'm sure Gordon will be most pleased. Judging by some of the early comments, it might be an idea to ask the Corporal to put forward all of his military might toward this rescue mission.

Headley is one candidate this week that I must confess I know very little about. Seems he has a fantastic record, and is revered amongst his contemporaries, but I will need to do some further research before my vote is set in stone.

Even the Corporal was ''leaning towards a no'' for Greenidge yesterday afternoon. I fear all his recent night time patrols have had a bad effect!

I checked a bit about Headley when I considered the Top Ten Test openers. I'll leave others to state the case but do believe he would be a worthy addition to our esteemed Hall.

One noticeable aspect about Headley is that he only played 22 Tests. I don't flag this to make any criticism of Headley. After all, it was not his fault that there were less Test playing countries and less Test matches played in his time. Nor, as far as I'm aware, was he one of the causes of the Second World War. However, in my view, it is unreasonable and unfair to expect the same consistency for Greenidge who played over 100 Tests with his last appearance on his fortieth birthday.

Btw, Fists, if you are at a loose end tonight, make sure you watch the video clip of Greenidge that I attached to a post late last night. Come to think of it, show the clip to your girlfriend - no reasonable woman could expect anything better for Christmas!

at both the 'cause of world war II' and your last comment.

I'm holed up in a hotel again tonight, mate, so won't be able to take a look at the video, but shall certainly do so when I am home tomorrow evening.

I've just noticed, not long until I bring up my 8,000th 606v2 Test run (post). Cricketfan90 is the Sachin Tendulkar of the forum, not quite sure who I relate to (cue comments about a lack of consistency and erratic performance)

Shelsey93 wrote:Gordon Greenidge (No.98) from CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time'

- "A pocket Hercules in the tradition of George Headley and Eveton Weekes. He was less consistent than either but thrilling to watch"
- "A character who seldom seemed at ease with himself off the field"
- "A compact, utterly correct technical batsman, with all the renowned orthodox style of the best West Indians, Greenidge hit the ball incredibly hard, both square of the wicket with resounding hooks and square-cuts, and straight or through the covers off the front foot, never hesitating to hit in the air if necessary"
- "twice hit thirteen sixes in an innings"
- "As a young man he was occasionally reckless". "As he matured, however, so his batting gained discretion"
- "Greenidge and Haynes shared sixteen opening partnerships of more than 100 in 89 Tests together"

Incidentally, my research reveals that Greenidge also made a comeback at age 58 in 2009 to play in the 'Barbados Cup of Legends' and scored 61 not out against an England bowling attack featuring the much more recently retired Cork, Gough, Headley and deFreitas

So far I am tempted to say that somebody who was "occasionally reckless" and not hugely consistent falls just below the standard required for Hall of Fame recognition.

Shelsey, I'll cover things more tonight - particularly further positives - but just a few immediate reactions.

Headley and Weekes totalled 70 Tests between them and so averaged 35 each. Greenidge made 108 Test appearances, more than three times their combined average. I make that not as a criticism of Headley and Weekes (both of whom will get YES votes from me unless very persuasive arguments are put otherwise). However, I do consider it unfair and unreasonable for anyone to expect the same consistency over a far lengthier Test career.

Your final para comment that he was ''occasionally reckless'' implies CMJ thought that of Greenidge throughout his career. CMJ actually restricts the comment to when Greenidge was ''a young man''. Possibly an important distinction if things are to go to the wire for a man who played his final Test innings on his fortieth birthday.

Finally, for now, I think CMJ's views are interesting and a useful addition to the mix. However, if it comes down to his view and Benaud's on Greenidge ..... Well, to me, CMJ is a McDonalds burger - very welcome if hungry whist Benaud will always be the splendid Christmas dinner with all the trimmings.

Ha, well and truly in the festive spirit then, Guildford, with your prolific use of that emoticon this morning!

Looking forward to more thoughts regarding Greenidge, which I'll hopefully pick up through my phone this evening.

When I first looked at this lot I thought : "all yes! - how easy" ..but I'm pausing for some thought:

Hammond - well this is easy - an obvious and surely undeniable Yes. In fact his absence from the initial 30 is , if you will forgive me for being so blunt , the one daft omission from a generally well considered list. A bias to modern players perhaps ? I haven't counted the proportion in that list but I would have thought that of pre-War players Hammond would rank in the top 5 or 6. Never mind, he'll be in in a week or so...

Headley - Only 22 Tests true , but since they were pretty well all the Tests West Indies played this statistic can hardly be held against him. His own statistics give some credence to his sometime sobriquet of "The Black Bradman" , but , given his place in West Indies cricket history , might not a better comparison be with the role of Grace in English cricket? Is it too much to suggest that without Headley ,who was in fact the first black man to lead the side in a Test , there may have been no Worrell ...Again I do not think there can be any doubt that he belongs in any self respecting Hall of Fame.

I'm going to be voting yes to Grimmett also but I can't at the moment think of anything useful to add to the many wise words uttered on his behalf by a number of posters above.

However I am presently disposed to consider a negative vote on Greenidge - which I'm sure will appall some on here with whom I normally agree : I am not for a moment questioning his place on the ICC list , but it seems we are bent on making ours a little more exclusive ; and if Boycott and Cowdrey can be summarily dismissed I would find it hard to include Greenidge , fine cricketer though he was.
Perhaps some one may convince me to change my mind over the next few days...

Tomorrow I will consider Harvey. (Pressed for time now)

Cheers Alfie, good points.

It does appear that the omission of Hammond from the inaugural 30 may have been a bit of an oversight, but hopefully our votes will do him justice and see him inducted at first ballot.