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.

Continuing my series of posts from CMJ with George Headley (No. 20):

- C.L.R. James observed that "George Headley went into bat at number three for the West Indies knowing that if he failed they would probably be bowled out for 150"
- "In fifteen of his 35 Test innings he was his team's top scorer. In eleven of them he made at least a third of the runs and in three of them more than half"
- "In the 1930s he averaged a hundred every other Test he played"
- "Hitherto members of the black working class had mainly been fast bowlers"
- "first Test batsmen to make three hundreds before his 21st birthday"
- "took time to counter Clarrie Grimmett's unfamiliar leg-spin, but scored two hundreds in the Tests and over 1,000 runs on the tour (his first of Australia)"
- R.C. Robertson-Glasgow said that "His style was suited by bowling pitched short of a length. 'He delights in hooking, in delayed deflection to leg and in cutting square and late. In these arts he has no living superior' "
- "Headley's success, and the dignity with which he behaved, was symbolic of the black man's aspirations towards equal equal status with whites"
- "the moment when Headley led the West Indies team out at Bridgetown in January 1948 was one of great political significance: he was the first black man to captain the West Indies in a Test"

Richie Benaud on Neil Harvey in 'My Spin on Cricket' - I guess Benaud would be extremely well placed to comment on Harvey:

- "one of the greatest cricketers ever to walk out in Australia's colours"

Benaud then talks about Harvey's innings against Pakistan in 1959 on Dacca's infamous 'matting pitch'. He says that Harvey spent the previous evening suffering from dysentery and food poisoning and was therefore left badly dehydrated. He made 96 out of 151 and Benaud says that he was "back-cutting Fazal Mahmood, pulling him and even dancing down the pitch to hit him over the top of the infield" against a champion bowler who he curiously says was about the same pace as Michael Kasprowicz.

Benaud goes on to say that during the innings he "needed to go off the field a dozen times for running repairs but had refused to contemplate not continuing his innings". He then concludes that "it was one of the greatest innings ever played for Australia".

Shelsey, thanks for these, and I certainly value the opinion of Benaud very highly. Something I'll most definitely be taking into account when casting my vote on Harvey.

Fists of Fury wrote:.... I certainly value the opinion of Benaud very highly. Something I'll most definitely be taking into account when casting my vote ....

Shoe in for Greenidge then!

Time for me to post CMJ's views on the last of the 5 currently up for consideration - Wally Hammond, who comes in at number 8 on the list of 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "Wally Hammond at the crease was one of the most majestic sights that cricket has afforded"
- "one of the greatest batsmen of them all"
- "England's surest slip fielder and capable of devastating spells as a fast-medium bowler"
- Robertson-Glasgow "placed him above Bradman and Constantine as the greatest cricketer of all between 1925 and 1935"
- "reached 1000 runs before the end of May in 1927", including 187 in three hours at Old Trafford
- The following winter in Australia "he scored 905 runs in the series at an average of 113"
- "At Auckland in 1932-33, his 336 not out against New Zealand remained the highest Test score for five years. He made six other Test double hundreds"
- "He finished top of the first-class batting averages in England in every season from 1933 to 1939"
- David Foot said that " 'His personal life was littered with mistakes, in choosing at times unsuitable friends, in being seduced by fleeting avarice' ". Also had a reputation for moodiness which has been put down to a veneral disease contracted in the Caribbean.

Hammond also features in Richie Benaud's 2nd team of his choice which appears in 'My Spin on Cricket'. Benaud constructed his team by picking an 11 and a first and 2nd reserve in each position - Hammond and Headley are the reserves for Bradman's number 3 position. Meanwhile, Greenidge appears in the 3rd team as an opener.

Benaud also quotes Don Bradman on Hammond as having been generally too busy making runs to be bothered about bowling, but that when he did he was very difficult to play and a far better bowler than he was given credit for. On reading this, I immediately thought of Jacques Kallis as a modern player most in the mould of Hammond. Of his batting, Bradman says that he was the "strongest offside player he had seen"

lol im probably the only one who has voted thus far.

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

Guildford - a moment of weakness, for which I can only apologise - the stiff upper lip is fully back in place

Fantastic standard of posting in last 24 hours - with one exception which I shall charitably assume was accidentally on the wrong thread....

The Further Case for Cuthbert Gordon Greenidge

First off, if Fists can play the Lancelot card for Gibbs, don't expect me to turn down the Cuthbert one for Greenidge.

However, I believe there are some more meaningful reasons for a YES vote as flagged below.

If I had to rely on one person's judgment in respect of any cricket matter, the person I would choose would be Richie Benaud. At different times, Benaud has chosen three slightly different All Time teams from all countries and all eras. Greenidge has always been in at least his third team as an opening batsman. Consequently, Benaud regards Greenidge as at least the sixth greatest opener of all time. Significant and meaningful praise, at least pointing to if not proving greatness.

In July 2010, a West Indian panel chaired by Jimmy Adams, former Windies captain, and including himself and nine others (a mix of cricket writers, broadcasters and former officials) chose an All Time West Indies Invincibles XI. Not only was Greenidge selected to open (with Conrad Hunte) but Adams and eight of the other nine panellists each selected Greenidge up front when they named their own individual teams at the start of the process. The strength of the the side chosen is probably shown by some of those to miss out. Established batsmen not making the final XI included Haynes, Fredericks, Gayle, Kanhai, Weekes, Worrell and Walcott. Whilst I could never put this panel on a par with Benaud, not a bad recommendation for Greenidge.

Greenidge and his regular opening partner Desmond Haynes compiled sixteen century partnerships, four of which were over 200. They made 6,482 runs together, a record which remains unbeaten to this day.

Mike is always keen to see a stand out performance from a Hall of Fame nominee. With Greenidge, we are spoilt for choice. He scored four double hundreds in Test matches including two in the same series against England here in 1984. My post late last night contained a clip showing the highlights of his 214 not out from that '84 series when he turned a Test on its head and took the Windies to a 9 wicket victory. Whatever you think of my arguments, I do urge you to watch this clip if only to see a masterful batsman at his most destructive best.

Greenidge also scored two single centuries (134 and 101) in the same Test against England at Manchester in 1976.

However, his greatest innings was at Antigua in 1983. This is a truly tragic story and rarely recounted, out of respect, I'm sure, for Greenidge and his family. It also illustrates the crassness of the comment by Martin-Jenkins quoted earlier on this thread about Greenidge: ''A character who seldom seemed at ease with himself off the field.''

In late April 1983, Greenidge left his family and home in Barbados to join up with the Windies team in Antigua for the final Test of their series against India. As he was doing so, his two year old daughter Ria was admitted to hospital in Barbados with a kidney infection. Greenidge started the match and was regularly kept informed of his daughter's condition which initially and naturally seemed concerning but not worse than that. However, on the third day when Greenidge continued his innings from the previous evening, his daughter's condition worsened. Greenidge continued to bat on with maximum concentration on every ball whilst being updated by notes brought out to the wicket and at every interval. He batted the whole day and was still there on 154 at the end of play. To bat thoughout a whole day with such personal worries must have required super human effort and application.

It was only then that Greenidge learnt his daughter's condition had become extremely serious. At that point he left the match to catch a flight to visit her. Tragically, she had died by the time he arrived.

Naturally, Greenidge played no further part in that match. This is the only instance of a batsman in Test cricket being shown in the scorebook as ''retired not out''. Normally, in the absence of the batsman's own injury or illness, a batsman retiring and not returning to bat would be classed as ''retired out'' as has happened on a few occasions.

Greenidge was voted Man of the Match. It was not just a sympathy vote. He was the highest scorer in a drawn game.

As you know, Greenidge resumed his successful Test career and played his final test innings on his fortieth birthday. I prefer not to guess at the inner turmoil he must have felt at times.

On 53 occasions he reached 50 for the Windies and on 19 of those he went on to score a century. Throughout this time, the Windies were the most powerful Test country without doubt. Greenidge's batting played a major part in that. His final Test average of just under 45 is not brilliant but he played a brilliant innings nearly always when it was required (have you watched that clip yet?). As mentioned earlier, it is unreasonable and unfair to expect a much higher Test average when it was earned over seventeen years and 108 Tests.

It should also be noted that his fine slip catching also helped the battery of West Indian fast bowlers in regularly dismissing opponents so cheaply. He took a total of 96 Test match catches.

The Windies team(s) of Greenidge's time are widely regarded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time. Without Greenidge, that would not have been the case.

It is staggering to think what might have been. Although he was born in Barbados, he was educated here in Reading and so could have qualified to play for England.

It has been mentioned that Greenidgee was ''the poor relation'' of his opening batting partner at Hampshire, Barry Richards. A couple of points here. Firstly, being categorised as any relation of Richards is something to be immensely proud of and not at all sneered at. Secondly, in 1973 Hampshire won the County Championship for only the second time in their history. Amazingly, Greenidge outscored Richards that season and ended up with well over 1,600 runs.

Finally, Greenidge's work with the Bangladesh national side after his own playing career had ended must come heavily into the mix. To quote from Wikipedia: ''Greenidge was also successful in his coaching career. He became the coach of Bangladesh in 1997. Under his guidance Bangladesh became the champions of ICC Trophy along with the chance to play at their first World Cup finals in 1999. Soon afterwards Greenidge was given the honorary citizenship of the country. He also coached them during the 1999 Cricket World Cup and the team eventually promoted to a Test playing after their performance during the World Cup.''

I am sure some would regard Greenidge's role in the elevation of such a country to the status of a Test playing nation as sufficient reason by itself for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

I will just say that for me there is so much that is so good about him and what he has achieved that I have to vote YES.

guildford,
Such expert testimony.

Answer me one question if you would:
I tend, regardless of the sport, to give great credit to the trail-blazers, the Tony Jacklins paving the way for Lyle, Faldo and Woosnam; Headley laying the foundation for the three "W"'s, and then the work that Kanhai, Sobers and Hall did for those who followed. (I'd always place Kanhai on a slightly higher pedastal than Lloyd for that reason.)

Perhaps I give disproportionate value to the fore-runner. You have eloquently described, in effect, why Cuthbert shouldn't be disqualified (or at least put on the back-burner) for coming along once the trail had been cleared.

Where is the balance here? Stat's obviously don't convey accurately the difference of eras, which is why I'm inclined to look at cricket, and footie, greatness by who was best during a specific generation.

Tricky, and I think you and Richie are doing a good job of convincing me that Cuthbert is an all-time great regardless of era and regardless of peer players.

Guildford, quite a post there Sir. Well done.

cricketfan90 wrote:lol im probably the only one who has voted thus far.

That's because people are waiting to see all the arguments for and against the candidates, which is the best way to do it, in my book. You learn a lot about someone that you might not have known before.

cricketfan90 wrote:lol im probably the only one who has voted thus far.

Not quite CF, 3 votes of NO for Grimmett so far

Sorry CF, Istand corrected, Shelseys and Gregers are initial thoughts of NO for Grimmett. Hopefully the recent posts can change them to a YES

A quite brilliant post, Guildford. I certainly didn't realise he had outscored the great Barry Richards in that championship winning season for Hampshire, and that alone adds significant weight to his cause, or in the very least highlights just what a good opening batsman he was.

A tragic and moving story about his daughter, something else I didn't know of. I can't begin to imagine the mental strength it must have taken to play such a stunning innings with such things on his mind, and it is a terrible, terrible ending.

A fair argument , Guildford ... you haven't convinced me to join the Yes camp yet but 'tis more food for thought. I also hadn't heard that sad tale of his daughter in 1983 - certainly a tribute to his character.

The trouble is - all the players we are discussing were exceptional - why else would they be in the ICC Hall of Fame? If we are intent on trimming that list down further , some will have to go ... so without wishing to run Greenidge down at all I am still leaning towards a no. (With regret)

I'd disagree slightly there, Alfie. That's the point, all of the players in the ICC HoF aren't exceptional. Take Gower and Graveney for example, very good - yes, exceptional? No.

Hi guys - just quickly looking in. Thanks for all the comments so far.

Thanks for that last comment (to Alfie) in particular, Fists. My comments on Greenidge were really trying show why in my view he is above the likes of Gower and Graveney. I think also we shouldn't get carried away with trying to whittle down the numbers in the ICC List. It is for us at our joint discretion to decide if the ICC were right for each player.

Kwini - suspect you may have answered your own question. However, I will say that I understand your admiration for scene setters and masters of their time. During Greenidge's era, no opening batsmen for the West Indies or any other country was on a par with him.

To be fair, and Mike mentioned this recently, Desmond Haynes was a much under rated batsman and a very good opening foil for Greenidge. However, Haynes has publicly and readily conceded that Greenidge was the better batsman of the two.

The only batsman who surpassed (although not always) Greenidge during his time was Viv Richards. However, we would need to restrict membership of our Hall of Fame to single figures if we were to deny entry on the grounds that nominees do not match Richards.

To some extent, Greenidge probably heralded the arrival of Lara in that he showed the perfect way in which destructive batting could be allied with supreme concentration and a very lengthy innings. With Lara or Greenidge, no opposition could ever feel confident of victory unless and until he had been dismissed twice in the match. This was a lesson England learnt to their cost when Greenidge hit his unbeaten 214 as flagged above.

superb post guildford (the Cuthbert one). I think I'm now leaning towards five YES votes this week. Simply put, IMO we have five truly outstanding candidates this week and we shouldn't look to reject one just for the sake of it.

Spot on regarding whittling down the ICC HoF, Guildford. It isn't about that, it is about who we collectively deem to be worthy. If between us we decided that every single member was worthy then so be it, although thankfully that hasn't proven the case, or this may have been a futile process

Oh and nice work on the 'Cuthbert' by the way! By the close of this HoF we will have a fine selection of names.

Well I said I'd consider Harvey tonight , so I did a bit of research on him with a view to playing Devil's Advocate (think it is my turn) :

Ignoring opinions of Benaud etc (saw him bat myself and thought him a fine player) I look at his overall record , which is a very good one. An average of 48 plus , 21 centuries over 79 Tests , to say nothing of his excellent fielding which was perhaps ahead of its time. BUT ...

The statistic which might bring his status into some question is his Ashes Average of just 38 (I remember it surprised me when I first became aware of it , many years ago , but there it is in black and white ... the figure of a decent middle order player , but hardly a great one) Is there an explanation , or is this enough to deny him a high place in the cricketing pantheon?

I looked closer: It isn't an aberration as he actually played almost exactly half his Test innings against England.
It also isn't a case of playing on past his sell by date as the 1961 and 1962/3 series produced reasonable results.
In fact apart from his brilliant arrival in 1948 (66+) and the home series of 1958/9 (48) his average against England ranged from mid 30s to low 40s (goodish but not great) and the total is then dramatically reduced by his horror series in England in 1956 , where he averaged just 19 (OK he had a few mates). The interesting thing about that year is that Laker only took his wicket twice (Manchester of course) and he fell to Tony Lock on no fewer than six occasions...
England were of course generally the strongest opposition throughout his career , so can his relative lack of success against them be used as a stick to beat his reputation down?
(I actually hope not as I rather want to vote yes in his case but I think the question needs to be asked ...)

Apart from England his record against other teams ranges from good to exceptional with the highlights being astonishing series averages of 92 , 108 and 132 against SA and West Indies , only slightly dragged down by baffling failures in SA in 1957 and at home To WI in 1951 ...If anyone has an explanation for these occasional "off years" I'd love to hear it.

Summing up - please don't shoot me , I'm only quoting figures , which aren't everything ; but we shouldn't be voting on these players without subjecting them to a proper examination as we would with a current player up for discussion.

And I am still considering a Yes ...

Hmm food for thought indeed, Alfie, great stuff. I might have to consider his case more carefully than I originally intended to!

Coming back to Greenidge and your earlier point , Fists about the ICC HoF :

First I must confess that I don't know how many are in it at present - perhaps I should look it up - or of course all the players names , had been waiting to see you put them up for election. But I can't really agree that we can draw a line and say definitely that some members are "exceptional" and others are just "exceptional lite" Though I suppose something like that is what we are attempting to do ...never mind ; if you prefer I will change my comment to say they are all extremely good (it is after all a matter of degree - compared with an average club player any Test player , yes even Trevor Chappell and Gavin Hamilton , are exceptional !)

My problem with this - perhaps partly because I didn't come in at the start - is that I am not sure where we are drawing our line. Of course it is all a matter of opinion anyway , but I have difficulty in choosing too many Yes ticks if players of the calibre of Greg Chappell and Lance Gibbs are relegated to the repecharges and Gooch is discarded completely...

Perhaps I am feeling a bit negative this week with the imminent ordeal of Christmas fast approaching

Alfie - don't worry about being shot over Harvey. Not only are your comments interesting and valuable but I'm planning to shoot you anyway about your leanings on Greenidge!

More seriously, I was about to respond to Mad's recent post along the lines of 5 YES votes are also very likely from me although I wanted to check more about Harvey, really as a result of my ignorance rather than concern. Harvey's test career ended in '63 which was a little bit before my (test watching) time.

Unfortunately, haven't got any answers for your concerns. However, I'll just throw into the mix that during the mid to late 1960s (and probably going back earlier) there was a fairly common conception that some Australian batsmen - who would normally be regarded as extremely talented - just could not adapt to (or, at least, had real difficulty with) English conditions. The prime example I recall was Doug Walters who ended up with a very fine overall test average in excess of 48 but never scored a century in England and never looked the true batsman he undoubtedly was. It was sometimes said that ''Dougie could score runs anywhere, even the moon - apart from England!''.

I think Walters' main problem was the swinging ball in English conditions. That though doesn't seem to be Harvey's main problem if he was falling regularly to Lock. Hmmm.

How does Harvey's home and away record against England compare? Interested if you know or can supply. Thanks.

In Australia 20 Tests 2402 @ 42+ (3 x 100)

In England 17 Tests 1014 @ 33.8 (3 x 100)

So I guess the 1956 series mostly accounts for the difference...

(Sorry about Cuthbert ...still considering )

Thanks, Alfie.

I'm still inclined to a YES for Harvey. Benaud's comments are not just supportive of him generally but demonstrative of some of his specific strengths. As you probably realise, I place a lot of store by Benaud. Although Benaud would have been diplomatic about it, he would not have accepted Harvey as vice captain for so many years if he had concerns

I will though try to read up a bit further.

Must admit that, having read Guildford's excellent post in support of Greenidge, that I am reconsidering my no vote against him. I'll have a think about it and I'll confirm my vote later.
Nothing's changed on my other votes, at yet, at least.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Neil Harvey
.... As Bradman's team broke up in the 1950s due to retirements, Harvey became Australia's senior batsman, and was named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1954, in recognition of his feat in scoring more than 2,000 runs during the 1953 tour of England.

As well as recognising his runs during the 1953 tour of England, Wisden described Harvey at this time as ''the finest outfielder in the world''.

Also particularly worth noting in my view that when Harvey retired he was Australia's leading Test scorer and century maker of all time apart from Bradman.

Adding this to Benaud's praise for him, it's almost certainly a YES from me despite the odd wobble against Laker and Lock as flagged by Alfie.

Whilst I think most of the things he says have already been discussed I think it's useful to have a contemporary opinion so I'm going to quote some of Sir Pelham Warner's 'Book of Cricket', the final edition of which was published in 1943. Even if many of us have made our minds up about some of them, particularly Hammond, already, I think that learning more about the players is an important benefit from this process. Obviously, he wasn't able to comment on Harvey or Greenidge in this book so I'll start with Wally Hammond:

- Thought that "The finest off-drivers to-day are Hammond and Bradman"
- Saw Hammond as a "great exponent" of the drive
- "The best slips I have ever seen are Chapman, Lohmann, Hammond and Constantine. Hammond is the best slip-fieldsman in the world to-day. A very fine slip to fast-bowling, he is, incomparably, the finest to slow bowling. A genius may do as he likes, and contrary to the precepts of Tunnicliffe, Hammond moves about to the slow bowler, but he invariably moves about in the right direction. He has made some amazing catches off a slow left-handed bowler like Parker, of Gloucestershire, standing within a yard or two of the bat at second slip, or at backward-point. Hammond indeed, adorns any position in the field; and for Gloucestershire v Surrey, at Cheltenham in 1928, he made ten catches - a record. (equalled only by Rikki Clarke in 2011)"

In his section on 'Some Cricketers of My Time':

"W.R. Hammond stands by himself as the best all-rounder in the world to-day. He is, indeed, a glorious cricketer, who is at his best when playing a forcing game which is his natural bent. To an exact sense of timing he adds great physical strength, and when he makes up his mind to hit, the ball literally flies off his bat. A beautiful off-side player, his back strokes are as and as clean as his forward or driving strokes - and when he is in, cover-point, mid-off, and extra-cover are kept very busy indeed. On the on-side his stroke play is far stronger and more varied than it was. An easy style, quickness of foot and wrists like steel make him most attractive to watch even when he is scoring slowly.

One of the most dramatic moments in the Test Matches in Australia in 1932-3 was when Wall sent his off-stump flying yards in the first innings of the second game at Melbourne. He had begun with a couple of fours, and looked about to play a big innings, and on his dismissal such a shout went up as I have never heard on any cricket ground in the world. There were 63,000 spectators present, and for several minutes they yelled and cheered and waved their hats and handkerchiefs. The almost frantic rejoicing was a rare compliment to a great batsman.

Hammond is a valuable fast-medium bowler with a perfect action, and his fielding, too, in the slips reaches something like perfection. Everything Hammond does on the cricket field bears the hall-mark of natural genius. A fine cricket brain completes the ideal cricketer.

His record v. Australia is very fine indeed. He has already scored seven centuries against them, including a double one - 119 not out and 177 at Adelaide in 1929, 251 at Sydney, and 200 at Melbourne on the same tour. He may well equal Hobbs's record of twelve centuries (in fact he managed 9). He has also made three v. New Zealand, including 336, a record in Test Matches, at Auckland, in 1933. Hammond is an expert at most ball games, and I have never known a better driver of a motor car."

Now on to George Headley, who Warner speaks about later in the same section of the book:

"G. Headley is short in height and slightly built, and one wonders how a man of his stature can impart such power to his strokes. The answer is to be found in his perfect physical co-ordination. Then, like all his countrymen, he is blessed with a quick eye, a sense of timing the ball, and he is as quick on his feet as Hobbs or Macartney in his prime. He learnt his cricket in Jamaica and his feats there, and in England, and Australia have earned him the title of 'the Bradman of the West Indies'. In spite of a badly strained ankle he showed magnificent form here in 1933, scoring 2,300 runs with an average of 66.28. Some of his innings were masterpieces of the art of batting, but he has probably never played more finely than when he scored 131 v. Victoria in Melbourne. Australian critics were enthusiastic, describing his innings as 'one of the greatest exhibitions of batting that had been seen for many a year'. Like the cover-point hitter in the famous Rugby and M.C.C. match in Tom Brown's School Days, Headley is always out of his ground to a slow bowler, and possesses a command of stroke given to few cricketers. He bats very naturally and very easily, and ranks in that very small class of stylists which include Hobbs, Woolley, Bradman, and Hammond. He is an extremely fine fieldsman"

And finally to Clarrie Grimmett:

- Warner says that in the 1930 Ashes "Grimmett's figures in the Test Matches are not very impressive, but he was none too lucky, and he always seemed to be dominating the batsmen. He and Bradman were the great match-winning factors."

And the essay on Grimmett from the 'Some Cricketers of My Time' section:

"C.V. Grimmett is one of the few instances of a cricketer attaining to eminence after the age of thirty; but in his first Test Match at Sydney in 1925 he bowled out our men in both innings and did the same thing for the State, South Australia, a few days later. Since then he has been the mainstay of Australian bowling. His action is low and he lowers his shoulder when delivering the ball. Since the old round-arm bowlers I should think there has never been a bowler with a lower action. Very accurate in length his leg-break is his most dangerous ball, but he occasionally sends down a googly - though it is rather more of a top spinner than a googly. He has always struck me as rather an unlucky bowler who is more dangerous on our wickets than in Australia. He has a fine cricket brain and heaps of perseverance and I always enjoy immensely his duels with Hammond. Both are attackers. Hammond is undoubtedly his master on Australian wickets, but I should not like to say the same thing on English wickets. Grimmett is a good field and a useful bat, but he does not like fast bowling"

Fists of Fury wrote:

Gordon Greenidge

Greenidge scored a double-double century performances against England in the 1984 summer Test series (also known as the "Blackwash" series WI winning 5-0). He scored 214 runs during the second Test at Lords in June 1984, then followed up with 223 runs during the fourth Test at Old Trafford during the last five days of July. The first of those innings was on the last day as West Indies successfully chased 342 for victory; it remains the highest ever run chase at Lords.

I meant to mention earlier that Greenidge's highest Test double century was his 226 at Bridgetown against Austalia in April 1991, just before his fortieth birthday in his penultimate Test. This followed a poor run in which he had only once reached fifty in his previous 24 innings. Proof indeed of the old adage - form is temporary, class is permanent.

Shelsey - many thanks for sharing Plum Warmer's descriptions of Hammond, Headley and Grimmett. All very interesting and much appreciated.

I found the description of Hammond as ''the best allrounder in the world today'' a little surprising. I thought that might have been overegging it a bit. Anyway, that is the most minor of quibbles. Hammond is clearly the most worthy of nominees.

Hammond is a certain YES for me along with Headley, Grimmett and Greenidge.

Although the fifth of this five for me, Harvey is nonetheless an almost certain YES - I'll confirm for him following further comments (if any).

A fine post in the early hours by Guildford - with excellent follow up by others. I'm firmly undecided on both Greenidge and Harvey. I would have no hesitation in both as a minimum being given places in the run offs....

(Guildford - at the risk of adding to your workload there is an opportunity to comment on Roi's credentials as a future Test player on the thread about who's next in line to open for England!)

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

(Guildford - at the risk of adding to your workload there is an opportunity to comment on Roi's credentials as a future Test player on the thread about who's next in line to open for England!)

Corporal - just seen this post. Responded a few minutes ago about on the AOC thread.

I shall give a provisional vote now, with reasons.

First I should perhaps remind people what criteria I am using. I require "excellence and a little extra". Excellence can be in any of the 3 disciplines (4 if you include keeping as different from fielding) and means "very good but not necessarily great" - I don't require greatness as a pre-requisite, but you do have to be an excellent cricketer to be considered. "A little extra" includes:
- Statistical anomalies: Bradman, Barnes, Sobers (as an all-rounder)
- Changing the face of the game (Warne, Clark, when it comes to it Jayasuriya)
- Amazing one-off performances (Laker's 19, Lara's 400, others of course as we shall see later in this post)
- Outstanding contribution to the sport on or off the field (Bob Woolmer should we get there, A. Flower)
- An undisputed all-time great in my view (it is after all my list).

Something which doesn't qualify is longevity, unless it is a statistical anomoly (Wilfred Rhodes).

These categories are of course not mutually exclusive (that is, a player could easily belong to more than one). Should someone not convince me he satisfies any of these, then he doesn't make the cut. My rather arbitrary way of looking at things means of course I shall refuse some players who were, as pure cricketers, objectively better than some others who gain entry. For example, Barrington was certainly a better player than Jayasuriya. I apologise if this offends.

A player can also run up negative points by doing bad things (Gooch, Chappell so far). This will be balanced against his positives, and a purely arbitrary decision made.

I make no attempt to be objective or even consistent. I make no apologies for showing favour to the flair players, although I accept that every great side needs (at least) one grafter.

Onto the candidates then. I won't do Harvey yet as I am still gathering information, but I feel I now know enough about the rest to pronounce myself.

1) Hammond:
Excellence - check.
A little extra - check. Indeed "a little extra" comes in the guise of his triple century, and an undisputed all-time great.
YES

2) George Headley:
Excellence - yes.
A little extra - for me, yes. Becoming the first black man to captain his country was a significant achievement, but also his average alone qualifies him for this in my view.
YES

3) Charlie Grimmett:
Excellence - yes.
A little extra - certainly. Services to cricket include inventing the flipper (would Shane Warne have existed without it? It was afterall the flipper which set him on his way to his first truly match-winning performance - 7 wickets in the 4th innings against the West Indies at the MCG in 92/93 before the England tour - by castling Richie Richardson with it). Bradman had him in his all-time 11 (ahead of Warne), and as pointed out the number of 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls he has is extraordinary given the number of tests he played.
YES

4) Greenige.
Excellence - yes.
A little extra - yes. For me what swung it was his 214* (I mentioned this early on in the thread, but claimed it was 211, mea culpa): a truly astonishing innings and thanks to guilford for the video. He wouldn't make my world 11, but he would comfortably make my West Indies one, and I think I had him at about no5 or 6 on my all-time openers list. Not the easiest YES (in fact, I have vaguely ranked these 4 in terms of how highly I rate them), but
YES

I seem to recall an extraordinary knock from Harvey in a 4th innings chase (wasn't there a game called "Harvey's game" post the event?) but as I said, for now more research is required.

Neil Harveys batting average concern against England:

Just to say if it were not for one poor series against England in 1956 (19.70) then is ave would be considerably higher.

Aus v Eng:

1948 ---66.50
1950/51----40.22
1953---34.60
1954/55---44.25
1956---19.70
1958/59---48.50
1961---42.25
1962/63---39.50

Up and down a wee bit, but still a big factor in several series wins against England.

In the post Bradman era of the 1950s, Neil Harvey was ranked as the top Australian batsmen for a long sustained period and was probably its best ever left handed batsman.

Gordon Greenidge-----With his Test career average of 44.72, I would normally have Greenidge down as a close but no cigar vote for an inclusion to the HoF. But the old saying that stats do not tell you everything is very true in my case for Greenidge.

Greenidge together with Haynes made up one of the best opening pairings EVER in the history of Test cricket and they still hold the record for runs scored whilst playing together. For me that is a massive achievement and one to not be taken lightly.

When I first started to have an understanding of cricket in the early eighties, I could tell how highly regarded Greenidge was by his peers. And whenever I saw him play against England I thought omg not Greenidge and Haynes again. They were like a wall, that a team had to smash through in order to get at the other batsman.

Probably the most prolific opening partnership of all time, with 16 century stands, and four of them in excess of 200.

The WI team that Greenidge played in is arguably regarded as the GREATEST EVER Test team of all time, and once again Greenidge was a massive part of that. Without Greenidge and Haynes being so prolific as the opening pair and mostly getting their team off to a such good starts, would the WI have been so successful?. With a lesser opener in the WI team, the other star batsman would have been exposed much sooner.

Whenever I saw him bat, boy could he be aggressive, not many in the game have ever had such a dismissive square-cut, nor as there been a more willing and able hooker and puller, but he drove very impressively too on both sides of the wicket.
And his thumping unbeaten 214 at Lord's in 1984, is considered one of the great Test innings.

So for me the opening pair run record and playing such a huge part in making his team one of the best Test teams ever and then still having such a good ave for over 100 Tests gets him my -- YES


Wally Hammond ---A cricketing legend, like others have said, should have been on the list already.

He had the talent to score Test triple-hundreds, bowl searing bouncers and play football for Bristol Rovers. A true sporting Olympian.

Between 1920 and 1951 he scored 50,493 runs, with 167 centuries and an average of 56.10; in Tests 7249 runs (22 centuries) at 58.45, as a bowler, 732 wickets (average 30.58); and he held 819 catches.

Hammond reached the peak of his powers in the 1928/29 Ashes series in Australia - which Percy Chapman’s team won by the resounding scoreline of 4-1.

He set a new record aggregate for a series of 905 runs at 113.12 in the five Tests; which has still only once been exceeded (by Sir Donald Bradman, of course).

In this series he scored 251 in Sydney, 200 in Melbourne and in Adelaide he added two more hundreds – 119 not out and 177 – and as England won a tight match by 12 runs Hammond was clearly the difference between the sides.

Even as an older batsman (43), It is some measure of his quality that in 1946, he was top of the first-class averages with 1783 runs at 84.90.

One of the best cricketers EVER ---- A big YES.



Clarrie Grimmett---- From my previous posts, I think you can tell how highly I rate this spin bowling genius.---Again a big YES



Neil Harvey---Part of the Invincibles, and one of Australias best ever. Again my previous posts for Harvey tell all.----YES.



George Headley---Not a lot you can argue with really, and I think 22 Tests is ample to show how good he was.

In 22 Tests, when the innings could stand or fall on his performance, Headley scored 2190 runs, including 10 centuries - eight against England - with an average of 60.83. He was the first to score a hundred in each innings of a Test at Lord's, in 1939, and it was a measure of his ability that from 1929 to 1939 he did not have a single bad Test series.

Scored runs at a prolific rate in all forms of the game:
Batting and fielding averages

----------- Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 6s Ct
Tests===== 22-- 40 4 2190 270* 60.83 10 5 1 14

First-class 103 164 22 9921 344* 69.86 33 44 76

A definite YES.

Having considered everything and read the arguments of others I've decided to change my vote for Greenidge to a YES
So, Fists, put me down as voting yes to all 5.
Thanks.

Hoggy - I'm obviously pleased you've voted YES for Greenidge.

However, I'm more pleased (although not surprised) that you took the time to read the arguments and consider. Thanks.

I would just like to add that although that i expect Clarrie Grimmett not to get enough YES votes, (has 2 NO's so far, and 2 initial NO's) I think this is worth considering.

----------Gibbs ----------------Grimmett

Tests----79---------------------37
Balls--27119-------------------14513
Wkts---309---------------------216
Ave----29.09--------------------24.21
SR------87.7---------------------67.1
5wkt---11-------------------------21
10wkt---2-------------------------7

If Grimmett had of played 79 Tests i am sure he would have had almost 500 wkts, and overall figures show just how good he was.

Different eras and team makeups I know, but YES votes for Gibbs and then NO's for Grimmett (by same posters) I find a wee bit puzzling.

Skye - both Grimmett and Gibbs have very significant plus points. That is essentially why they both have YES votes from me.

Even though I was a strong advocate of Gibbs, I accept that Grimmett is the stronger nominee of the two.

To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote for Gibbs but not Grimmett. I don't agree with it but I could understand it the other way round.

guildfordbat wrote:Skye - both Grimmett and Gibbs have very significant plus points. That is essentially why they both have YES votes from me.

Even though I was a strong advocate of Gibbs, I accept that Grimmett is the stronger nominee of the two.

To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to vote for Gibbs but not Grimmett. I don't agree with it but I could understand it the other way round.

Puzzled together

Fists - to now confirm my final votes.

Hammond - YES.

Harvey - YES.

Headley - YES.

Greenidge - YES.

Grimmett - YES.

An exceptional High Five. To me, Harvey is the weakest but in this company that is no reason to exclude him.

The positives for each player are more than well covered already in another extremely fine debate.

I guess we are voting then:

Gordon Greenidge - I'm afraid to say it's a very regrettable NO from me by a fraction. Guildford and others make a fantastic case for his inclusion but I just think his inconsistency takes him just below the standard where I'm comfortable with voting yes, particularly where others with outstanding cases but not in outstanding teams (Boycott and Greg Chappell in particular) miss out. Having said that it is a very marginal case and I would welcome his inclusion in the Repecharge round when his case could be further weighed up against others who we consider over the weeks. I also think he is one of those players where a better opinion comes out of those who are old enough to have seen and enjoyed him playing - I am not old enough for that, but even with the 214* at Lord's will stand by my vote.

Clarrie Grimmett - I must admit that he is one cricketer I didn't know much about at all until he came under consideration for this process. However, the extremely compelling evidence, in his work ethic in developing new deliveries, his Test record and in the testimony of those in the know has led me to quite comfortably vote YES in the end.

Wally Hammond - Undoubtedly a natural genius and he would be in many people's top 10 cricketers of all time. Not much thought required on this one - a YES.

Neil Harvey - Rather like Grimmett, I needed to find out a lot more about him and have been extremely impressed with the results. It looks like he was the mainstay of Australian cricket for a long period and an extremely resilient and talented batsman. The main downside is his no better than mediocre Ashes record but it doesn't preclude him from getting a YES from me.

George Headley - An underrated legend of West Indies cricket and thus a clear YES. As well as going toe-to-toe with the best statistically he also has great significance as the first black captain of the West Indies and potentially played a major part in the dominance of the 1970s and 1980s West Indies teams.

Shelsey - thanks for taking the time to consider Greenidge and for your comments about the case made for him.

I have no problem with your vote at all. All I ask is that all posts be read and cases properly considered before votes are finalised. You've clearly done that even though we come to different conclusions. Skye is bugged that not all have done that for Grimmett and I understand that.

A couple of specific points on your comments which might go some way to explaining our different votes on Greenidge.

1. I think it's fair to say all here accept that Boycott and G Chappell were world class batsmen with tremendous individual records. On that basis, it would be reasonable to expect such players to be given YES votes pretty much across the board. However, they were turned down for particular stains on their character (or military record as the Corporal would say! ). Boycott because of his 'innate selfishness' as Hoggy succinctly and perfectly summed it up for many. Chappell because of disquiet by a significant enough minority (although only just) over the under arm bowling incident in New Zealand. [As an aside, Chappell is likely to be elected second time round next year when my own opposition will be withdrawn. Yes, Mike, you read that right - the point has been made and Chappell's 606 v2 HR records marked accordingly. To object further would be petty and vindictive.]

2. I'm normally a real stickler for consistency from the nominees. For once, I think it's less relevant in the case of Greenidge. It was his destructive brilliance and supreme concentration which was so important and vital for the Windies. In my book, that was delivered often enough and when it was really required. It would have been unreasonable to expect it more.You also need to take into account the other batsmen playing with Greenidge. In the main, highly talented and attacking greats such as Haynes, Richards and Lloyd. The glue that held it all together on the rare occasions that these all failed or when a supporting role was required was supplied by Larry Gomes. Gomes was not a great but he was an immensely valuable player to that Windies team. There's a semi-famous West Indian newspaper article about him in revered tones headed 'Mr Dependable'. I emphasise Gomes as he (deserves it and because he) provided the solidity to Greenidge's team when required and made any lack of consistency by Greenidge and others far less of an issue as might normally be expected.

Just my views. The important thing is the debate. Stick around!

Shelsey93 wrote: I also think he is one of those players where a better opinion comes out of those who are old enough to have seen and enjoyed him playing - I am not old enough for that.]

Shelsey
I think it does have a huge bearing on our decisions when some have actually seen cricketers play. Spot on.

And thank you for weighing up the debate on Grimmett. Just three others to try to persuade now


Guildford -- I have also been thinking along the same lines, regarding Chappell, maybe in the 2nd round of voting he may get a more favorable decision. Heck even Belinda Clark might too, na just kidding

OK, my votes:

Greenidge - Guildford, you've done enough, given that I was tempted to say yes anyway. Part of Test cricket's finest opening partnership, Greenidge qualifies for me based upon the obvious talent, the supreme mental strength, and the ability to rise to the occasion and play those match winning innings in the face of adversity. YES.

Grimmett - Surprised there has been a few dithering over Clarrie's inclusion, a nailed on YES from me the moment I saw him on the list.

Hammond - another very, very easy YES.

Harvey - my only NO of this week, unfortunately. The true greats succeed against their biggest rivals, and this is just something that Harvey did not do, and consistently, too. A fine record, and invaluable to Australian cricket at the time, but there is something missing and as such I don't feel comfortable putting him forward for inclusion.

Headley - Very good record of his own, and when you add to that Shelsey's comments i.e. first black captain and the potential impact this may have had on West Indies cricket as a whole, it is clear that Headley is a special figure that is fully deserving of a place, YES.

lol i think im the only one who voted against grimmett

cricketfan90 wrote:lol i think im the only one who voted against grimmett

You could change your mind Cf

Kwini and Gregers too

NO PRESSURE though

nope im sticking with my decision

As always I respect everyone's decisions.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

CF - you have so far posted 12,798 times. Well done!

Could you send just 1 more saying why you feel Grimmett deserves a NO.

I've no issue with you choosing to vote NO but am interested as to why. Cheers.