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.

however like i said it was the toughest one out of the lot, for me to choose...

i gave my reasoning when i made my votes, so they are my reasons.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:MY VOTES:


Alan Knott: toughest one of the lot for me....one of the best gloveman i have ever seen, however his batting lets him down....i woould love to say yes, just for the keeping however i take all aspects into consideration, and thus its a no from me. NO

Why do 'keepers have to be great batsmen as well as great 'keepers to get into the HoF?
Bowlers don't have to be great batsman.
Batsmen don't have to be great bowlers.
Why do 'keepers have to be exceptional at two things when others don't?
Leaving aside Knott's batting (which was as good, or better, than most other 'keepers in test history), he was one of, if not the, greatest glovemen in test cricket history. Why is that not enough to earn his place in the HoF?

In Knott's case the batting whilst still being great for keepers of that era, would be an added bonus. Knott should be in an HoF list for his keeping alone.

Tend to agree with Hoggy, here. Knott's batting certainly doesn't 'let him down' in my view, and he is the best gloveman there has been. Surely enough to qualify.

Saying no to Knott is like saying no to Gilchrist.

Most ex players/pundits will pick either of these in an alltime XI.

cricketfan90 wrote:however like i said it was the toughest one out of the lot, for me to choose...

i gave my reasoning when i made my votes, so they are my reasons.

I know that you did but, IMHO it's a bit of a silly reason.
It's like saying you wouldn't vote for Glenn McGrath because his batting wasn't as good as Tim Bresnan's.

hoggy if u dont agree with me, im not bothered, im on here to give my reasons, hence why they are my reasons, and they have been explained.

Fair enough cf,
If you want to make decisions based on flawed reasoning that's totally up to you.
Doesn't mean that the flaws in your reasoning shouldn't be pointed out though. That is, after all, the purpose of a debate, is it not?

i know it is, but there's no need to keep repeating it.

Cf, relax mate. Challenging peoples views is part and parcel of this debate.

i was saying it in a calm manner.....

No, you were being quite snappy, actually. If someone challenges a point you make it is always better to explain why using sound logic and/or facts, rather than saying 'well that's my view, like it or not'.

i had already given my reasons therefore pointless to repeat them.

Having taken into account the detailed reasoning of others and looked more closely, I think it's going to have to be a NO from me for Hutton. Whilst he could bat, he only took 3 Test match wickets and ended up with a bowling average of over 77. Furthermore, he never came close to rivalling Ames or Evans behind the stumps.

guildfordbat wrote:Having taken into account the detailed reasoning of others and looked more closely, I think it's going to have to be a NO from me for Hutton. Whilst he could bat, he only took 3 Test match wickets and ended up with a bowling average of over 77. Furthermore, he never came close to rivalling Ames or Evans behind the stumps.

Love it, you pt

Whilst we're at it, I propose we remove Don Bradman from the inaugural 30. After all, his definings innings was being bowled for a duck by Eric Hollies, was it not.

i bet im the only one who votes for Flint as well. I voted for clark and now voted for Flint, 2 legends of the women's game.

Afternoon Fists,
I wonder if you'd consider editing your OP on this to show the supplementary additions to the v2HOF for easy reference. Acknowledge that I'm the proverbial johnny-come-lately on here, but it would be helpful for context which I find I'm constantly searching for!

Kwini, if you go over to the '606v2 honours board' subsection, the HoF as it stands to date is there in full, hopefully that's ok?

Oops, Just found it.
(I think Alan Davidson will be thrilled and astonished that he's in and Harvey's wall got banged.)

Thanks Fists

cricketfan90 wrote:i bet im the only one who votes for Flint as well. I voted for clark and now voted for Flint, 2 legends of the women's game.

No, I reckon I'll be voting yes for Heyhoe-Flint as well, having also voted yes for Clark, but I'll confirm that for definite later.
So we agree on some things, just not Alan Knott

kwinigolfer wrote: Oops, Just found it.
(I think Alan Davidson will be thrilled and astonished that he's in and Harvey's wall got banged.)

very good A pint man myself

Given that the Hall of Fame is a bit of a 'special' thread so to speak, do you chaps have any objections to me sprucing the thread in the 606v2 honours board subsection up a bit, with pictures of the inductees etc? These wouldn't be spoilered, so wouldn't necessarily be work safe, but if I were to edit the title to inform unsuspecting users of that then it may be ok.

What do you think, I feel the names there deserve facial recognition, is it something you'd like to see?

Sounds good to me Fists

It would also be good to have a picture of CF as the man who voted NO to Knott.

guildfordbat wrote:It would also be good to have a picture of CF as the man who voted NO to Knott.

He could be Bob Taylor

In Support of Three Englishmen

In August 2009, CricInfo arranged for ten leading cricket writers to name an All Time England XI. The team they finally settled upon included three of the current nominees - Hutton, Knott and Larwood:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Wally Hammond
4. Ken Barrington
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Ian Botham
7. Alan Knott
8. Derek Underwood
9. Harold Larwood
10. Fred Trueman
11. Sydney Barnes
12th man: Denis Compton.

A couple of comments from members of the panel.

''Alan Knott was peerless behind the stumps (contemporaries scratch their heads when asked to remember a dropped catch), and pretty damn good in front of them, cracking five Test hundreds despite an unorthodox technique.'' - Stephen Lynch, cricket writer and former Auckland cricketer and captain of New Zealand Under 19s.

Of Larwood, ''arguably the fastest bowler that England have ever had, and arguably the nastiest as well. But above all, he's somebody who still gets up the wick of the Australians more than 75 years after the event. And for that reason alone, he has to be in there, doesn't he?'' - Mike Selvey, cricket writer and former England and Middlesex seamer.

From my reading, Larwood is actually held in high esteem in Australia. Nonetheless, his inclusion in this All Time XI and the view of his pace is significant.

Larwood appears to be getting a hard time from posters here (just as he did in life from the cricket establishment). I think such an essentially decent and determined professional deserves better. Jack Hobbs, Douglas Jardine, Jack Fingleton, John Arlott, Ray Lindwall and Peter Roebuck are amongst those who agree with me. A little more to follow for those posters who are unsure or worthy enough to reconsider matters.

Benaud also rates Larwood, regarding his partnership with Voce up there with Truman and Statham among English attacks.

(Astonished that Pietersen would be ranked that high. Ten very solid citizens and one prima donna.)

Nice work Gb - As soon as I saw Larwood's name he was always going to get a YES from me. From when I saw a documentary about him in the early eighties and his coming from the pits to then play for England, I found him fascinating.

kwinigolfer wrote:Benaud also rates Larwood, regarding his partnership with Voce up there with Truman and Statham among English attacks.

(Astonished that Pietersen would be ranked that high. Ten very solid citizens and one prima donna.)

Thanks, Kwini.

As most here know, I rate Benaud incredibly highly so that is very significant (to me at least).

Pietersen's inclusion attracted the most publicity by far. I respect his ability but can't warm to the man.

skyeman wrote:Nice work Gb - As soon as I saw Larwood's name he was always going to get a YES from me. From when I saw a documentary about him in the early eighties and his coming from the pits to then play for England, I found him fascinating.

Thanks, Skye. Pretty sure I saw the same documentary - a lovely man. Had hoped to find some snippets on YouTube but no luck so far.

Larwood was a very good bowler, but he wasnt a great!

guildfordbat wrote:In Support of Three Englishmen

In August 2009, CricInfo arranged for ten leading cricket writers to name an All Time England XI. The team they finally settled upon included three of the current nominees - Hutton, Knott and Larwood:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Len Hutton
3. Wally Hammond
4. Ken Barrington
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Ian Botham
7. Alan Knott
8. Derek Underwood
9. Harold Larwood
10. Fred Trueman
11. Sydney Barnes
12th man: Denis Compton.

A couple of comments from members of the panel.

''Alan Knott was peerless behind the stumps (contemporaries scratch their heads when asked to remember a dropped catch), and pretty damn good in front of them, cracking five Test hundreds despite an unorthodox technique.'' - Stephen Lynch, cricket writer and former Auckland cricketer and captain of New Zealand Under 19s.

Of Larwood, ''arguably the fastest bowler that England have ever had, and arguably the nastiest as well. But above all, he's somebody who still gets up the wick of the Australians more than 75 years after the event. And for that reason alone, he has to be in there, doesn't he?'' - Mike Selvey, cricket writer and former England and Middlesex seamer.

From my reading, Larwood is actually held in high esteem in Australia. Nonetheless, his inclusion in this All Time XI and the view of his pace is significant.

Larwood appears to be getting a hard time from posters here (just as he did in life from the cricket establishment). I think such an essentially decent and determined professional deserves better. Jack Hobbs, Douglas Jardine, Jack Fingleton, John Arlott, Ray Lindwall and Peter Roebuck are amongst those who agree with me. A little more to follow for those posters who are unsure or worthy enough to reconsider matters.

Pietersen's inclusion shows that such selections are rarely without flaws.
Personally I believe the inclusion of Larwood in that team is also a flawed selection, (although possibly not quite as flawed as that of KP). For me Willis, Statham, Bedser, Snow or Tyson would all be equally (or more) valid candidates for a seam bowling slot in an all-time England XI as Larwood.
I agree that pace is important, but it is not the be all and end all. I also understand that he bowled in a period that may not have been conducive to fast bowlers but, even so I just don't think his record is impressive enough for the HoF. I also think that much of the regard he is held in is based largely on the bodyline series when, it must be remembered, he was often using tactics tailored specifically to his strengths.
I'm not trying to denigrate the man, and agree that he was a great professional who was poorly treated, but I do feel that his pace, which was exceptional for the time, and his role in the Bodyline series, have leant him a reputation above that which he probably deserves. Good bowler yes, all-time great bowler, probably not.

i completely agree with ya there hoggy.

Anybody that got the best of Bradman would always get my vote.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

.... I also think much of the regard he is held in is based largely on the bodyline series when, it must be remembered, he was often using tactics tailored specifically to his strengths.
I'm not trying to denigrate the man, and agree that he was a great professional who was poorly treated, but I do feel that his pace, which was exceptional for the time, and his role in the Bodyline series, have leant him a reputation above that which he probably deserves. Good bowler yes, all-time great bowler, probably not.

Hoggy - I understand your reasoning although feel that Bodyline was so unique and innovative that Larwood's role in it deserve far greater prominence than would be normally afforded to one Test series.

As a historian and knowledgeable cricket follower, what are your views on Larwood's impact on Bradman? Genuinely interested. Everyone (almost) bangs on about Hollies depriving the Don of a century average although, statistically, surely Larwood's role in the Bodyline series had a much greater and significant adverse effect.

You state he ''was often using tactics tailored specifically to his strengths''. I agree. However, that is where he gains so much admiration from me. It is one thing having a man with a plan. It is quite another being able to implement it with total success. Possibly, my usual arch nemesis, Mike, might add a professional's comment here?

Views of others in support of Larwood still to follow.

Guildford-It's true that Bodyline was innovative in terms of test cricket (although leg-theory had been widely used in County cricket for a number of years before 32/3, particularly by Root of Derbyshire), but to what extent was Larwood responsible for it's use?
Does simply being the bowler best equipped to take advantage of a tactic dreamt up by others qualify you for a share of the credit for that tactic?
True, without Larwood Bodyline might not have been as successful and may, indeed, have not been used at all, but does that really mean that Larwood should be given the glory (infamy) for the tactics inception?
And, again, you are correct in saying that the tactic had to be implemented, but Bodyline is quite simple really, requiring a bowler who is fast and reasonably accurate. Noble qualities in a bowler, I grant you, but not qualities which are, alone, enough to make a bowler a 'great' IMHO.

Hoggy,

Would Harold Larwood not be considered the best fast bowler of the pre-war era?

It is difficult for me to conceive of a scenario where a bowler of such distinction and generational pre-eminence should not be considered Hall-Of-Fame worthy, especially when the likes of Snow and Willis are considered in comparison. Not even among the top half dozen quicks of their decade, Bedser not much better though to be fair he was a somewhat different type of bowler. Tyson was terrific for a relative cameo only.

Again an era thing, but Larwood at the time was described as the most dangerous and accurate fast bowler of his generation.

The infamous 1932 series saw Larwood take a staggering 33 wickets for less than 20 runs apiece and including the wicket of Bradman 4 times plus twice in the warm-up game.

Larwood's bowling dominated county cricket, with his ability to deliver balls at over 95mph with deadly accuracy. He finished top of the season average tables an astonishing five times between 1926 and 1936 and was named Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1927.

During his 21 test matches between 1926 and 1933 he took 78 wickets and scored over 500 runs averaging 28.35. Five times he headed the English first-class bowling averages (1927; 1928; 1931; 1932; 1936) and eight times took 100 wickets in a season.

During his 381 first class matches he scored 7,289 runs and took 1427 wickets (ave: 17.15), 743 of whom were bowled.

[quote="kwinigolfer"]Hoggy,

Would Harold Larwood not be considered the best fast bowler of the pre-war era?

[quote]

It would depend on what you class as 'fast'.
I reckon there's a couple of medium-fast to fast 'seam' bowlers from the start of the 19th century who were superior. Barnes and Tate certainly. Bowes and Voce both had better records as well while even Gubby Allen's test record is not far behind that of Larwood.
Truth is there were not that many great fast-bowlers around during that period, with greater emphasis being placed on spin. Of course, that may tend to make Larwood's achievements even more impressive but I honestly don't think that being regarded as the best fast-bowler of that era (even if he was) is that much of a claim to fame.

you say it depends on what you class as fast IMO it breaks down like this:

75-80mph: medium pace

81-84mph: Medium fast

85-89mph: Fast medium

90mph+: Fast

A wee story of how cricketers of his generation feared Larwood and his super fast bowling.

Harold was not only fast but incredibly accurate. Countless batsmen testify to this fact but it is left to Somerset’s tail-ender Bill Andrews to succinctly tell it how it was “he was bloody frighteningly fast”.

Andrews, like many other batsmen to face the fast bowler, was concerned for his health when faced with the prospect of facing the demon bowler. Following a previous encounter against Larwood, Andrews was so worked up he had developed stomach pains so severe that he was caught on the toilet when he was called in to bat!

Bill called out “who’s out?” to which the reply came back “Frank Lee. They’re bringing him back on a stretcher”. Andrews said “I was really in a state, and it took some time to adjust my clothing. As I passed the umpire I said hopefully – I must have broken the two minute rule”.

I'm going to wade in on Larwood a bit.

First of all, can I just say I feel Larwood so far has got an absolute free pass on his role in bodyline from our distinguished members on this board? Apart from myself briefly no one has touched on the fact that this could and should count against him. People were very quick to blast Chappell for the underarm incident, and rightly so, yet these same people (mainly guilford and skyeman) seem content at the moment to airbrush aside Larwood's role in something which was as controversial and probably more so.

People argued (wrongly I felt) that Chappell's actions were somehow worse than someone claiming a bumped catch because they were premeditated and not just made in the heat of the moment. Well, Larwood's bowling was certainly premeditated and planned, arguably against the spirit of the game (although very much within the laws then, but then so was underarm bowling in the 80s).

Sure, Larwood got a raw deal from the establishment (I think I am right in saying he was effectively made a scapegoat in the fall-out), but he could at any time have refused to do what he was asked to (as one of his colleague's did). And I'm not sure Larwood has ever expressed regret at his actions (Chappell certainly did) - correct me if I'm wrong.

There is of course one major difference between bodyline and underarm bowling: only one of them is aimed at hurting a player physically.

Anyway, enough about that; Chappell's underarm incident didn't stop me from voting yes for him, and Larwood's leg-theory may not either, but it certainly should be taken in account.

Now onto Larwood the player. People argue he wasn't great. I disagree and I disagree strongly.

The fact is, England wouldn't (couldn't) have employed the bodyline tactics without him. Guilford asks how hard it is to execute a plan, well that depends on the plan, but it's tough to remember any player in the history of the game who has executed one quite as well and ruthlessly, with quite as drastic results, as Larwood did in 1932. Remember Don Bradman played the pull shot (not the hook) very very well. Thus Larwood needed to make sure his bouncers were high, and aimed at the body (or Bradman would have just watched them go through harmlessly): the "high" part is not so easy, particularly if you're not express pace (more on that later) and on the wet sodden pitches Larwood often had to bowl on. Yet Larwood executed the plan to such an extent that Bradman was reduced to merely very good, Australia were a mess and England regained the ashes.

Larwood was head and shoulders above his contempory fast bowlers, as is recognised by all those who were around when he was. Given we can only judge someone by their record against their contempories (or at least, that is the only sensible way to do so) we must admit Larwood, in spite of a seemingly ordinary record, was a great player. In fact, his career was cut short by the establishment, and he may very well have finished with far better figures, but for the backlash from that series.

Finally a word on pace. reports that Larwood bowled at 95mph are pure bunkum I'm afraid. It's doubtful he ever bowled much above 80. However what is accepted and agreed is that he was the fastest bowler of his generation. Compared to other bowlers around at the time, he was bl00dy quick. That of course made him all the more fearsome to face.

By all means, argue that the damage caused by Larwood during the bodyline series should exclude him from our HoF, but to argue that he doesn't deserve a place purely based on his cricketing achievements is IMO seriously misguided.

He was a very good bowler skye, but he wasnt a great.

I disagree CF. He was the best fast bowler of his generation (IMO): how does that not make him great?

cricketfan90 wrote:He was a very good bowler skye, but he wasnt a great.

Batsman of his generation thought he was Cf and with 1450 FC wkts at 17.50 is that not great.

Don't think there's any doubt that Larwood was fast. Possibly as fast as any other bowler in history (though Mike Selig may disagree with that )
However, I do think that his exceptional pace allied with his role in Bodyline has led to him being overated as a test match bowler.
Look at his record. Other than the Bodyline series itself and two matches against the WI, it's pretty mediocre.
Of course, as has been said, he was bowling in a period which was, perhaps, not particularly conducive to fast bowling but, as Dale Steyn has shown, even in times where conditions favour the batsmen, really good fast bowlers can still produce top-class figures. Larwood's aren't that great.

he is massively overrated as a test match bowler.

Just popping in briefly, but very much looking forward to getting stuck in to this Larwood debate tomorrow.