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.

Hoggy - thanks for your response.

I'm not giving accolades to Larwood for the inception of tactics but massive credit for the totally successful implementation of those tactics. I don't buy your ''quite simple'' view of the approach. In my view, someone very special was required. If Larwood had mucked up, that would have been it with Bradman leading Australia to a comfortable series win.

Any views on Larwood's impact on Bradman?

I note you offer the word ''infamy'' as an alternate to Larwood's triumph or ''glory''. I don't actually view the series as infamous. Larwood's actions were lawful and planned with professional precision and outstanding success. Cricket is a game of beauty but that does not exclude the need for courage and physical challenge. Very near the line, I grant you.

Kwini - Bedser was such a very different type of bowler that I would leave him out of this equation. However, I'm very much with you here.

You are spot on about Frank Tyson and your words are totally apt - ''Tyson was terrific for a relative cameo only.'' The Typhoon blew in and then blew out!

cricketfan90 wrote:he is massively overrated as a test match bowler.

Reducing the Don's average from around 100 to around 50...seems pretty great to me. ANyway, I'm off, more from me on the issue tomorrow. Night all.

Hoggy_Bear wrote: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.

Let's not get into a debate about how fast Larwood was in absolute terms (I plead guilty to a somewhat silly jibe in my earlier post, but the rest is worth reading...), but he was certainly a lot faster than any other bowler around at that time, so in relative terms he was very fast.

To be honest if you took away from any fast bowler their best third of their career, they'd all look pretty mediocre. Larwood only played 21 tests (and indeed was forced out when he was just about in his prime), it seems a bit unfair to want to judge him on all bar his 7 best ones...

guildfordbat wrote:

I'm not giving accolades to Larwood for the inception of tactics but massive credit for the totally successful implementation of those tactics. I don't buy your ''quite simple'' view of the approach. In my view, someone very special was required. If Larwood had mucked up, that would have been it with Bradman leading Australia to a comfortable series win.

I agree only partly. England wouldn't have used bodyline in that series had Larwood not been around. I think that is quite a feat in itself actually. You are quite correct that had he got it wrong things would have been very different (as I said, Bradman was a fantastic player of the pull shot).

guildfordbat wrote:

I note you offer the word ''infamy'' as an alternate to Larwood's triumph or ''glory''. I don't actually view the series as infamous. Larwood's actions were lawful and planned with professional precision and outstanding success. Cricket is a game of beauty but that does not exclude the need for courage and physical challenge. Very near the line, I grant you.

I find it genuinely interesting that you think trying to hurt a batsman is fine (if "near the line") but bowling underarm isn't. My guess is that you view the latter as somewhat "below the belt" (i.e. deception) whereas with the former at least you are upfront and it is a "fair" fight. Something like the difference between a German spying for Germany and an Englishman spying for Germany?

Mike Selig wrote:
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.

[quote]

I knew you would pick up on this point Mike and rightly so.

Actually from his documentary and pages previously read, both Larwood and Voce did not want to bowl to Jardines tactics and did voice their disapproval to the tactics prior to leaving for the tour.. But as in the case Chappell's younger brother (the underarm bowler) and Larwood they rightly or wrongly chose to follow their captains orders. For me, the bigger villains in both scenarios were the captains.

And glad to say after some thought I was a tad too moralistic on the Chappell incident, and shall be changing my vote to a YES in the second ballott.

too much is made of larwood and bodyline, and not many people look at the rest of his career.

Fair enough Skye. I just found it interesting that no one really has acknowledged "bodyline was bad, but..." Nothing wrong with being moralistic. Certainly we would agree that had Hanse Cronje averaged 100 with the bat and 15 with the ball, he still couldn't be inducted into our HoF (wouldn't we?) so we all draw lines. I balanced Chappell's wrong-doing against what he'd achieved and came down on his side. I may do the same with Larwood.

CF, Larwood's legacy is bodyline. And it consisted of a huge chunk of his test career. It is worth mentioning (again) that his test career was cut short whilst still in its prime. His first class career (higher batting average than bowling average, the latter being 17ish) was of course outstanding.

[quote="Mike Selig]

To be honest if you took away from any fast bowler their best third of their career, they'd all look pretty mediocre. Larwood only played 21 tests (and indeed was forced out when he was just about in his prime), it seems a bit unfair to want to judge him on all bar his 7 best ones...[/quote]

That's true enough to an extent. But it would also be unfair IMO, to class someone as great on the basis of the best third of their career, especially when that third consists of 2 matches against a minnow and 5 matches using some of the most difficult bowling tactics ever conceived
On the basis of his whole career I don't think he can be classified as great.
Trouble is that he was the only bowler of his pace around at that time, so it's difficult to compare like for like, but there were a couple of English fast-medium bowlers, Bowes and Voce, whose test records were better than Larwood's (Bowes also had a better FC record), so it's difficult to say that he was head and shoulders above other pace bowlers of his time.

Not sure I understand why Bodyline is an issue - it's all about intimidation and nastiness within the rules of the day, exactly the same stock in trade of Lillee and Thomson, Hall, Gilchrist and Griffith (except Larwood apparently never threw), Tyson etc etc. The later West Indies, many of whom are already inducted, also had their moments.
You will know better than I about the most vicious of the present generation.

Mike, Difference of course is that Cronje's actions were illegal.

guildfordbat wrote:Shelsey - ....

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

Mike - as posted by me on 21 December. Thought it might help to ensure you are aware. I hope the very final line above (''Just my .... '') remains as true as ever.

Further Larwood related comments to follow.

[quote="guildfordbat"]

"Hoggy - thanks for your response.

I'm not giving accolades to Larwood for the inception of tactics but massive credit for the totally successful implementation of those tactics. I don't buy your ''quite simple'' view of the approach. In my view, someone very special was required. If Larwood had mucked up, that would have been it with Bradman leading Australia to a comfortable series win."

Really don't see what Larwood had to do that was so special. He just had to bowl short of a length on or around leg-stump. True he had to be reasonably accurate, but his pace made him the most dangerous exponent of such a tactic among England's bowlers, as is reflected in the series figures. Other than bowling off-stump half volleys to a Bodyline field, I don't see how he could have messed it up.

"Any views on Larwood's impact on Bradman?"

Certainly think Bodyline affected Bradman for a year or so. At the start of the 1934 series he was a little inconsistent which may have been a result. Of course, as you have pointed out, without Bodyline Bradman would almost certainly have averaged 100+.

"I note you offer the word ''infamy'' as an alternate to Larwood's triumph or ''glory''. I don't actually view the series as infamous. Larwood's actions were lawful and planned with professional precision and outstanding success. Cricket is a game of beauty but that does not exclude the need for courage and physical challenge. Very near the line, I grant you."

I actually agree with you. I just said "infamy" because many people DO view Bodyline as infamous.

Mike - I don't believe you are comparing like with like individuals when contrasting bodyline with the underarm ball.

Surely, if the two controversies somehow morph into each other then Larwood becomes the bowler Trevor Chappell rather than his brother and captain Greg Chappell. My condemnation has always been directed at Chappell the captain.

I think your comments would be more understandable, although still wrong, if I were advocating a YES vote for Jardine's role as captain of the bodyline series. That is clearly not the case.

I appreciate some posts have crossed tonight whilst we've all been busy on our key boards. However, just to be clear, I haven't tried to ''airbrush'' anything about Larwood and his role in the bodyline series. Indeed, I directly explained to Hoggy why I regarded ''infamy'' as an inappropriate word to use. My view may well be wrong [Benaud has said that he ''can't be right more than fifty per cent of the time'' so what hope do I have? ] but certainly wasn't deliberately ducked.

What rankled me so much about the Greg Chappell incident (you raised it again, so I'm explaining) is that, in my view, his actions were cowardly and underhand which effectively cheated his opponents and the crowd. Nothing could be done to counter an under arm daisy cutter.

With bodyline, Larwood needed to consistently bowl with skill and pace. Had he failed to do so, everything for England would have come unstuck. Whilst danger was introduced, it remained a challenge that the batsman could still win.

I think Kwini's comments are very relevant. Where do you draw the line with fast bowling? To me, the likes of Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Garner and Hall are supreme cricketers and sportsmen. However, the Indian batsman Nari Contractor had his skull smashed by a ball bowled or, suspected by some, thrown by another West Indian, Charlie Griffith. Contractor almost died and never played Test cricket again. Understandably, his young wife had a different view of Griffith than I do of Holding and the others just mentioned.

You can't remove all the dangers without detracting from the game. As usual, compromise is needed and we probably have it about right today with the limitations per over on short pitched bowling. However, such limitations did not apply in Larwood's time and that was clearly not his fault.

As Hoggy also pointed out, bodyline had already been around for a couple of years or so in English county cricket. You therefore can't blame (if that is the right word) Larwood for starting it all off. He was responsible for magnificent implementation at Test level.

Bodyline was clearly a controversial series - no hiding from that. However, it should be recognised that many Australians, some of them years later and others even at the time, respected and applauded Larwood. He made one of the best ever nightwatchman's innings in scoring 98 in the final Test at Sydney. He was warmly cheered by the crowd. In 1950, he emigrated to Australia and was helped in many ways by the former Australian Test player Jack Fingleton amongst others. Larwood attended the 1977 Centenary Test as one of the many guests of honour and received the loudest applause from the crowd.

I primarily see Larwood as a supremely effective bowler for an iconic series. He would have achieved more but for the unfair and disgraceful conduct of the England cricket establishment. I think it would only be adding to that unfairness to deny him a place in our Hall of Fame.

Comments from a few others, such as Sir Jack Hobbs, tomorrow.

Mike - as usual, I'm sure we'll disagree on some things. Probably can't do much about that. However, please flag if I've overlooked anything you raised for me and I'll try to cover it.

I thought long and hard about Kanhai as well, but in the end it was a no, what do people thinkk about that?

cricketfan90 wrote:I thought long and hard about Kanhai as well, but in the end it was a no, what do people thinkk about that?

Wrong.

guildfordbat wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:I thought long and hard about Kanhai as well, but in the end it was a no, what do people thinkk about that?

Wrong.

Sorry, I'll expand my reply.

Wrong again.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

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.

Interesting side that, thanks for posting Guildford. However, I do believe you slightly older guys are being a bit unfair toward Mr Pietersen. If he retired now he would do so with a mighty fine record, having scored runs against everyone he has played against and against some very good bowling attacks, too. In terms of record he qualifies, and in terms of ability he absolutely waltzes in to that side. I understand the issues some individuals will have with KP as a person, but I feel you're way off the mark to suggest that he doesn't already make an England all time XI - he does with ease.

Anyway, enough on that from me, Kev's place in our Hall of Fame is some years away from being discussed, hopefully!

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:I thought long and hard about Kanhai as well, but in the end it was a no, what do people thinkk about that?

Wrong.

Sorry, I'll expand my reply.

Wrong again.

Guildford in cutting mood today!

Rather ashamedly Guildford, Kanhai is someone that I don't know a great deal of, although from what I have read thus far the enormous praise from Gavaskar is what really stands out and has made me sit up and take notice, so to speak. More reading required on my part, but early signs are promising.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Rather ashamedly Guildford, Kanhai is someone that I don't know a great deal of, although from what I have read thus far the enormous praise from Gavaskar is what really stands out and has made me sit up and take notice, so to speak. More reading required on my part, but early signs are promising.

Fists - nothing to be ashamed of. Not your fault you are so fortunate to be so young. Make the most of it - it won't last!

I just get a bit peeved when someone forms a view of a high class professional and votes without undertaking any proper research of his own or considering the views of others who might have been lucky enough to see the player concerned. I have no problem if views and votes don't tally but find it hard to accept the apparent rush to vote.

Anyway, back to Kanhai. I can't attach a link at the moment but, if you have a chance, do google ''kanhai west indies players association''. There's a wealth of impressive information there - comments, quotes, a clip, etc.

I know you're Birmingham based. If you know anyone there who followed Warks in the late 1960s and through the 1970s (think he finished playing for Warks in '77), ask them what they thought ....

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:I thought long and hard about Kanhai as well, but in the end it was a no, what do people thinkk about that?

Wrong.

Sorry, I'll expand my reply.

Wrong again.

and yet i get moaned at for not explaining why :facepalm

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

Rather ashamedly Guildford, Kanhai is someone that I don't know a great deal of, although from what I have read thus far the enormous praise from Gavaskar is what really stands out and has made me sit up and take notice, so to speak. More reading required on my part, but early signs are promising.

Fists - nothing to be ashamed of. Not your fault you are so fortunate to be so young. Make the most of it - it won't last!

I just get a bit peeved when someone forms a view of a high class professional and votes without undertaking any proper research of his own or considering the views of others who might have been lucky enough to see the player concerned. I have no problem if views and votes don't tally but find it hard to accept the apparent rush to vote.

Anyway, back to Kanhai. I can't attach a link at the moment but, if you have a chance, do google ''kanhai west indies players association''. There's a wealth of impressive information there - comments, quotes, a clip, etc.

I know you're Birmingham based. If you know anyone there who followed Warks in the late 1960s and through the 1970s (think he finished playing for Warks in '77), ask them what they thought ....

Guildford, my Grandad is still a member to this day, so I'll give him a call later on and get his thoughts. Likewise, I'll Google that later on.

Completely agree about the apparent rush to vote, we have two weeks to submit our votes for each set of 5 candidates, plenty of time to form a solid opinion after seeing the various outlooks offered on each candidate.

Fists - after you've chatted to your Grandad, I'll be amazed if Kanhai doesn't get a YES from you ....

guildford everytime i have disagreed with u about a player in this thread, u get moany about it...people are allowed to disagree.

cricketfan90 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:I thought long and hard about Kanhai as well, but in the end it was a no, what do people thinkk about that?

Wrong.

Sorry, I'll expand my reply.

Wrong again.

and yet i get moaned at for not explaining why :facepalm

I am quite prepared to hold my hands up to many faults both on and off this forum. However, lack of merited explanation is not one of them.

u didnt explain why you were blunt and just said wrong.

This lies the problem when discussing players that played a long time before you were even born.

Some older players like Bradman and Hobbs are obvious HOFers but you then have the Khanai's and Cowdrey's who are debatable and placing them in a HOF would be more guess work than judgement.

yup it feels like, cos i werent around when they played, suddenly my opinon on them is ridiclous and wrong.

Knott

cricketfan90 wrote:yup it feels like, cos i werent around when they played, suddenly my opinon on them is ridiclous and wrong.

Could well be wrong as you don't really know how good they were.

I'd be the same

Yes, Knott to me was an obvious HOFer

maybe i might change my vote about knott,but i wont be changing my mind about Kanhai

Undecided on Kanhai as yet, will listen and read more.

cricketfan90 wrote:maybe i might change my vote about knott,but i wont be changing my mind about Kanhai

Good man

i just hope im not in the minority when it comes to voting for Flint....

CF - just because you (or anyone) didn't see a particular player doesn't mean your opinion is ridiculous or wrong.

However, I believe it puts a greater onus on you to find out about the player before voting - either way. I've been in the same posiion as you for nominees like Harvey and Headley. Similarly, now with Hutton and Larwood.

It looks like Hoggy and I will vote differently about Larwood. I have no issue with that. We are both trying to be as thorough as we can although, perhaps inevitably, we end up giving greater and different personal priority to certain aspects than others. That is all part of the debate and something I very much like; your apparent rush to vote is something I don't.

Unfortunately, you lost credibility with me for your comments (far more than your NO vote) about Knott and his batting. I had already addressed this the day before but you made no reference to that.

I am sorry if my earlier comment was blunt and upsetting. I was attempting - and apparently failing - to inject some humour by adopting your perceived style.

Our man Flint

skyeman wrote:Our man Flint

One interesting facet of Kanhai's career is the extent to which he morphed, at Test level anyway, from a swash-buckling young man, the hooks/pulls where he loses his balance etc etc, to very much a senior professional who, when necessary at any rate, can play a long, anchor-role type innings.

His versatility is also interesting as not many world-class batsman have also kept wicket at Test level.

Again, I would certainly rank Kanhai ahead of Clive Lloyd, both in achievement and influence, and I've watched them both.

(Incidentally, one man who won't get a mention in HOF context but who was as good as any of that generation to watch, was Seymour Nurse. A most beautiful stroke-player, more orthodox and front-foot than his peers, and capable also of some quite brilliant catching around cover point.)

guildford am i wrong because i said no to larwood as well?

Kwini - I can't attach a link at the moment but recommend you google ''kanhai west indies players association''. You'll see a lovely review of him and his career. It's obviously supportive of him as you would expect from such an association but isn't blatantly over the top and relies mainly on the testimonies of others (great players and cricket writers).

You'll love that it refers to him as ''a trailblazer'', paving the way for subsequent West Indian batting greats.

Your comment about his change of style from swachbuckler to senior anchor is very astute. I touched on this with Mike and, in particular, Kanhai's perfect support role to Clive Lloyd in the 1975 World Cup final. That was his last ever international appearance. Thinking about that now, it was a bit like the old lion bidding farewell to the new kings of the jungle.

I know you're at least a little uneasy about Lloyd's easy ride into our Hall of Fame. You may have a point. I've always championed Lloyd, far more because of his Test captaincy than his batting. However, the players association article comments very favourably on Kanhai's brief captaincy and gives him a lot of credit for starting (trailblazing again? ) to turn the West Indies into a far more determined and resolute side than they were under the more carefree Sobers.

I don't think I ever saw Seymour Nurse. Haven't checked any stats etc but my immediate perception is that he was good or even very good at times but not often enough. Happy to be corrected on that.

Finally, one other player you mentioned recently was Alan Davidson. I got the impression you were a little surprised he was now in the Hall. If memory serves me right, he got in with 100% of YES votes. That included one from me although I wasn't as effusive as some and pointed out that if we ever had to reduce numbers in the Hall, I would want to probe further why he played such comparatively little Test cricket (44 matches?). Interested in your further reaction and comments about Davidson.

davison did get 100% of the votes, we all voted yes

Ladies (Players?) and Gentlemen,
As I'm late to this HOF thread, I thought I should re-read some of the earlier debates. Great stuff!

Would have agreed with most of the voting but certainly not all. Specifically;

~Surprised Bedi was even up for induction. By all accounts a lovely man and a good Test level bowler with bags of variation, "his action was so relaxed", a bit like his batting and his fielding. Not a complete enough cricketer for me at this level.

~Would have voted No! for Bedser and Yes! for Boycott.

~Enjoyed reading the essays on Cowdrey; would also have voted No, but that would be a squeaker for me, difficult to separate the merits of MCC and Graveney though obviously completely different batsmen and characters. (We shouldn't be surprised to hear the opinions of Illingworth and Trueman vis-a-vis MCC - don't expect Dennis Skinner has much good to say about David Cameron. The distinction between Gentlemen and Players was removed about this time, and for very good reason.)

~Always been a great admirer of the eternally understated Alan Davidson, but VERY surprised he makes it in with unanimity. Not sure how I'd've voted but certainly behind Harvey (and Benaud of course) of the 50's/early 60's Aussies.

~And great to read more about Ian Chappell; brilliant Captain who seemed to me to change the rules on Captaincy, very much for the better at the time. But would have voted No! on both Chappells at this stage.


Congrat's to Fists for the umpiring.


PS: guildford, just skimmed through your notes. Regarding Nurse, his career wasn't long enough either, but certainly more than a footnote in that WI team. Thanks for the google tip - I'll be right on it!

cricketfan90 wrote:guildford am i wrong because i said no to larwood as well?

The NO vote may turn out to be right but your timing is wrong.

Again, a totally unnecessary rush to vote in respect of a player never seen whilst arguments for and against are still being made. All nominees deserve better than that and so do fellow posters taking the time and trouble to share their views.

i wouldnt have an objection to you voting early...its up to people to vote when they want to...i done my research before i voted as i always do!

I think the problem here Cf is that you do not take into account any of the debating by your fellow posters and the great information/quotes/stats.
You make your decision early and stand by it, which is why I was surprised that you said you may change your vote for Knott.

But having said that, The YES/NO votes should be debated and not forced - too much

I must say I've been quietly enjoying the Larwood debates. I'm a bit unsold on Larwood myself TBH: all the contemporary evidence suggests that he was the finest fast bowler of the time, and that the Establishment robbed Test cricket of a fine bowler for too many years. As such his short career shouldn't count against him, as it shouldn't count against players like Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards (or indeed George Headley who lost quite a few years to the war).

Contrary to what hoggy says, I don't believe bowling bodyline was that easy at all. I read an excellent book about the Bodyline series (unfortunately I can recall neither the name nor the author but shall share when I remember/see the book again), and to bowl bodyline properly was very difficult. You basically had a few square inches to target (armpit to shoulder level, middle-and-leg line to just outside leg), stray from there and you'd be punished. Larwood did it just about perfectly (except in the final innings where he was injured and went for a few - Jardine wouldn't allow him off the field until Bradman was dismissed), and in doing so made Bradman mortal.

Counting against him is the fact that he bowled stuff which could literally have ended up killing someone (I believe Gubby Allen was the one who refused to bowl bodyline). Mike may have hit the nail on the head when he says Bodyline is regarded as still giving the batsmen a fair chance, whereas Chappell's daisy cutter didn't. Whether we are right in this view is something I'm unsure of. You could also argue that for impact on the game Larwood's contribution to Bodyline (which probably wouldn't have existed, and certainly wouldn't have been possible without him) should in fact enhance his claim.

cricketfan90 wrote:i wouldnt have an objection to you voting early...its up to people to vote when they want to...i done my research before i voted as i always do!

My research on Kanhai won't be complete until I've at least seen the reported views of Grandad Fists!

That's actually a serious point. If we have available to us the views of a Warks member who saw Kanhai throughout his decade with the county, we should be only too happy to put them in the mix before voting.

I am not for a moment suggesting we all have to vote the same way as (I suspect) Grandad Fists would like us to, but let's at least hear the gentleman first.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

.... Mike may have hit the nail on the head when he says Bodyline is regarded as still giving the batsmen a fair chance, whereas Chappell's daisy cutter didn't.

Mad - I think you are referring to my comment to Mike.

Not a problem for me. Wouldn't dare speak for Mike!

aha, found it (on amazon)!

The book I was referring to in my previous post is called
Bodyline Autopsy: The Full Story of the Most Sensational Test Cricket Series - England vs. Australia 1932-3
by David Firth

an excellent read, I highly recommend it to those who are interested in finding out more about this particular series.

guildford, was it your comment? Well whoever wrote it I think it was a good way of expressing the general feeling on both incidents.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Mike may have hit the nail on the head when he says Bodyline is regarded as still giving the batsmen a fair chance, whereas Chappell's daisy cutter didn't.

Much as I would love the credit, that particular reasoning came from guilford in his excellent post explaining why he viewed the two incidents separately. Were I being facetious however (and I do enjoy being so from time to time) I could point out that Doug Walters once hit a daisy cutter for a probable 6 in the nets by flicking it up with his boot (arguably illegal of course, but potentially the umpires may have looked kindly upon it?); indeed he (DW) was quoted as saying that he thought the NZ no11 should have at least had a go at hitting the ball, rather than blocking it meekly and throwing his bat away. Anyway, enough facetiousness: guilford's post explains his reasoning quite clearly and to my satisfaction, so thank you for that.

I await more details on Kanhai (whose record strikes me as belonging to the I. Chappell, Gooch, Gower etc. bracket, i.e. very good but not great) before pronouncing myself. Views from people's grandads would be very welcome. I do feel that we are all occasionally, myself very much included, a bit guilty of making up our minds before all arguments have been presented (for example, I was disappointed that I failed to convince people of Belinda Clark's achievements) - I shall try to listen to any arguments concerning Kanhai (and indeed Heyhoe-Flint) with an open mind

Mad - also meant to add, a very good post in my view.

Liked the analogies with Richards, Pollock and Headley as regards length of Test cricket.

As also said before, I too think Hoggy over simplifies the skill needed to bowl bodyline so supremely as Larwood did.

As regards ''he could have ended up killing somebody'', I don't pooh pooh the death of anyone but it only takes one fast bowler and one ball to do that. Should we exclude Holding and Marshall for what might have happened? Probably a question of degree, I grant you. Need to keep in mind that Larwood's tactics were lawful and he was not responsible for their design but their brilliantly successful implementation.