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.

But of course anyone of us can change our votes right up until the last minute, and we may well do so on listening and reading further. And if we think the debate warrants it.

Just gave my Grandad a quick call at lunch, interrupting his doing nothing that now comes with each and every day since retirement.

He described Kanhai as:

'an absolutely brilliant bat'

'possibly the best of a fantastic Warks lineup of Jameson, Smith, Amiss, Kallicharan, Kanhai, which was a bloody good side'

'I was there when Kanhai and Jameson put on a huge 450-something partnership against Gloucester at Edgbaston in the 70's - his mentality when batting was incredible, difficult to get out and very rarely ruffled'

'A Warks legend that easily held his own amongst the fellow greats in the West Indies sides he played in'

'A super bloke, as well'

And when mentioning that this was for a discussion as to whether he belongs in a cricketing Hall of Fame his response was:

'Abso-bloody-lutely, of course he does, oh yes'.

Mad for Chelsea wrote: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.

Think I probably failed to explain myself properly here (nothing unusual there ). When I say that I don't think that Larwood did anything special in bowling Bodyline, I'm not saying that it didn't take skill, nor that Larwood didn't have to bowl well. I'm just saying that the tactic played to Larwood's strengths. So, just as James Anderson would recieve praise for bowling in swinging conditions (ie conditions/circumstances which play to his strengths), he would, surely, recieve greater credit for bowling well in conditions/circumstances which do not suit him?
That's how I feel about Larwood's performance in 32/3. While it is absolutely true that Bodyline would not have been anywhere near as effective in that series without Larwood, I think it's also true that Larwood would not have been anywhere near as effective in that series without Bodyline.
Personally, I don't see that one effective series when bowling in circumstances which perfectly suited his style of bowling, even though he had to bowl well to fully exploit those circumstances, is enough to offset his rather mediocre record in series when circumstances were not quite as favourable.

Fists of Fury wrote:Just gave my Grandad a quick call at lunch, interrupting his doing nothing that now comes with each and every day since retirement.

He described Kanhai as:

'an absolutely brilliant bat'

'possibly the best of a fantastic Warks lineup of Jameson, Smith, Amiss, Kallicharan, Kanhai, which was a bloody good side'

'I was there when Kanhai and Jameson put on a huge 450-something partnership against Gloucester at Edgbaston in the 70's - his mentality when batting was incredible, difficult to get out and very rarely ruffled'

'A Warks legend that easily held his own amongst the fellow greats in the West Indies sides he played in'

'A super bloke, as well'

And when mentioning that this was for a discussion as to whether he belongs in a cricketing Hall of Fame his response was:

'Abso-bloody-lutely, of course he does, oh yes'.

Fists - many thanks to you and Grandad Fists for that. Smug? You bet.

I was living in Coventry during the 1970s. Warks had a great team then. The cream was the batting as Grandad rightly mentions. However, they also had Deryck Murray (West Indies keeper), David Brown (England seamer of the '60s), Lance Gibbs and a young Bob Willis. The current groundsman (still, I think) Steve Rouse was a useful seam bowler around that time.

Guildford, no problem. Added a slightly unorthodox account of Kanhai's ability to the debate, but the word I trust most strongly is that of those there to witness it.

What a tremendous team Warks had back then.

Rouse is still the groundsman, that would be correct.

cheers for that fists, top stuff

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

.... Personally, I don't see that one effective series when bowling in circumstances which perfectly suited his style of bowling, even though he had to bowl well to fully exploit those circumstances, is enough to offset his rather mediocre record in series when circumstances were not quite as favourable.

Hoggy - we may be splitting hairs but I don't consider ''effective'' comes anywhere near to doing justice to Larwood's tremendous achievements in this series.

To me, this being his last series is also significant. It wasn't as if he had a lucky ''one off'' series and then ''lost it''. He had an ordinary start in Tests, implemented a totally professional solution perfectly and then was denied further opportunity by a dreadful mix of injury and unfairness from the England cricket establishment. I'll give a quote tonight showing the professionalism of the man which I like very much. I hope that, amongst others, Mike will too.

like i said before the only thing people talk about when larwood is mentioned is bodyline....people overlook the rest of his career...

however that being said, he wasnt a great TEST MATCH bowler.

cricketfan90 wrote:cheers for that fists, top stuff

CF - yes, it is top stuff. Unfortunately, it's rather wasted on you if you're not prepared to even consider changing your mind on Kanhai as you've already stated.

Bodyline is his great success though, CF. In the sport of cricket there is no achievement greater than saying 'I made Don Bradman a mere mortal'.

pffft grow up......my votes arent set in stone, stop throwing a hissy fit just because someone dosent agree with u its pathetic.

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

i dont care what i said then, people can change their mind, dosent mean u have to get hissy because someone has a different opinon!

Mike Selig wrote:

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

Mike - meant to thank you earlier for your comments here. Appreciated.

I voted NO to each of I Chappell, Gooch and Gower. To me, Kanhai is a notch above them - say G Chappell without the under arm ball.

PS I do hope you picked up my earlier post about how I plan to vote second time round on G Chappell and why.

Let's stop the bickering shall we?

The thing is, Larwood defined bodyline. Given he had such a short career (through no fault of his own, so I think MfC's comparisons with Headley and Richards are apt) it is normal he is remembered by it.

Saying when people talk about Larwood they only talk about bodyline is a bit like saying when people talk about Bradman they only talk about his average, or when people talk about Laker they only talk about his 19 wickets, or when people talk about Gooch they only talk about his 333 etc... It is his outstanding contribution to the sport.

guildfordbat wrote:

I voted NO to each of I Chappell, Gooch and Gower. To me, Kanhai is a notch above them - say G Chappell without the under arm ball.

PS I do hope you picked up my earlier post about how I plan to vote second time round on G Chappell and why.

Having not seen Kanhai play I can only go by records (which are good without being extraordinary) and what people say (which is where fists grandad comes into it).

I did see your post about Chappell. With both yourself and Skyeman dropping their objections it seems he may very well get accepted in round 2 for which I am pleased. Now to put my efforts on Mrs Clark...

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

.... Personally, I don't see that one effective series when bowling in circumstances which perfectly suited his style of bowling, even though he had to bowl well to fully exploit those circumstances, is enough to offset his rather mediocre record in series when circumstances were not quite as favourable.

Hoggy - we may be splitting hairs but I don't consider ''effective'' comes anywhere near to doing justice to Larwood's tremendous achievements in this series.

To me, this being his last series is also significant. It wasn't as if he had a lucky ''one off'' series and then ''lost it''. He had an ordinary start in Tests, implemented a totally professional solution perfectly and then was denied further opportunity by a dreadful mix of injury and unfairness from the England cricket establishment. I'll give a quote tonight showing the professionalism of the man which I like very much. I hope that, amongst others, Mike will too.

Larwood took 33 wickets at 19 in that series against a very good batting line-up which was a great acheivement, I agree.
Trouble is that there is no indication in his earlier career that he would have continued to enjoy such success without the use of Bodyline. He may have done, but to me it seems doubtful. Therefore, was it Larwood's greatness as a bowler that brought him his success, or the greatness of the Bodyline tactic? Personally I'd err toward the latter and argue that while Larwood was undoubtedly a very good bowler, his success in 32/3 was more to do with a tactic which almost guaranteed a bowler with Larwood's particular abilities wickets, rather than with Larwood being an all-time great bowler.

i voted yes for belinda clark mike, i felt she should have got in lol.

cricketfan90 wrote:i voted yes for belinda clark mike, i felt she should have got in lol.

Be prepared to summon the forces for round 2 then. Violence and torture in exchange for yes votes will be covered up (I have contacts in erm France Cricket offices, that should work right?).

NOTE (to anyone reading the above): this is a joke. France Cricket does not in any way shape or form condone violence or the use of torture to achieve its aims.

i really want Belinda Clark in there so will be draggin up stats left right and centre lol

Excellent debate so far, particularly on Larwood who I will discuss in detail tomorrow when I am able to contribute.

A Bit in Defence and Support of 'Lol'

A few comments which hopefully will usefully add to the debate on Harold 'Lol' Larwood. As most of you will know already, I have a high regard for him as a professional cricketer and as a man. I'm going to try to explain why plus deal with some of the criticisms directed at him. I don't ask you to agree but will appreciate your consideration.

The Professional and His Impact
In my view, Larwood was the ultimate thinking cricket professional. He was so much more than the often portrayed clockwork toy wound up by Jardine to go out and bowl bodyline or leg-theory. I just love the realism and determination of his words here to Kevin Perkins, the ghostwriter of The Larwood Story, in 1965:
''I wouldn't say I was told to bowl leg-theory. I was asked to do it and I complied. In any case, I was convinced that I wouldn't get many wickets any other way. I had a score to settle with him [Bradman]. He had got on top of me [in the 1930 Ashes series]. As a professional, any scheme that would keep him in check appealed to me a great deal.''

Larwood certainly kept Bradman in check during the 1932-33 Ashes series. Not only did Larwood win England the Ashes but he brought what would have been a career Test average for Bradman of over 112 to fractionally under 100. As Hoggy and I discussed the other day, many still talk about Eric Hollies denying the Don a three figure average. However, if it hadn't been for Larwood's skill and professionalism Bradman could have played his last few Tests blindfold with the proverbial stick of rhubarb and still walked off into the sunset with an average comfortably above 100.

Jardine was in no doubt as to the impact of Larwood's role. Following the series, he personally gave Larwood a siver ashtray. It was inscribed ''To Harold for the Ashes 1932-33. From a grateful Skipper.'' Late in life, Larwood would retell old stories and show visitors to his home in Australia - such as the in awe Darren Gough - his cricket memorabilia. That ashtray was his proudest possession and remained with him for over sixty years until his death.

The Man
Skye and I remember a tv documentary on Larwood from about twenty-five years ago. He was such a delightful man. Respectful, polite and still quiettly proud.

Larwood was beautifully described by the late Peter Roebuck as ''a man without pretension or ego'' when highlighting him as his favourite cricketer.

No doubt his upbringing played an important part here. John Threlkeld, more an expert on mining than cricket , writes:
''It was not just Larwood's physical strength. His mental attitude had been moulded down the pit as well.''

''Ok, but was he that Great?''
Despite my ''being as old as time'' according to Fists , I wasn't actually around at the time. However, no less a cricket expert than Sir Jack Hobbs was. Duncan Hamilton in his 2010 biography 'Harold Larwood' (authorised and commended by the Larwood family) writes:
''Hobbs always maintained that Larwood was the fastest and most accurate bowler he had ever seen.''

I have already commented upon Larwood's impact upon Bradman's Test career stats. It is only fair to both men to give the other side of that equation. Apparently, Larwood's Test bowling average drops by over 5 runs to a mighty impressive 23.2 if you exclude the Tests in which he played against Bradman. (Not my calculations but as seen on the Net.)

''Ok, but couldn't anyone bowl bodyline?''
I believe this is a common myth. Larwood first tried out bodyline or leg-theory himself during the 1932 English county season. His Notts captain Arthur Carr wrote of this:
''To be effective, leg-theory demands almost perfectly direction and length, and at first 'Lol' could not command these when he was bowling it. He gave a great many runs away on the leg-side. The batsmen who first played leg-theory in this country took tea with it.''

In his 1978 book Bradman and the Bodyline Series, E W Docker adds:
''Meanwhile, Larwood's new style had acquired various imitators. At Scarborough, for Essex v Yorkshire on 11 August [1932], Kenneth Farnes experimenting with a modified form of leg-theory was hit for 75 overs in four overs by Sutcliffe and Leyland.''

''Ok, but he could have killed someone!''
I have never denied the dangers involved. However, intimidation has always been a part of the game (viz Marshall, Lillee etc as Kwini has pointed out) and the tactics were lawful at the time. Also, the tactics needed to be implemented with great precision to be a success as illustrated above.

Furthermore, I think it is important to understand that it was not a fearful one-way street that only the Australians had to go down. Referring to his nightwatchman's innings in the final Test at Sydney - in which he scored a splendid 98 - Larwood is quoted in Docker's book thus:
''I remember 'Bull' Alexander bumping them down at me in every over, doing his best to hit me. I knew he was trying. The Hill enjoyed it immensely. They roared as each bumper reared past me ... 'Knock his bloody head off, Bull', they yelled.''

''Ok, but did he leave a legacy?''
George Hele umpired in all of the Tests in the 1932-33 series. His views not only support those of Hobbs but point the way towards his impact on the next generation of fast bowlers:
''Harold Larwood was not only the fastest bowler I have watched. He also had the most beautiful action. While he was running in behind me I never heard him. He glided towards the wickets until the last three yards. Australian fast bowlers dragged their right or left toes as they gathered themselves into the delivery stride; Larwood dragged his entire right foot and at right angles to his course. He placed a tremendous strain upon that foot and his ankle. I have not seen a bowler gain greater impetus from his left and guiding arm. From here came his exceptional speed and exceptional accuracy.''

This action paved the way to be copied by probably thousands of budding fast schoolboy bowlers. Amongst them was the highly impressionable and impressed Ray Lindwall, future Australian fast bowing great. Years later playing his first Ashes series in England, Lindwall was accused at Trent Bridge, Larwood's home ground, of plagiarism. There was no denial from the Australian. He merely replied:
''Why shouldn't I copy the very best?''.

''Ok, you clearly like him but wasn't he reviled by all decent people at the time and for years afterwards?''
There was considerable and deep ill feeling in Australia at the time but it was not total. To quote again from Docker when Larwood's nightwatchman's innings at Sydney was ended:
''.... the crowd gave him a tremendous ovation, not only on account of his fine and brave innings, but also in recognition of the man who had made that series the most gripping and memorable in Test history.''

Whilst the English cricket establishment were embarassed by the controversy by the time they woke up to it, Australians generally showed themselves to be understanding and appreciative of Larwood. He finally emigrated there in 1950. He received practical help and assistance from former Test opponent Jack Fingleton and, initially unknown to Larwood, financial support from former Australian Prime Minister Ben Chifley who paid half of Larwood's accommodation costs . When he attended the 1977 Centenary Test along with many other guests of honour, he received the loudest and longest applause of all from the crowd.

The legendary and ultimate Australian cricket hero Richie Benaud also paid Larwood a great tribute by naming him in his squad for an All Time World XI.

This was all in deep contrast to the shabby and shameful treatment he received from the England cricket establishment when he returned home in 1933. Unlike captain Douglas Jardine and manager Plum Warner, Larwood was ordered to write a letter of apology for bodyline. A proud and astute man who instinctively knew what was right and wrong, he refused. He never played Test cricket again.

When Larwood boarded the boat for Australia in 1950 (bizarrely the same boat he had sailed in eighteen years earlier for the Ashes), only one person came to see him off and wish him well. The immensely knolwedgeable and fundamentlly decent John Arlott who was to do so much good years later in his help for Basil D'Oliveira and the anti-apartheid campaign. Like Larwood, Arlott had an instinct for what was just. He viewed Larwood's betrayal and silent departure as ''most poignant''.

I think it would be adding to that betrayal to deny Larwood a place in our Hall of Fame. It was only one series but it was the most famous and iconic of series. For me, it needs to be represented in our Hall and there is no one better than Larwood to do it.

''Ok, time to wrap up!''
Plum Warner stated a few months before the 1932-33 Ashes:
''Bradman is as great a batsman as any who has ever lived. The bowler who can get Bradman out for a reasonable score is going to be a tremendous fellow.''
Different language from a different age. However, the meaning remains clear. There was such a bowler and he was Harold 'Lol' Larwood. To Warner, that meant he was a tremendous fellow. To me, it means a YES vote.

Thank you for your consideration.

Gb - Very thorough, and some wonderful tributes to a legend of the game.

Particular congratulation to guildford for a very insightful post written at 4 in the morning

I'll start by saying that I remain in the No camp on Larwood and will justify that later in this post. I'll admit that I own a copy of Duncan Hamilton's full biography of Larwood which I haven't yet had time to read and won't have during this two weeks . However, I can offer some passing comment from three respected figures in the world of cricket - Sir Pelham 'Plum' Warner, Christopher Martin-Jenkins and Richie Benaud.

Plum Warner's position is particularly interesting because, as tour manager, he was himself at the centre of the Bodyline controversy but received no sanctions from the MCC and it is commented on Wikipedia that he "his ability to disappear at crucial times was noted".

Warner has to say of Larwood that:

"Larwood may well claim comparison with any fast bowler of any age, his run up to the crease, action, delivery and follow-through being models of rhythm and swing. Though much below the height usually associated with fast bowlers, Larwood has very long arms, and is powerfully built about the back and shoulders. I cannot recall a more accurate fast bowler. He had such complete control of the ball that G.O. Allen stood nearer in at short-leg to him than any short-leg had ever before ventured to stand, and escaped injury. When bowling 'leg-theory', 'in full blast', he had only two men on the off side - a deep third man and a silly-point, though the off-side was strengthened on occasions, e.g. for Bradman when a backward point was used and silly-point dropped back to cover point - almost square. To a left-handed batsman, four or five men were placed in the slips; the field assuming what may be called a more 'orthodox' appearance. His bowling in 1933 was undoubtedly the chief factor in the recovery of the Ashes, and his figures - splendid as they are - would have been even better but for several catches being missed off him in the first innings of the last Test Match at Sydney, when for once the fielding fell away from a previously high level of excellence. He owed much of his success as a bowler to his captain, who managed his most ably, seldom bowling him for more than four or five overs at a time, and thereby keeping him fresh through a long innings. He is also a very fine fielder, and a competent batsman."

He also states that "Larwood is probably as fast as any one in the history of the game"

In his section discussing the 1932-33 series Warner says that "this is not the place to discuss the vexed question of the method of bowling adopted by Larwood, and in a lesser degree by Voce, which led to such a storm". Instead he simply says that "In Larwood England undoubtedly had a truly magnificent fast bowler". He does, however, contradict himself slightly and discuss Bodyline by saying that "It should be added that during a time of storm and stress and in a very intense atmosphere, no body of men could have behaved better and with more loyalty, discretion, good temper, and sound sence than this M.C.C. side". He goes on to say that "Practically every cricketer in Australia is convinced that the type of bowling employed by Larwood is contrary to the best interests, and the spirit, of cricket; they urge that it can only breed ill-feeling. It seems probable that time will confirm this verdict, but as a result of the first hasty and, it must be said tactless, cable from the Australian Board of Control, it looked at one period as if there would be a break in these matches. Happily such a calamity, which would have done untold harm to the game, has been avoided".

Now to Christopher Martin Jenkins entry on Larwood (No. 49) in 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "Truly exceptional pace and absolute accuracy are a rare combination. For a few years, and in one dramatic Australian season in particular, Harold Larwood posessed both".
- "he became the main weapon in England's regaining the Ashes under Douglas Jardine's leadership in 1932-33 and the means by which, for a brief period, they managed to bring Don Bradman down almost to the same level as the other batsmen".
- "Those who saw Larwood at close hand in 1933 believed that no man could ever have bowled faster. No more than medium height for the era, and small by present standards for a fast bowler, he was broad-shouldered, strong and long arms. He ran in eighteen yards with smooth acceleration and the delivery was perfectly coordinated. Jardine, among others, noted that at full pace the final swing of his right arm would begin at the height of his calf and finish with his fingers actually brushing the ground in his follow-through. In Australia his skiddy, relatively low-trajectory bounce was all the more lethal".
- "In 1928-29 he started the next Ashes series with first innings figures of six for 32, having shown his batting ability with at number nine in the order with a hard-hit 70".
- "Lifeless pitches at home in 1930 neutered his pace except at the Oval where for a time, after rain, he had Bradman visibly apprehensive and struck him in the chest".
- "A hero at the time for bowling like the wind in game after game, it was he who mainly reaped the whirlwind of reproach, initially from Australia, but later in England too , as the implications of the 'bodyline' tactics that he had applied with such simple efficiency began to touch the consciences of more sensitive souls than Jardine".
- "Larwood had merely bowled according to the strategy that had been laid down, which included liberal doses of short-pitched balls lifting towards the ribs, with a semi-circle of short-leg fieldsmen to catch the edges and others posted further back for a batsman attempting to counter-attack. Only Stan McCabe, a brilliant hooker, and Bradman, by drawing away to leg to cut and carve through the off-side, came up with much of an answer"
- On arrival back in England "he was unwisely putting his name to a series of newspaper articles - and to a quickly-published book - that stirred up the old indignation in Australia"

Richie Benaud doesn't discuss Bodyline in 'My Spin on Cricket' but does find room for Larwood in his 3rd Test XI of all time in a bowling attack with Botham, Kapil Dev, Qadir and McGrath. He simply says that "Bradman's batting average in that series was merely half of what was considered normal for him".

So, with most of that coming under the category of positive testimony, why do I still find myself in the No camp?

I will address Bodyline in a moment but my first point would be that I see little other than the Bodyline series to justify him as 'Hall of Fame' worthy - He only played in five other Test series and his stats are not that flattering:

Home v Australia 1926 - 2 Tests, 9 wickets @ 28.00
Home v West Indies 1928 - 2 Tests, 6 wickets @ 19.00
Away v Australia 1928/29 - 5 Tests, 18 wickets @ 40.22
Home v South Africa 1929 - 3 Tests, 8 wickets @ 23.25
Home v Australia 1930 - 3 Tests, 4 wickets @ 73.00

Even when you add in Bodyline he only took 78 Test wickets in total - in my opinion not enough for a bowler who played 21 Tests and so as part of a four or five man attack would have been expected to take around 1/4 of the wickets to be truly considered world class. Of course, some posters will probably raise the question that this record would have been improved upon had he kept playing Tests after 'Bodyline'. However, he was injured throughout 1933 and Martin-Jenkins says that, although he continued a very strong first-class career for another four years, he returned as a "fast-medium bowler off a shorter run". His first-class career is certainly exceptional but it is not for me to assess the standard of county cricket in the 20s and 30s - it was certainly before overseas players and would have been played on extremely bowler friendly wickets , meaning that he wouldn't have faced nearly the same challenge he did against Bradman and the rest of the 'Invincibles' - a challenge he was only truly able to overcome on one occasion.

It is also the case that NONE of those selected purely as fast bowlers in our Hall of Fame so far have bowling averages above 25 (Kapil and Botham do but got in as all-rounders rather than bowler). This puts Larwood on a distinctly different level to the others we have considered and means that Bodyline would surely have to be used to justify his inclusion. There are also numerous other bowlers that I would imagine will not be considered for the Hall of Fame at all with much better statistical cases - Bill Voce (98 wkts @ 27.88), Bob Willis (325 wkts @ 25.2), Jason Gillespie (259 wkts @ 26.13) and Mohammad Asif (a similar number of Tests to Larwood but 106 wkts @ 24.36) to name just a few. Of course, a comparison cannot be made between Bodyline and spot-fixing but the heavy tainting of Asif's record in a modern context indicates how some may have felt about Larwood after Bodyline.

So, to the issues of Bodyline and it's place within the Spirit of Cricket:

Of course, Bodyline WAS within the laws of cricket in 1932-33. However, there were very good reasons for the dismay which it caused when you consider the equipment which players used then - only leg pads offered any real protection and with no helmet or arm guard and gloves offering little protection injuries were common and Bodyline bowling increased the chances of this occurring. Indeed, it is noted in Wisden 1996's obituary to Larwood that "Among batsmen who sustained serious injury from Larwood's thunderbolts were Reg Sinfield of Gloucestershire, the South African `Jock' Cameron, and Patsy Hendren, a seasoned exponent of the hook shot. All were stretchered off unconscious. Scores of others suffered breaks and bruises in the line of Larwood's fire, and many a batsman in county cricket discovered minor ailments that necessitated their withdrawal before matches against Nottinghamshire". Few of these injuries were caused by Bodyline, of course, but aiming for the body would only have increased the chances of injury and so could have had serious consequences - imagine how we would feel about Bodyline if Bradman had been rendered unconscious and never been able to bat again. For these reasons it is to this day not legal to target the body. Law 42 states that "The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the umpire at the bowler's end considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction, they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker, irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration".

The final argument which will be put forward by the pro-Larwood camp is that he was simply following orders with Bodyline. However, a story from Wisden 1996 suggests that Larwood took pleasure from causing injury. It says that "legend has it that he and Voce bet each other a packet of fags over who would be first to strike an Indian batsman on the turban in 1932."

To conclude, Larwood was clearly a highly skilled fast bowler who had great success at first class level and in the 1932/33 series. He was also one of only a few to give Bradman something to think about at any point of his career. However, his success at the highest level was not sustained over a long period and I find it hard to justify 'Bodyline' considering the potentially severe injuries which could have resulted from its employment. I would urge you for this reason to resist the temptation to vote yes for Larwood and instead to conclude that he is an interesting cricket to debate and one who played a central part in events of great significance in 32/33 but not a legend of the game worthy of the esteemed company in our Hall of Fame.

Just read an interesting chapter on Larwood and the Bodyline era in Arlott's "Arlott on Cricket". Perspective rather than axe-grinding, on Jardine and Larwood as well as Bodyline.

Among other things I hadn't realised was the fact that Larwood was short for a fast bowler, 5ft 71/2 inches, but with "exceptionally long arms", "the man who trafficked in thunderbolts"!
Implies that he was faster than any other bowler 1951 or in the three decades before, "His pace was only a few degrees greater than that of some other bowlers - such as Farnes and Lindwall at their fastest - but his accuracy was such that no other fast bowler in thirty years has even approached it."

A good chapter because of its neutrality and context. It doesn't offer pros and cons as to whether Larwood should make the 606v2 HOF, it merely offers the perspective about his unique qualities and his singular achievement. And: "He is still (1950), as an honest man, a little bitter and, even more, puzzled, at what cricket did to him, for he took the game seriously and played it as hard as he could, for he relished its rigours."

It doesn't state that Larwood was a victim, though he clearly was and we have made allowances for other victims of circumstances in our consideration of others, the Pollock/Richards/Proctor South Africans, and those whose careers were significantly affected by war, specifically 1939-1945.

This doesn't change my vote on Larwood, a YES! in my book, but may offer not just context, but also some colour from an era most of us are unfamiliar with.

Fascinating debate re Larwood.

In truth I am not quite old enough to have seen Larwood myself, but I recall having a discussion with my father , while watching Thomson demolishing England in the mid-seventies , about the relative merits and speeds of fast bowlers over the years. He was convinced that Larwood remained the quickest he'd seen , though Tyson (briefly) and now the afore-mentioned Thomson were up there close to him. Of course he was comparing bowlers decades apart , and without benefit of a speed gun , but I value the old man's opinion - he has seen a lot of cricket over his ninety odd years.

He also rated Larwood in his short list of the best fast bowlers , along with Lindwall and Miller , Statham and Trueman etc (must ask him how the list looks today now all these West Indian stars have made their marks over the last 30 years). But I'm pretty sure he'll still have Larwood at or near the top.

Guildford produced some good quotes there in favour of Larwood . I'm familiar with many of them , and as I rate contemporary opinion highly - especially from true experts - I am inclined towards a Yes vote. My only problem is with the relative brevity of his career , due sadly to circumstances beyond his control.

I place little store in the unexciting average - look back at the scores that were being made at the time , consider the pitches Test cricket was played on and his figures will look a lot better.

Perhaps consider also the few England fast bowlers - and any visiting fast bowlers - who have succeeded to such an extent in Australia that they have virtually "won the Ashes" for a grateful captain...and some that have would probably concede that they destroyed relatively weak Australian teams.
The one Larwood destroyed was anything but weak.

So does the "Bodyline" thing stain his record ? Well I don't really think so , though as a (once) fast bowler myself I should perhaps be disqualified from giving a view... but if bowling dangerous stuff to a Captain's instructions got you blackballed from Cricketing Valhalla I don't like the chance for some more modern West Indian greats.

Anyway , no rush to vote but that is my tuppence worth for today.

Read one or two interesting snippets regarding the Hall Of Fame.
~I hadn't realised that RH-Flint was inducted a year before Clark; does that mean H-F was rated more highly or does it have more to do with proximity to retirement date?

~In fact, very interesting to note the annual "waves" of election. Founder members, 2009, 2010, 2011. Makes me feel a bit better about some of my positions! Won't 2012 be grist for discussion on here.

~Graham Marsh edges closer by the year to inclusion in the WGHOF. If "Swampy" finally gets elected, that would be quite an achievement for two brothers; one up on the Chappells? Glenn and Greg Turner have ground to make up!

~Surprised at the exclusion of some legends of my grandfather's and father's eras: Hendren, Maurice Tate and Leyland especially. And Arthur Morris.

Alfie - A very good tuppence worth indeed and one or two new points.

And more wise words from someone (your dad) who actually saw Larwood bowl.

From when I was a young age, experts were talking about Larwood as being a legend of the sport and for me nothing has changed that todate.

[quote="alfie"]
I place little store in the unexciting average - look back at the scores that were being made at the time , consider the pitches Test cricket was played on and his figures will look a lot better.[quote]

Yet other fast men (OK not quite as fast), like Voce and Bowes have better records against Australia (and, indeed, overall) than Larwood.

"Perhaps consider also the few England fast bowlers - and any visiting fast bowlers - who have succeeded to such an extent in Australia that they have virtually "won the Ashes" for a grateful captain...and some that have would probably concede that they destroyed relatively weak Australian teams.
The one Larwood destroyed was anything but weak."

That is true. But other pace men did enjoy comaprable success in that period in Oz, without the use of Bodyline. In 36/7 for example, Bill Voce took 26 wickets at 21. Not quite as good as Larwood, but pretty effective non the less.
So Voce had a better overall record than Larwood. A better record against Australia. And he also had considerable success against them in at least one Ashes tour (albeit in a losing cause). Why isn't he being considered for the HoF

"So does the "Bodyline" thing stain his record ? Well I don't really think so , though as a (once) fast bowler myself I should perhaps be disqualified from giving a view... but if bowling dangerous stuff to a Captain's instructions got you blackballed from Cricketing Valhalla I don't like the chance for some more modern West Indian greats."

Agree with this. Don't think the 'morality' of Bodyline should have any bearing on Larwood's selection. He was a professional doing a professional job within the rules as they were at that time. What should have a bearing on his selection IMO, is the fact that, other than that Bodyline series, Larwood showed little in the way of greatness. He may have been fast. He may have been accurate. We are, after all, talking about a very fine bowler here, but when he wasn't utilising Bodyline the results were, by and large, mediocre. Even taking into account the strength of the Oz team at the time and the possibility that pitches weren't always conducive to fast bowling, an average of 40 and a s/r of 88 vs. Oz in matches other than the Bodyline series does not scream all-time great to me.

Hoggy - I can understand why yourself and others see Larwoods overall Test figures as not being truly great enough to merit a place in the HoF. Which is why I will not be fighting as much for Larwood as I and others (yourself included) did for Grimmett.

But for me, from being a young age and listening and reading items from the older experts who all said what a fantastic bowler he was and what an amazing story he had. They thought of him as a cricketing legend.

I guess I just see him in the same light, which is why I am going to give him my YES.

Broadband down in the barracks for 48 hours so I've missed out on the last couple of days of discussion. Mighty high standard of debate and argumentation - with the odd squall thrown in to keep everyone on their toes.... . The only difficulty is finding time to read through all the excellent points on both sides of the argument, especially for Larwood.

I will now place two definite votes - YES for Hutton and YES for Knott. No explanation is needed for Hutton, and it's clear Knott was one of the top wicketkeepers of all time. Especially keeping to Underwood the way he did was astonishing achievement.....I certainly also do rate Knott's batting - I think his average would be at least 5 or 10 higher on today's pitches.

I'm struggling at the borderline on all the other 3 at the moment. Kanhai is the most likely yes for me at the moment but I need to follow up Guildford's advice on checking on the other views about him.

When it comes to the respective downsides of bodyline vs the unholy Chappells' tactics of using pea rollers I think the deliberate decision to bowl underarm is of a different order. It was entirely possible to have a game of cricket with the tactic of body line, whereas bowling pea rollers nullifies any possible of a sensible game of cricket... Was Larwood much more intimidating than Charlie Griffiths, or Thommo; or the combined effects of a battery of Windies quick bowlers at their peak..... I am undecided on Larwood but I won't rule him out because of the bodyline tactic.....

BTW I am slightly worried about the England all time great line up with Underwood batting at No 8 My recollection (haven't checked the stats) is that at best he was a No 10.

skyeman wrote:Hoggy - I can understand why yourself and others see Larwoods overall Test figures as not being truly great enough to merit a place in the HoF. Which is why I will not be fighting as much for Larwood as I and others (yourself included) did for Grimmett.

But for me, from being a young age and listening and reading items from the older experts who all said what a fantastic bowler he was and what an amazing story he had. They thought of him as a cricketing legend.

I guess I just see him in the same light, which is why I am going to give him my YES.

Fair enough Skyman, I can certainly understand that view.
Despite my arguments against him, I certainly wouldn't begrudge his inclusion in the HoF.
I'm just pointing out that, to a very large extent, Larwood's reputation, which is based on his exceptional pace and Bodyline, somewhat masks the fact that he was largely ineffective during most of his career.
I'm sure that, in later debates, I will be totally inconsistent and will argue vehemently for the inclusion of someone on the basis of one series, or what they might have acheived (Barry Richards comes to mind ), so if, as looks likely, Larwood is selected for our HoF I shall welcome his selection with open arms.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
I'm sure that, in later debates, I will be totally inconsistent and will argue vehemently for the inclusion of someone on the basis of one series, or what they might have acheived (Barry Richards comes to mind ), so if, as looks likely, Larwood is selected for our HoF I shall welcome his selection with open arms.

[quote]


Now Now, Larwood did play 21 Test's which does qualify him for the lists of experts.

I actually think Larwood will end up with only about 60% of the vote.

I think we should note that Harold Larwood was among the 55 Founder Members (as of course were Hutton, Kanhai and Knott) of the ICC Hall Of Fame; that is indicative of how he was regarded in the context of others we have voted on, Ambrose, Davidson, Garner, Grimmett, for instance.

So were plenty of others but the way in which he was regarded by his fellow players is not insignificant and should at least transcend concerns about his work in other series. As Arlott wrote: Larwood "put bowling on top in an age of cricket which propogated batting records".

Fantastic posts from Guilford and Shelsey outlining all the relevant facts.

There is no doubt that Larwood is a legend of the game, and viewed incredibly highly by his peers. I remain extremely doubtful he was anything like as fast as some say he was (in particular if he was as fast as Thompson people would have died from facing him, so that particular comparison is clearly rubbish), but for his time, he was certainly quick and frighteningly so.

Guilford raises an excellent point vis a vis Bradman's effect on Larwood. Indeed, his two poor series against Australia (and in particular the one in 1930) owed as much to Bradman's brilliance to any particular failure on Larwood's part surely. I accept Hoggy's argument that his co-fast bowlers had similar, even better figures, but we all know stats don't tell the whole story. Larwood's impact on the game is surely not in doubt.

As I have already said, the main argument against Larwood for me remains the tactics he used. I accept that fast bowlers throughout history have used intimidation, but I feel there are levels of intimidation. Larwood went out to bowl with the intention of hitting and hurting the batsman. I certainly feel like I have to count it against him. Whether enough to induce a no vote is still uncertain, but at the moment I am inching towards yes.

kwinigolfer wrote:I think we should note that Harold Larwood was among the 55 Founder Members (as of course were Hutton, Kanhai and Knott) of the ICC Hall Of Fame; that is indicative of how he was regarded in the context of others we have voted on, Ambrose, Davidson, Garner, Grimmett, for instance.

So were plenty of others but the way in which he was regarded by his fellow players is not insignificant and should at least transcend concerns about his work in other series. As Arlott wrote: Larwood "put bowling on top in an age of cricket which propogated batting records".

Bah, this is our list. I'm not taking any notice of what the ICC Hall of fame looks like. I do of course take into account opinions from those more knowledgeable like Mr Arlott.

No one can be sure of how fast Larwood was, but from reading yesterday about the only test for speed that they could manage in those days (using camera shutters) they calculated his speed at 95 -101 mph.

Not conclusive I know, but not inconclusive either.

Mike Selig wrote:There is no doubt that Larwood is a legend of the game, and viewed incredibly highly by his peers. I remain extremely doubtful he was anything like as fast as some say he was (in particular if he was as fast as Thompson people would have died from facing him, so that particular comparison is clearly rubbish), but for his time, he was certainly quick and frighteningly so.

Not trying to open up that whole debate again, but I don't see why this should be the case. After all Thompson never killed anyone, as far as I'm aware. Neither did Holding, or Marshall, or Roberts, or any number of other fast bowlers. But they were still very fast.

skyeman wrote:No one can be sure of how fast Larwood was, but from reading yesterday about the only test for speed that they could manage in those days (using camera shutters) they calculated his speed at 95 -101 mph.

Not conclusive I know, but not inconclusive either.

By my calculations which are every bit as trustworthy I reckon he bowled 78-82.

Surely, it doesn't matter how fast he was compared to those of the 70's and later? There is exemplary anecdotal evidence that he was the fastest of the early Lindwall era and for thirty years before.


Mike,
"Bah, this is our list" is very important and greatly respected.
I just didn't want to lose sight of how he was regarded by those in the game when making that selection.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=21577