The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

First topic message reminder :

NOTE: This is the second part of the 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame thread. The first part can be found here: https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

kwinigolfer wrote: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.

Precisely, and the only thing that really matters. He was undoubtedly faster than anything had been before, at the time, or shortly afterwards. But we should be wary of people who say "I saw Larwood and Thompson bowl, and Larwood was as fast": they are using different frames of reference for comparison.

Tomorrow, dummy. Closing time for votes is 9am tomorrow morning.

Damn I better get on and vote on Kanhai then.

I'll be mostly away from these boards this week-end, as am on (another) cricket conference, this time in Guernsey. The good news is I shall return with fresh ideas and hopefully some anecdotes. The bad news is I shall return to bore you with fresh ideas and anecdotes.

On Kanhai:

His test career spanned 17 years either side of the 60s. He played 79 tests and average 47.5, with 15 centuries. His first class record is better, with an average just short of 50.

Neither record is on its own great. They are both very good, but as we have seen so far, "very good" is not enough to get into our HoF. In fact, for me "excellent" on its own doesn't warrant inclusion. I am judging players not merely on how good they were but what their impact was.

So what was Kanhai's impact? His peers certainly view him as a great player. For that we have the evidence of grandad Fists and also of Gavaskar. Kanhai played throughout his career with great players for both club and country yet still managed to shine. That in itself is an achievement.

Guilford then comes in for the kill with 3 points.

First of all he mentions Kanhai's 256 against India. On the whole I am tempted not to give this too much credit: it was against a very average Indian side, who failed to put up much of a fight. I'm not sure I attach more importance to it than I would Gillespie's double hundred against Bangladesh.

Then he mentions Kanhai's supporting role during the WC final. This is far more relevant. For those who don't know the story, I recall some of the details. West Indies were in trouble at 50/3, with Fredericks (unlucky to fall on his stumps after hooking Lilee for 6), and the greats Greenidge and Kallicharan out. Clive Lloyd strode out to the middle to face an attack comprising of Lilee, Thompson, Gilmour and Max Walker (in other words a fairly decent attack). Lloyd made his famous 100 off just 82 balls, but Kanhai (who was nearing 40 at the time) provided the support Lloyd needed with an invaluable 55. The pair of them put on 149 and the game changed. West Indies went on to win by 17 runs, in what was undoubedly the greatest World cup final.

So Kanhai played a part in one of the great cricketing contests. That deserves to be recognised, and has perhaps been underplayed (again, test snobbery coming through).

Guilford then mentions Kanhai's captaincy. This is IMO a very very important point. I make no claims for originality, but shall simply underline what Guilford said.

West Indies under Sobers had great players but not a great team. According to people around at the time, Sobers took is carefree style into his captaincy, and the team didn't gel together. In the short time he was captain (about 13 test matches over 2 years) Kanhai managed to start to change this. So much so that under Lloyd the team became the best in the world by a distance, and one of, if not the, top teams of all time. Lloyd followed Kanhai as captain, and continued his methods. But accotding to people around at the time, Kanhai deserves a lot of credit for the transformation.

If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt it) then surely his impact on the game is not in doubt?

I reserve my vote for another short while in case anybody wishes to say anything on what I have just written (again, no effort is made at originality, some of it is pure plagiarism...).

You have given it some serious thought and been very thorough as usual, but my guess is that Gb will be

skyeman wrote:You have given it some serious thought and been very thorough as usual, but my guess is that Gb will be

Yeah, I'm pleased for Kanhai and Grandad Fists as I think he (Kanhai) deserves it. However, in all honesty (and I've read the store Mike sets by that), what I'm most bothered about by far is that all points made get assessed. All nominees and contributing posters deserve that. It's then up to each poster to make his or her own conclusion. I would actually prefer someone to disagree with me for a strongly held view than simply concur without thought.

As for Kanhai himself - and Mike asked for any further comments - I think it very interesting how he was a leading international batsmem in two distinct styles and much respected in both.

In his early days and the main part of his career, as a dashing and adventurous run scorer. Bishen Bedi bowled his first over in Test cricket to Kanhai immediately before lunch. The first five deliveries were on the spot and became dot balls. The sixth was also on the spot but Kanhai hit it for six. Kanhail later explained along the lines, ''He was bowling very well but I didn't want him to feel on top. I wanted him to worry over lunch.'' With that in mind, please read again Sobers' comments about his unorthodox style and greatness.

In the latter part of his career, as a senior steadying influence. Never illustrated better than in his final international innings which contributed so much to the World Cup win of '75. As Man of the Match Lloyd graciously acknowledged, without Kanhai there would have been no Windies victory.

Credit to the Corporal for first flagging how Kanhai's role transformed over the years. Up to you all if that is a further influencing factor.

Guildford, tremendous quote from Rohan regarding the first over of Bedi's Test career, and one that I hadn't come across before.

Mike, great assessment, you've really managed to highlight just what a terrific cricketer Rohan Kanhai was (with or without plagiarism). How can anyone say no after taking all of that in? Grandad Fists will be most disappointed!

That's a great story guilford, I had read it just earlier today. Shows also that Kanhai was very much a thinking cricketer.

Anyway just to confirm I vote YES for Kanhai, for the reasons stated above.

as there's still time, Mike has tipped me over the edge. I wish to change my vote to Kanhai to a YES.

Thanks, Fists. I'm annoyed I didn't provide the Kanhai quote about Bedi before.

Still not too late for people to change their minds - even a second time, Skye!

As you also say, great assessment by Mike.

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Fists. I'm annoyed I didn't provide the Kanhai quote about Bedi before.

Still not too late for people to change their minds - even a second time, Skye!

As you also say, great assessment by Mike.

Gb -- I had also read the Bedi story last week, it did impress me and I like cricketers to think that way.

I have given this one some serious thought, and as you can probably tell Kanhai was very very close to a yes vote after thoroughly listening to other posters, quotes and then my own research but at this moment in time I am going to stick with my no vote. As I feel that he comes up that little bit short.

skyeman wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Fists. I'm annoyed I didn't provide the Kanhai quote about Bedi before.

Still not too late for people to change their minds - even a second time, Skye!

As you also say, great assessment by Mike.

Gb -- I had also read the Bedi story last week, it did impress me and I like cricketers to think that way.

I have given this one some serious thought, and as you can probably tell Kanhai was very very close to a yes vote after thoroughly listening to other posters, quotes and then my own research but at this moment in time I am going to stick with my no vote. As I feel that he comes up that little bit short.

Skye - thanks for taking all things into account. That's what matters, not that you're wrong!

guildfordbat wrote:

skyeman wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Thanks, Fists. I'm annoyed I didn't provide the Kanhai quote about Bedi before.

Still not too late for people to change their minds - even a second time, Skye!

As you also say, great assessment by Mike.

Gb -- I had also read the Bedi story last week, it did impress me and I like cricketers to think that way.

I have given this one some serious thought, and as you can probably tell Kanhai was very very close to a yes vote after thoroughly listening to other posters, quotes and then my own research but at this moment in time I am going to stick with my no vote. As I feel that he comes up that little bit short.

Skye - thanks for taking all things into account. That's what matters, not that you're wrong!

"I would actually prefer someone to disagree with me for a strongly held view than simply concur without thought."

^

Guys, the votes are in.

Heyhoe-Flint - 46% - misses out entirely.
Kanhai - 54% - eligible for second ballot induction.
Larwood - 69% - close to making it in, but is eligible for second ballot induction.
Knott - 100% clean sweep.
Hutton - 100% clean sweep.

HoF thread to be updated later.

Next 5 candidates for this coming fortnight are:

Ray Lindwall
Hanif Mohammad
Rod Marsh
Peter May
Javed Miandad

Apologies, have no time to post the usual career summary at the moment, but I'm sure people can have a read up of their own in the meantime.

Thanks as ever, Fists.

Even though I voted NO to Heyhoe-Flint, I'm sorry not to see her get to the second ballot. I suspect Mike feels the same even more. Full marks to Mike for voting with integrity regardless of the outcome.

Shame as well from my viewpoint about Larwood and Kanhai. However, voters seem to have been generally thorough in taking things into the mix and I thank all for that.

The latest five are very interesting - not least, I suspect, because they are not as well known as some previous individual nominees and gangs of five. Immediate gut feel is for 3 YES's and 2 NO's. However, I'll need to research a lot more and hopefully read views of others here before deciding on and playing my hand, let alone revealing it any more.

Mike - enjoy Guernsey. Looking forward immensely to being bored by further ideas and anecdotes!

Fists of Fury wrote:Guys, the votes are in.

Heyhoe-Flint - 46% - misses out entirely.
Kanhai - 54% - eligible for second ballot induction.
Larwood - 69% - close to making it in, but is eligible for second ballot induction.
Knott - 100% clean sweep.
Hutton - 100% clean sweep.

HoF thread to be updated later.

Next 5 candidates for this coming fortnight are:

Ray Lindwall
Hanif Mohammad
Rod Marsh
Peter May
Javed Miandad

Apologies, have no time to post the usual career summary at the moment, but I'm sure people can have a read up of their own in the meantime.

Glad to see Hutton and Knott get in unanimously.
Bit disappointed that Heyhoe-Flint misses out altogether, and surprised Kanhai didn't get in.
Of the next 5, initial thoughts are two definite YES's, one very probable YES, one MAYBE and one NO.
Guildford, as the resident champion of lost causes on this thread, I reckon you'd better do some serious research on Hanif.

I've got it similar to you at the moment, Hoggy, it'll be interesting to see if they match up to the same names. Looking forward to finding out more about a couple of them, particularly Hanif.

First impressions on the new 5:

Lindwall - An easy yes.
Marsh - Another fairly clear cut yes.

Miandad - Stats suggest he should be another yes, but are there some negatives that undermine his reputation?

May - Borderline, considering I had a no for Kanhai who was statistically slightly better. Have to decide if May's destruction of Ramadhin and relative success as a captain (including that his personal stats improved when he was England captain) push him over the top, or whether his lack of success as a selector counts against him.

Hanif Mohammad - Career stats don't look quite strong enough, but he seems to have had an extraordinary ability to play the occasional long and high scoring innings. A question of whether the sporadic greatness pushes his reputation up relative to the overall career.

Hanif seems quite a pioneer, and I came across this fantastic piece to explain a little more about the man.

Hanif was the first star of Pakistan cricket, the "Little Master" who played the longest innings in Test history - his 970-minute 337 against West Indies in Bridgetown in 1957-58 - then followed it a year later with the highest first-class innings to that point, 499 run out. With such feats, broadcast on radio, he turned cricket in Pakistan from the preserve of the Lahore educated elite into the mass sport it is today. Although famous for his immaculate defence and never hitting the ball in the air, Hanif could also attack, and was probably the originator of the reverse-sweep. His versatility extended to captaining and keeping wicket, and bowling right- and left-handed in Test cricket. But in addition to being the jack of all trades, he was the master of one.

Inventing a stroke, and bowling both right and left handed, coupled with his longest innings and tendency for monster scores certainly add a lot of weight to his claims to a spot in our HoF.

A few words on Ray Lindwall:

A protégé of Bill O'Reilly's at Sydney's famous St George club, Ray Lindwall renounced rugby for cricket after the Second World War, and was for a decade uncontested as Australia's new-ball bowler, a master in all conditions. Ashes opponent John Warr held that "if one were granted one last wish in cricket, it would be the sight of Ray Lindwall opening the bowling in a Test match". His powerful, rhythmic approach, unwavering control and late swing brought a hush to arenas all over the world: when he yorked Len Hutton with the second ball of the Headingley Test of July 1953, it was received with the solemnity of a declaration of war. Like his longtime bowling partner Keith Miller, Lindwall could also bat with spirit and adventure: his Test century at Melbourne in January 1947 was the second-fastest by an Australian.

Fists of Fury wrote:I've got it similar to you at the moment, Hoggy, it'll be interesting to see if they match up to the same names. Looking forward to finding out more about a couple of them, particularly Hanif.

Well what I'm thinking at the moment is:

Lindwall and Miandad, definite yes.
I know that Guildford is probably going to mention that Lindwall copied Larwood (who I voted against), but I honestly think that Lindwall was a far better bowler.
And, yes, it's true that Miandad was not the best liked player of all-time (neither was Bradman, or a number of others), but to me he is Pakistan's best ever batsman, and a certified great.

May, probable yes.
Maybe not quite as statistically successful as the likes of Harvey or Kanhai, but still one of the top batsmen in the world during the 50s and a highly successful captain.

Marsh, maybe.
A very good wicketkeeper/batsman, but was he really of the same calibre as the likes of Gilchrist, Flower, Knott, even Healey?
I know he held the world record for dismissals and had more dismissals per match than Knott, but to me that's more to do with the attack he worked with than him being a better 'keeper (he wasn't).

Hanif Mohammed, no.
Pakistan's first great batsman, on his retirement he held the record for the longest (his 337 against the WIndies), and highest (499, run out going for the 500th run), innings in first class cricket, but his overall record, for me, is not quite good enough. He also suffers somewhat for being in the same set of candidates as another Pakistan batsman who, I would argue, was his superior.

Checking in briefly.

Disappointed to see Heyhoe-Flint not in the 2nd ballot, and as I suspected when I voted NO, a YES vote from myself would have been enough to get her through, but that would have been dishonest. Surprised to see Kanhai miss out by so much, and Larwood not get inducted (more arguing to come for both of these I suspect).

The new bunch are very interesting, partly because I don't see many (with the notable exception of maybe Lindwall) being clear-cut at all. I'm thinking 3 x yes and 2 x no, but not at all along the same lines as dummy-half. This has the potential for some interesting debate (which I shall join once the week-end is over).

A cracking piece on Peter May:

Peter Barker Howard May, CBE, died at his home in Hampshire on December 27, 1994, four days short of his 65th birthday. In the 1950s PBH May - the initials were part of the style of the man - came to represent the beau ideal of English batsmanship and sportsmanship. He was tall and handsome with a batting style that was close to classical, and he was the hero of a generation of schoolboys. To his contemporaries at Charterhouse he was a heroic figure much earlier: from a very young age it was clear that he was going to play for England and he glided towards greatness in an effortless-looking manner.

Peter May was born at Reading on December 31, 1929. He was an instinctive cricketer, though there was no background of the game in his family. When he was 13, the headmaster of Charterhouse barred him from the First XI for his own good, but as a 14-year-old in 1944 he made 108 against Harrow, an innings that had an extraordinary impact on the school. In four years in the school First XI he made 1,794 runs, averaging 54.36. He was advised, but not all that much, by the former England player George Geary. By 1947, his last year at school, he was clearly the best schoolboy batsman in the country, scoring an unbeaten 183 against Eton and 148 and 146 in the representative matches at Lord's.

He then had to do two years' national service as Writer May of the Royal Navy - the scorecard abbreviation Wtr puzzling at least one MCC member who thought he must be the mess waiter. By his second year, his clerical duties were being heavily interspersed with cricket and in 1949 he played enough to come third in the national averages behind Hardstaff and Hutton. That autumn he went up to Cambridge: in 1950 their batting side was as strong as any in the country and he was not immediately dominant, but he scored an unbeaten 227 against Hampshire, stepped into the Surrey team and quickly won his county cap.

By 1951 he had made enough runs in every type of cricket - including a century for the Gentlemen- to be picked for the Fourth Test against South Africa at Headingley. He scored 138, an innings that seemed like a revelation. He played in all four Tests against India in 1952 and, though he was dropped for the three middle Ashes Tests of 1953, he returned to score 39 and 37, important in context, at the Oval and was picked for the West Indies tour, where he made his second Test century, a far more dogged 135 on a matting pitch at Port-of-Spain to earn a draw.

This secured May's place once and for all, and he became a crucial member of two of the most successful teams English cricket has ever seen: Surrey, who won the Championship every year between 1952 and 1958, and an England team that never lost a series in the same period. May adapted his method and his mental approach to Test cricket and moved from being a promising batsman to a great one. Once Gubby Allen saw him get out at Fenner's and muttered: "That was the most unconscious stroke I have ever seen." After his Headingley century Allen sent him a telegram: "Charge of unconsciousness unconditionally withdrawn".

In Australia in 1954-55, May was Hutton's vice-captain, and the following year, when Hutton became ill, inherited the leadership. He captained England in 41 Tests, still a record despite the later growth of Test cricket, and was an unchallenged figure of authority. England won 20 of those Tests and lost only ten. May's stature as a batsman increased each year, even on the indifferent pitches of 1956. In the First Test at Edgbaston against West Indies in 1957, he scored 285 not out, sharing a stand of 411, England's highest ever, with Colin Cowdrey, saving the match and blunting Sonny Ramadhin's mastery of English batsmen once and for all. England went on to win the series 3-0. In 1958, in the wettest, most bowler-friendly summer of the century, he averaged almost 64, 17 more than any other batsman. In both these years, he followed on where Stuart Surridge had left off in 1956 and captained Surrey to the Championship.

That was May's apogee. England went to Australia in 1958-59 as hot favourites, but were met by bowlers widely suspected of throwing, and slumped to a 4-0 defeat. May was greatly upset by newspaper criticism of the presence on tour of his fiancée, Virginia Gilligan, especially when one report said they had been secretly married. They actually married that April, and from then on his enthusiasm for the game semed to wane. He missed much of the 1959 season with an abscess, which also forced him home from the West Indies tour that winter. It was 1961 before he returned to cricket and, when he was bowled round his legs by Richie Benaud at Old Trafford, his dismissal sealed the fate of the Ashes. Three weeks later he played his last Test and in 1962 effectively retired from first-class cricket, though there was always the hope, in other minds, that he might return, and Wisden delayed its retirement tribute until 1971.

May became an insurance broker and underwriter at Lloyd's and concentrated on his growing family: four girls, all of them sharing their mother's love of horses, which their father, though no horseman, happily took on. For many years his cricketing involvement was low-profile, though he served as a Test selector from 1965 to 1968, and was president of MCC in 1980-81. However, in 1982 he agreed to return to the limelight by becoming chairman of selectors with a specific brief to get a grip on the players' behaviour. He never gained a rapport with a new generation of cricketers and did not seem to have much disposition to choose between them. Had he stuck to the original plan and retired after the 1985 Ashes series, his reputation would have been largely undamaged, but he stayed on until 1988, working through four captains in the last summer alone. By the end, players were being picked and dropped with bewildering rapidity.

England were less strong relative to other countries in the 1980s than in the 1950s. Both as a batsman and as a captain, May had the advantage that the best bowlers were nearly always on his side. His failure against Heine and Adcock in South Africa in 1956-57 has led some to wonder whether he could have coped with the sustained battering that modern batsmen receive. But, 18 months earlier in England, he dealt with the same bowlers so effectively that he was close to a century in every match. Richie Benaud, perhaps his most formidable opponent, called him not merely the greatest English batsman to emerge since the war - which is the conventional judgment - but the only great one. As a captain, May was a hard but unfailingly courteous competitor. He was not an imaginative tactician but his resources meant this was not a serious disadvantage. He was helped too by the presence of a great chairman of selectors in Gubby Allen.

Peter May will be remembered best as a batsman, upright in everything he did, especially the on-drive which, famously, he perfected as a schoolboy. In 66 Tests he scored 4,537 runs at 46.77; in first-class cricket he scored 27,592 runs at 51.00 with 282 catches. He scored 85 centuries, his early retirement preventing him becoming the first amateur since WG Grace to score a hundred hundreds. His gifts were sublime, indeed mysterious, and he bore them with honour, modesty and distinction. The fear that we will never see his like again meant his early death was felt all the more keenly.

A summary of Miandad's career:

Javed Miandad is the greatest batsman Pakistan has ever produced. There was little doubt in the mind of Abdul Hafeez Kardar, Pakistan's first Test captain and influential administrator, when he first laid eyes on him as a youngster in the early 70s and famously predicted Miandad "the find of the decade." He wasn't wrong, as a stupendous debut series against New Zealand in 1976 started to prove.

Miandad was not of the classical school of batting, though he possessed a beautiful square cut and most shots in and outside the book: he was a fine early reverse-sweeper. But he worked the angles and spaces equally well; he knew above all how to score runs in almost any situation. These qualities presented themselves through his entire career and uniquely, not once did his career average fall below fifty. No Pakistani has scored more Test runs than him and, Inzamam-ul-Haq aside, probably no batsman has won as many matches for Pakistan.

There was often a touch of genie or genius about his finest innings, like his two hundreds in successive Tests in the West Indies in 1987-88 or the big double hundreds against India and England. Problems on the bouncy pitches of Australia or the swinging ones of England were overcome with time and, if people questioned his record against the West Indies, they never did after that 1987-88 series.

He was versatile as well, as evidenced by a marvellous ODI career. Here his supreme running - it is said that he was one of the early pioneers of aggressive ODI running - shot placement and mental strength produced outstanding results. All qualities came together in a near-miraculous ODI century against India in Sharjah which won the Australasia Cup for Pakistan in 1986. He often saved his best for India, never more so than when he smote Chetan Sharma for a last-ball six to win that final. The match led to years of Pakistani domination over India, particularly in the deserts of Sharjah. In 1992, battling age and back problems, Miandad played a lead role in Pakistan's only World Cup triumph, with six half-centuries.

He was also Pakistan's youngest captain and always considered to be the most tactically astute. Imran Khan often acknowledges the role Miandad played as vice-captain with key on-field decisions, though the two were chalk to the other's cheese. But as captain possibly he was too abrasive to get on with all of his players, as at least two player revolts against his leadership suggest. And coinciding with the leadership of Imran, he never captained in as many Tests as he might have done. As with most subcontinent greats, he possibly lingered for longer than might have been advised, finally bowing out in 1996 after, ironically, a loss to India in the World Cup.

The problems of captaincy re-emerged when he became Pakistan's coach, where he had his ups and downs. Results were mostly positive but constant bickering from players about his excessively hands-on approach wasn't so good. After three stints in charge, he parted company with the team in 2004 to make way for Bob Woolmer after being blamed for Pakistan's one-day and Test losses to India. In October 2008, Miandad declined an offer to become Pakistan's coach again, but he was soon appointed the PCB's director-general, possibly a role of even greater influence. The move was hailed by many Pakistanis but it didn't last long - Miandad quit the job in January 2009, after differences with the board over the exact scope of his role.

And finally, some words on Marsh:

Thick-set in build and combative in approach, Rodney Marsh remains one of the most respected wicketkeepers to have ever played international cricket. During a Test career which bridged a period of 14 years until his retirement in 1983-84, he collected a then world-record tally of 355 dismissals; the combination of his concentration, athleticism and highly skilled glovework earning him enormous admiration among spectators and fellow players alike. Marsh enjoyed no easy passage to the top - he was forced to cool his heels at first-class level as a specialist batsman initially and then endured strident criticism when he was promoted to the national team ahead of the popular Brian Taber - but there was little argument about his credentials in either arena thereafter.

Although he did not cut the perfect athletic figure, Marsh was nimble-footed and his capacity to move acrobatically to intercept errant deliveries and catches was a constant feature. He was an invaluable player for both Western Australia and Australia, and the inextricability of his association with the fast bowler Dennis Lillee - the dismissal "caught Marsh bowled Lillee" was recorded 95 times in Tests - is one of the legends of cricket in their country. Apart from his wicketkeeping talents, he was also an excellent batsman in his own right, scoring three Test centuries, and his forceful strokeplay lay at the core of many stubborn Australian lower-order performances.

After retirement, Marsh enhanced his already glowing reputation with a fruitful stint as the head of the Australian Cricket Academy at Adelaide, overseeing players such as Ricky Ponting, Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee. Taking his talents abroad in 2002, Marsh was teased by his former team-mates for accepting the director's role of the old enemy's new National Academy. A year later one of the toughest men to play for Australia was appointed an England selector, and he has made useful contributions to the country's on-field renaissance. Stepping down from both roles in September 2005, he left having helped England regain the Ashes.

My initial feeling is that I'll be handing a yes to both Lindwall and Miandad, with maybe's for the other three. No clear cut 'no's' for me this week as yet, so the ensuing debate will help shape my views, no doubt.

Brief visit: Sorry to see Heyhoe-Flint only 46% - I felt a bit like Mike in that I wanted to see her in the repecharges but didn't feel quite right voting Yes ... rather wish I had now ...

Surprised Larwood came up a fraction short. Will be put right next year

As indeed may be the case for Kanhai ...

Next lot will be tricky. Lindwall a sure Yes but will have to look at the others in detail.

Hoggy
With regard to Marsh, he should be compared with Knott and Healy as being a very talented keeper who could bat (and as with so many keepers, tended to do better when the chips were down) rather than with Gilchrist or Flower who were always as much batsmen as keepers.

In this context, I think a spot in the HoF is justified as his keeping statistics compare favourably to those of Knott (although of course aided by having Lillian Thompson bowling). His batting average in the high 20s is markedly poorer than Knott but stands up to comparison with other contemporary and earlier keepers, and even in his first Test series he equalled the hghest score by an Aussie keeper to that point.

An intersting comment on Wikipaedia relating to Marsh's first Test series, during which he earned the unenviable nickname of Iron Gloves:
'Marsh later admitted that he was underprepared as a wicketkeeper, but he learned from watching his English counterpart Alan Knott.[1]'

By the end of his career, Marsh was considered one of the best ever glovemen, so he was clearly a very hard worker. There may be a little bit of Aussie bias, but Benaud rated Marsh ahead of Knott.

Overall therefore, I think the case for Marsh being in the HoF is quite strong.

like Mike, alfie and guildford, sorry to see that Flint didn't make the second ballot. Thought she deserved at least that much, but couldn't really vote YES just because of that. Glad Kanhai squeaks through to a second ballot, and slightly surprised Larwood doesn't make it, should make for some cracking debates next year.

On this week's nominees, I'm a bit unsure. Lindwall is a definite YES (has someone mentioned that Bradman picked him in his all-time XI?), but I'm a little less sure of the others.

Marsh was a very fine keeper standing back to the quicks (though rarely needed to showcase his skills up to the stumps). Certainly not as good a keeper as Knott, but his records of dismissals stood for a while, which must count for something. Can't remember off-hand if I included him in my top ten keepers of all-time, seem to remember he may have sneaked in.

Miandad: lovely batsman, does he have those defining moments?

May: I'm sure guildford will present an excellent case for him, I await with bated breath.

Mohammed: perhaps not such an outstanding career as some of the others, but some truly remarkable innings, and reportedly invented the reverse sweep. Decent case for his inclusion then.

dummy
I do think Marsh was a very good 'keeper, but I still hold that he wasn't quite on the same level as Knott or Taylor or even Healey.
And he wasn't as good a batsman as Gilchrist or Flower (or Knott).
In my estimation, he doesn't quite excel enough in either discipline to gain entrance to the HoF, being a very good, but not great, 'keeper, and good batsman.
Having said that, he was a record breaking player, who had a number of qualities and was part of one of the all-time great bowler/'keeper partnerships.
So I'm sitting on the fence for now. I'll have to think about it a bit more.

Hoggy, I was about to suggest his partnership with Lillee (c Marsh b Lillee 75 times was it?) as one reason that could support any argument for Marsh's inclusion. An outstanding record, and one that will be difficult to beat.

Fists of Fury wrote:Hoggy, I was about to suggest his partnership with Lillee (c Marsh b Lillee 75 times was it?) as one reason that could support any argument for Marsh's inclusion. An outstanding record, and one that will be difficult to beat.

That and the fact that he was, at one time, the leading 'keeper in history in terms of dismissals, would certainly be strong arguments for his inclusion. However, it could be argued that such records were the result, purely, of longevity, and being around during a period when Australia had a very strong pace attack.
Of course that may be a little unfair, and longevity is admirable in itself, but I always got the feeling that Marsh's record breaking was not down to him being a great 'keeper, but down to him being a very good 'keeper given lots of opportunities.
As you say though, those records are there and have to be respected. That's why I'm undecided on Marsh at the moment

seems like an interesting round this week, some really tough decisions to make.

Fists of Fury wrote:Guys, the votes are in.

Heyhoe-Flint - 46% - misses out entirely.
Kanhai - 54% - eligible for second ballot induction.
Larwood - 69% - close to making it in, but is eligible for second ballot induction.
Knott - 100% clean sweep.
Hutton - 100% clean sweep.

HoF thread to be updated later.

Next 5 candidates for this coming fortnight are:

Ray Lindwall
Hanif Mohammad
Rod Marsh
Peter May
Javed Miandad

Apologies, have no time to post the usual career summary at the moment, but I'm sure people can have a read up of their own in the meantime.

hmm these 5 will be very tough to decide i wont vote too early

MfC

As for defining moments for Miandad, in tests how about his 280* in a stand of 551 with Mudasser Nazar which paved the way for an innings victory over India in 1983, or his 62* successfully chasing 137 to win in 100 minutes again against India in 1978.
In ODIs, his 116* again against India to win the Austral-Asia Trophy in 1986, including hitting a 6 off the final ball with 4 required to win, is probably his stand out innings, but by no means his only great ODI performance.

hmmm my early thoughts are:

Lindwall-not sure, inclined to say yes

Hanif Mohammed-no

Rod Marsh-no

Peter May--not sure, inclined to say no

Javed Miandad-YES

NOT MY FINAL VOTES JUST EARLY THOUGHTS MIANDAD ONLY ONE WHO REALLY STANDS OUT FOR ME.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Guildford, as the resident champion of lost causes on this thread, I reckon you'd better do some serious research on Hanif.

I'll give it a go once I've convinced myself - any uncertainty at this stage is due to my ignorance rather than any specific concerns. As a one off claim, being run out going for his 500th run in a first class innings has to be high up there!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

May: I'm sure guildford will present an excellent case for him, I await with bated breath.

I'm hoping the Corporal will lead the military charge on behalf of May. More than happy though to lend support if required as to why it can only be a YES.

GB
Given how Hanif batted, he'd probably had to run about 400 of them rather than scoring them all in boundaries. Probably just ran out of energy...

CF
A quick check on Lindwall's Wikipedia page will show you why he should be included - over 200 Test wickets at 23 is quite clearly in the elite (noting that fewer tests were played, so 200 wickets was quite a long career, and the war probably knocked a couple of years off the start of his career), and he was a handy lower order batsman (as a couple of Test hundreds and an average just over 20 testify). Contemporaries (Benaud, Trueman) rated him right up there with the best pace bowlers of the time, and he was the first great exponent of the inswinging yorker now so beloved of one day death bowlers.

dummy, i will do a lot of resarach before giving in my final votes, it was just my initial thoughts.

cricketfan90 wrote:

NOT MY FINAL VOTES JUST EARLY THOUGHTS

CF - noted, understood and appreciated.

pretty sure I read in "cricket's strangest matches" that Hanif was run out trying to pinch the strike off the last ball of the day's play, and the scoreboard showed him as having 498 at the time.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

.... Miandad, definite yes.

.... And, yes, it's true that Miandad was not the best liked player of all-time (neither was Bradman, or a number of others), but to me he is Pakistan's best ever batsman, and a certified great.

I don't rule any of the current nominees definitely in or out at this stage. However, my immediate thoughts upon seeing Miandad's name was to recall that he was ''a deeply unpleasant individual'' or similar. That may be harsh. It may be unfair. It may also not be particularly relevant; I appreciate Bodyline (which, to at least some extent, I championed in my support of Larwood) was hardly a walk in the park to feed the ducks.

However, I hope this this will be addressed by Miandad's supporters on this thread.

Meant helpfully to all including Miandad.

dummy_half wrote:First impressions ....

Marsh - Another fairly clear cut yes.

Dummy - again, I don't rule out a YES. However, like Hoggy, I will need convincing. It isn't ''fairly clear cut'' to me from outset.

GB
Fair enough. Perhaps its a bias on my part that Marsh was one of the first players I remember, and I always recall him being considered a bleedin tough opponent.

Of course there is also the Marsh legend to consider (isn't there always with short, stocky Australian cricketers), that he had a cheeky bet on England winning at Headingley in 81, at wasn't it reputed to be 500-1 odds?

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

.... Miandad, definite yes.

.... And, yes, it's true that Miandad was not the best liked player of all-time (neither was Bradman, or a number of others), but to me he is Pakistan's best ever batsman, and a certified great.

I don't rule any of the current nominees definitely in or out at this stage. However, my immediate thoughts upon seeing Miandad's name was to recall that he was ''a deeply unpleasant individual'' or similar. That may be harsh. It may be unfair. It may also not be particularly relevant; I appreciate Bodyline (which, to at least some extent, I championed in my support of Larwood) was hardly a walk in the park to feed the ducks.

However, I hope this this will be addressed by Miandad's supporters on this thread.

Meant helpfully to all including Miandad.

Miandad certainly got on the nerves of both certain team-mates and opponents. Don't know about being a deeply unpleasent individual, but not universally liked, I'll give you (people may be able to give examples proving that he was deeply unpleasant, I don't know). As you say, however, I don't how relevant that is. As I've said, Bradman was hardly universally liked, especially by some of his team-mates, neither was Hammond or a number of others already in the HoF. Miandad would fit in well.

I'm very disappointed to see Heyhoe-Flint miss out completely - I actually feel her case is stronger than Clark's and Clark made the Repecharge. But anyway, nothing can be done now...

My initial thoughts this week:

Lindwall - A great record and well respected. I would say he has a strong chance of a Yes.

Marsh - Close comparison with Knott is needed. Will probably look at his case tomorrow.

May - On pure stats is more in the Kanhai catergory than the Hutton category but again lots to consider (how good a captain was he?, how bad a selector was he?)

Miandad - Probably Pakistan's greatest ever batsman. I will need some convincing to vote against him.

Hanif Mohammad - Haven't decided at all yet - many different factors to consider.

Shelsey - you've helpfully provided for recent nominees a few comments from Christopher Martin-Jenkins' ''Best 100 Cricketers''.

I assume Javed Miandad gets an entry. Grateful for any insight from CM-J as to Miandad's character. I can't quite put my finger on it (hardly done any reseach yet) but something is bugging me ....

Thanks.

Shelsey raises an interesting point:

Is it fair that, Peter May for instance but he's by no means the only one, a prospective HOF'er can have his post-playing career can count against him?

That would seem to me to be inequitable when compared to others who passed their later years engaged in a non-sporting endeavour.

kwinigolfer wrote:Shelsey raises an interesting point:

Is it fair that, Peter May for instance but he's by no means the only one, a prospective HOF'er can have his post-playing career can count against him?

That would seem to me to be inequitable when compared to others who passed their later years engaged in a non-sporting endeavour.

It's probably fair that positive contributions made to cricket post playing career should be taken into account as bonus points for election to the HoF, but I don't think that arguably negative post playing career contributions or, indeed, a lack of post playing career contribution of any type should, neccessarily, count against inclusion.