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.

I have to find myself agreeing with guilford on most of the candidates!

Lindwall I think will be a clear yes. He may end up being the only clear yes this round, the way things are shaping.

At the moment I would very much have Marsh in the very good but not great category. Having said that, an aspect to consider with Marsh was his role in setting up the Australian accademy which arguably was the major factor in the dominance of the Australian sides of recent times.

Miandad was a very good to great player, but I would agree with guilford's assessment of his character. At the moment I shall need quite a bit of convincing to vote yes.

May was one of the greatest England bats of all time, and also a very good captain. I am inching towards a yes vote at the moment.

Hanif Mohammed has his 499. For that, at the moment I am thinking yes.

Must admit I'm surprised by your comments on Miandad Mike. Yes, he was arrogant, abrasive, at times abusive, and was not universally liked either by opponents or team-mates, but if they were criteria for excluding people from the HoF then a number of current members should probably not be there.

Interesting account from the Guardian of a Miandad innings giving some insight into his greatness as a batsman


Javed Miandad, 200 not out, Essex v Glamorgan, County Championship, 1 September 1981


In a sense, all batsmen are doomed. They walk to the crease knowing that their innings is finite, and that it could end at any moment. It takes a very special person to relish that situation, but that's how Javed Miandad played. He had the mentality of a fugitive, content to live on his wits no matter how great the risks. In fact, he needed those risks in order to thrive. The anarchy stimulated him. These qualities, coupled with a stunning imagination that allowed him to manoeuvre deliveries to unlikely locations, have never been in greater evidence than in Colchester on the first day of September 1981.

Javed was coming towards the end of a record-breaking season for Glamorgan, and had scored 200 not out in a total of 336 against Somerset a few weeks earlier. He did even better here, scoring 200 not out in a total of 311, with all the other batsmen scoring 89 between them. Javed scored 64 per cent of the runs in that innings, yet even such a staggering statistic barely touches the sides of his performance.

Glamorgan had been set 325 to win in 323 minutes, and soon collapsed to 44 for four on a pitch that was turning and bouncing viciously at pace. "They had no chance," said Ray East, the Essex left-arm spinner "Batting on it was impossible."

Except for Javed, who used his fast hands, fast feet and even faster brain to counter-attack East and his spin twin, David Acfield. It is on bad wickets that genius really asserts itself, and there have been few greater rough-track bullies than Javed. He began to work the spinners round the park, even pulling out the occasional reverse sweep, all the while collecting runs as an impish pickpocket might collect coins.

There was umpteen dashes down the track, with Javed sometimes running a long way past short leg and silly point to whip against the spin into the open spaces. On the face of it these were kamikaze charges, but Javed knew exactly what he was doing. He would also dummy the bowlers, shaping to run at them and then rocking back in his crease to take advantage if they dropped short. The audacity was breathtaking.

The relationship between bat and ball, hunted and hunter, was reversed to such an extent that Javed even started sledging the bowlers. "I love to talk while batting, it helps to settle my nerves," he said. "I started ragging the Essex bowlers and I could tell that I was wearing them down. After a while I could sense they had started to panic." It was hard to tell what was ragging more: the pitch or Javed.

Wickets continued to fall at the other end: 155 for five, 224 for six, 227 for seven. Then Javed added 43 for the eighth wicket with Robin Hobbs – who was out first ball. It was an astonishing partnership, with Javed facing every delivery for eight consecutive overs. His plan was simple: wait for the field to come up for the fifth delivery, hit over the top for a boundary, and then gleefully steal a single from the last ball. It was a delicious game of cat and mouse, except the mouse was terrorising the cat.

Hobbs went at 270 for eight, with 55 still needed. Javed added 21 with Malcolm Nash, who scored 1, and 20 with the last man Simon Daniels, who fell to a dodgy lbw decision. Essex had won by 13 runs, and Javed was still there, unbeaten on 200. "It was easily the best innings I've ever seen," said East, an assessment shared by his team-mates and the umpire Ken Palmer. "We simply could not believe our eyes."

Mike Selig wrote:I have to find myself agreeing with guilford on most of the candidates!

Lindwall I think will be a clear yes. He may end up being the only clear yes this round, the way things are shaping.

At the moment I would very much have Marsh in the very good but not great category. Having said that, an aspect to consider with Marsh was his role in setting up the Australian accademy which arguably was the major factor in the dominance of the Australian sides of recent times.

Miandad was a very good to great player, but I would agree with guilford's assessment of his character. At the moment I shall need quite a bit of convincing to vote yes.

May was one of the greatest England bats of all time, and also a very good captain. I am inching towards a yes vote at the moment.

Hanif Mohammed has his 499. For that, at the moment I am thinking yes.

Oh, Mike. How long before it's Mike Larry Gomes?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Must admit I'm surprised by your comments on Miandad Mike. Yes, he was arrogant, abrasive, at times abusive, and was not universally liked either by opponents or team-mates, but if they were criteria for excluding people from the HoF then a number of current members should probably not be there.

Hoggy - I understand your comment but fear Miandad took it to a new art form.

Corporal - do you have memories from the time? Ask mainly should you want a break from 'The Case for May'.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Must admit I'm surprised by your comments on Miandad Mike. Yes, he was arrogant, abrasive, at times abusive, and was not universally liked either by opponents or team-mates, but if they were criteria for excluding people from the HoF then a number of current members should probably not be there.

Hoggy - I understand your comment but fear Miandad took it to a new art form.

There's a few incidents.
Clashes with Lillee (which the Aussie press blamed on Lillee), and with More in the WC. Rumours that he didn't have the support of the team when captain.
Any other major clashes?

I don't know, there's something about Miandad which grates with me. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh, and am certainly prepared to reconsider. But as always, it is up to those who genuinely believe their champion should make the HoF to make the case. It is worth noting his record is not extraordniary, so he is by no means a clear and obvious yes, regardless of record.

Fantastic talk by Gordon Lord (head of ECB elite coaching) this evening. Really interesting insight into what he believes a coach's role is.

Mike Selig wrote:I don't know, there's something about Miandad which grates with me. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh, and am certainly prepared to reconsider. But as always, it is up to those who genuinely believe their champion should make the HoF to make the case. It is worth noting his record is not extraordniary, so he is by no means a clear and obvious yes, regardless of record.

Fantastic talk by Gordon Lord (head of ECB elite coaching) this evening. Really interesting insight into what he believes a coach's role is.

Mike - spot on about those believing Miandad to be a worthy entrant to the HoF need to make the case for him. Like you, there's something bugging me about him. I thought you might take the view that it's not a popularity contest and I was being petty. Glad that's not the case and I'm not alone. As you are almost certainly too young to have seen him play, where are your concerns from? Reading and views of elders, I would guess. I'm sure Gordon Lord would have something to say about him if you get the chance to ask this weekend.

I'm pleased Lord is impressing in his ECB role. I guess he would be about fifty now. I remember him as a young batsman at Warks from when I was still living in the Midlands around thirty years ago. He was initially regarded very highly and some predicted real stardom. From memory (it's too late to look up stats!), he scored 199 in one CC match but that was about his only score of real significance. He moved on to Worcs but never really made the grade there. Clearly, coaching is his forte - remind you of anyone, Mike?

Mike Selig wrote:It is worth noting his record is not extraordniary, so he is by no means a clear and obvious yes, regardless of record.

Better test record than either Rohan Khanai or Neil Harvey, neither of whom is considered as the best batsmen their country has ever produced, as Miandad is. Test average of 52.5. FC average of 53+ with 80 centuries. Wisden cricketer of the year 1982.
He was also a great one-day batsman. One of the first to utilise aggresive running in ODIs. One of only two players to have played in 6 WC Finals tournaments, playing crucial innings in both the semi and final during Pakistan's win in 1992. Holder of the record for consecutive ODI 50s, with 9.
His combined average (tests + ODIs) during the 1980s was higher than any other player who played throughout that decade. Higher than Viv Richards, Greenidge, Vengsarker, Border, Haynes, Gooch. His test average was bettered only by Border among those who played throughout that decade.
As for defining moments, I've mentioned a few above, and could refer to numerous others. But how about his 102 in the 4th innings against the WIndies in 1988 (the only Pakistan score over 50 in the innings), to ensure a draw, or his ODI 107 from a total of 214 against South Africa in 1993?
So we have a player widely regarded as being, possibly, the best batsman his country's ever produced. One who was, arguably, the best batsman of the 1980s. One who holds a number of records, and one who is credited with developing certain facets of cricket.
How can anyone say no?

Have been busy on patrol in last couple of days - but will post on May later.

The last round of voting rather throws up the dilemma of how do you vote if you think that a player is at least comparable to those who have gone through to the play offs, but not a clear cut Yes candidate.

Fists has provided an excellent portrait of "PBH" - Peter May. So I won't repeat it all here. Among things - starting right from his school days - he had the aura and charisma that many look for in a HoF batsmen. He had the defining moments such as his record breaking partnership of 411 with Cowdrey; his record as the most successful England test captain; the fact that his batting average in 41 tests as England captain was 54. He was a crucial member, of and latterly captain, of the record breaking 1950s Surrey county side

Another extract sums it up well. "Peter May's cricket epitomised the best traditions of the amateur in the English game. Not simply the breathtaking power and technical excellence of his batsmanship, but also the way he conducted himself, both as a cricketer and as captain of England.

Perhaps it was only appropriate that his retirement from first-class cricket in 1962, at the age of just 32, presaged by a matter of months the end of the amateur cricketer. Yet such was the sense of loss and so great the desire for a comeback that it was 1971 before Wisden bowed to the inevitable and published the essay it accorded the great players on their retirement.

Penning this tribute, John Woodcock reflected that cricket followers bestowed on May the same compliment they had conferred on Hobbs and Compton before him. "They knew him by his full name. Ask those who played with or against him between 1955 and 1960, or who watched him play, and they will tell you that Peter Barker Howard May was England's finest post-war batsman."

Other telling points:
"The steel of Peter's batting intriguingly contrasted with his demeanour off the field. His courtly charm snared him as a pin-up and the subject of respectful adoration. Yet he stumbled uneasily in the spotlight. The accumulated praise was as resistible-as an agony column. He was though the epitome of resolution
out at the wicket, as the Australians discovered when they came to The Oval in 1953. Peter emerged from a daunting baptism - and an “incredible” over bowled by Ray Lindwall. “Each one of six balls beat Peter,” recalled Lindwall. “They were just a fraction over the stumps, some cut back, others cut in. He could have been out - six out of six - but he didn't get out.”

Alan Davidson, another of his rivals, spells out the enormity of Lindwall’s mentally-sapping thrust at The Oval. “For anyone less than Peter, it would have finished him; others would have been totally demoralised. If you can survive such an experience, as Peter did, then you've got to be made of special stuff.” The grim joust of the Australians was a lesson in resilience. Before long Peter would establish his own rule in thrilling conquests against them. Lindwall, the tormenting examiner in England in 1953, was treated with disdain when the battle was resumed in Australia two years later. May’s fearless assault at Melbourne exacted ample revenge for the duck presented to him by the Australian in England's first innings, inopportunely on his 25th birthday on New Year's Eve. “By all the established usages of post-war batsmanship this was not novelty, it was treason,” declared the Sydney Morning Herald. Lindwall was not only compelled to strengthen his offside field; he withdrew them even deeper in an attempt to stem the flow of runs. “When an Englishman does that to the greatest fast bowler of his time,” wrote Alan Ross, “it registered, if nothing else, an exchange of dominations.”

Richie Benaud, another in the combative mould, unreservedly awards the palm to his old rival as the greatest cricketer to be produced by England since the war. “Peter was not only a great orthodox player, but a wonderful improviser. He would have been brilliant in the one-day game".

Finally, it is only fair to add that I would agree the widely held view that May was not a success in later years as a selector. But I do not think that should be held against him as his place in the HoF should be amply secured by his playing career from school days through to his early retirement at 32.

That was my dilemma with Kanhai, a very worthy candidate, but no more so than Graveney and inferior in my judgement to Harvey of that era.

And I hope that Hanif Mohammed's credentials will be placed in their proper perspective - he WAS Pakistan batting for the first part of his career; what the NHL HOF call a "builder", though in the playing rather than organizational sense.

Corporal,
Great dispatch on PBHM . . . .

Corporal,

Excellent report on Peter Barker Howard May.

Now take yourself off to the cookhouse. Double rations for lunch!

guildfordbat wrote:

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!

Having done a bit of research, I'm pretty convinced that Hanif would be a worthy entrant to the HoF.

Not so easy this one for me as I never saw him play. Kwini - did you? Any memories, further thoughts?

I'll post more later.

Great article on Miandad's 'abrasiveness'

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/410441.html

And a couple of quotes. Rodney Hogg, in choosing Miandad as being one of his favourite ever batsmen said, "If I wanted anyone batting for my life it would be Javed ahead of Ian Chappell and Allan Border. He was just so hard to get out. Despite lacking the grace of Zaheer Abbas, he had enormous courage and a non-stop sledging ability."
The phrase about wanting Miandad to bat for your life was first used by Viv Richards, I believe.
Tony Greig also had a great deal of admiration for Miandad, stating that:
"He was positive and aggressive in his approach, and the tougher the situation the more he seemed to revel in the challenge. His enthusiasm was extremely infectious, which made him one of the best team men I have ever had the pleasure to play with or against."

Miandad's reputation as a team player is further underlined by his relationship with Imran Khan: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/471978.html

With a quote from that piece that highlights Miandad the team man: "Arguably, Miandad conceded more [After Imran engineered a player revolt to oust Miandad as captain]. Forced to make way for Imran, he was stripped of the captaincy and left friendless. He could have squandered his promise and burned out, yet he pulled himself together to faithfully serve as Imran's primary tactical advisor and Pakistan's batting mainstay"

Javed Miandad. Combative, abrasive, controversial, great team man, master batsman.
What's not to like?

guildford,
Never knowingly saw Hanif play, and don't believe I saw Lindwall either. Watched Miandad a time or two, and Peter May (usually a breaker of Hampshire hearts, without question the pre-eminent English batsman of his day) and Rodders.

miandad is the only one who really stands out for me IMO.

Thanks, Kwini. I would also be interested in your thoughts on Miandad.

Hoggy makes the case for his greatness with the bat well and also seeks to mitigate his abrasiveness through the comments of distinguished others. Now, I've got form for supporting aggression; my recent comments in support of Larwood refer as do many posts in support of the Windies' fast men. However, I like aggression to be mainly demonstrated through bowling quickly or batting strokeplay. In other words, through aggressive play rather than aggressive conduct.

I've nothing against banter or the odd bit of blatant sledging from the fielding side. It can add considerably to the fun and enjoyment of the game. However, I believe it needs to be in moderation to retain its humour and keep spectators 'on side'. My over riding perception of Miandad is that his antics were continually 'in your face', unpleasant and boorish.

I find this and my related unease quite hard to explain as it doesn't relate to a particular incident (in contrast to Greg Chappell and that underarm ball). Yes, there was a spat with Lillee which has already been mentioned. I won't go to town on that as I think the Australian was as much (if not more) to blame. My concerns are far more to do with the whole approach and style of the man. This can't be conveyed by the record books nor a key points summary of his career. I therefore wouldn't expect younger posters to be thinking along these lines. I was more than a litte surprised that Mike at the tender age of twenty-four had similar issues (although perhaps I shouldn't have been as he knows cricket well, both past and present).

Anyway, interested if you have any thoughts and memories from seeing him.

Corporal - similar request made of you, please. You must have seen Miandad or at least 'watched' him on the radio.

i also know all about Miandad's 'antics' etc, however with him there are a lot of things to take into consideration.

Guildford
I honestly don't think that Miandad's attitude on the pitch was any worse than some others already in the HoF. Certainly Lillee could be abrasive, even abusive, as could any number of Steve Waugh era Australian's with their ideas on 'mental disintegration'. There's no doubt that Miandad could mix it with anyone when it came to banter, but was he really that much worse than any number of others?
Certainly, watching him bat during the 80s and 90s, I can't really remember any particularly unsavoury incidents other than the most famous ones. But then, I wasn't keeping a mental tally at the time so perhaps some others may have more info.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Guildford
I honestly don't think that Miandad's attitude on the pitch was any worse than some others already in the HoF. Certainly Lillee could be abrasive, even abusive, as could any number of Steve Waugh era Australian's with their ideas on 'mental disintegration'. There's no doubt that Miandad could mix it with anyone when it came to banter, but was he really that much worse than any number of others?
Certainly, watching him bat during the 80s and 90s, I can't really remember any particularly unsavoury incidents other than the most famous ones. But then, I wasn't keeping a mental tally at the time so perhaps some others may have more info.

completely agree mate

Hoggy - sad that I certainly am, even I didn't keep a mental tally of the incidents!

I cannot with total confidence rebut your arguments as my concerns are based on memory and perception which, admittedly, may be hazy. I accept other players on occassion might have been worse. What troubles me about Miandad are not any particular incidents but their apparently never ending nature and cumulative effect.

It would help me and possibly your case to hear further from others (posters themselves or more cricket writers) who witnessed his conduct. I know CF ''completely agrees'' with you but it's some form of evidence I'm after.

I'm not strongly arguing for a NO but, on the other hand, I'm not convinced that a YES is right. As Mike said yesterday, the onus has to be on those seeking his inclusion in the HoF.

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - similar request made of you, please. You must have seen Miandad or at least 'watched' him on the radio.

Guildford - must be a sign of age but actually I have a much stronger "radio memory" of Hanif and of him batting pretty much for eternity. Checking the scorecards I'm fairly sure that what I recall is a single test match - the Lords test from 1967. A real old fashioned test match for the afficiandos:

* England 369 (Barrington 148* )
* Pakistan 354 (scored @ 1.94 runs per over) Hanif 187* - scored off 556 balls, occupying 542 minutes at the crease.
* England 241 for 9.
* Pakistan "chasing" 257 fell just short - finishing at 88 for 3 off 62 overs

That match certainly made a strong impression on me. Overall, tho' Hanif's test record in England was fairly poor, with a quite a lot of very low scores.

guildfordbat wrote:I'm not strongly arguing for a NO but, on the other hand, I'm not convinced that a YES is right. As Mike said yesterday, the onus has to be on those seeking his inclusion in the HoF.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this.
The only reason you're putting forward to exclude Miandad is you're perception of his constant bad behaviour. I'm not suggesting that he was an angel, of course he wasn't. I'm arguing that he wasn't any worse than a number of others. That being said, it does make it rather difficult for me to produce testimony about what a nice guy he was. However, my research on the web so far has failed to turn up THAT much testimony about what a nasty piece of work he was either, so maybe, if you or others could present such evidence, we'd be in a better position to judge.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - similar request made of you, please. You must have seen Miandad or at least 'watched' him on the radio.

Guildford - must be a sign of age but actually I have a much stronger "radio memory" of Hanif and of him batting pretty much for eternity. Checking the scorecards I'm fairly sure that what I recall is a single test match - the Lords test from 1967. A real old fashioned test match for the afficiandos:

* England 369 (Barrington 148* )
* Pakistan 354 (scored @ 1.94 runs per over) Hanif 187* - scored off 556 balls, occupying 542 minutes at the crease.
* England 241 for 9.
* Pakistan "chasing" 257 fell just short - finishing at 88 for 3 off 62 overs

That match certainly made a strong impression on me. Overall, tho' Hanif's test record in England was fairly poor, with a quite a lot of very low scores.

Corporal - thanks for all those details about Barrington and Hanif in response to my query about Miandad.

Pakistan's first innings and Hanif's so slow score of 187* in the Lord's Test of '67 needs to be seen in the context of Pakistan being 99-6 and facing defeat on day two. Truly match saving.

guildford,
My early recollections of Miandad are almost all negative, a brash young man in his youth. But I need to place that in the context of his career and I'll be doing that.
First glance suggest his Test record against specific countries was very uneven - have to research why that is.

Corporal,
Hanif had quite the reputation as a very stodgy player, but could still play strokes when the opportunity presented itself. Strongly feel his scoring rate needs to be seen in the context of his era and the plight of so many of the Pakistan teams of his generation, especially when in his prime.

Very likely that Hanif will be a YES! for me as he pretty much launched Pakistan as a cricketing force.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
My early recollections of Miandad are almost all negative, a brash young man in his youth. But I need to place that in the context of his career and I'll be doing that.
First glance suggest his Test record against specific countries was very uneven - have to research why that is.

Corporal,
Hanif had quite the reputation as a very stodgy player, but could still play strokes when the opportunity presented itself. Strongly feel his scoring rate needs to be seen in the context of his era and the plight of so many of the Pakistan teams of his generation, especially when in his prime.

Very likely that Hanif will be a YES! for me as he pretty much launched Pakistan as a cricketing force.

Thanks, Kwini.

Don't know yet whether Miandad's career was very uneven - like you, I'll need to check that. All your other comments about Miandad (in particular, ''My early recollections of Miandad are almost all negative, a brash young man in his youth.'') tally with my thoughts and support my concerns. I guess Hoggy watched Miandad and appreciate he doesn't have such worries but do think it significant that at least you and I did and do.

Agree fully with you about Hanif. A stodgy trailblazer, perhaps.

Not sure who is the author of the following article on the web - but it does seem to give a plausible insight into Miandad's character...

Javed Miandad, the irrepressible Pakistan cricketer, says he suffered a rare embarrassment and learnt a lesson on patriotism during the 1986-87 tour of India when Mohinder Amarnath gave him an on-the-pitch tongue lashing for making deriding remarks against India. Miandad, the self confessed inventor of sledging, "reached his boiling" point when Amarnath got the better off him at the Jaipur Test, which was witnessed among others by Pakistan's late military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq. "The two teams were on the edge with each other and the atmosphere was tense. At one point, I was fielding close in and was airing my feeling to the batsman, who happened to be Mohinder Amarnath," writes Miandad in his autobiography 'Cutting Edge'. Miandad, the tormentor became tormented when Amarnath survived a close appeal. "When Mohinder survived what I thought was yet another very legitimate appeal, I reached boiling point. I used an expletive to describe India and Mohinder heard it. Calmly, he walked up to me and said, 'look Javed call me anything you want but don't say a word against my country'. "That affected me deeply. I have always regarded my own country as being above everything except Allah. I was embarrassed that I hadn't respected Mohinder's right to feel the same way about his country. I immediately apologised to him," writes Miandad in the 321-page book.

True to his 'Pakistani spirit', Miandad has devoted a special chapter to Pakistan- India encounters and titled it 'Wars with India'. Miandad says his brush with Amarnath taught him the real stakes in India-Pakistan encounters. "It was far beyond anything personal. It was about one's country and what one could do for it." The references to Amarnath is perhaps one of the rare tributes Miandad pays to anybody else other than himself in his autobiography which could have been as well named "I, Me and Myself". Miandad genuinely believes that sledging played a key role in his success. "Intimidatory verbal exchanges suit my personality. They help me concentrate and elevate my game. Players who tried to threaten and bully me probably didn't realise they were doing me a favour," he says and claims his Indians victims included, "the great" Sunil Gavaskar, spinner Dilip Doshi and needless to say fast bowler Chetan Sharma, whose last ball full-toss enabled him to hit a six to win a historic match against India at Sharjah in 1986.

Conspicuously absent from the narrative however, is how a livid Miandad went jumping all around the pitch, enraged by behind the stumps commentary from Indian wicketkeeper Kiran More. Miandad says he remembers the 1986-87 Jaipur Test for attaining yet another success, the priced scalp of Sunil Gavaskar. "Sunil Gavaskar had become the highest run scorer in Test cricket around this time and I was in a mood to needle him. Sunny was a great friend but I never pass an opportunity to take a dig at him." Describing an incident involving Gavaskar in detail, Miandad says, "So you have become a really big player, Sunny, I said from my position in the slips. When he ignored me, I told him it didn't matter how big he had become because he was going to be out the first ball and I was going to take his catch." "May be it was what I said or the way I said it, or may be it would have happened anyway. Unbelievably, Gavaskar edged the first ball of the innings from Imran to me in the slips. The look on his face was one of utter disbelief. As for me I went crazy with joy and started gloating and jumping around like a mad man," says Miandad and justifies his action by saying that cricket was no different from war. "To me, cricket is war. Just like a soldier defending the borders of his country, I was always focussed on the battle in front of me."

Miandad also narrates how he ruffled the Indian spinner Dilip Doshi at the Bangalore Test in 1983-84 series by making snide remarks against him to protest against the bowler's persistent leg- stump bowling. "After a while of the leg theory, I said aloud within earshot of several Indian players including Dilip, I know only two creatures that can hold on to a leg like this - one is a dog and other is Dilip."

I shall join this debate in full from Monday. But here's another thought on Miandad: I believe he was never given out LBW in Pakistan (is this correct? Can someone check?), but overall totals around 20% of LBW dismissals (it is certainly a high number) which suggest he was LBW prone. Does anyone know how his home record looks against his away record? It the above is correct, it is worth wondering whether with neutral umpires he would have been quite as good...

Seeing as Javed seems to be the hot topic for debate I thought I'd produce my post on him first.

I'll start with CMJ's entry on him (No. 57) in the 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "Controversial and commercial though he may have been, Javed Miandad was a genius of a batsman who played the ball exceptionally late and worked it about with flexible wrists, like a squash player manipulating the rubber ball round a court. For talent alone there have been very few to match him"
- "Despite his huge pile of runs, he was far from being one of those patient accumulators who like to go on and on"
- "Quite often he would get himself out through over-confidence or ambition. At 92 not out against Sri Lanka in 1981-82, for example, with the bowling at his mercy, he spotted out of the corner of his eye that mid-off was still walking back to his mark with his back turned as the leg-spinner, D.S. de Silva, was running into bowl. Dancing out to try to lift the ball over the errant fielder's head, he was stumped instead"
- "it seemed to come naturally to him to niggle the opposition. He had a furious public row with Dennis Lillee in Australia in 1981-82, delighted in stirring the pot after the row between the England captain Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana at Faisalabad in 1987-88, and as captain again in England in 1992 he managed to rile both umpires and opposition. There was a mischievous look about him that suggested that for him this was all part of the game"
- "He twice resigned the Test captaincy only to reclaim it and, when he retired, twice also resigned as Pakistan's chief coach, only to be given the reins again in 2008 in a period of familiar upheaval"
- "In all he captained Pakistan in 54 Tests, winning fourteen of them and loosing only six"
- He scored "311 for Karachi Whites against National Bank at seventeen and a double century in his third Test at nineteen". He also made "a commanding 163 in his first Test innings at Lahore"
- "In 1978-79 he scored four more centuries, two at home to India and one each on tour of Australia, on the fast pitch at Perth, and in New Zealand"
- "He could play well on any sort of pitch"
- "He scored 280 not out against India at Hyderabad in Sind in 1981-82, and on the same ground three years later made two hundreds in the same game against New Zealand"
- "His remorseless 260 against England at the Oval in 1987 assured Pakistan of the series"
- "he was also a brilliant one-day cricketer"
- At the 1992 World Cup "he played the innings that rescued Pakistan sufficiently for them to win the final against England"

On stats and accomplishments as a batsman I therefore think he ticks every box - Good average, longevity, decent to good captaincy record, lots of hundreds and quite a few 'daddy hundreds', good one-day record, World Cup winning innings, credited with developing the reverse sweep. The only slight criticism I can find is that he only scored 1 100 in his last 23 Tests. However, this can't really be counted against him as many other players would have retired by then.

However, this issue of his attitude seems to be a recurring theme when people write about Miandad. A quick Google Search will find a Cricinfo interview with Ravi Shastri titled 'I hated Javed Miandad's guts' but a skim down the article will reveal what he actually said was "I hated Javed's guts on the field, but you had to admire him. He was a street-fighter. He got under your skin but he delivered for his side. I know him now, and he's a great bloke".

The Lillee-Miandad incident is one which is particularly spoken about and one which was the subject of a Sky documentary - 'The Saturday Story' - in the last couple of years.





To be honest the incident is mostly Lillee's fault and I certainly wouldn't consider Miandad's actions here as significant enough to warrant exclusion from the Hall of Fame.

A detailed account of this and the controversies after it, involving the ever troublesome Ijaz Butt, are covered in this article:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/486739.html

Mike Selig wrote:I shall join this debate in full from Monday. But here's another thought on Miandad: I believe he was never given out LBW in Pakistan (is this correct? Can someone check?), but overall totals around 20% of LBW dismissals (it is certainly a high number) which suggest he was LBW prone. Does anyone know how his home record looks against his away record? It the above is correct, it is worth wondering whether with neutral umpires he would have been quite as good...

Mike - haven't had the patience to go through his records, but came across this quote on the web:

"The other urban myth is that he was never given out lbw in Pakistan - but that's not true either, as he was dispatched leg-before on eight occasions in home Tests, although admittedly it was quite a long time before the first one. He'd been playing Tests for more than nine years before he was lbw at home, to Ravi Ratnayeke of Sri Lanka in Sialkot in 1985-86. The man who has had the most innings in Tests without ever being out lbw is the old Australian captain Joe Darling, who had 60 lbw-free innings. Bill Ponsford of Australia and Pakistan's Shahid Afridi both had 48 innings in Tests without being given out lbw, Max Walker of Australia 43, and the great South African batsman Graeme Pollock 41."

i will most likely stick with my inital thoughts on voting yes for miandad, and no for everyone else..

however will do a lot of research before i say for defo

out of interest what would your reasons be for voting no for Lindwall cf?

he was a very good bowler, with a good record, however IMO he wasnt a great...i know people will disagree...

i need to do more research but at the moment i dont think he was a great, but like i said, i will do more research.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:I'm not strongly arguing for a NO but, on the other hand, I'm not convinced that a YES is right. As Mike said yesterday, the onus has to be on those seeking his inclusion in the HoF.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this.
The only reason you're putting forward to exclude Miandad is you're perception of his constant bad behaviour. I'm not suggesting that he was an angel, of course he wasn't. I'm arguing that he wasn't any worse than a number of others. That being said, it does make it rather difficult for me to produce testimony about what a nice guy he was. However, my research on the web so far has failed to turn up THAT much testimony about what a nasty piece of work he was either, so maybe, if you or others could present such evidence, we'd be in a better position to judge.

Hoggy - the key word you use is ''constant''. I think the expression I used earlier in respect of his conduct was ''apparently never ending, unpleasant and boorish''. For me, that is why he appears worse than a number of others.

I find your disagreement with my conclusion as above (''the onus has to be on those seeking his inclusion in the HoF'') very surprising. It is not unusual for a poster to turn down a nominee with a comment along the following lines, ''sorry, but for me he falls just a little bit short''. Why shouldn't a reason for the nominee just falling short be because of the voter's perception of his behaviour? That would surely be even more appropriate where the nominee was watched and remembered, albeit somewhat hazily, by the voter.

I think it was Alfie who said previously that we weren't looking to select ''secular saints''. I agreed with and continue to support that view. However, that doesn't mean behaviour has no bearing. I'm in no rush to vote YES for a continual repeat offender.

Corporal - many thanks for your own research and further details.

Mike - when you're back on mainland Europe, I'll be particularly interested in the origins of your concerns. For someone as comparatively young as you who presumably never saw Miandad play but knows a lot about the game's past to voice reservations, the expression ''no smoke without fire comes to mind''.

Despite my comments above and earlier, I'm not decided upon a NO vote. However, the burden of proof to get a YES vote from me remains with his supporters. I'm surprised and disappointed some think differently. It needs to be remembered whose vote it is.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
First glance suggest his Test record against specific countries was very uneven - have to research why that is.

Miandad averaged above 40 against everyone apart from the WIndies and Zimbabwe.
He is also one of only two players in test history to have averaged 50+ throughout their entire careers.
(Anyone name the other? )

CF - I think the main reason posters haven't said much about Lindwall so far is that to them he is such a clear cut YES with extremely valid reasons.

Debate has so far centred around others, particularly Miandad.

However, following your doubts, I'm sure more will be said about Lindwall by those who saw him or already know a lot about him and are convinced of his greatness.

By all means, have a provisional view of NO but please, please don't confirm it until you've done your own research AND read the views of your fellow posters. I will be astounded if you don't want to vote YES then. Even though other posters regularly disagree with me on other matters, I'm sure nearly all will be with me on this.

Thanks.

guildfordbat wrote:CF - I think the main reason posters haven't said much about Lindwall so far is that to them he is such a clear cut YES with extremely valid reasons.

Debate has so far centred around others, particularly Miandad.

However, following your doubts, I'm sure more will be said about Lindwall by those who saw him or already know a lot about him and are convinced of his greatness.

By all means, have a provisional view of NO but please, please don't confirm it until you've done your own research AND read the views of your fellow posters. I will be astounded if you don't want to vote YES then. Even though other posters regularly disagree with me on other matters, I'm sure nearly all will be with me on this.

Thanks.

Yep, even though we seem to disagree on Miandad at the moment (though I'm sure you'll see sense eventually ), I'd agree that Lindwall should be a shoe-in. One of the great fast bowlers.

Shelsey93 wrote:

To be honest the incident is mostly Lillee's fault and I certainly wouldn't consider Miandad's actions here as significant enough to warrant exclusion from the Hall of Fame.

Shelsey - I guess you didn't see a previous post of mine. Even as a doubter of Miandad, I said the same.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:He is also one of only two players in test history to have averaged 50+ throughout their entire careers.
(Anyone name the other? )

Trott?

Shelsey93 wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:He is also one of only two players in test history to have averaged 50+ throughout their entire careers.
(Anyone name the other? )

Trott?

Trott's career isn't over yet.

"However, the burden of proof to get a YES vote from me remains with his supporters. I'm surprised and disappointed some think differently. It needs to be remembered whose vote it is."

Fair enough.
My point is, however, that it's difficult to prove an absence of evidence.
You say that your belief is that Miandad was constantly involved in unsavoury incidents, but, from the little research I've done on the web, that doesn't really appear to be the case.
It's true that Miandad got on peoples nerves, got under their skin. And it's also seemingly true that he often had an agressive attitude toward opponents but, as far as I can tell, he didn't do anything on the field over and above what numerous others have also done. It's difficult to prove this though. It's difficult to give evidence of the things he didn't do. That's why I suggested that those with reservations about his behaviour might give examples of the sort of thing they're worried about. Maybe you have some evidence I haven't come across that might make me reconsider my opinion, I don't know.
I certainly didn't mean to question you're right to vote as you see fit, and I apologise if you took it that way. I just thought that those who were raising concerns about Miandad might have some helpful information to pass on.

Rod Marsh

Marsh doesn't make CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' but was clearly highly rated, and quite possibly with at least a slight Australian bias, by Richie Benaud. Benaud has him in his 2nd XI when picking his Greatest XI in the distinguished company of Hutton, Hammond, G Chappell, Worrell, Miller, Hadlee and another of this weeks contenders, Lindwall, amongst others. Later in his book he discusses Marsh's role in the Centenary Test at the MCG in 1977 - he hit an unbeaten century before acting in a sporting manner when "he dived forward and to the side to take a catch and Randall was given out by umpire Brooks. Marsh instantly called that he had not held the ball cleanly and Randall (on 161) was recalled".

Despite only scoring three Test 100s, Marsh did make an impact with the bat in many big games. Benaud mentions that in 1972 Australia were only able to get within 89 runs of England "due to a brilliant innings of 91 from Rodney Marsh who came into bat with Australia 120/6 in the second innings, needing 342 in all for victory. His 91 came from 130 added while he was at the crease, and he hit Norman Gifford for four mighty sixes after Illingworth had brought the slower bowler on to try and buy his wicket." Marsh also hit another "forceful half-century" later in the series.

A more detailed discussion of Marsh follows in the section profiling the members of the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame. Benaud says that:

"When Rodney Marsh first played for Australia in 1970-71 against England at the 'Gabba, it was an inauspicious beginning with not everything hitting the middle of his wicket-keeping gloves. 'Iron Gloves' was the name given to him by some less than charitable English journalists on tour with the England team. By the time he had finished his Test career, in the same match when Greg Chappell and Dennis Lillee retired, he had shown the cricket world how good he was. Ninety-six Test matches produced 3,633 runs including three centuries and sixteen fifties, and he had 355 victims behind the stumps.

Marsh was the first Australian wicket-keeper to score a Test century; that was in the opening Test match against Pakistan at the Adelaide Oval in the 1972-73 season. That was two years after the Australian innings had been declared at the MCG when he was 92 not out. His most important innings though was the 110* at the MCG in the Centenary Test match in 1977, a performance which gave Australia the opportunity to win the game by 45 runs. He was a genuine allrounder and a fine team man; certainly a very strong character and one who, over a 13-year period, did wonderful things for Australian cricket".

His profile in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers up to 1983 says that he was initially chosen "more for his batting than for his wicket-keeping talent" and soon became a "fiercely competitive character under the green cap" and "one of the most successful and influential members of the team". The writer, Graham Tarrant, says that "There has probably never been a better wicket-keeper to fast bowling". As a batsman he "cuts and drives with tremendous force and delights in belting the ball back over the bowler's head". He also established a world record number of Test dismissals and a record 28 dismissals in one series against England in 1982-83.

As a batsman a disappointment is that he seemed to decline rather than improve over the years - in his first 38 Tests he averaged almost 36 (superb for a keeper at the time) and in his remaining 58 just above 20 (very mediocre even for a keeper).

A comparison with Knott, who received 100% of the vote last week, is interesting. Most people seem to regard Knott as the better gloveman and he was also statistically the better batsman:

Marsh...............................Knott
96..............Tests...................95
25.51........Test ave.............32.75
3............Test 100s...................5
343.........Test catches............250
12.........Test stumpings...........19

Marsh's post-cricket career must also be a major part of his case. He ran the Australian cricket academy from 1990 until 2001, overseeing the development of Michael Bevan, Adam Gilchrist, Jason Gillespie, Michael Kasprowicz, Justin Langer, Brett Lee, Stuart MacGill, Damien Martyn, Glenn McGrath, Ricky Ponting, Michael Slater, Andrew Symonds and Shane Warne amongst others. He then moved over to fill a similar role with England and there helped progress the careers of James Anderson, Ian Bell, Alastair Cook, Steve Harmison, Simon Jones, Monty Panesar, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Strauss before stepping down after the 2005 Ashes, by which time he was also an England selector.

I'm not ready to draw conclusions on Marsh yet but I hope this post outlines some of the arguments for and against his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:He is also one of only two players in test history to have averaged 50+ throughout their entire careers.
(Anyone name the other? )

Trott?

Trott's career isn't over yet.

George Headley and Herbert Sutcliffe are my next guesses

Herbert Sutcliffe it is

On the basis of his playing career alone Marsh for me falls a little short of HoF standing. (I also note that he came 7th on the 606v2 all time best wicket keepers list). The issue then as I see it (and possibly what Shelsey may be suggesting) is really whether Marsh's major subsequent contribution to the game is sufficient to gain him entry.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I shall join this debate in full from Monday. But here's another thought on Miandad: I believe he was never given out LBW in Pakistan (is this correct? Can someone check?), but overall totals around 20% of LBW dismissals (it is certainly a high number) which suggest he was LBW prone. Does anyone know how his home record looks against his away record? It the above is correct, it is worth wondering whether with neutral umpires he would have been quite as good...

Mike - haven't had the patience to go through his records, but came across this quote on the web:

"The other urban myth is that he was never given out lbw in Pakistan - but that's not true either, as he was dispatched leg-before on eight occasions in home Tests, although admittedly it was quite a long time before the first one. He'd been playing Tests for more than nine years before he was lbw at home, to Ravi Ratnayeke of Sri Lanka in Sialkot in 1985-86. The man who has had the most innings in Tests without ever being out lbw is the old Australian captain Joe Darling, who had 60 lbw-free innings. Bill Ponsford of Australia and Pakistan's Shahid Afridi both had 48 innings in Tests without being given out lbw, Max Walker of Australia 43, and the great South African batsman Graeme Pollock 41."

My apologies for succombing to urban myths.

Further to the debate on Miandad, this is what Sunil Gavaskar had to say about him in the Cowdrey Lecture of 2003.


Miandad gets thumbs up from Gavaskar

"Legendary batsmen Sunil Gavaskar has praised his contemporary Pakistani cricketer Javed Miandad for possessing a rare skill of unsettling the opposition by just "talking" and not having to resort to sledging.

Miandad had a "sharp" sense of humour and was one of those rare species of batsmen who "talked" to the bowlers, Gavaskar said while delivering the Colin Cowdrey lecture at the the Lord's, London on Tuesday.

The former India skipper said Miandad would do anything to get under the skin of the bowlers and work it to his advantage but it was restricted to good-humoured banter.

Gavaskar related an incident involving Miandad and Indian bowler Dilip Doshi which amuses him till date.

"In a Test match at Bangalore, Javed was batting against Dilip Doshi who was one of the hardest bowlers to hit. Javed had tried everything -- the drive, the cut, the sweep and even going down the pitch to the crafty left-arm spinner -- but he simply wasn't able to get him away.

"Suddenly in the middle of a fresh over, Javed started asking Dilip his room number," recalled Gavaskar.

"This went on every other ball and even when he was at the non-striker's end. After some time, Dilip, who was making a comeback to the side, and so was concentrating hard on his bowling, couldn't take it anymore and exasperatedly asked him why he wanted his room number - to which Javed replied 'because I want to hit you for a six in your room'.

"Now those who have been to Bangalore - and know how far the hotel is from the ground - know what an impossibility it was. Yet it worked. Dilip, anticipating Javed to give him the rush down the wicket, bowled it short, and Javed gleefully pulled it to the boundary and added for good measure that he was bowling from the wrong end, else he would make good on his promise."

It appears Miandad and Gavaskar belong to a mutual admiration club as the former Pakistan skipper has also praised Gavaskar effusively in his autobiography 'The Cutting Edge.'

Hailing Gavaskar as a perfect gentleman, he rated Gavaskar as the best ever Indian batsman in his book."

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2003/jul/31gav.htm

So, so far in analysing Miandad's character, we have Ravi Shastri saying that, once he'd met him, he found him to be a great guy, Tony Greig saying he was the best team player he ever had the pleasure of playing with or against, Sunil Gavaskar saying that Miandad only partook of good humoured banter rather than 'sledging', and an example of Miandad immediately apologising to Amarnath when he realised that he had gone too far.

As I recall , Javed was a - shall we say , "prickly" customer most of his career.
Some of his behaviour wasn't to the taste of many cricket fans , although perhaps it would not have offended had he been a fast bowler , for which species different rules of conduct are expected ... I tend to agree with Gavaskar that he liked to upset bowlers (and perhaps gee himself up at the same time) with a bit of stirring , and cannot really see anything wrong with that.
He wasn't well liked in Australia , but this does not astonish me : the Australians (if I may say so as one who has lived among them for a long time) do sometimes have a tendancy to take offence when an opponent has the temerity to return some of their own medicine in the form of aggressive verbal and body language.
His record is excellent , and on figures alone I think it would be hard to leave him out of any Hall of Fame. Think I'll be voting Yes.

Hoggy - your determination and doggedness is Hanif-like.

Gavaskar is a good witness to call to the stand on your client's behalf. He spoke well last time upon behalf of my own client Rohan Kanhai and has already promised to do so in the future upon behalf of another client of mine, Anderson Roberts.

Meanwhile, Alfie looks like he'll be joining the YES camp whilst acknowledging that Miandand was a ' ''prickly'' customer most of his career '. The reference to 'most of his career' backs up the 'continual' aspect I had previously expressed concerns about although I note Alfie's other comments and the conclusion he draws.

I will continue to consider further, particularly in the light of any new and additional comments. [CF - I am well aware of your support for Miandad so please don't feel the need to distract yourself from research on Lindwall.]