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.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

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.

miandad has to be in there!

Peter May

PBH May gets an entry at No. 42 in CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time'. He says that:

- "The precision of Peter May's batting was like one of those sunny winter mornings when a sharp frost has frozen away all muddiness, leaving trees and buildings etched in clean lines against the blueness of the sky"
- His bat "moved in straight lines through the path of the ball, sending it skimming past mid-off or mid-on, not with a Pietersen whip of the wrists but with the full face extended until the ball hit the boundary"
- He was "uncomfortable with the public esteem and attention that his eminence attracted. He never lacked inner steel or confidence but he was shy"
- "He could enjoy team camaraderie as much as anyone, but he was happier with his wife and four daughters at home than he was in a bar talking cricket"
- "Against an unclear background he never saw the first ball bowled to him in a Test match, against South Africa at Leeds, but he pushed out in home and made went on to make 100 at the age of 21"
- "The responsibilities [of being the best batsman in England], together with the captaincy and the close attention of a press that he would rather have kept at a greater distance, shortened his career"
- "His 285 at Edgbaston in 1957, when his partnership with Colin Cowdrey added 411 for the fourth wicket, drew the sting from Sonny Ramadhin's mysterious spin. He averaged 97.80 in the series. In 21 Tests against Australia he scored 1,566 runs at 46, sharing in the home triumphs of 1953 and 1956 when he had the pleasure of leading one of the strongest bowling sides England have ever had"

May is described by Graham Tarrant in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers in 1983 as being "widely regarded as being the finest batsman to have emerged since the war". He goes on to say that "his masterly technique made him equally at home against the best of pace or spin, and there has been no better performer on a sticky wicket". We are then told that "His career faltered slightly in 1953 after a fiery baptism from Ray Lindwall effectively removed him from the Test team", "but he returned to the side for the final match in the series and played two invaluable innings to help England clinch the Ashes". In 1956 he averaged 90.60 against Australia and "was only once dismissed for less than fifty in seven innings".

Statistically he was a better player at home than he was away - he averaged 57.30 with 9 of his 13 100s in England but under 40 in Australia (10 Tests), South Africa (just 15.30 in 5 Tests) and West Indies (8 Tests). 10 of his 13 hundreds also came as captain.

His early retirement seems a shame as there could well have been a lot more to come from May.

guildfordbat wrote: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.]

Thing is that it is hardly unusual for prickly/aggressive/chirpy characters to be so throughout most of their careers. That is, after all, their character. Javed would hardly be alone in that.
On a slight tangent, I came across this video of Merv Hughes explaining his famous 'bus conductor' spat with Javed http://www.criconline.tv/merv-hughes-talks-about-the-javed-miandad-sledge/
What's interesting is the fact that he talks about Australia discussing who they might be able to 'verbally intimidate' in team meetings before matches. Was what Javed was doing really any worse?

Shelsey - I must get hold of CMJ's book. In the meantime, I would be grateful for a bit more info about it.

When was it first published? Has it been updated since? As the title suggests, I take it that CMJ is claiming that Peter May is the 42nd greatest cricketer of all time - is that right? If so, pretty impressive for May.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
What's interesting is the fact that he talks about Australia discussing who they might be able to 'verbally intimidate' in team meetings before matches. Was what Javed was doing really any worse?

Hoggy - cracking video. Banter or sledging at its very best. Hughes displaying an inventive mind and real humour.

In your quote above, I possibly draw a distinction between ''they'' (the Australian team as a whole) and Javed (himself as an individual). I can understand and appreciate a team choosing to do this, presumably with the responsibility for ''verbal intimidation'' shared out to some extent. Javed seems to have taken it upon himself to do it all.

As I said in my last post, I'll consider further.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
What's interesting is the fact that he talks about Australia discussing who they might be able to 'verbally intimidate' in team meetings before matches. Was what Javed was doing really any worse?

Hoggy - cracking video. Banter or sledging at its very best. Hughes displaying an inventive mind and real humour.

In your quote above, I possibly draw a distinction between ''they'' (the Australian team as a whole) and Javed (himself as an individual). I can understand and appreciate a team choosing to do this, presumably with the responsibility for ''verbal intimidation'' shared out to some extent. Javed seems to have taken it upon himself to do it all.

As I said in my last post, I'll consider further.

Personally, I'd view a team systematically planning to target opposition players verbally, in order to try and intimidate them, as being, if anything, a worse offence than a single player having a chirp at the opposition because that was his nature although, to be fair, I don't see either as being the worst crimes ever committed on a cricket field.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Personally, I'd view a team systematically planning to target opposition players verbally, in order to try and intimidate them, as being, if anything, a worse offence than a single player having a chirp at the opposition because that was his nature although, to be fair, I don't see either as being the worst crimes ever committed on a cricket field.

Hoggy - we strongly agree on all that.

Your assertion that Miandad was up to no more than having a chirp at the opposition is where we don't.

i think its unfair for someone to dismiss miandad's nonimation, considering that someone had a go at me for dismissing knott, without hearing research etc

CF - Miandad's nomination has not been dismissed. It is being debated. Now get back to your research on Lindwall!

i will get back to it later, im currently taking a break from research.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Personally, I'd view a team systematically planning to target opposition players verbally, in order to try and intimidate them, as being, if anything, a worse offence than a single player having a chirp at the opposition because that was his nature although, to be fair, I don't see either as being the worst crimes ever committed on a cricket field.

Hoggy - we strongly agree on all that.

Your assertion that Miandad was up to no more than having a chirp at the opposition is where we don't.

OK so he sledged the opposition in the hope of getting under their skin (and it appears that he often did).
However, I've seen no evidence that he ever said anything particularly offensive, (it's interesting in that Merv Hughes interview that he jokes that Wasim and Waqar took offence at what had been said about their mothers), it appears that, in Miandad's case, it was more a constant stream of slightly abusive comment (although, in his lecture Sunil Gavaskar points out immediately after recalling the story involving Miandad that such things happened only once or twice during the course of a 5 day game at that time).
I also think that a large part of it with Miandad was that actually he enjoyed the verbal contests and used them, in part, as a way to motivate himself rather than, solely, in an attempt to put others off, in much the same way as John Mcenroe (another 'prickly' character) used to use his diatribes at umpires as a way of working himself up.
Finally, and I know that this is mostly 'cod' psychology, but Miandad's background may have a good deal to do with his brashness and will to win, as well as his rough edges. Born and brought up in poverty, but a national treasure by the age of 17. It's little wonder he was a little brash and desperate to win. I also think his background and, dare I say it, race may have influenced perceptions of him within the western press particularly in the 1970s and 80s, even unconciously. Certainly, as Alfie says, fast bowlers are seemingly allowed, even expected, to demonstrate aggression and to try and get under their opponents skin where batsmen are not. However, I feel that, had an Australian or English batsman acted as Miandad did, the press would have been less likely to have emphasised such behaviour. I may be wrong, but I do get that feeling.

guildfordbat wrote:Shelsey - I must get hold of CMJ's book. In the meantime, I would be grateful for a bit more info about it.

When was it first published? Has it been updated since? As the title suggests, I take it that CMJ is claiming that Peter May is the 42nd greatest cricketer of all time - is that right? If so, pretty impressive for May.

Yes - the numbers are a ranking. The book was only published relatively recently in 2009. He recognises that ranking players from different eras is a very tough (and potentially foolish) thing to do and speaks about this in his introduction. He also has an exhaustive list of players who didn't make it and chooses not to include women. or pre-1877 cricketers.

Current players are included, unlike in this Hall of Fame, meaning that Sachin Tendulkar slots in at 9, Ricky Ponting at 47 and Jacques Kallis at 52 amongst the current players.

Each player in the top 100 has a short-ish essay (1-2 pages) with slightly more for those right at the top end

Thanks, Shelsey. Appreciated and helpful.

It seems an almost impossible task that CMJ has set himself. I guess it's to his credit that he comes close to acknowledging that.

I'll look out for it.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Personally, I'd view a team systematically planning to target opposition players verbally, in order to try and intimidate them, as being, if anything, a worse offence than a single player having a chirp at the opposition because that was his nature although, to be fair, I don't see either as being the worst crimes ever committed on a cricket field.

Hoggy - we strongly agree on all that.

Your assertion that Miandad was up to no more than having a chirp at the opposition is where we don't.

OK so he sledged the opposition in the hope of getting under their skin (and it appears that he often did).
However, I've seen no evidence that he ever said anything particularly offensive, (it's interesting in that Merv Hughes interview that he jokes that Wasim and Waqar took offence at what had been said about their mothers), it appears that, in Miandad's case, it was more a constant stream of slightly abusive comment (although, in his lecture Sunil Gavaskar points out immediately after recalling the story involving Miandad that such things happened only once or twice during the course of a 5 day game at that time).
I also think that a large part of it with Miandad was that actually he enjoyed the verbal contests and used them, in part, as a way to motivate himself rather than, solely, in an attempt to put others off, in much the same way as John Mcenroe (another 'prickly' character) used to use his diatribes at umpires as a way of working himself up.
Finally, and I know that this is mostly 'cod' psychology, but Miandad's background may have a good deal to do with his brashness and will to win, as well as his rough edges. Born and brought up in poverty, but a national treasure by the age of 17. It's little wonder he was a little brash and desperate to win. I also think his background and, dare I say it, race may have influenced perceptions of him within the western press particularly in the 1970s and 80s, even unconciously. Certainly, as Alfie says, fast bowlers are seemingly allowed, even expected, to demonstrate aggression and to try and get under their opponents skin where batsmen are not. However, I feel that, had an Australian or English batsman acted as Miandad did, the press would have been less likely to have emphasised such behaviour. I may be wrong, but I do get that feeling.

Hoggy - your tenacity is admirable. You are now starting to make Hanif look like Sobers.

Although you are gracious enough to say it may be mostly 'cod' psychology, I think you may have something with your comments immediately above. In particular, how he was portrayed in the Western media. I'll consider further this week in the light of comments already made and probably still to come.

I trust you, Hoggy, appreciate that I did not start this particular journey to vote NO. Nor am I convinced that is where I will end up. As I said at outset, I believe it fairer and more helpful to Miandad and his supporters to set out as best I can my concerns so they might be addressed. Whilst you will certainly remain more fully supportive of Miandad than me, I will be happy to meet you at least half way if I can. I trust Miandad's junior defence counsel (self appointed) will also take that on board. I would not be so petty to vote NO due to an ill judged accusation of hypocrisy but it is hardly likely to improve my mood or help Miandad's case.

Shelsey93 wrote:Peter May

PBH May gets an entry at No. 42 in CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time'. He says that:

- "The precision of Peter May's batting was like one of those sunny winter mornings when a sharp frost has frozen away all muddiness, leaving trees and buildings etched in clean lines against the blueness of the sky"
- His bat "moved in straight lines through the path of the ball, sending it skimming past mid-off or mid-on, not with a Pietersen whip of the wrists but with the full face extended until the ball hit the boundary"
- He was "uncomfortable with the public esteem and attention that his eminence attracted. He never lacked inner steel or confidence but he was shy"
- "He could enjoy team camaraderie as much as anyone, but he was happier with his wife and four daughters at home than he was in a bar talking cricket"
- "Against an unclear background he never saw the first ball bowled to him in a Test match, against South Africa at Leeds, but he pushed out in home and made went on to make 100 at the age of 21"
- "The responsibilities [of being the best batsman in England], together with the captaincy and the close attention of a press that he would rather have kept at a greater distance, shortened his career"
- "His 285 at Edgbaston in 1957, when his partnership with Colin Cowdrey added 411 for the fourth wicket, drew the sting from Sonny Ramadhin's mysterious spin. He averaged 97.80 in the series. In 21 Tests against Australia he scored 1,566 runs at 46, sharing in the home triumphs of 1953 and 1956 when he had the pleasure of leading one of the strongest bowling sides England have ever had"

May is described by Graham Tarrant in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers in 1983 as being "widely regarded as being the finest batsman to have emerged since the war". He goes on to say that "his masterly technique made him equally at home against the best of pace or spin, and there has been no better performer on a sticky wicket". We are then told that "His career faltered slightly in 1953 after a fiery baptism from Ray Lindwall effectively removed him from the Test team", "but he returned to the side for the final match in the series and played two invaluable innings to help England clinch the Ashes". In 1956 he averaged 90.60 against Australia and "was only once dismissed for less than fifty in seven innings".

Statistically he was a better player at home than he was away - he averaged 57.30 with 9 of his 13 100s in England but under 40 in Australia (10 Tests), South Africa (just 15.30 in 5 Tests) and West Indies (8 Tests). 10 of his 13 hundreds also came as captain.

His early retirement seems a shame as there could well have been a lot more to come from May.

In addition to the comments of Christopher Martin-Jenkins and Graham Tarrant here, I would also flag and reinforce earlier comments made by the Corporal concerning May's county record.

I accept there may be bias on my part in wishing to highlight May's success at Surrey. However, I hope you will also accept that I know a bit about the Club and its history which I believe is relevant to his nomination. Surrey won the County Championshp seven times in as many years between 1952 and 1958. A remarkable achievement which no other county has ever come close to matching, before or since. May's runs throughout that time and captaincy in the last two years (taking over from Stuart Surridge) were essential ingredients in such unprecedented success. Of the last title winning season, Wisden wrote, ''In 1958, in the wettest, most bowler-friendly season of the summer, he averaged almost 64, 17 more than any other batsman.''

Was he a great? Well, Richie Benaud, whom I will always regard in the highest regard, goes even further than that. To quote again from Wisden, ''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 one.''

A couple of other things which appeal to me.

I recall the President of my own local club back in the late 1980s/early '90s telling me that Peter May was still playing Sunday cricket for his own village side on the Surrey/Hants border. May would have been about sixty then. I remember feeling heartened that a cricketer once so great still wished to be involved with and play the game at such a comparatively low level. I carried the hope for some time that I might even play against him. Sadly it was not to be. May died in 1994 from a brain tumour at the age of sixty-four.

Finally, something I didn't know at all until a recent read of Wikipedia, ''An outstanding right-handed golfer, May was reputed to have become bored with the game, bought a set of left-handed clubs and became a scratch golfer both left and right-handed.''

Ray Lindwall

Lindwall is another of this weeks candidates to be rated highly by CMJ and enters at No. 31 in his 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "With his opening partner Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall was chiefly responsible for Australia's supremacy over the rest of the cricketing world in the years immediately after the Second World War"
- "He was a dramatic performer not, generally, because he threatened a batsman's safety, although he was very fast indeed, but because he swung the ball lethally late and both ways"
- "he was a quite different sort of fast bowler from the 'hit the deck' type generally seen now, although there were similar features in the methods of Fred Trueman, Graham McKenzie, Waqar Younis and Darren Gough. All relied primarily on swinging the ball at pace"
- He achieved "over a longer period what Harold Larwood, another relatively small fast bowler, had in the 1930s"
- "His action had a mesmeric momentum, starting slowly but building with long, low strides, arms pumping in a manner often imitated, leading to a final stretch in which the body turned sideways and the right foot dragged through from behind the bowling crease to well beyond the 'popping crease'. It was at once dramatic and rythmical"
- "There was little time for a batsman to assess whether the out-swinger or the in-swinger was humming its way towards his stumps at great velocity"
- "A typical John Arlott commentary describes Lindwall bowling successive balls to Len Hutton in 1948. The first swings away and Hutton drives it past cover for four. The next is an in-swinger that bowls him"
- "In 29 Tests against England alone, Lindwall took 114 wickets at 22 runs each, besides scoring 795 runs that included a storming hundred at Melbourne in 1946-47, when he and Don Tallon put on a rolllicking 154 for the eighth wicket in less than an hour and a half"
- Took "eighteen wickets against India in 1947-48, including seven for 38 in the second innings at Adelaide"
- He took "86 wickets at fifteen" in England in 1948 and "85 more wickets at sixteen" in England in 1953
- "he was almost equally effective wherever he bowled"
- At Madras in 1956-57, his seven for 43 in the second innings won Australia a Test on the sub-continent for the first time"

Richie Benaud also, perhaps predictably, has much to say about his team-mate Lindwall, in 'My Spin on Cricket'. Lindwall makes his 2nd World XI and the Australian team of the Century. He describes Lindwall as one of his "mentors" and devotes an entire chapter to him, Keith Miller and Arthur Morris. He goes on to say that Lindwall "bowled fast, had perfect control of swing and movement off the seam and his changes of pace constantly had the batsmen in trouble". As of 2005, when Benaud was writing, "He is one of only four Australian players to take 200 wickets and score 1000 runs in Tests." He next says that "some of his greatest tussles were with Len Hutton, the great England opener. I can still remember the great Yorkshire crowds twice accepted their hero being bowled by Lindwall for a duck". He also goes on to describe Lindwall as "a model for all young cricketers...and a role model for the acceptance of umpires' decisions and attitude".

The entry on Lindwall in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers up to 1983 adds a couple of interesting anecdotes. Graham Tarrant writes that "As a boy during the 'bodyline' series of 1932-33, Ray Lindwall sat on the Hill at Sydney and watched Harold Larwood bowling. Fifteen years later he helped Australia to get its own back". At the Oval in 1948 he "destoyed a batting line-up that included Hutton, Edrich and Compton with 6 for 20 in 16.1 overs; England's total of 52 being their lowest of the century". He was also "the first genuinely fast bowler to reach the milestone of 200 Test wickets".

Very quickly (long post to follow tomorrow probably).

I think with May you also have to consider his captaincy: wasn't there a famous instance of a Surrey match where he declared before they reached 100 (the score was 98/3 I believe) and they won by an innings. Of course Lock and Laker made such a feat possible on a wet pitch, but still, having the b@lls to make such a call...

The odds are looking like:
Lindwall: 1/10
Miandad: 4/6
Marsh: Ev
May: Ev
Hanif Mohammed: 3/1

Still plenty of time to wax lyrical on the outsider . . . . . . !

Shelsey - thanks for the details about Ray Lindwall. A clear YES in my book unless anyone can provide compelling evidence otherwise.

Out of interest, where does Alan Davidson feature in CMJ's 'Top 100'?

Davidson got into the HoF with a clean sweep before you joined us. I stand by my YES vote for him but now feel that collectively we overegged him a bit. He's a fair bit behind Lindwall in my view.

Thanks.

kwinigolfer wrote:The odds are looking like:
Lindwall: 1/10
Miandad: 4/6
Marsh: Ev
May: Ev
Hanif Mohammed: 3/1

Still plenty of time to wax lyrical on the outsider . . . . . . !

Well, Kwini, May must have your vote after the comment in my last post about his golf!

I'll try to say a bit in support of Hanif tomorrow. As you suggested before, a very different game then with different considerations applying. The first 'Little Master'.

As for Marsh, do you, Kwini, see him at all as a trailblazer for Gilchrist?

Interested as well to know more about Marsh's role and the Australian Academy. Was it his vision? Did he found it or just run it? Anyone help here?

Hi guildford,
I saw that about PBH!
I love those Wizard-type stories; they said similar things about Brian Close, both with golf and his alleged ability to throw the cricket ball 100 yards with either arm!!

I'll write a few notes about four of them (won't bother with Lindwall, a bit redundant) before voting. The stories so far about Rodney Marsh ring pretty true to my memory but certainly wouldn't see him necessarily as a trailblazer for a specific keeper, more that Ian Chappell, Lillee, Marsh and the rest seemed to herald a sea-change in Aussie cricket, both in ability and, more importantly attitude.

Strongest memory of actually watching May play was that he always played with a straight bat, flowing drives, some deft glances and cuts but I never saw him pull or hook, and never saw him slash away on the off-side. Very Charterhouse I suppose! With Tom Graveney, the first great English batsman of the truly post-war era in that his first-class career started after 1945.
As a Wisden COTY in 1952, he must have been one of the very youngest to be accorded the honour - at 22.

kwinigolfer wrote: Strongest memory of actually watching May play was that he always played with a straight bat.....

That is an apt summary of his playing career, both literally and metaphorically. It was characteristic of May as a captain that he resisted pressure, including from his own manager, to make a complaint against the bowling of the Australian bowler, Meckiff, whose action was widely thought to be very suspect.

kwinigolfer wrote:The odds are looking like:
Lindwall: 1/10
Miandad: 4/6
Marsh: Ev
May: Ev
Hanif Mohammed: 3/1

Still plenty of time to wax lyrical on the outsider . . . . . . !

Are those your own, personal odds Kwini, or your estimate on the odds overall?
If the latter, I'd have thought the odds on May getting in would be much more certain, particularly with the Surrey mafia operating in his cause.

Hoggy,
Just my fun read of the tea-leaves, though you're probably quite right on Peter May!
But there was some scepticism early on, until the guilford regiment started to invoke memories, not to mention galvanizing the other ranks to support his cause.

I'm still hoping to be able to trumpet the credentials of the man who scored more runs for one team than anyone else.
Not optimistic of that on this thread though . . . . . . .

kwinigolfer wrote:Hoggy,
I'm still hoping to be able to trumpet the credentials of the man who scored more runs for one team than anyone else.

Philip Mead??

[quote="kwinigolfer"]

.... The stories so far about Rodney Marsh ring pretty true to my memory but certainly wouldn't see him necessarily as a trailblazer for a specific keeper, more that Ian Chappell, Lillee, Marsh and the rest seemed to herald a sea-change in Aussie cricket, both in ability and, more importantly attitude.
.... [/quote

Thanks, Kwini.

I'm inclined to agree with you about Marsh not being a trailblazer but wanted to air the question (particularly with you, 606 v2's trailblazing guru )and give him the chance of getting any credit for it. For me, Marsh was a very good cricketer and extremely tough opponent but falls just that bit short of greatness as a player. I expected his Test batting average to be higher - it really fell away in the second half of his career as has been pointed out.

His hopes of a YES from me seem to be resting with the Australian Academy ....

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Are those your own, personal odds Kwini, or your estimate on the odds overall?
If the latter, I'd have thought the odds on May getting in would be much more certain, particularly with the Surrey mafia operating in his cause.

Careful now, Hoggy. You don't want to be waking up in the morning with Miandad's head in your bed!

Very good Hoggy,
Can only be a matter of time, surely?

guildfordbat wrote:Shelsey - thanks for the details about Ray Lindwall. A clear YES in my book unless anyone can provide compelling evidence otherwise.

Out of interest, where does Alan Davidson feature in CMJ's 'Top 100'?

Davidson got into the HoF with a clean sweep before you joined us. I stand by my YES vote for him but now feel that collectively we overegged him a bit. He's a fair bit behind Lindwall in my view.

Thanks.

He is one to miss out on the top 100 completely - probably a bit unlucky as I'd say he's definitely more deserving than Shaun Pollock, Andrew Flintoff and John Snow, all of whom do make the list - and has a superb record. Shows just how tough a task CMJ set himself.

Thanks, Shelsey.

I agree that it shows 'how tough a task CMJ set himself' and that Davidson might well consider himself unlucky to miss out on the Top 100 altogether.

I do though think it significant as regards comparisons that Lindwall is at No. 31.

kwinigolfer wrote:
I'm still hoping to be able to trumpet the credentials of the man who scored more runs for one team than anyone else.

I thought Sir Fred said he had been opening for the same team for thirty something years....

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Are those your own, personal odds Kwini, or your estimate on the odds overall?
If the latter, I'd have thought the odds on May getting in would be much more certain, particularly with the Surrey mafia operating in his cause.

Careful now, Hoggy. You don't want to be waking up in the morning with Miandad's head in your bed!

OK OK
No need for that.
I'll vote for May.

sirfred can't have been talking about Mead as he usually batted Number Four!
Just think, if it hadn't been for WWI he'd likely have scored a few thousand more.
Amazingly, his Test average was higher than his overall first class average.

kwinigolfer wrote:sirfred can't have been talking about Mead as he usually batted Number Four!
Just think, if it hadn't been for WWI he'd likely have scored a few thousand more.

I think SirFred was talking about his own batting longevity. I know SirFred is of a good vintage - but I don't think he saw action in WWI.

kwinigolfer wrote:sirfred can't have been talking about Mead as he usually batted Number Four!
Just think, if it hadn't been for WWI he'd likely have scored a few thousand more.
Amazingly, his Test average was higher than his overall first class average.

One of John Arlott's favourites. Apparently, had a habit of touching the peak of his cap three times, then patting his bat three times, then touching his cap three times again, BEFORE EVERY BALL. Wore out dozens of caps, and today they think incessantly Trott marking his crease is bad.
Mead was part of, probably, the greatest ever English top 6 to line up in a test match in 1928 with Hobbs and Sutcliffe opening, Mead at 3, Hammond at 4, Jardine at 5 and Hendren at 6, What a line-up that was

"One of Arlott's favourites". Nothing wrong with that, Hoggy!
And in this case with good reason, fourth greatest run scorer of all time.

kwinigolfer wrote:"One of Arlott's favourites". Nothing wrong with that, Hoggy!

Definitely not.
C.L.R. James rated him highly as well.

Very interesting reading the various views on Miandad's antics, and how they are likely to impact upon any vote for him to enter our Hall of Fame or otherwise.

One thing I would add is that he does not stand alone in terms of batsmen turning the tables and being aggressive bordering on abusive toward bowlers, for example. Ricky Ponting, one that I'd presume is a sure fire yes in to any Hall of Fame once he drops his bat for the final time (see what I did there?), has had more than his share of spats with both bowlers of opposing teams, and indeed umpires, match referees and opposition management, all whilst still being on the field of play!

One clear example I recall is an England bowler, possible Harmison, hitting Ricky with a short ball resulting in him going to ground in a rather dazed state. Upon the said bowler trotting over to ask if he was ok, he received the obligatory '**** off' from Mr Ponting. Over the top? Quite possibly. However, Ricky is a true fighter on the pitch, and his own comments on the situation in retrospect lean toward his actions being a way of keeping himself motivated and focussed. He was on the pitch to win and to play hard cricket, not to do the old pals act and drop his guard, so to speak.

Each player has a different mentality, and different methods of self motivation. It can quite easily be argued that some do go a step too far in their quest for perfection and success, but at the same time it has to be understood that such methods make these players what they are, and the greatness shown by the likes of Miandad and Ponting may never have been seen if their mentality had been disturbed in some way.

Often not for the purists, but it is a tough, competitive sport after all, and the 'go hard or go home' motto evidently applied to those cricketers. Pushing (sometimes exceeding) the limits of what is acceptable they may have been, but it doesn't affect their credentials for induction in to our Hall of Fame for me.

when do we have to get our votes in by?

Not until a week Friday. Same format as every fortnight, cf.

im slowly being persuaded about Lindwall.

I have to say that the discussion of Miandad's character has me asking a bit of a question as to why similar behaviour by (say) an Australian is taken as signs of being a tough competitor (I'm thinking of the likes of Alan Border) and so viewed as a positive, while in JMs case it seems to be considered a negative personality trait.

I wonder if race plays a part, in that there is or at least was until fairly recently a perception (in the English media) that those from the Indian sub-continent should be deferential and well mannered, while Aussies are expected to be more vociferous and uncouth.

Based on the above, and given that Miandad's record is plenty good enough for his inclusion in the HoF, I am getting more certain of the YES vote I initially leaned towards.

I'm still open to persuasion on both Hanif and May, although think it will be an easier job in the case of the latter than the former (May's successful captaincy and personal stats while captain pushing him forward).

Lindwall, along with Miandad (in my eyes), are the least of our worries this week. Their respective records, along with testimony provided by their contemporaries and various sages of the sport, leave me in little doubt that they deserve to be inducted in to our Hall of Fame.

Hanif, May and Marsh are still very much open votes and I can't say decisively which will get the nod, as yet.

dummy_half wrote:I have to say that the discussion of Miandad's character has me asking a bit of a question as to why similar behaviour by (say) an Australian is taken as signs of being a tough competitor (I'm thinking of the likes of Alan Border) and so viewed as a positive, while in JMs case it seems to be considered a negative personality trait.

I wonder if race plays a part, in that there is or at least was until fairly recently a perception (in the English media) that those from the Indian sub-continent should be deferential and well mannered, while Aussies are expected to be more vociferous and uncouth.

Certainly think there's something in this, as I alluded to in an earlier post. Might it also be true of players? Certainly, India were favourite victims of Miandad's, yet their players seem to have been more willing to accept Miandad's 'antics' as being part of the game and good humoured banter. Perhaps because, unlike some English or Australian players, they were more likely to expect, and accept, such hard-nosed behaviour from an Asian?

Fists of Fury wrote:Lindwall, along with Miandad (in my eyes), are the least of our worries this week. Their respective records, along with testimony provided by their contemporaries and various sages of the sport, leave me in little doubt that they deserve to be inducted in to our Hall of Fame.

Hanif, May and Marsh are still very much open votes and I can't say decisively which will get the nod, as yet.

IMO Miandad is the only clear cut one at the moment, however am doing a lot of resarch on lindwall.

Mike Selig wrote:Very quickly (long post to follow tomorrow probably).

I think with May you also have to consider his captaincy: wasn't there a famous instance of a Surrey match where he declared before they reached 100 (the score was 98/3 I believe) and they won by an innings. Of course Lock and Laker made such a feat possible on a wet pitch, but still, having the b@lls to make such a call...

Mike - Peter May was certainly a distinguished and successful captain at Test and county level. However, the honour for this particular instance goes to his Surrey predecessor, Stuart Surridge.

In the mid 'fifties, Surrey skittled Worcs for around 25 on a wet Oval pitch. Fearing further heavy rain for the next few days (he had phoned the Met Office to check), Surridge declared Surrey's innings before they had reached a hundred and then used his spinners to run though Worcs a second time to win by an innings in less than a day.

Truly inspired and thoughtful captaincy. I had the pleasure of meeting his widow, Betty Surridge, at the Oval last summer.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Very quickly (long post to follow tomorrow probably).

I think with May you also have to consider his captaincy: wasn't there a famous instance of a Surrey match where he declared before they reached 100 (the score was 98/3 I believe) and they won by an innings. Of course Lock and Laker made such a feat possible on a wet pitch, but still, having the b@lls to make such a call...

Mike - Peter May was certainly a distinguished and successful captain at Test and county level. However, the honour for this particular instance goes to his Surrey predecessor, Stuart Surridge.

In the mid 'fifties, Surrey skittled Worcs for around 25 on a wet Oval pitch. Fearing further heavy rain for the next few days (he had phoned the Met Office to check), Surridge declared Surrey's innings before they had reached a hundred and then used his spinners to run though Worcs a second time to win by an innings in less than a day.

Truly inspired and thoughtful captaincy. I had the pleasure of meeting his widow, Betty Surridge, at the Oval last summer.

Thanks for the correction, and apologies for the mistake. I believe May was playing in the game (he played an attractive innings IIRC), I had erroneously assumed he was captain.

Hanif doesn't make CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' so I have to turn to the 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' Post-War cricketers up to 1983 and the writing of Graham Tarrant to shed more light on him:

- "To say that Hanif Mohammad sold his wicket dearly is like saying that Fort Knox is difficult to get into. Few batsmen in the history of the game have possessed such a well-organised defence or been able to summon up such powers of concentration"
- "He holds the record not only for the highest score in first-class cricket (499 for Karachi v Bahawalpur in 1958-59*: he was run out going for his 500th run in the last over) but also for the longest innings (337 in 16 hours 10 minutes for Pakistan v West Indies in 1957-58). His record-breaking knock against the West Indies came after Pakistan had trailed by 473 on the first innings with three and a half days left to play"
- "He would build an innings slowly, scoring many runs behind the wicket with deflections and cuts, anything short being pulled powerfully to leg"
- He scored centuries against every Test team he played against (He never played against South Africa)
- "His marathon knocks sometimes frustrated the spectators as much as the bowlers, but his batting was the rock on which Pakistan Test cricket was built. Not for nothing was he called the 'Little Master' "

* since surpassed by Lara, of course

Hanif's 337 in 970 minutes is a particularly noteworthy effort and one which makes him a definite candidate in itself. His average of 46.08 at home is exceptional considering that many of Pakistan's early home Tests were played on matting wickets which were notoriously tough to bat on. However, his poor record in England - he played 12 Tests and averaged just 26.63 - must also be factored in.

He is of course, something of a 'trailblazer' for Pakistan cricket - he was their first great ahead of Imran Khan, Miandad, Wasim and Waqar. Whether this comes into making a judgment is open to individual interpretation.

I'm yet to decide on Hanif and would certainly appreciate any more evidence either way if it can be found - this set of players is proving particularly difficult to make a decision on with 3 of my 5 votes still up for grabs!

In his '100 Greatest Batsmen', John Arlott describes Hanif as 'a batsman of immense talent.', 'capable of quite brilliant attacking strokes, especially on the leg-side'.
He goes on to say, however, that such was Hanif's 'desperate concern' for the 'standing and honour of Pakistan' that 'most of his historic innings-and many of them were indeed historic-were of a defensive character'
Arlott concludes by saying: 'It is intriguing to conjecture how much more successful-statistically at least-he might have been in an established team, in which he did not need to be so deeply involved with the prestige of a rising cricket power. It is important that the outstanding contemporaries of other countries never questioned his title to greatness'.

Food for thought.

Shelsey
I'm also finding it hard to judge Hanif - from a career stats perspective, he doesn't merit a HoF place or maybe even a nomination, and his performances in England were nothing to get excited about (noting that in future such considerations may count against the likes of Sehwag). However, he played one of the most extraordinary Test innings of all time (longest in terms of time at the crease and number of balls faced) and having a first class best of run out going for his 500th run is perhaps even more extraordinary. Also, his status as a trail-blazer for Pakistani cricket in the years immediately after their independence has to count towards him.

It's mainly a question of how you balance the exceptional highs of individual innings against a good rather than fantastic career. Not sure how he compares in this regard compared with other HoF members - I guess Laker would be the closest comparison in the sense of one highlight dominating a career.