The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

by Mike Selig Sat 07 Jan 2012, 3:47 pm

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.

by Mike Selig Wed 18 Jan 2012, 5:11 pm

Although Bradman didn't score many 6s in his test career, he did so more by desire rather than necessity, in that he thought he had less chance of getting out if he hit the ball in the air. The 100 in 3 overs I read in a book by the son of one of Bradman's contempories (surname possible Marks?). Bradman did actually score very quickly in test matches anyway (300 in a day? How unreal is that BTW?)...

Test matches were played under different rules and regulations for a long time, basically the two teams involved would agree on the regs and play by them. Start times, number of days, number of balls in an over, etc. Some tests were even played on artificial surfaces!

As for Lindwall, it is noticeable that when anyone names their 3 greatest seamers to play for Australia (possibly with the post-war caveat) they usually give McGrath, Lilee and Lindwall. That really should be enough to guarantee him a YES from most people...

by Hoggy_Bear Wed 18 Jan 2012, 7:06 pm

Mike Selig wrote:

As for Lindwall, it is noticeable that when anyone names their 3 greatest seamers to play for Australia (possibly with the post-war caveat) they usually give McGrath, Lilee and Lindwall. That really should be enough to guarantee him a YES from most people...

Probably without any post-war caveat as well.

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 9:01 pm

Just a quick look at the names, and initially three YES's and TWO NO's, but will look back at previous post's and do some research.

by guildfordbat Wed 18 Jan 2012, 9:26 pm

Hi Skye - IF Hanif is an initial NO, I'd say he's certainly worth some research.

I never saw Hanif play so can't support him from memory but the more I read the more impressed I've become. Hoggy said similar last night.

I will put a few bullet points together later but in essence he held a pretty ordinary Test side together for many years and successfully accomplished some outstanding rearguard actions. In addition, the scorer of the highest ever score in first class cricket for thirty odd years and the first star of Pakistan cricket who apparently brought the game to the attention of the masses.

Certainly worth a shout and a read. Apologies if I'm on the wrong track with one of your possible NO's - if so, hopefully this backs up your early thinking and might assist others who are uncertain.

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:26 pm

I Guess Hanif will be your champion cause this round then Gb Very Happy

Blimey, you guys have been active with Miandad since the nominations, some good debate on him, but I think so far he is looking like a certainty even with his character flaws. As is Lindwall, and I agree I think collectively we went overboard with Davidson.

May and Marsh, time will tell but I was expecting a big call out from the Surrey posters Crying or Very sad

by Hoggy_Bear Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:31 pm

skyeman wrote:Blimey, you guys have been active with Miandad since the nominations, some good debate on him, but I think so far he is looking like a certainty even with his character flaws.

Good man

by Corporalhumblebucket Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:35 pm

Skyeman - Surrey posters requiring gentle coaxing Erm

But I'm confident that with or without additional support from Surrey posters he will be backed for entry into the HofF on the basis of his outstanding record as England captain, both with the bat and in terms of matches won; his classic batmanship; his key record in the most successful county side ever; his defining moment innings in the partnership of over 400 and his battles with the great Lindwall; the recognition from Benaud as the finest English postwar batsman. And so on.....

by guildfordbat Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:39 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Skyeman - Surrey posters requiring gentle coaxing But I'm confident that with or without additional support from Surrey posters he will be backed for entry into the HofF on the basis of his outstanding record as England captain, both with the bat and in terms of matches won; his classic batmanship; his key record in the most successful county side ever; his defining moment innings in the partnership of over 400 and his battles with the great Lindwall; the recognition from Benaud as the finest English postwar batsman. And so on.....

Skye - add to that, the Corporal is deliberately holding back the Surrey troops until Gareth Batty's nomination is made in August! Very Happy

More seriously, the Corporal summarises very well a near outstanding case for May in my view.

by Corporalhumblebucket Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:45 pm

guildfordbat wrote:Skye - add to that, the Corporal is deliberately holding back the Surrey troops until Gareth Batty's nomination is made in August!

Guildford - with HofF only available to the retired and the deceased, it sounds like you have a tip from inside the stable on the impending retirement of Batty Very Happy

Perhaps the lure of the Oval catering has proved too great. Or perhaps, having seen off the competition from Schoey there is nothing left to play for... Shocked

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:46 pm

guildfordbat wrote:

Skye - add to that, the Corporal is deliberately holding back the Surrey troops until Gareth Batty's nomination is made in August!

More seriously, the Corporal summarises very well a near outstanding case for May in my view.

[quote]

Ch and Gb -- Always have had a soft spot for Peter May since my childhood as was the case for the great Larwood, so in this case may I become an honorary Surrey member Very Happy

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:48 pm

guildfordbat wrote:

Skye - add to that, the Corporal is deliberately holding back the Surrey troops until Gareth Batty's nomination is made in August!

[quote]

In the top 10.000th list.

by guildfordbat Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:09 pm

skyeman wrote:

Ch and Gb -- Always have had a soft spot for Peter May since my childhood as was the case for the great Larwood, so in this case may I become an honorary Surrey member

Skye - in the words of Churchill (the dog, not the poster on another Surrey cricket forum - let's not go there! Wink

) - Oh, Yes! Very Happy

by guildfordbat Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:14 pm

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
guildfordbat wrote:Skye - add to that, the Corporal is deliberately holding back the Surrey troops until Gareth Batty's nomination is made in August!
Guildford - with HofF only available to the retired and the deceased, it sounds like you have a tip from inside the stable on the impending retirement of Batty Perhaps the lure of the Oval catering has proved too great. Or perhaps, having seen off the competition from Schoey there is nothing left to play for...

No inside info, Corporal. Just never considered such petty restrictions holding back the inclusion of such a clear nominee .... Wink

by Corporalhumblebucket Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:15 pm

Skye

Guildford: We are well equipped should the alternative Churchill join us here! Broken Record

etc......

by Hoggy_Bear Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:17 pm

Skyeman
Might as well commit to voting for May now, otherwise Guildford and the Corporal will make you an offer you can't refuse. Very Happy

by skyeman Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:35 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Skyeman
Might as well commit to voting for May now, otherwise Guildford and the Corporal will make you an offer you can't refuse.

As soon as I saw the five nominees, Miandad, May and Lindwall were my initial three YES votes and after my first stage of research not much as changed. Marsh and Hanif were the initial NO votes, but as in previous rounds I am always willing to change if an exemplorary case is mounted.

by dummy_half Thu 19 Jan 2012, 10:41 am

I'm still slightly puzzled by the general negativity towards Marsh - If he is below the benchmark for keepers in the HoF, very few (if any) more are going to make it in.

At the end of his career, Marsh held the records for:
Most dismissals by a keeper (taking 22 fewer tests to pass HoF member Alan Knott's previous record - now far surpassed by Boucher, Healy and Gilchrist)
Most dismissals in combination with one bowler (C Marsh, B Lillee - still held)
Highest score by an Australian keeper, and being the first Aussie keeper to score a Test hundred
First keeper to take 100 dismissals in the Ashes
Most dismissals in a Test series (26 in a 6 match series)

He was essentially unchallenged as the wicket keeper in the Aussie test side for 14 years (bar the Packer years). While not a batsman in the same way as (for example) Gilchrist and Flower, his record with the bat stands good comparison with most of his contemporaries and predecessors - only Knott had a significantly higher batting average (around 31 cf 26.5 for Marsh).

He was also a coach at the (hugely successful) Australian academy from its inception in 87, acting as Director for 11 years from 1990 (suggests he was probably NOT instrumental in its creation). He followed this by being asked to set up the Indian academy, and oversaw its operations for the first three years after its inception. Subsequently he was appointed to the ECB academy and coached the academy side.

Overall, it's fairly obvious that he is held in extremely high regard around the world for his coaching ability, especially in the development of young talent.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 11:18 am

Must admit dummy, that the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to say yes to Marsh.
As you say, record breaking 'keeper. One half of, perhaps, the most iconic (and definitely most successful) 'keeper/bowler partnerships in cricket history. Decent enough batsman in the context of his time and a great contribution to cricket after his playing career was over.

by alfie Thu 19 Jan 2012, 11:44 am

Must be getting soft in my old age but I'm edging towards five Yes votes here...

Must pull myself together and think some more.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 11:47 am

Nothing soft about it at all alfie.
I'm heading that way myself at the moment.

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 1:04 pm

hey guys sorry for inactivty over last few days, however am back and will prob post votes today as not around much tomorrow.

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 1:39 pm

Briefly looking in from the Woking salt mines.

Dummy - a really punchy post totally befitting of Marsh. Excellent contribution.

When we voted for the Top Ten wicket keepers POST WW2, I had Marsh in fourth place behing 1. Gilchrist, 2. Knott and 3. Evans. I stand by the first two. However, Kwini has previously caused me to doubt Evans' place. Kwini praised Evans' longetivity as a keeper and later abilities as a publican off the A3 ( Shocked

) but questioned his true skills behind the stumps. I'm a bit too young to know but do now wonder if Marsh should have had my third spot.

As for you all, my fellow posters, well, we overall placed Marsh in the relatively lowly position of seventh greatest wicket keeper POST WW2 behind (in order) Gilchrist, Knott, Flower, Healy, Evans and Boucher. If that List is as things should be, there are probably too many ahead of Marsh in the pecking order for him to get admitted to the HoF (unless his very fine coaching record swings it). However, I'm not sure our previous List is right! I would guess Dummy isn't either.

More food for thought as Hoggy says.

Hoggy - as our eminent historian (and to stop you banging on about Miandad for a few minutes Very Happy

), are ther any PRE WW2 keepers we should consider bringing to the party?

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 1:53 pm

Ray Lindwall: have to say at first i wasnt gonna vote yes..however i have read a lot about him, done a lot of research and have changed my mind, its a yes from me. YES

Javed Miandad: easy one for me, he defo gets a yes, no contest..YES

Hanif Mohammed: decent batsman, brilliant f/c record, however dont think he done enough at international level..i feel there are better players who didnt get in so its a no from me: NO

Peter May; very tough decision this...was a solid batsman, if unspectualr. Reliable however, same with moahhmad, i think there better players who didnt get in, so its a no from me: NO

Rod Marsh: NO. Not a tough decision for me...not really one of the best keepers of all time, or batsman, so its a no from me NO

IN: Miandad and Lindwall

Out: hanif,marsh,may

by alfie Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:00 pm

Only saw Evans when I was very young , but I'm surprised to hear of his keeping skills being questioned. Standing up to Alec Bedser ...a lot of stumpings in his tally , and reputed to have made a lot of acrobatic catches. Batting not up to "modern wicketkeeper" rating perhaps , but still...

Marsh not the smoothest keeper I've seen - at first he was pretty rugged in fact - but he got better , and certainly took plenty of fine catches off Lillee and pals ... true there was a regular supply of chances Smile

The batting average wasn't outstanding , though it looked OK until Gilchrist came along. I remember his century in the Centenary Test - and also ,very much to his credit , his quick recall of Derek Randall when he was ready to walk off , thinking he'd been caught behind - many keepers these days might leave it to the 3rd umpire ...

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:07 pm

Thanks, Alfie.

Maybe Kwini just got served a dodgy pint one night by Evans .... Very Happy

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:09 pm

lol im waiting for the masses of criticsm which i know i will get about my votes.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:18 pm

guildfordbat wrote:Briefly looking in from the Woking salt mines.

Dummy - a really punchy post totally befitting of Marsh. Excellent contribution.

When we voted for the Top Ten wicket keepers POST WW2, I had Marsh in fourth place behing 1. Gilchrist, 2. Knott and 3. Evans. I stand by the first two. However, Kwini has previously caused me to doubt Evans' place. Kwini praised Evans' longetivity as a keeper and later abilities as a publican off the A3 ( ) but questioned his true skills behind the stumps. I'm a bit too young to know but do now wonder if Marsh should have had my third spot.

As for you all, my fellow posters, well, we overall placed Marsh in the relatively lowly position of seventh greatest wicket keeper POST WW2 behind (in order) Gilchrist, Knott, Flower, Healy, Evans and Boucher. If that List is as things should be, there are probably too many ahead of Marsh in the pecking order for him to get admitted to the HoF (unless his very fine coaching record swings it). However, I'm not sure our previous List is right! I would guess Dummy isn't either.

More food for thought as Hoggy says.

Hoggy - as our eminent historian (and to stop you banging on about Miandad for a few minutes ), are ther any PRE WW2 keepers we should consider bringing to the party?

Well Jack Blackham 'The Prince of Wicket-Keepers', George Duckworth, Warks own 'Tiger' Smith, Bert Oldfield and the great Les Ames would be the pre-war names that would immediately spring to mind.

by kwinigolfer Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:39 pm

Regarding Godfrey Evans:
Part of my comment about Godders was tongue in cheek, but certainly in comparison to Alan Knott. No questioning of Alfie's recall intended, and with the caveat I only saw the latter part of his career, but there were questions at the time as to whether he had become too much of a fixture and there were others at least as good behind the stumps and decent batsmen too. Keith Andrew at the head of that class, then later John Murray and Jimmy Binks among others.
Evans' longevity was impressive but that shouldn't be the sole criteria.

Anyway, we're not here to judge Evans any more.

Ref: Hoggy's Blackham note, I am surprised Ames isn't in the ICC HOF. That is an illustrious "pre-war" quartet.

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:44 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Well Jack Blackham 'The Prince of Wicket-Keepers', George Duckworth, Warks own 'Tiger' Smith, Bert Oldfield and the great Les Ames would be the pre-war names that would immediately spring to mind.

Thanks very much, Hoggy. Unfair question, I know, but do you have any immediate thoughts as to who of those are better or not as good as Marsh? I'm just trying to see him in context with other keepers before considering his academy type work (if I still need to).

Dummy has made this one a lot more difficult than I thought would be the case. clap

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:46 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:Ref: Hoggy's Blackham note, I am surprised Ames isn't in the ICC HOF.

It is quite an ommission isn't it.
Batting average over 40 in tests.
100+ FC centuries.
Long-serving administrator and national selector.
Maybe someone should propose him for our HoF when the time comes.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:54 pm

guildfordbat wrote:
Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Well Jack Blackham 'The Prince of Wicket-Keepers', George Duckworth, Warks own 'Tiger' Smith, Bert Oldfield and the great Les Ames would be the pre-war names that would immediately spring to mind.

Thanks very much, Hoggy. Unfair question, I know, but do you have any immediate thoughts as to who of those are better or not as good as Marsh? I'm just trying to see him in context with other keepers before considering his academy type work (if I still need to).

Dummy has made this one a lot more difficult than I thought would be the case.

Well, I wasn't around to see them I'm afraid. Very Happy

But Blackham, as his nickname suggests, was seen as a peerless 'keeper in his day, and the likes of Smith, Duckworth and Oldfield (along with others like Lyttelton and Lilley and Strudwick) were all talked about for the smoothness of their keeping and their glove work, and would all have had to deal with more spin (and worse pitches) than Marsh would.
Having said that, they were all specialist 'keepers. Until Ames came along 'keepers weren't really expected to score runs and often came in low down the order. After Ames, 'keepers began to move up the order and be expected to contribute with the bat, so that has to be taken into consideration.

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:56 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:Regarding Godfrey Evans:
Part of my comment about Godders was tongue in cheek, but certainly in comparison to Alan Knott. No questioning of Alfie's recall intended, and with the caveat I only saw the latter part of his career, but there were questions at the time as to whether he had become too much of a fixture and there were others at least as good behind the stumps and decent batsmen too. Keith Andrew at the head of that class, then later John Murray and Jimmy Binks among others.
Evans' longevity was impressive but that shouldn't be the sole criteria.

Anyway, we're not here to judge Evans any more.

Ref: Hoggy's Blackham note, I am surprised Ames isn't in the ICC HOF. That is an illustrious "pre-war" quartet.

Kwini - many apologies if in my haste to make a quick jest about you being served a dodgy pint by Godders in his boozer off the A3, I didn't properly convey things.

I do agree we're not here to judge Evans any more. However, as just mentioned in another request to Hoggy, I'm keen to try and see (and ultimately judge) Marsh in a proper context. For me, he certainly remains below Gilchrist and Knott. It's the ''who immediately comes next category'' I'm unsure about and whether Marsh belongs there. If he does, I would say that - particularly, when you throw his Academy work into the mix - he also belongs in the HoF. Very Happy

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 2:59 pm

guildford, do you have anything to say on my votes mate?

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:06 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Well, I wasn't around to see them I'm afraid. But Blackham, as his nickname suggests, was seen as a peerless 'keeper in his day, and the likes of Smith, Duckworth and Oldfield (along with others like Lyttelton and Lilley and Strudwick) were all talked about for the smoothness of their keeping and their glove work, and would all have had to deal with more spin (and worse pitches) than Marsh would.
Having said that, they were all specialist 'keepers. Until Ames came along 'keepers weren't really expected to score runs and often came in low down the order. After Ames, 'keepers began to move up the order and be expected to contribute with the bat, so that has to be taken into consideration.

Hoggy - even I didnt see them, so there was never any suggestion a nipper like you would have done! Very Happy

I was simply calling upon your historical knowledge and mastery. Thanks once more for your input.

You clearly show how different the role of the keeper was in earlier years. clap

As thanks for that, I'll let you get back to Miandad. Very Happy

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:20 pm

Taking a break from Miandad for a bit Guildford. Have a few more comments on him, but am waiting to deploy them when and where neccessary Very Happy

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:24 pm

Hoggy - ''deploy them when and where necessary''.

I thought for a moment that was the Corporal planning his final assault for May! Very Happy

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:25 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:guildford, do you have anything to say on my votes mate?

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:31 pm

CF - in my view too soon to vote for some but otherwise no comment.

by dummy_half Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:33 pm

Just as a quick further on Marsh - he made his debut for Australia in the same series as Lillee, retired after the same series, and both ended with 355 dismissals to their name.
Played for the same Shield side too.

They really were one of the finest double acts in cricket. I accept that the consensus is that Lillee was the senior partner and was a clear HoF member (many still rate him the finest technician of quick bowlers), while the cases for and against Marsh are a bit more balanced.

by guildfordbat Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:40 pm

dummy_half wrote:Just as a quick further on Marsh - he made his debut for Australia in the same series as Lillee, retired after the same series, and both ended with 355 dismissals to their name.
Played for the same Shield side too.

They really were one of the finest double acts in cricket. I accept that the consensus is that Lillee was the senior partner and was a clear HoF member (many still rate him the finest technician of quick bowlers), while the cases for and against Marsh are a bit more balanced.

Dummy - I've spotted it but you are still to be congratulated on a very clever tactic! clap

Knowing my fascination with supporting roles in cricket, you're clearly trying to get a YES from me by putting Marsh forward as the Gomes to Lillee's Greenidge. It might even work! Very Happy

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:46 pm

isnt final day for voting tomorrow though guildford?

im not around much tomorrow.

by **Fists of Fury** Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:47 pm

No, the new candidates went up last Friday. We have another week yet.

by kwinigolfer Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:54 pm

guildford,
I've been consulting some evidence regarding Marsh. A preview includes a fairly effusive 1984 piece in the Grauniad by, yup, Arlott titled, "Soft hands in iron gloves".

"Marsh was at first dubbed iron gloves because his gathering was frequently clumsy. He very rarely dropped catches though, and his keeping improved steadily. Despite his vast, grizzly-bear-like physique he hurled himself vast distances to make catches with prehensile ability." etc, etc.

"Marsh often looked an untidy wicket-keeper, even ugly in method, but he was of mighty stamina and ultimately splendidly efficient."

No comparison with others though.

Another comparison would be within the context of Halls Of Fame.
As far as I can see, he is one of four keepers in the ICC HOF and the first modern-day stumper in the Aussie Cricket HOF. But he was inducted after several players who we haven't installed in the Hall, Harvey and 2 x Chappells among them. Can't see that Oldfield has ever made it, and can't find any journalistic critical comment on Oldfield, a victim but later a good friend of Larwood.

And I can't find anything comparing Evans to other keepers, except repetition of the long-held view that Jimmy Binks was, from the mid-fifties to Alan Knott the best keeper in England.

My view is that, however Marsh morphed into a great Test keeper, he was lucky to be there in the first place.
It is impossible to calibrate his catches behind to Lillee and Tommo compared to other wickies, many batsmen surrendering meekly scared (almost) hitless by the intimidating battery.

If the Aussies rate him behind Harvey and the Chappells I probably will also.

by Hoggy_Bear Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:57 pm

Just as a fun follow up on the wicket-keeper thing.
There's a great story about Alfred Lyttelton who was keeping wicket in a test against Australia in the 1880s or 90s.
Australia had reached the then unheard of total on 500-6 and Lord Harris, the England captain, became a bit peed off by the somewhat disparaging comments coming from behind the stumps about England's bowlers, and ordered Lyttelton to bowl.
So, still wearing his pads, and with W.G. behind the stumps, Lyttelton preceeded to bowl under-arm lobs and promptly took the last 4 Aussie wickets for 19 off 12 overs.
So he certainly made his point. Very Happy

Never bowled again though, as far as I know.

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 3:58 pm

ah right in that case, fists and guildford, i still have time to RECONSIDER my VOTES.

by dummy_half Thu 19 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm

"My view is that, however he morphed into a great Test keeper, he was lucky to be there in the first place."

That's a view Marsh would agree with himself. He was quoted at the time as saying that he learnt a lot about keeping from watching Knott on the Ashes tour (Marsh's 2nd or 3rd series for Aus) and that prior to that is keeping wasn't really up to the required standard. That he went from this to being regarded as a top keeper says a lot for his work ethic and for his cricketing intelligence. Indeed, I suspect that it was this need to 'learn on the job' that has led him to be such a good coach.

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2012, 4:40 pm

i only put my votes in today, because i thought the deadline was tomorrow Doh

im sure i will re-consider some of them Smile

by kwinigolfer Thu 19 Jan 2012, 4:40 pm

dummy,
No argument there.

I meant to add a lovely Arlott-ism about Herbert Strudwick:
"I have seen Struddy's hands, though, after thirty-odd years of keeping wicket: the fingers are bent like oak-branches from their many fractures." !!

Perhaps that is why Arlott rhapsodises about George Brown standing "up to fast bowlers wearing only his tattered motor-cycling gauntlets".
'Course, he rhapsodises about everything George Brown would do, "he could throw huge distances and catch faster(?ed) than the eye could follow." !!! Hence George Brown's rightful place in Arlott's "desert island cricket team".

by dummy_half Thu 19 Jan 2012, 5:02 pm

Kwini
Since we appear to be digressing onto keeping in general, how about this for a moment of genius from one of the finest glovemen of the last 25 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgn4f8xDYI8

by kwinigolfer Thu 19 Jan 2012, 5:16 pm

Very nice dummy, one of the finest glovemen ever, surely?

by Sponsored content