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 - very well put and, I'm sure, fairly so. I did reach the end.

I'll confirm my vote on Miandad and the other four tomorrow evening. Hoping to get a few more comments between now and then. Skyeman, Alfie, Mike and Mad have been unusually quiet on this thread over the last few days ....

Site very slow atm for me. My votes are pretty firm now:

Lindwall: YES - clearcut
May: YES - clearcut
Hanif: YES - convinced by the evidence of his place in Pakistani cricket
Miandad: YES - his record justifies it and character issues no worse than various others
Marsh: NO (near miss - happy to see him in play offs)

kwinigolfer wrote:

(PS: We had a long rumination on the golf(!) board sometime ago about the oldest living England Test cricketer. I assume that Reg Simpson still holds that title? Tom Graveney must be in the next handful . . . . . )

Kwini - my understanding is that you and your golfing pals are spot on about Reggie Simpson being the oldest living England Test cricketer. He's due to celebrate his 92nd birthday next month.

My research suggests the next two - neither known to me - are Don Smith (ex Sussex) and Fred Ridgeway (ex Kent) who hopefully will both become 89 this summer. A year behind those two is Bob Appleyard (ex Yorks) whose lifestory were it a novel would be dismissed as too tragic to be even remotely believeable.

All in their mid 80s and hot (or plodding) on the heels of those above are Hubert Doggart, Doug Insole, John Dewes, Donald Carr and then Tom Graveney.

A little younger than Graveney, we have John Warr, Ian Thomson, Alan Oakman (who took several catches for Laker's 19 wickets) and - wait for it! - Frank Tyson. Contrary to what I've posted recently, it seems the Typhoon hasn't blown out yet and I'm very pleased about that!

With apologies to any inadvertently left out, time to leave it there, I think.

Must be something in the Sussex water with Doggart, Oakman (must be one of England's tallest, too!), Smith and Thomson - glad to see Jim Parks is still going strong at 80!

Never saw Doggart but watched the rest who were regular visitors to the United Services Ground. Boarded a train in Havant once and found myself in the same carriage as Messrs Langridge, Lenham and Suttle as they were bound for the same game as I was! Doesn't happen like that any more.

Had completely forgotten that Ian Thomson had played for England - quintessential County cricketers the lot of them (except Doggart who was probably pleased with himself for being a "Gentleman").

I have an amusing remembrance of Insole which I'll print when I can find it - suffice it to say that he's well outlived his anticipated life expectancy.

That's a great list of stalwarts - Appleyard's script just extraordinary. Ridgeway, Doggart and Dewes the only ones that were fading out when my interest was lighting up.

kwinigolfer wrote:Must be something in the Sussex water with Doggart, Oakman (must be one of England's tallest, too!), Smith and Thomson - glad to see Jim Parks is still going strong at 80!

Never saw Doggart but watched the rest who were regular visitors to the United Services Ground. Boarded a train in Havant once and found myself in the same carriage as Messrs Langridge, Lenham and Suttle as they were bound for the same game as I was! Doesn't happen like that any more.

Good memories. Surprised they were travelling by train tho. Didn't Sussex have a couple of "Busses" around that time...

Busses to go to the Parks . . . . . . . certainly not the Graves

Very suttle.

my votes have already have been handed in so to speak, how many people left to vote?

I haven't voted yet, so here we go:

Lindwall: One of the greatest fast bowlers of all-time. Easy YES.

May: Very good/great batsman. Very good/great captain. Not great/ p!ss poor selector. But, as the immortal Meatloaf once opined, "Two out of three ain't bad". YES

Marsh: Was undecided at first but, while he may not have been among the best ever 'keepers, or best ever batsman 'keepers, he was still a record breaker, an icon, and is a hugely successful coach. YES

Javed Miandad: Pretty obvious to anyone who's read through this thread. YES

Hanif Mohammad: Originally I thought his seemingly mediocre record would rule him out. But having read more about him and considered the views of those on these boards more familiar with his career, it's become clear that in this case stats aren't everything, and the manner in which he made his runs, and the pressure that he had to overcome whilst doing so, prove just how good he was. YES

Ok here are mine, explanations to follow when I have more time.

Lindwall - YES
May - YES
Miandad - YES
Hanif - YES
Marsh - NO

im very happy that people are voting yes for Miandad

Hoggy
Happy to see the YES for Marsh, as I seem to have been the one pushing his case.

Think you slightly over-rate May's abilities as a selector though - must be your Surrey bias...

dummy_half wrote:Hoggy
Happy to see the YES for Marsh, as I seem to have been the one pushing his case.

Think you slightly over-rate May's abilities as a selector though - must be your Surrey bias...

Hey, I'm a Warks fan, not part of the Surrey mafia

Sorry - thought everyone on here other than me was Surrey (I only lived there for 6 years...)

Ok, time then for some votes from one of the Surrey mafia.

Ray Lindwall. YES.
Totally clear cut. Began learning the art of bowling from watching the great Harold Larwood and then went on to apply it so brilliantly. Not really a weakness with his nomination but a surprise - despite 228 Test wickets and a dozen fivefers, never attained 10 wickets in the same Test match. More than made up for by his consistency and effectiveness. Also, a more than useful bat with two Test centuries and a further five fifties. Would seriously consider him as number 8 in my All Time World XI.

Peter May. YES.
Virtually clear cut. Highly stylish and successful batsman at Test and county level. Also very effective captain at both the same levels. Only disappointment was that he chose to bow out of the game as a player at the relatively young age of 32 for reasons that have never been entirely clear to me.
May's case very well led by the Corporal with fine support from Kwini.

Hanif Mohammad. YES.
Fairly clear cut. Heavily responsible for the development of Pakistan as a Test playing nation. Did not finish with a wonderful Test average but that needs to be seen in context and as Wisden noted 'there were enough truly herculean feats along the way'.
Thanks to Kwini for adding weight to the case I originally put.

Javed Miandad. YES.
Not clear cut but still merits a place. Of the two Pakistanis in this list, he certainly comes second for me. However, his batting was more than good enough to get him admitted to the HoF and concerns as to his conduct probably not bad enough to have him ejected.

Most impressive and consistent batting record from a very young age for Pakistan. At domestic level, his unbeaten 200 for Glamorgan really shines out; in particular, his partnership with and protection of Robin Hobbs for 43 runs for 8 overs until Hobbs was dismissed the first ball he faced!

His behavour though was often seen as unnecessary and unpleasant. Even though it's not a popularity contest as others have rightly pointed out, Miandad ran the risk of diluting the enjoyment of spectators. Unlike a certain Australian great and one stand alone incident, it's difficult to show an example of Miandad's continuing questionable behaviour. However, that's not to excuse it. A broken jaw is easier to show and more painful than nagging toothache; I would though prefer to suffer neither.

Acknowledging those concerns, Hoggy has assembled some star names to speak on behalf of Miandad. I particularly note and am impressed by the favourable reference from the much respected Sunny Gavaskar. He was out there in the middle so should know better than all. I also note that the way in which the media reported matters may have had more than a racial elements and unfortunately influenced early thoughts. Others - individuals and Test teams - are far from blameless but have been given a much easier ride.

I do still have some doubt about Miandad's conduct but consider it right in all circumstances to give him the benefit of it.

Full marks here to Hoggy who has fought Miandad's case with determination and fairness.

Rodney Marsh. YES.
Not at all clear cut but after the most consideration just merits a place. Not a great keeper when first selected at Test level but through dedication and application made the position his own for many years and the thought of anyone replacing him inconceivable. Breaker of many Test keeping records and an exceptionally good foil to the brilliant Lillee who, I'm sure, would not have wanted anyone else behind the stumps. Also, a fine batsman, particularly in his earlier years; a shame that generally his best batting didn't coincide with his keeping being at its peak.

All the above taken into account but no more, I would have declined Marsh albeit with reluctance. However, that is to exclude his varied and highly successful coaching roles at international level. Once that all goes into the mix, he goes into the HoF with my blessing and a quiet word to keep an eye on Miandad!

Congatulations here to Dummy - Marsh was initially lined up for a 'sorry but not quite' vote from me until I saw his punchy and vote changing post.

guildford,
There's an essay (I think on cricinfo) that suggests May didn't approve of press intrusion when he was joined by his fiancee on the 58/59 Tour of Australia.
His dismay (no pun intended) at the throwing of Meckiff and co, has been recorded and then he suffered abcesses, aches and pains which disrupted his playing time.
Losing the Ashes in 1961 was the last straw!


PS: I note the career dismissal record of Marsh in various testimony for Rodders, in many cases (not your guildford) by those who dismissed Gibbs' claims.
Just saying.

Kwini - thanks for the details on May. Probably for my own selfish reasons, still disappointed he chose to bow out when he still had more to give.

Your PS is noted and understood. The consistency I strive for is consistency with my own previous votes and my current thoughts on current nominees.

gb
Sounds as if disillusion had set in with PBH. Happens to the best of 'em.

@Guildford
Thanks for the acknowledgement (and yes vote) re Miandad

@Kwini
Must admit that I've probably been a bit inconsistent with regards to Marsh in comparison to Gibbs but, for me, it was Marsh's record as a coach, and the amount of talent that emerged under his auspices, which tipped the balance in his favour.

Time for me to vote...

Lindwall - A superb record and seemingly, along with Keith Miller, the foremost seam bowler of the period immediately after the Second World War. A YES from me.

Marsh - Longevity itself is admirable but not Hall of Fame worthy and largely responsible for his record numbers of dismissals. His batting seems to have been generally unfulfilled as his career went on and his keeping doesn't seem to have been singled out for the type of high praise that Knott's has been. His work with academies is worthy but not in my opinion enough to get him in the Hall of Fame. Therefore, my vote is a NO.

May - I actually found May a very difficult one to judge. My research paints a picture of an elegant, stylish batsman with masses of natural talent and a good enough though not sensational record. His captaincy record IS sensational and his batting record superb whilst captain but I struggle to find strong praise for his actual skills as a captain, suggesting he may have benefited from having Laker and co. in his side. His early retirement at 32 concerns me, given that that gives him 6-8 years more in which he could have declined to below Hall of Fame status or entrenched his status as a true legend - it must be considered that many players would have a stronger case if they left the scene with so many more Tests potentially to play. However, it is Benaud's praise for him as the best batsman he bowled at that swings it and so I'm going to give him a YES by a whisker.

Miandad - He checks almost every box - great batting average in both forms of the game, greatest batsman his country has produced, World Cup winner (including a big innings in the final), developer of the reverse sweep and many others. No real debate on him for me and so he receives an undoubted YES.

Mohammad - Hanif's feats are admirable and he really was a trailblazer for Pakistan cricket. Clearly he could score big runs when he put his mind to it in a way only really emulated by Lara and Sehwag. Thus, I really wanted to vote Yes for him. However, I feel I can't on the basis that his overall record is only good rather than great and his record in England, where he played a fair amount of Tests, poor. I also believe he simply doesn't stack up against the other batters I have voted No for - Greenidge and Kanhai. My decision is therefore an extremely reluctant NO.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Mohammad
.... I also believe he simply doesn't stack up against the other batters I have voted No for - Greenidge and Kanhai. My decision is therefore an extremely reluctant NO.

Shelsey - your commitment to consistency and application of it is admirable. As for your first decision on Greenidge - well, that's another matter ....

here we go then guys. Final day to get your votes in

OK time to vote:

Lindwall - YES Never in doubt really , one of Australia's all time great fast bowlers , must be strong contender for Aussie Best XI spot alongside Lillee/McGrath (when they're playing three quicks) Could bat a bit too.

May - YES Very good bat , Benaud says best England bat of his time which places him above Compton, Barrington, 1950's Hutton...you could argue it , but near enough I think - I was quite young when I saw him play a few times but even so I remember the elegance and power of his stroke play. Plus a very successful Captain ... never mind his later career as a selector , somewhat less brilliant , but still service to the game.

Miandad - YES Difficult, prickly maybe , but just about Pakistan's best batsman. his record speaks for itself - how could I leave him out?

Hanif YES Like Shelsey , I had some consistency issues as I also (just) chose a no on Kanhai and Greenidge. But I see Hanif's status as the WG Grace of Pakistan cricket , plus his high score and long innings records as enough to make a yes vote justifiable.

Marsh YES To make a full set of positive votes --- I know some people have reservations , Marsh as a keeper was certainly at first quite "rough" and never gained the polish of some of his rivals - but he could launch himself like a goalkeeper to catch at full stretch from Lillee's thunderbolts - what a combination they were! The sheer number of scalps is impressive in itself. His batting figures don't look spectacular , but he played some fine fighting innings when Australia needed them , perhaps he didn't make so many "cheap" runs as he might have done? And his batting was always fun to watch - I don't recall him playing boring hands.
Add in the Academy work , bringing on young talent on both sides of the world, and I rate him a worthy member.

So five Yes votes from me... that won't be happening too often

suprised that people are voting all of them in

i only voted 2 in lol.

4 make it in this week, with 1 missing out completely.

In: Miandad, Hanif, May, Lindwall
Out: Marsh

Next candidates to be listed shortly.

so glad that Miandad got in

Ok then, the candidates up for induction over the next fortnight are as follows:

Graeme Pollock
Wilfred Rhodes
Barry Richards
Andy Roberts
Fred Spofforth

An incredibly interesting selection, I'm sure you'll agree.

hmmm very intresting...

my early thoughts are

yes: pollock,richards,spofforth

not sure about : roberts, not the best windies bowler IMO,

dont know alot about rhodes

thus far IM NOT SAYING NO TO ANYONE

Very Interesting Fists

Pollock-Only 20 odd matches but a 60+ average. Hailed by many of those who saw him as being the best ever left-hander

Rhodes-Doyen of all-rounders. Most ever FC wickets IIRC. Batted at every position from 1 to 11 for England. Oldest ever player to play tests I believe.

Richards-Fewer tests and even higher average than Pollock, but ranked by many as being one of the best ever openers.

Roberts-Great fast bowler. Stalwart of the famous four-pronged WIndies pace attack of the 1970s and 80s. But was he quite as good as the other principle members of those attacks?

Spofforth-'The Demon Bowler', first of the great fast-men. Instrumental in the birth of the 'Ashes', rumoured to have invented swing bowling

Let the debate begin!!

WOW!
Wasn't Rhodes #15 in CMJ's top 100?

Very difficult.
Two great South Africans, two great Hampshire players, two all-time greats from the early days, and I've put myself into a corner and will only choose three.
Back in a few days!

PS: Very pleased to see Hanif in; sure that was well merited in terms of what he meant to Pakistan cricket, not to mention Javed Miandad, plus his status as a World Class player.

to be honest i will probably say YES TO ALL OF THEM.

however at the moment i dont know enough about rhodes.

cf90

Rhodes was a left-arm orthodox bowling all-rounder who had one of, if not the, longest careers ever in both tests and FC cricket. His first test was in 1899, WG was the England captain I believe, his last was in 1930.
Test batting average of 30, bowling average of 26 from 58 tests.
FC batting average again just over 30 but a bowling average of 16.7 for his 4204 wickets from 1110 matches.
Although he was, without doubt, an all-rounder, he had something of a strange career as he started as a bowler who batted a bit, then swiched to concentrate on his batting (during which time he moved up the order to open for England with Hobbs), and hardly bowled (at least in tests). Then, later in his career, he became mainly a bowler again.

thanks for that hoggy

i shall do a lot of resarch with regards to rhodes and his career

Will need to do a bit of research on Spofforth and Rhodes.

Richards and Pollock are two examples of the same question - i.e. whether their playing careers at the highest level were long enough and significant enuogh to merit HoF recognition. I'm slightly too young to have much knowledge of them, but my Dad reckoned Pollock was the best left handed batsmen he ever saw (and that includes Sobers).

Roberts - Certainly very good, but HoF great, by comparison with his Windies contemporaries?

Good selection, should make for some interesting discussions.

cricketfan90 wrote:hmmm very intresting...

my early thoughts are

yes: pollock,richards,spofforth

not sure about : roberts, not the best windies bowler IMO,

dont know alot about rhodes

thus far IM NOT SAYING NO TO ANYONE

Like CF, I won't confirm my votes for anyone thus far. However, it will take something monumental - say, a Bat family kidnapping - to prevent me registering a YES for Barry Richards at the end of the process. Graeme Pollock is just a short distance behind and that is only because I saw less of his sublime batting. Both were giants of the cricketing world and will remain so for the rest of time. That they were only permitted, through no fault of their own,to play against comparative pygmies from 1970 onwards does not diminish their true stature.

Although CF isn't sure about Anderson Roberts, at least two people are - me (which counts for pretty much zilch or even less!) and Sunny Gavaskar which should count for an awful lot. Gavaskar regarded Roberts as the most clever and dangerous of all the West Indian pacemen. A much under rated bowler - including, I have to admit, by me until I did some reading up on him a few months ago.

I'm far less sure about Wilfred Rhodes and Fred Spofforth. That's mainly down to ignorance on my part. I believe the gap between Rhodes' first and last Test match was about 120 years! Hopefully, 'History Man Hoggy' can confirm or correct that. Any further details about Demon Fred will also be gratefully received although I'll clearly have to do some reading for these two.

Looks like the debate has begun ....

PS Fists - did Marsh qualify for our end of season play offs?

hopefully not, i dont think many people voted for marsh guildford.

No, Marsh is out.

guildfordbat wrote:

I'm far less sure about Wilfred Rhodes and Fred Spofforth. That's mainly down to ignorance on my part. I believe the gap between Rhodes' first and last Test match was about 120 years! Hopefully, 'History Man Hoggy' can confirm or correct that.

Only 31 years Guildford

From what I recall, he was actually sitting on the board of selectors for the tour to the WIndies (his last test series) and could, therefore, be said to have selected himself.

Nice quote from A.A. Thompson regarding Rhodes and his fellow Yorkshire and England all-rounder George Hirst:

‘…nobody knows the name of the world’s greatest allround cricketer. All we know for certain is that he batted right–hand, bowled left and was born in
Kirkheaton.’

A description that applied to both men!

OK, Rhodes is in, simply because he was born withn 5 miles of where I was.

More seriously, while it will be good to learn more of both Rhodes and Spofforth, from the little I know of both they have excellent cases for inclusion in the HoF, so I'm starting them as probable yes's.

Pollock and Richards I'm really unsure about - undoubtedly both were fine batsmen and were victims of circumstance. It's probably going to come down to whether their first class performances were of a standard to suggest their great Test statistics would have been maintained over a longer career.

Roberts - If he was anything other than a West Indian quick of the 70s and 80s, he'd be almost a certainty. Also, how can you go against someone with the full name Anderson Montgomery Everton Roberts?

guildfordbat wrote:Skyeman, Alfie, Mike and Mad have been unusually quiet on this thread over the last few days ....

Dunno about the first two, but Mike and MfC have been hitting the slopes in the Alps a bit which may explain some of the quiet...

I vote the following way:
Lindwall: a clear cut YES, as I said before if you pick an Aus all-time XI with 3 quicks you pick Lindwall, Lilee and McGrath. No contest. An all-time great and part of the invincibles whoom quite a few would say would at least give the recent all-conquering Aussie side a run for their money (in my view, their absence of a Shane Warne could be a problem, BUT in Miller they had a world-class all-rounder, something the Aussie side from the early 00s didn't).

May: Honestly thought he was a fairly straightforward YES, great batsman and captain who held the record for most matches by an England skipper for a long time (IIRC Atherton evetually surpassed it), was described by a few as the best bat of his generation, and of course that stand of 411 which destroyed Ramadin's test career. And to cap it all, he achieved excellence over a vast period of time.

Hanif: another YES. An excellent player who will always be defined by that 499 (fun trivia fact: this innings was made on astroturf), but also carried Pakistan's batting for a period of their history where they were, let's be honest, pretty poor.

Marsh: NO, with regret. A good to very good wicket-keeper and a decent batsman, but those who saw them will tell you his keeping was far behind that of Knott's and Healy's, and his batting, whilst decent, was of course nowhere near Gilchrist or Flower (or even Prior). His efforts with various accademies are admirable, but ultimately not enough for me.

Miandad: For me, good player though he was, he falls slightly short of "uncontested great". I therefore have to look at the rest of his career. And there are plenty of positives most of which have been gone through. But then you see there's the character thing. Must admit I still can't make up my mind. You guys will have to wait a bit longer...

well mike the deadline's today lol, so you havent got long to decide on miandad....

Which goes to show one should read the thread before posting...

Hadn't realised votes had closed, although seems my votes go with the general trend.

Fascinating 5 this week...

Mike Selig wrote:

... Mike and MfC have been hitting the slopes in the Alps a bit which may explain some of the quiet..

Miandad: For me, good player though he was, he falls slightly short of "uncontested great". I therefore have to look at the rest of his career. And there are plenty of positives most of which have been gone through. But then you see there's the character thing. Must admit I still can't make up my mind. You guys will have to wait a bit longer...

Mike - not a moment's rest for you poor students, then?

Alfie has since returned to the fold whilst, I guess, Skye is overly occupied with his diversity classes.

And - no, you can't play the 'time out' card on Miandad! Interested in your vote whether it counts now or not .... Cheers, Guildford

My initial thoughts:

Pollock - Despite Apartheid played enough Tests to be judged (more than Hall of Famer Headley so no real debate there). Should sail in.

Rhodes - Could well be worth a place but careful consideration needed.

Richards - A very popular figure on here and I may well end up saying yes. At risk of death, I will play devil's advocate, however, and make a case against him tomorrow.

Roberts - A tough one to call which will need research and comparison with the other West Indian pacemen of his era.

Spofforth - The earliest Test player we have had to consider I think. Context will need to be placed on his achievements in an era when Australia had one opponent.

Shelsey93 wrote:My initial thoughts:


Richards - A very popular figure on here and I may well end up saying yes. At risk of death, I will play devil's advocate, however, and make a case against him tomorrow.

Good luck

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:My initial thoughts:


Richards - A very popular figure on here and I may well end up saying yes. At risk of death, I will play devil's advocate, however, and make a case against him tomorrow.

Good luck

Hoggy - I think he's serious.

Shelsey - as well to get affairs in order first ....

Fists of Fury wrote:No, Marsh is out.

Radio commentary on Eng v Pak has reminded me of the horrified reaction of Marsh to the notorious Chappell underarm bowling incident - might have tipped me into the yes camp if I had remembered that at the time....

Morning Corporal - how did the commentary get on to Marsh and that incident? Ah well, more relevant than buses and pigeons some would say.

Lovely contrast between the commentators on Sky. A very polite and dignified Indian commentator reported along these lines: ''Jonathon Trott has not come in to bat as he's having health issues''. Earlier David Lloyd had said: ''Not to put too fine a point on it, Trott's got the trots!''

Lets hope he gets the runs as well Guildford

Shouldn't have posted that, should I?