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 - errh, no.

Is that errh, no because it was tempting fate, or because it was such a rubbish joke?

Abject batting display! Certainly not enhanced the claims of Pieterson, Bell, Morgan to enter the HofF when the time comes

Hoggy - given I've watched too many Carry On films too often, I thought it was a brilliant joke!

I wouldn't worry about tempting fate. Fate seemed to have already decided what the result was going to be.

Getting a teeny bit back on track for this thread, how better still would the figures of past slow bowling greats have been with DRS?

guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - given I've watched too many Carry On films too often, I thought it was a brilliant joke!

I wouldn't worry about tempting fate. Fate seemed to have already decided what the result was going to be.

Getting a teeny bit back on track for this thread, how better still would the figures of past slow bowling greats have been with DRS?

True enough.
Our Wilfred might have taken another 1000 wickets

i have done quite a bit of resarch on rhodes since getting in from work earlier, and he has a very impressive overall carreer record.

First reaction is that Pollock surely has to be a YES. Widely recognised as one of the top batting talents of all time - and his test career was of sufficient length to give support to that assessment - with a test average even higher than the likes of Headley and Sutcliffe.

Barry Richards

As promised I will risk my life and offer some reasons to consider giving 606 v2's favourite non-Surrey son a NO vote. However, I'll start this post with the views of Christopher Martin-Jenkins who saw Richards as worthy of the No. 28 position in his 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "If Barry Richards was often a little careless with his talent, it was understandable because he apparently found cricket ridiculously easy"
- "In the early 1970s he was the best batsman in the world"
- "His only Test series consisted of four matches for South Africa against Australia in 1969-70, when he reached the first of his two hundreds in the second Test off 116 balls in the over after lunch at Kingsmead. His eventual 140 came from 164 balls"
- "He played for South Australia in one prolific season in 1970-71, making 356, 325 of them in one six-hour day, against Western Australia in Perth. All but one of the six bowlers pitted against him in that match played Test cricket and three of them - Dennis Lillee, Graham McKenzie and Tony Lock - were from the top drawer. Richards also savaged John Snow that Australian summer while making a double century against the MCC touring team. He averaged 109 over the season and piloted South Australia to the Sheffield Shield title"
- played "for the Rest of the World side in the 1970 series in England that would otherwise have been a South African tour, and, in contests that fully tested his mettle, for another World XI against most of the best of the Australians and West Indies in World Series Cricket in 1978-79. From 1981 to 1984 he represented South Africa in unofficial matches against English and West Indies elevens"
- "the perfect model for any batsman. The time that he had to size up the length and direction of every ball was uncanny. Always balanced and unhurried, he never had to reach for the ball but played it under his eyes, preferring the straight-batted shots to those square of the wicket but capable, it seemed, of playing any shot to any ball, not least the hook against the quickest bowling. Batting without a helmet in the 'bouncer-happy' World Series matches, he scored two centuries in the 'Supertests' after which Lillee called him the 'personification of batting perfection' "
- "In his first season for Hampshire he scored 2,395 runs during a wet summer, and his many remarkable performances for the county in ensuing years included an innings of 240 against Warwickshire in 1973, when Hampshire's next highest scorer was 56. His double century against Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge in 1974 came in a game in which only two other players scored more than 30. In the same season he made 189 not out out of a total of 249 for six against MCC at Lord's"
- "he made slip catching look even easier than batting, and was capable of valuable spells as an off-spin bowler"

Graham Tarrant, writing in the 1983 book of 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers adds that "Although Barry Richards has only played four Test matches, no one would challenge his selection as one of the fifty post-war greats". He then says that "If he has a weakness it is perhaps one of temperament, a tendency to become bored and careless if his supreme skills are not tested by the opposition".

So, why should we consider a player rated so highly not to be a dead cert for a Hall of Fame place?

The main point is that I see it as hard to justify turning down successful Test players;

- Boycott, who averaged more than Richards in almost double as many FC matches AND averaged 48 from over 100 Tests
- Greg Chappell, who although averaging slightly less than Richards in a similar number of FC matches, also averaged 54 in 87 matches at the highest level
- Graham Gooch, with 128 first-class hundreds and a triple-ton
- Neil Harvey, who was Australia's best batsman for a long period after the War

and still select somebody who only played 4 Tests, however good their domestic record.

My reason for this belief is that there isn't a massive amount of correlation between FC success and Test success, meaning that it is very dangerous to assume that Richards would have been a world-beater against the very best in the world in an era of the West Indian quicks, of Lillee and Thomson and against the Indian spinners on turning sub-continental pitches which he rarely, if ever, got the chance to play on.

The other high level representative cricket played by Richards did not necessarily produce stunning returns either. His Test average would have been considerably lower had the Test status of the Rest of the World matches in England in 1970 been upheld - he averaged 36.71 with just 1 50 in the 5 first-class matches against England. And in World Series cricket he averaged below 30 in one-day cricket in both 77-78 and 78-79 although he did score 166 runs in the two 'Supertests' he played in 78-79 and scored a double-hundred in a 'Supertest' against World Series Australia the previous year.

Additionally, whilst it is true that he played in a strong period of county cricket, it cannot be assumed that the bowlers were at their very best in this non-Test environment or that he didn't boost his stats on slow-medium pace county trundlers. His 'temperament' was also slightly called into question by both Tarrant and implicitly by CMJ. Therefore, I reiterate that we cannot simply assume he would have made the step up to Test level with ease. The following players indicate that FC dominance does not necessarily lead to status as a legend of the game:

Vijay Merchant (150 FC matches, 13470 runs @ 71.64; 10 Tests, 859 runs @ 47.72)
Ajay Sharma (129 FC matches, 10120 runs @ 67.46; 1 Test, 53 runs @ 26.50)
KC Ibrahim (60 FC matches, 4716 runs @ 61.24; 4 Tests, 169 runs @ 21.12)
Michael Bevan (237 FC matches, 19147 runs @ 57.32; 18 Tests, 785 runs @ 29.07)
Sanjay Manjrekar (147 FC matches, 10252 runs @ 55.11; 37 Tests, 2043 runs @ 37.14)
Ajay Jadeja (109 FC matches, 8046 runs @ 55.10; 15 Tests, 576 runs @ 26.18)
Mark Ramprakash (455 FC matches, 35539 runs @ 53.92; 52 Tests, 2350 runs @ 27.32)
Graeme Hick (526 FC matches, 41112 runs @ 52.23; 65 Tests, 3383 runs @ 31.32)

Of these Bevan, Ramprakash and Hick are probably the best examples. We will never know if Richards would have fallen into this category or that of true legends - my instinct is he may have become a legend but instinct alone is not enough to make a Hall of Fame judgement.

I think we must also be weary of favouring batsmen over bowlers here - somehow Richards is Hall of Fame worthy when Vince van der Bijl (FC bowling average 16.54) is not. If we are to consider those whose Test careers we were deprived of by Apartheid then I think van der Bijl may well be superior, if not then definitely the equal of, Richards.

The South African situation is in some ways special, of course, but Richards's bad luck in not having a prolonged Test career, is not that much more unlucky than those like Merchant and Sharma who received insufficient Test opportunities or even Don Shepherd with 2218 wickets but no Tests.

So to conclude, Richards was clearly a stunningly good FC player. But I believe that is too little to assume he would have been a Test superstar. Therefore, whilst I may well end up voting Yes I don't really consider him to be anywhere near as clear cut a case as some on here would have it. I'll now finish playing the and leave it up to the rest of you to convince me that he's worthy of the Yes I couldn't find in me for Greenidge, Kanhai and Hanif.

Personally, at this moment in time, I'm inclining toward another 5 yes votes.
Pollock and Richards should be definites (although Shelsey may have something to say about that), and I reckon the other 3 are strong candidates as well IMO.

Barry Richards had a batting average of 9 for the occasions I saw him in the flesh.

To be honest it was one match only - Surrey v Hants at the Oval in June 1974. Being a partisan Surrey supporter I was delighted on the first day of the county match when possibly the best ever county opening partnership fell cheaply. Greenidge bowled by Geoff Arnold for 0 and Richards caught behind by "Ob" Long off Jackman for 9. I have a recollection that he made batting look ridiculously easy - but only for a few minutes. In retrospect I wish now that I had at least seen Richards notch up a classy half century. I look forward to reading the NO case for Richards. My starting gut feeling (quite reliable today in sensing an impending England batting collapse!) is that it would be heretical not to give him a YES - but I would like this to be tested out....

I'm going to have a look at Shelsey's post in a minute. Bit like a committed carnivore reading Vegetarian Monthly.

Poor Kwini has had to go away for the weekend just to avoid it ....

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Personally, at this moment in time, I'm inclining toward another 5 yes votes.
Pollock and Richards should be definites (although Shelsey may have something to say about that), and I reckon the other 3 are strong candidates as well IMO.

im also heading for 5 yes votes.

I've edited in the second half of my post on Richards above ^^

cricketfan90 wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Personally, at this moment in time, I'm inclining toward another 5 yes votes.
Pollock and Richards should be definites (although Shelsey may have something to say about that), and I reckon the other 3 are strong candidates as well IMO.

im also heading for 5 yes votes.

I'm heading for 6 votes. Playing my Joker card on Richards! [Apologies if not understood by younger posters.]

Shelsey
You do make some good points which are difficult to contest.
Of course it is impossible to be absolutely sure that Richards would have been a test match star, but anyone who saw him bat would be pretty convinced that he would have been. Certainly this was the case with a number of pretty good judges. John Arlott, for example said of him that 'No one who ever watched him bat could conceivably doubt his ability' and that 'He will be remembered by those who watched him as one of the most brilliant players of bowling of modern times'. Both Don Bradman and 'Dickie' Bird chose him in their dream teams and Bradman said that he was the equal of Jack Hobbs or Len Hutton. Robin Jackman, the bowler who enjoyed the most success against Richards said of him; "He was technically perfect, but he still had the ability to really hurt you, whereas others who were technically very good but not as good as Barry - say a Boycott - you never felt were going to hurt you that much. They'd wear you down, hour after hour. But Barry could really turn it on when he felt like it. Sometimes he did it just because he felt like it." And also that ""I used to regard it as an achievement if I bowled a maiden to him; that was my ultimate. Most of the time when I bowled to him, I'd have the new ball and he'd be opening the batting. Of course you'd have the right number of catchers, and there were some gaps in the field. So if you got through a few overs to him with and he hadn't really scored, and you bowled a maiden to him, you felt like you were doing really well."
In addition, Richards did have a good record on the occassions he played against good bowling attacks. His four tests, his WSC matches, his 325 in a day against a WA attack at the WACA which included Denis Lillee, Garth McKenzie, Tony Lock and John Inverarity, which was played during a season in which he averaged 109 in the Sheffield Shield and became only the second man after Bradman to score a century against all opponents.
In addition to this he made a century before lunch 9 times in FC cricket (his maiden test century came in the first over after lunch), scored 1000 runs in a season on 15 ocassions and once batted out an over in a club game using only the leading edge of his bat.
As I say, you are correct in saying that it is impossible to be absolutely sure that Richards would have been an all-time great in test cricket, but I would suggest that there's a very high probability that he would have been and that, even without the benefit of a successful international career behind him, his immense talent should be enough to justify his place in our HoF.

I've just had a look at the You tube video of Richards' century for Hants against Lancs. Strongly recommended. Brought memories flooding back - his charisma as a player and the ease of his shot making. A truly stunning batsman.

I think it is possible that in a long test career he might well have gone through a few sticky patches due to finding batting almost too easy. And there may be a bit of a clue in the Robin Jackman quote above: "Barry could really turn it on when he felt like it". But any doubts I had re HoF entry have been pretty much dispelled.

And do watch that video!

Just to add that, as far as I can tell, in all of his 'international' matches, his tests, World XI vs. England matches and WSC Supertests, he played 13 matches, 21 innings, 2 not outs, 1291 runs, average 67.95

Not much to go on, I know, but pretty impressive non the less.

Very interesting report from Shelsey

I have to say I have a problem with Richards myself (have been rather dreading having to make a call on him as we worked through the alphabet).

The question is : are we voting people in for what they actually achieved on the world stage , or what their obvious talent showed they might have done , had circumstances allowed?

I didn't see a lot of Richards , but enough to see he was up there with Pollock as the finest SA bat of all. But , because of circumstances beyond his control , the fact is he wasn't tested over years against the best from around the world as others in our HOF all were ... odds are he would have finished with a great record at Test level over a significant time ... but he never got the chance...

So is that enough to vote him in? Sorry , but at the moment I am not sure.

Personally I think you have to base these judgements on talent alfie, as long as such talent is demonstrated over a certain length of time.
Look at WG Grace, for example. His test record is nothing outstanding but his place in our HoF is based on his talent and acheivements in domestic cricket.

It will be no surprise to even an occasional reader that I am right up there with Hoggy on Richards.

Bradman never played a Test overseas other than in England. I'm sure all would agree that it would be ludicrous to hold that against him. All things need to go into the mix - talent displayed, consistency and length of such display, stand out achievements, views of respected contemporaries, what was open to him, influence on and beyond the game, etc, etc. The same should apply in respect of Richards. The pluses and possible minuses are clearly not the same but the net result is no different for me.

I'll try to explain further a bit later and at the same time tackle some of Shelsey's other points. In the meantime, I would recommend a read of the thread about 'Ten Greatest Openers of All Time' which I've brought to the front of the queue.

Wilfred Rhodes of course has to be in the HoF. His stats are awesome. Most appearance in first class cricket; most wickets taken in first class cricket; achieved the double of 100 wickets and 1000 runs 16 times in an English season. There is a very fine tribute paid to Rhodes by the late Neville Cardus. I reproduce it below:

Wilfred Rhodes was Yorkshire cricket personified in the great period of the county's domination, shrewd, dour, but quick to seize an opportunity. For Yorkshire he scored more than 30,000 runs, averaging 30 an innings; for Yorkshire he took 3,608 wickets at 16 runs each. When he was not playing for Yorkshire, in his spare time, so to say, he played for England and amassed 2,000 runs, average 30, and took 127 wickets, at the cost of 26.96 apiece. In his first Test match he was last in the batting order, and at Sydney in the 1903-04 rubber he took part in the most persistent and prolific Test match last-wicket partnership to this day; he helped RE Foster to add 130 for the tenth wicket, his share 40 not out. Eight years afterwards he went in first for England at Melbourne, and against Australia he was the partner of Hobbs in the record first-wicket stand of 323.

His career is already legendary; it does indeed read like a fairy tale. He was not 21 years old when he first bowled for Yorkshire in a match against MCC at Lord's. In the first innings he accounted for Trott and Chatteron; in the second, Trott, Chatteron, CP Foley, and the Hon JR Tufton -- six wickets for 63, a modest beginning, true. But at the season's end he had established himself as the greatest slow left-hand bowler in England with 154 wickets, average 14.60.

During the period in which Rhodes and Hobbs opened every England innings by prescriptive right, Rhodes put aside his bowling. In the Australian rubber of 1911-12 he contributed only 18 overs. But then the war came, reducing the Yorkshire attack. In 1919 Yorkshire needed again the spin and flight of Rhodes, so he picked up his bowling arts exactly where years before he had laid them down, picked them up as though he had not lost touch for a moment. He headed the bowling averages of 1919, 164 wickets, average 14.42 in 1048 overs. He was nearly 42 by the calendar. In 1902 he had gone in last for England at The Kennington Oval when 15 runs were wanted to beat Australia; George Hirst, with whom he always opened Yorkshire's attack, was holding the wicket at the other end. England won by one wicket.

Twenty-four years afterwards, Rhodes in his forty-ninth year was recalled to the England XI and was one of the main causes of Australia's defeat and England's emergence from years in the wilderness. On this, his last appearance for England, Rhodes took the wickets of Woodfull, Ponsford, Richardson (twice), Collins, and Bardsley for 79 runs. He had probably lost by then much of his old quick vitally fingered spin: but as he explained to me: "If batsmen thinks as I'm spinnin' them, then I am" -- a remark metaphysical, maybe, but to the point. At Sydney, in December 1903, on the shirt-fronted polished Bulli soil pitches of that distant halcyon day for batsmen, Australia scored 485, and the might of Australia's champions commanded the crease -- Trumper, Hill, Duff, Armstrong, Gregory. Rhodes bowled 48 overs for 94 runs, five wickets. It was on this occasion that Trumper, the most brilliant of all batsmen, alive or dead, made his famous remark to Rhodes -- "for God's sake, Wilfred, give me a minute's rest."

Rhodes could not turn the ball on the Australian grounds of half a century ago. He prevailed by length, variations of flight, but chiefly by unceasing accuracy of pitch, always demanding close attention from the batsman, the curving arc through the air, the ball dropping on the same spot over by over, yet not on quite the same spot, each over in collusion with the rest, every ball a decoy, some balls apparently guileless, some artfully masked -- and one of them, sooner or later, the master ball. He was economical in action, a few short strides, then a beautifully balanced sideways swing of the body, the arm loose and making a lovely arch. He could go on for hours; the rhythm of his action was in its easy rotation, hypnotic, lulling his victims to the tranced state in which he could work his will, make them perform strokes contrary to their reason and intention. Batsmen of Rhodes's heyday frequently succumbed to his bait for a catch in the deepfield. David Denton had safe hands at long-on; and the score-sheets of the period repeated day by day the rubric -- c Denton b Rhodes. In rainy weather, c Tunnicliffe b Rhodes was familiar proof that Wilfred was at work on a sticky pitch, for Tunnicliffe was the best slip fielder of the century, a long giant with a reach into infinity.

Rhodes really was a slow bowler, not quick and low flight to the pitch, after Lock's manner. At the end of his career he proudly maintained that "Ah were never hooked and Ah were never cut," a pardonable exaggeration considering the proportion of truth in it. Rhodes seldom pitched short. "Best ball on a `sticky' pitch is a spinnin' half-volley," such was his doctrine. And he bowled to his field with the precision of high mathematics. Ernest Tyldesley once told me that he often had no alternative but to play at least three balls an over, on a batsman's wicket, straight to mid-off, an inch off the spot where Rhodes had planted mid-off.

Rhodes made himself into a batsman by practice and hard thinking. He was one of the first batsmen to adopt the full-fronted stance, left shoulder pointing to forward leg. But it is a mistake to suppose that his batting was perpetually dour and parsimonious in strokeplay. In the Test match against the Australians at Lord's in 1912, England had first innings on a rain-damaged pitch. Wisden relates that Rhodes, with Hobbs as company, so monopolised the hitting that his share of 77 runs amounted to 52. On the whole and naturally enough, Rhodes distrusted the romantic gesture. One day in conversation with him, I deplored the absence in modern cricket of the cut. "But it were never a business stroke," he maintained.

While he was actively engaged in the game he was not a man given to affability. He was known as a natterer on the field; and to natter in the North of England means to talk naggingly, most to oneself, with the intention of being overheard. At Old Trafford in the 1930s Lancashire reached a total of 500 against Yorkshire. The Lancashire captain, Leonard Green, was about to take the bowling of Rhodes when the score was 499. Green was sure in his mind that a total of 500 would never again, or not for decades, be achieved by Lancashire against Yorkshire. He therefore determined that come what may, he would himself score the five hundredth run. So he blocked a ball from Rhodes, then ran like the wind. The ball was picked up by Emmott Robinson at silly-point, and hurled to the bowler's end, where it struck Rhodes on the wrist even as Green got home by the skin of his teeth. And in all the scurry and excitement Wilfred was heard to mutter, while he retrieved Robinson's violent throw, "There's somebody runnin' up and down this wicket. Ah don't know who it is, but there's somebody runnin' up and down this wicket."

He was a great player, one of the greatest of cricket's history, not only for his allround performances denoted by the statisticians: nearly 40,000 runs scored in 37 seasons and 4,184 wickets taken. He was great because his cricket was redolent and representative of Yorkshire county. In his old age he lost his eyesight and found his tongue. He accepted his affliction philosophically, and consoled himself by a flow of genial chatter never before heard from him. He attended cricket as long as health would permit. With an acquired sense he was able to follow the play. "He's middlin' the ball right." But it was his delight in his last years to recall the old days. I asked him what he thought of Ranjitsinhji. "He were a good bat were `Ranji.' But I always fancied myself getting him leg before doin' that leg glance of his." I tried again. What did you think of Trumper? "'E were a good bat were Victor." There was no advance on a good bat in Wilfred's vocabulary of praise. Once, though, he let himself go. I asked him his opinion of Sidney Barnes as a bowler. "The best of 'em today is half as good as Barnie." He intended this as a compliment to the champions of today.

I last saw him as his daughter, Muriel, and her husband Tom Burnley, led him out of Trent Bridge at the close of play of a Test match. More than fifty years ago he had first played for England, on this same ground, in 1899, when he was 21. Now he was going home to Canford Cliffs, Bournemouth, white stick in hand, arm in arm with his son-in-law, his face ruddy after hours sitting and listening to cricket, and whether he knew it or not, himself a permanent part of the game's history and traditions.

I'm surprised Richards is causing debate, but let me address a few of the issues people seem to be having.

First of all, I don't think we can judge Richards on what may have been. But equally it is unfair to hold his lack of test matches (due to reasons beyond his control) against him. So we must judge him on what he did.

Secondly, comparisons with Bevan, Ramprakash and Hick are insulting to the man. Bevan had clear technical issues, and the latter two obvious mental frailties which meant they were ill-equipped to deal with the highest level of the game. Richards clearly had no such technical issues (just go and watch him a bit) or mental frailties (as his excellent test record and record in world series show - remember Hick and Ramps failed from the start of their test careers). Comparisons with someone like Jadeja are so far off the mark I don't think I even need to address them.

Shelsey then mentions that others with excellent records have missed out. I think this is dangerous territory. We should be judging candidates on their merits alone, not their merits compared to others who may or may not have made the cut.

Finally alfie asks what criteria we are using: that is for each and everyone of us to decide. I am using the criteria "impact" which loosely translates as "excellence required, plus a bit more". I have no doubt that Richards fulfills my criteria. He is in my view the finest batsman since Bradman. That should be enough for most people.

Corporal and Mike - two very different posts but both highly effective.

Thank you.

Andy Roberts - at the moment for me he is a little way short of the HoF. Clearly he was a fine bowler - but I would say he was several rungs on the ladder below Malcolm Marshall and perhaps one rung below both Holding and Garner. If Kanhai and Gibbs, for example, aren't currently in our HoF I'm not really convinced Roberts merits entry before them....

I shall listen carefully to the arguments mounted by Guildford and others, of course!

Great post by the corporal, not that anyone who knows much about cricket should need much convincing on Rhodes. Even myself who (to paraphrase guilford) attaches less importance than I should to longetivity must recognise that Rhodes's feats are absolutely extraordinary, and a statistical anomoly which warrants his inclusion into our HoF without further thought.

Regarding Andy Roberts, it seems it is his lot to remain underrated, perhaps as he is less flamboyant than his contempories. He certainly didn't possess the mastery of swing and seam that Marshall did; he wasn't as tall as Garner, nor did he have the same devastating yorker; he didn't have Holding's beautiful run-up, nor devastating pace. What he did have was supreme accuracy, fantastic nous/understanding of the game, what to bowl and when, and above all a big heart. Dickie Bird when rating the best fast bowler he had ever umpired said that (I may paraphrase somewhat) in his view, the finest of the West Indian pace bowlers was "the deadly accurate Andy Roberts". That is high praise indeed.

Mike Selig wrote:

Regarding Andy Roberts, it seems it is his lot to remain underrated, perhaps as he is less flamboyant than his contempories. He certainly didn't possess the mastery of swing and seam that Marshall did; he wasn't as tall as Garner, nor did he have the same devastating yorker; he didn't have Holding's beautiful run-up, nor devastating pace. What he did have was supreme accuracy, fantastic nous/understanding of the game, what to bowl and when, and above all a big heart. Dickie Bird when rating the best fast bowler he had ever umpired said that (I may paraphrase somewhat) in his view, the finest of the West Indian pace bowlers was "the deadly accurate Andy Roberts". That is high praise indeed.

Sunny Gavaskar said very similar to Dickie Bird when asked about the best fast bowler he ever faced. More to follow.

Strange thing about everyone looking at Andy Roberts is that, when he broke in to the WI Team, he was outstandingly the Number One . . . . .

Andy Roberts with superior first class record (889 wickets at 21.01) than Michael Holding (778 at 23.43) in only six more matches, for instance and more wickets per Test than Holding (4.3 vs 4.15) tho at a higher average.


Agree great to read the Wilfred Rhodes post from the newly promoted Sergeant; should be an automatic YES! from all of us, I would think.

I thought some might like to see for the first time and others reminded again of the brilliance of Andy Roberts.

Look out in particular for the variations in pace whilst maintaining complete accuracy - the slower ball deceiving Steele, the extra pace beating Brearley, the bouncer surprising and undoing Steele second time out, etc, etc.

As each ball is bowled and each wicket taken, Roberts' deadly gunslinger expression remains unchanged. As someone has posted beneath the clip: ''Roberts let the bowling do the talking.''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG0zHieeXqw

Sergeant = that has a good ring to it!

Re Roberts, it's worth doing a comparison of Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts in Tests since they played in broadly the same era.

Longevity: MM (81 tests); MH (60); JG (58); AR (47)
Strike rate: MM (46.7); JG (50.8); MH (50.9); AR (55.1)
Econ: JG (2.47); MM (2.68); AR (2.78); MH (2.79)

By the time you also factor in Marshall's batting and Garner's massive impact on the limited overs game I would say that the battle for third place is between Holding and Roberts and for me Holding has it by virtue of his slightly better test figures, but also his arguably best ever bowling action for pace bowler, plus the quite astonishing bowling performance in the famous Oval test. I recognise these things are finely balanced....

For those interested in more on Richards and Pollock, the ESPN website has videos for both in their 'Legends of Cricket' series.

I hadn't realised that Pollock played as many as 23 Tests. 19 of these were played between the ages of 19 and 23, with only the Australia series of 69/70 later than this. His final test appearance though came at just 26 years old.

Ian Chappell was one of the ESPN selectors for the Legends series, and he says that one of the 69/70 tests after a few minutes of Pollock batting with Richards, he turned to a team mate and said 'we have a problem here - however many Richards gets, Pollock will get twice as many'. The pair added 112 runs in 1 hour, with Richards being out for 140. Pollock didn't double his score, but came mighty close, being out for 275.

Interesting footage of Graham Pollock batting - a tall man (6' 2"), with a slightly hunched stance who used a heavy bat with a thin handle. He stood with the bat toe close to his back foot and with the face quite closed (i.e. with the edge of the bat roughtly towards extra cover / mid off), before picking the bat up (rather more than swinging it back) with the bottom hand just as the bowler was delivering the ball. Not a great technician in the sense of getting to the pitch of the ball, but used his footwork to get well balanced and to give him a base to play through the line of the ball. Was initially noted as a quality off side player - a cover driver in the Hammond class, and with the West indian style back foot drive plus a good cutter of anything short and wide, but suspected of being weaker around leg stump. Not a weakness that lasted for long.

Pollock - 23 tests, a couple of double hundreds and the second highest career Test average, all achieved by the age of 26 when he should have been coming into his prime. He continued in first class cricket until the age of 42. What could he have achieved had he played a full Test career? The suspicion has to be that he'd have only got better, and so would have been away and clear as the second best batsman of all time. An absolute certainty for the HoF.

I'm struggling more with the idea of Richards getting in to our HoF - without doubt a very fine first class record and an encouraging start to his Test career, and no-one disputed his talent. However, circumstance meant that he only played the one Test series, at home, and as such we are being asked to make a judgement much more on what might have been rather than on achievements.

Of the others, obviously Rhodes had an extraordinary career in both first class cricket and at Test level - in particular his first class career numbers for wickets and appearances are far beyond anything that could be achieved today even in the longest career. And this has to be put into the context that Rhodes lost 4 years (in his late 30s) of his career to WW1. While the Test statistics were good rather than great, the oddities of his career (batting in every position in the order, being picked as a bowler, then a batsman and finally a bowler again) ensure that it was extraordinary enough to merit his HoF selection. An interesting aside is that he started his Test career alongside W G Grace and ended it against George Headley.
As a bit of fun, I was trying to make the link between the earliest Tests and today in the fewest players who played with or against each other, and I think our HoF may get close: Grace, Rhodes (when inducted), Headley, Sobers, Gavaskar, Akram, (Tendulkar, who will be HoF immediately on retirement)

Spofforth has been little written of so far - The Demon Bowler debuted in the 2nd Test match of 1877, playing 18 Ashes Tests over the following 10 years, becoming the first Test bowler to pass 50 wickets and ending with 94 wickets @ 18.4. One of the first fine exponents of over-arm bowling, he started as a 'fast' bowler (whatever that meant in that era), but then developed a wider repertoire as a fast medium bowler, bowling various off-cutter and top spin deliveries, but was also the originator of seam and swing bowling, with the ability to get the ball to move back in to right handed batsmen.
He claimed the first ever hat trick in Tests while taking 13 wickets in a match, and then took 14 in a later match. In 18 Tests he took 7 5 fors and had 4 10 wicket matches. Not only for his extremely good bowling stats, but also and probably even more so for his role in the development of the skills of swing and seam bowling (where he was probably as important as Grace was in the development of batting technique), for me he certainly merits a HoF place.

Roberts - as already discussed, started as the premier West Indian quick, and was always the cleverest of their bowlers, probably because he didn't have quite the pure pace of Holding, the height and bounce of Garner or the same level of swing and seam control as Marshall, so had to be a little more strategic. The earlier statistics tell a story - he was an exceptionally good bowler, but playing in a line-up of equally exceptional bowlers. 47 Tests, 202 wickets at 25.61 compares slightly unfavourably with Holding (249 wickets at 23.9) and is some way behind Marshall and Garner, who both averaged under 21 while taking more wickets. If the option was there, I'd put him into the list for later consideration, as I think at the moment in purely cricketing terms he falls just below the level of our current HoF.
However, there is also the positive of him being the first Antiguan to represent the West Indies, and so was a trail blazer for Viv Richards and Curtley Ambrose.

So at the moment, I'm minded towards:
Yes for Pollock, Rhodes and Spofforth
Further thinking on Richards
Probably just missing the cut for Roberts, although I am wondering if this is fair because if he was anything other that a West Indian quick of the 70s and 80s I think he'd just make it over the line to be a yes.

im leaning towards a yes for everyone except for roberts.

Pollock and Richards - Extract from an interview with Dr Ali Bacher in January 1997

Dr Ali Bacher played twelve Tests for South Africa. He was captain against Australia in 1969/70 when South Africa won every Test in that four match series. Those were the last four Tests played by Pollock and the only four played by Richards.

Q: You played Test cricket with Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards. Can you tell us how you think they compare with others who had a more extensive international career?

A: They were the two best batsmen I ever played with or against. When I met Sir Donald Bradman in Australia in 1992, he said of Barry Richards that he was as good as Sir Leonard Hutton and Sir Jack Hobbs, and that Graeme Pollock was the best lefthand batsman of all time, marginally better than even Sir Garfield Sobers.

Fred "The Demon" Spofforth by Christopher Morris

Frederick Robert Spofforth (1853-1926), cricketer, was born on 9 September 1853 at Balmain, Sydney, son of Edward Spofforth, bank clerk, and his wife Anna, née McDonnell. After spending his childhood at Hokianga, New Zealand, he was educated in Sydney by Rev. John Pendrill and at Eglinton College; he then became a clerk in the Bank of New South Wales. Attracted to cricket as a boy in Glebe, at first he bowled fast under-arm but became a fast over-arm after watching G. Tarrant of the 1864 English touring team, and in 1873 he learned variations in pace from the English slow bowler J. Southerton. In 1871-72 he played for the Newtown Cricket Club, then for the Albert Cricket Club with W. L. Murdoch. In January 1874 he played for the New South Wales 18 against W. G. Grace's team; in December his performance in the intercolonial match in Melbourne gave New South Wales its first victory for seven years.

In 1877 Spofforth refused to play in the first Test against James Lillywhite's team because J. M. Blackham had been selected to keep wicket instead of Murdoch. He toured England with the Australian teams of 1878, 1880, 1882, 1884 and 1886, and sprang to fame when he took 10 wickets for 20 runs in Australia's one-day victory by nine wickets over a strong Marylebone Cricket Club at Lord's on 27 May 1878. In 1879 at Melbourne Spofforth took the first 'hat-trick' in a Test match and later twice obtained 3 wickets in 4 balls. In the Test at the Oval in 1882, England, needing 85 runs to win, reached 51 before the third wicket fell; but Spofforth declared 'This thing can be done', and Australia won by 7 runs: in a victory from which 'the Ashes' were derived, he had taken 14 wickets for 90 runs, 7 in each innings—a record that was not surpassed by an Australian in a Test match for ninety years.

In his eighteen Test matches Spofforth took 94 wickets at an average of 18.41 each, and in all first-class matches 1146 wickets for 13.55 apiece. On three of his five tours of England he took over 100 wickets and in 1884 he took 216, a feat only once surpassed by an Australian. Wiry-framed, he stood 6 ft 3 ins (191 cm) and weighed less than 12 stone (76 kg). He could make the ball whip from the pitch and possessed an uncanny control, not only of length, pace and direction but also over the amount of break. The 'demon' bowler's aquiline nose and 'Mephistophelian cast of countenance' combined with a right-handed 'catherine wheel' action, described as 'all legs, arms and nose', generated an intense air of hostility towards batsmen. He was almost unplayable on bad wickets. Although he once rode 400 miles (644 km) to play in a country match and clean bowled all 20 wickets, it was usually the great occasion which roused him to his greatest feats. Active and reliable in the field, he had a long throw and was capable of running 100 yards (91 m) in under 11 seconds. He could bat effectively and in 1885 going in last he top scored with 50 in a Test.

Spofforth played for New South Wales until 1885 when he went to Melbourne as manager of the Moonee Ponds branch of the National Bank of Australasia. On 23 September 1886 at the parish church of Breadsall, Derbyshire, England, he married Phillis Marsh Cadman, daughter of a wealthy tea merchant. They returned to Melbourne but in 1888 Spofforth settled in England as Midlands representative for the Star Tea Co., of which he later became managing director. In 1889 and 1890 he played occasionally for Derbyshire and thereafter for Hampstead Cricket Club for nearly a decade. He occasionally contributed to books and periodicals: some of his reminiscences appeared in Chats on the Cricket Field, edited by W. A. Bettesworth (London, 1910) and in The Memorial Biography of Dr. W. G. Grace, edited by Lord Hawke and others (London, 1919), and he wrote an introductory essay on bowling for Great Bowlers and Fielders: Their Methods at a Glance (London, 1906), by G. W. Beldam and C. B. Fry.

Hospitable, genial and an entertaining raconteur of 'tall stories', Spofforth acquired an intimate knowledge of horticulture and botany, competed in horticultural shows and planted Australian trees in his English grounds. He died on 4 June 1926 of chronic colitis at Ditton Hill Lodge, Long Ditton, Surrey, survived by two sons and two daughters. His estate was valued for probate at £164,000.



Definitely a yes from me!

Congrats to corporal and dummy for some excellent posts above

Graeme Pollock

CMJ's comments on Pollock (No. 37) in 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "made 1,000 runs on a tour of Australia before he was twenty"
- "a strapping six foot three inch left-hander who hit the ball with tremendous force by the straight and simple swing of a heavy bat. He was capable, too, of strokes of delicate finesse. He had a wide stance that allowed him to shift his weight either way and without hurry into the path of the ball"
- "In his second first-class match against a combined Australia XI in Perth he scored a century in 88 minutes. A maiden Test century followed at Sydney, and in Adelaide he played an exhilarating innings of 175"
- "became the youngest player to pass 1,000 Test runs during the course of an innings in the 1965 Test at Trent Bridge that will never be forgotten by any who saw it. Coming in at sixteen for two, and soon seeing South Africa slip further to 43 for four, he played on his own exalted plane for 125 in two hours and twenty minutes, while 35 runs were scored from the other end. He stroked 21 fours, mainly through the off side. In 70 minutes after lunch, before being caught at slip off Tom Cartwright, he scored 90 out of 102"
- "He did something similar to Australia at Cape Town in 1966-67, coming in at twelve for two and soon seeing the innings subside further to 85 for five. Despite a strained thigh that confined him to many shots off the back foot, he scored 100 off 139 balls and went on to make 209. A week earlier his run-a-minute 90 had helped South Africa to their first home victory against Australia, and another century followed at Port Elizabeth"
- "There was a last hurrah in 1969-70 when he scored 272 at Durban in the 4-0 humiliation of Australia but the rest of his career was destined to be appreciated only by a few, including an innings of 222 in a 60-over Cup match in Port Elizabeth and record aggregates in the Currie Cup for both Eastern Province and the Transvaal"
- "He was able to play in a Rest of the World team in England and in unofficial Tests against 'rebel' West Indian sides in 1983 and 1984. Centuries in two of the unofficial Tests showed him, even when well past his prime, to be capable still of humbling the fiercest fast bowling"

Pollock's talents are also recognised by Richie Benaud who places him in his 3rd best Test XI of all time as the only South African to feature in any of the three teams. He goes on to call him as a "champion", having seen him score 209*, described as "the most majestic double-century", out of 355/5 for Eastern Province in a tour match the first time he played against him. Benaud states that the 175 at Adelaide mentioned by CMJ was "one of the finest innings I've ever seen in Test cricket" and then comments that "there's no doubt he was one of the best ever to walk on to a cricket field".

Neil Manthorp's biography of Pollock on Cricinfo also adds some points of interest. Firstly, it tells us that Sir Donald Bradman classed "only Gary Sobers as his equal amongst those [left-handers] he saw play".

A final comment that is a mystery to me, and one which some of the older posters might be able to answer, is why, unlike other South African greats whose careers were interrupted by Apartheid Richards, Procter and van der Bijl, he didn't ever ply his trade in county cricket.

This article is a more detailed assessment of his career:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/460650.html

I can't see where a "No" vote can possibly come from this week from me:

Richards is probably the best ever opener to play cricket.
Pollock is possibly the second best batsman of all time (if he isn't, then maybe Richards is?) and undoubtedly the best left-hander ever.
Rhodes has records of longetivity that surely can't be overlooked.
Spofforth is the first ever fast-bowling great, and arguably invented swing bowling.

I suppose you could argue against Roberts on the basis that he played alongside arguably greater players, but ultimately we didn't accept that as an argument against Grimmett. Certainly Roberts was great in his own right.

Wilfred Rhodes

Corporal has pretty much summed up Rhodes but here are the views of CMJ and Sir Pelham Warner. I'll start with CMJ who ranks him at a lofty 15, ahead of the likes of Keith Miller, Ian Botham, Brian Lara and Sunil Gavaskar. This also makes him the highest ranked played in 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' not yet in our Hall of Fame.

- "The figures produced by Wilfred Rhodes during his long, legendary career are simply staggering: over 4,000 wickets; almost 40,000 runs; more than 100 wickets in 23 seasons; more than 1,000 runs in 21; the double in sixteen. By sheer ageless craft he took more than 100 wickets at the age of 50"
- "First playing for Yorkshire in 1898, he took thirteen wickets for 48 in his second match against Somerset. Last playing for England at the age of 48 in 1926, he was the chief reason for the famous success at the Oval, when he took four for 44 in twenty overs in the second innings (and six for 79 in the match) to win back the Ashes"
- 22 years earlier he "shared the famous last-wicket stand that won another Oval Test against Australia"
- "He started at number eleven for England and graduated by diligence, competence and common sense to the role as Jack Hobbs' opening partner. They put on 159 at Johannesburg in 1909-10 and 221 at Cape Town. Then, at Melbourne in 1911-12, they shared what is still England's first wicket record against Australia, 323"
- "Rhodes the batsman had grit, a very sound defence and a leaning cover drive. Rhodes the bowler was the greatest ever exponent of flight. H. S. Altham left a perfect picture: 'An action of balanced economy but beautiful rythm was the basis for supreme control of both length and direction; he could turn the ball on wickets that gave no help, and on those that did its bite and lift were deadly'. Add this to the profound character of the man, his patience, intelligence, shrewd analysis of the weakness of his adversaries and his refusal to wilt under pressure, and you have the explanation for his taking more wickets than any other player"
- "After five seasons he already had 1,251 wickets"
- "he should have been the match-winner [for England] for the first time in 1902 when he and Hirst bowled Australia out at Edgbaston for 36, Rhodes taking seven for seventeen, but the weather denied them"
- "In 1903-04, on the first of his four tours of Australia, he took fifteen for 124 in the Melbourne Test and 31 at fifteen in the series"
- "A Neville Cardus story of the wisdom of Rhodes in his playing days bears repetition. Hr and Yorkshire's steady in-swing bowler Emmott Robinson went out after rain to inspect a sodden wicket. 'That'll be turning by four o'clock', said Robinson. 'Nay Emmott', was Wilfred's response, 'half past four.' "

Unsurprisingly, Plum Warner speaks in detail about Rhodes in his 'Book of Cricket', who he says was, "one of the great figures of English cricket from that time (1898) up to 1931":

- "in his prime he was superb; for he was accurate in his length, had a deceptive flight, and on a sticky wicket could make the ball 'talk'*"
- "His action was fascinatingly easy; it seemed literally part of himself. He took three steps up to the wicket, placing the weight of his body chiefly on the heels, and delivered the ball on the fourth step"
- "Rhodes was another great off-side fieldsman" and is also described as being good at short-leg
- "Hobbs and Rhodes were a wonderful first-wicket pair"
- achieved "the unique distinction of having bowled and batted first for England"

Rhodes is then written about more extensively in Warner's 'Some Cricketers of My Time Section':

"I saw Rhodes play his first match for Yorkshire, v. M.C.C., at Lord's, in May 1898. On that occasion he went into bat last. Thirteen years later he was going in first with Hobbs for England v. Australia, at Melbourne, and helping to break the record for the first wicket in Test matches. In an earlier chapter an attempt has been made to give some idea of the beauty and greatness of his bowling, but though his name will no doubt be remembered more as a bowler than as a batsman, his record as an all-round cricketer surpasses even that of Hirst. On sixteen occasions he scored over 1,000 runs and obtained over 100 wickets in an English summer; making over 2,000 runs in 1909 to 1911. Rhodes was a very great cricketer from the beginning to the end of his career. Mr. Neville Cardus calls him 'the legendary Rhodes. History hangs about the man.'

His bowling was a thing of joy, a delight to the eye, all grace and ease and effortless rhythm, and if his batsmanship was not really distinguished for style, he was an extremely sound player, with two or three effective strokes, who knew exactly how much to essay. His was a rare cricket brain, and he made use of it. There have scarcely ever been two better runners between wickets than Hobbs and Rhodes. The understanding between them was so perfect that seldom did they call for a run. His first Test Match, in 1899, was W.G.'s last, and when he was recalled to the colours for the final Test at the Oval in 1926 there were three men - Chapman, Stevens, and Larwood- in the England XI who were not born in 1899! What a welcome the crowd gave him, and the young generation gazed upon a slow bowler whose peer the world has seldom seen"

* I was under the impression that that phrase was a modern one. It clearly isn't though, having been used by Warner in the 1930s.

He also shares a birthday with me - a date bizarrely also shared by Michael Vaughan, Matthew Hayden and Greg Blewett (maybe I was always destined to be a cricket fan)

Mike Selig wrote:I can't see where a "No" vote can possibly come from this week from me:

Richards is probably the best ever opener to play cricket.
Pollock is possibly the second best batsman of all time (if he isn't, then maybe Richards is?) and undoubtedly the best left-hander ever.
Rhodes has records of longetivity that surely can't be overlooked.
Spofforth is the first ever fast-bowling great, and arguably invented swing bowling.

I suppose you could argue against Roberts on the basis that he played alongside arguably greater players, but ultimately we didn't accept that as an argument against Grimmett. Certainly Roberts was great in his own right.

Mike - an extremely fine summary post.

Richards - totally agree. I am staggered and saddened that some question his right to a place in the HoF. If I'd had my wits about me at the time, I would have pushed for him to be in our inaugural 30. It would appear Christopher Martin-Jenkins would support that view as he lists Richards as the 28th greatest cricketer of all time. I suppose that as well as you and me, CMJ could have got it wrong - oh, and, of course, also Arlott, Bacher, Barlow, Benaud, Bird, Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Jackman, Pollock, Sobers, Wisden and countless others.

Pollock - also agree.

Rhodes - just to confrm, with his enormous longetivity came very considerable success.

Spofforth - I have to admit he was more a name than a known entity to me [my cricket watching started seriously in the late 1960s whilst my reading about the game is mainly post WW2]. I appreciate the items posted about him here (good to see JDizzle back) and generally need to look at those closer and read up further. However, the case seems very strong indeed.

Roberts - as you say, he was 'a great in his own right'. Confirmed by Gavaskar and Bird. I believe as well that he contributed to the greatness of Holding, Marshall and Garner just as each member of that quartet did to the other three. Probably the greatest tactician of the four. One of the earliest and most successful exponents of the slower ball (see David Steele falling LBW in the clip I posted the other day). Developed the slow bouncer to lull batsmen into a false sense of security (the quicker bouncer is shown in the clip - again poor old Steele is on the receiving end). Played in the first three (mens') World Cup finals. His best performance by far was his in the only one they lost when he took 3 Indian wickets for 32 runs off 10 overs in 1983. However, he more than played his part in getting the West Indies to each of those finals. No mug with the bat either, as evidenced by his three Test match fifties. Disappointing that a case apparently needs to be made for Richards which diverts attention from Roberts. Always the quiet man and, as you've said, the least flamboyant of the four pacemen. He needs and deserves a voice.

Add me to your Barry Richards 'YES' club, gents.

Of the candidates this fortnight, I have to admit that 'The Demon Bowler' Spofforth intrigues me the most. I remember back in about 1999 I first learnt of Spofforth at the tender age of 12. Playing my latest Brian Lara cricket game I entered the 'classic matches' mode, one of which was a challenge where you had to bat as England and complete a run chase with Fred tearing in and bowling all kinds of unplayable deliveries.

Perhaps fittingly, he skittled me out.

However, perhaps of more relevance to his inclusion in our Hall of Fame was the biography that was available to read about Spofforth's career within the game. I was an inquisitive soul even at that age, and remember being very impressed by not only his stats but the clear regard within which he was held by not only his contemporaries but also historians of the game.

For that reason, Fred has been known to me for a long while now, and it was actually only a year or two ago that I refreshed my memory of his exploits and standing within the game when I spent twenty minutes or so researching some real old timer cricketers.

He simply ticks all of the boxes that are required for entry to our Hall of Fame with consumate ease. His record is outstanding (terrific number of five and ten wicket hauls for his games played), he was a pioneer of the game and perhaps had more of an effect on modern day bowling than anyone else in the history of the game, he had his defining moments (first man to take a Test hat-trick), and he is postively revered by those that recall his illustrious career, and of course those that played alongside him.

Must admit I'm quite surprised that it's Richards who's causing most discussion. I thought it'd be Roberts or one of the 'old-timers'.
Really though, I don't think there should be too much dispute about any of these candidates. Bone fide greats each and every one IMO.
On the Richards issue though, it is noticeable that even in Shelsy's post raising issues about Richards not having played many tests he lists two sources ranking Richards in the best 50 post-war or greatest 100 ever players.
Neither CMJ or Graham Tarrent have any problem with his lack of test cricket, obviously. Nor do Bradman or 'Dickie' Bird, or the selectors of ESPN's 'Legends of Cricket' or, indeed, the selectors of the ICC's HoF. If it's not a problem for them, should it be for us?

IMO richards should defo be in there.

Had Richards gone off the rails, and thus ended his Test 'career' when he did for let's say drug related issues, then no, he wouldn't get anywhere near the HoF, despite his huge potential.

What we must bear in mind is that Test cricket was taken away from him, it wasn't the other way round.

With it being no fault of his own he gets the benefit of my doubt, as he was certainly an outstandingly talented batsman and I am confident he would have finished his career with a very healthy average above 50 if he had managed to play it out in full at Test level.

I will admit I was somewhat against Richards being included when we voted for our Greatest Test Openers a while back, but that was purely a reflection on his lack of Test cricket and that I didn't feel that he could qualify for that list with only the small amount of Tests that he played. That is the only argument to levy against him for me though, and as this is a Hall of Fame based on impact on all of cricket and not restricted to Test matches he is a definitive yes from me. Not only were his statistics dumbfounding, he way he went about accumulating his scores were flowing and he was an allround pleasing batsman to watch play. You just enjoyed watching him bat. So looking at all the available sources from his statistics to how his FC career panned out all point to a yes, but the deal clincher for me is how well people who saw him play live speak of him. He is spoken of so reverentially, and maybe some of this is born out of the what ifs of his Test career but this is very little, and there is no doubts in their minds that he would have been a top 3 basman of all time, only behind Bradman and that is the greatest accolade of all that can be bestowed upon him.

Fists of Fury wrote:.... Richards ....

What we must bear in mind is that Test cricket was taken away from him, it wasn't the other way round.

That is very relevant. So far our debate has mainly focused upon Richards' cricketing talent and achievements together with doubts or certainties about what might have been. Very little has been said about the South African regime he played under. This is not the thread for a detailed discussion about apartheid and its consequences. Nor am I the poster to write it. However, I don't believe assessment of Richards can be complete without some reference to it.

Apartheid was an evil and abhorrent regime. The Test career lost by Richards was but little compared to the sufferings inflicted upon thousands of others. Nonetheless, even allowing for the banning of South Africa from international cricket being the correct stance taken, Richards still experienced injustice. He was denied the proper stage that would normally and reasonably have been considered the right of someone with anywhere near his ability and ambition. I do not blame those who took the decision to exclude Richards' country from sporting competition but that country's apartheid regime.

The regime was not of Richards' making nor did it have his support. Indeed in 1971 during a provincial match, Richards was one of the players who staged a walk-off in protest against the Government's apartheid policies.

Richards in his own way was certainly a victim of apartheid. Together with appreciation of his clear and undoubted talent, we should recognise that. That shouldn't give him a wild card entry to the Hall of Fame but it might cause Shelsey, Alfie and Dummy to judge him with greater understanding and ask themselves: ''What more could he have done?''

The view of Greg Chappell to follow later tonight ....

Lets not get too touchy about Richards. I still have my doubts but am completely undecided on which way I will be voting - the point of this process is that everybody comes under close scrutiny, takes all points into consideration before finally voting.

Anyway, on to my post on Andy Roberts

Surprisingly Roberts is omitted from CMJ's top 100 along with Hall, Griffith, Croft and Garner amongst notable West Indian pacemen - Walsh, Holding, Ambrose and Marshall do make it. Benaud also omits any extensive discussion on Roberts so I'll have to turn to the less esteemed Graham Tarrant, writing in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest', just as Roberts's career was coming to a close for testimony:

"Like a professional hit man, Andy Roberts displays very little emotion when he disposes of one of his targets. A brief smile, a knowing look, and then he is ready to take out a contract on the next batsman. The first Antiguan to play for the West Indies, he was at his peak an extremely fast and hostile bowler, with an explosive and well-concealed bouncer which he used sparingly but to very good effect. More recently, as his pace has slowed, he has concentrated on getting more movement in the air or off the seam. He made a modest Test debut against England at Barbados in 1974; but then, in a sensationally successful first season in county cricket, took 119 wickets (13.62) for Hampshire. His devastating form continued that winter in India and Pakistan, where he captured 44 wickets in seven Tests, including 12 for 121 at Madras - the first West Indian to take twelve wickets in a Test Match. In Australia the following year, on what was otherwise a disappointing tour for the West Indians, he was again the most successful bowler, collecting 22 wickets (26.36) in the series and recording his best-ever Test figures of 7 for 54 at Perth. His 28 wickets (19.17) against England in 1976, ten of them for 123 at Lord's, helped his side to win the rubber 3-0. During the series Roberts picked up his hundredth wicket in only his nineteenth Test match, and in the record time of two years and 142 days (later to be shortened by Ian Botham). Along with several of his fellow West Indians he signed up for World Series Cricket in 1978, and although he has played in Test matches since, it has not been with the same dynamic impact as before. In limited-overs cricket especially, Roberts has shown himself to be a very handy performer with the bat, demonstrating that when the occasion demands, he can do a hit job on bowlers, too"

His limited-overs record is worthy of consideration - He took 87 wickets at 20.35 in the 56 ODIs he played, including involvement in two World Cup victories and another appearance in the final in 1983. In these three World Cups he took 8 wkts @ 20.62 in 1975, 7 wkts @ 21.28 in 1979 and 11 wkts @ 21.63 in the longer 1983 tournament, including 3-32 in the final.

According to Wikipedia Roberts was also one of the first to bowl a slower bouncer, although it is noted that this was not a wicket-taking weapon but a ploy to lull the batsman into a false sense of security.

If anything Shelsey's helpful analysis tends to confirm my view that Roberts is a near miss. Granted, the speed and manner of his taking the first 100 wickets was superb, and well on track for HoF. The second 100 wickets was much slower and not obviously worthy of HoF status. It is not as if his overall career length was such (less than 50 tests) that it would be right to discount matches near the end where (as in Cowdrey) he was manfully responding to the call of selectors to prolong his career....

For a bit of comparison on Roberts, of our HoF seam bowling members, only Botham and Dev have averages above 24, and both of them were genuine all rounders. Of pure bowlers, Holding has the least fantastic average at 23.7.

By comparison, Roberts performance is very much on a par with Bob Willis (who took more wickets at a slightly better average) and somewhat below that of Fred Trueman (surely an over-sight from our nominating committee) or Courtney Walsh (2.5x as many wickets at an average of 24.4). As such, while there may eventually be a place in the HoF for Roberts, it would be premature to include him at this time.

guildfordbat wrote:

Roberts - as you say, he was 'a great in his own right'. Confirmed by Gavaskar and Bird. I believe as well that he contributed to the greatness of Holding, Marshall and Garner just as each member of that quartet did to the other three. Probably the greatest tactician of the four. One of the earliest and most successful exponents of the slower ball (see David Steele falling LBW in the clip I posted the other day). Developed the slow bouncer to lull batsmen into a false sense of security (the quicker bouncer is shown in the clip - again poor old Steele is on the receiving end). Played in the first three (mens') World Cup finals. His best performance by far was his in the only one they lost when he took 3 Indian wickets for 32 runs off 10 overs in 1983. However, he more than played his part in getting the West Indies to each of those finals. No mug with the bat either, as evidenced by his three Test match fifties. Disappointing that a case apparently needs to be made for Richards which diverts attention from Roberts. Always the quiet man and, as you've said, the least flamboyant of the four pacemen. He needs and deserves a voice.

Corporal (in particular) if still around - any view on my comment about Roberts contributing to the greatness of Holding, Marshall and Garner just as each member of that quartet did to the other three. A very large part of the Windies' strength at this time rested upon their four man pace attack. It seems inappropriate to me to leave out the earliest and integral (albeit probably not the best although Gavaskar and Bird differ) member of the foursome.

Great thinking tactician as well - exponent of slower ball, developer of slow bouncer. Plus 3 times World Cup finalist. He's probably the weakest of this week's five nominees but, for me, that just shows how incredibly strong the other four are.

Guildford - just going off duty - but I must say that I am not presently sufficiently convinced by the case that this is enough to justify a yes vote; and Dummy also makes very valid and related comparisons. People do have to get in on their own merits - and for example I voted against Marsh, notwithstanding his combination record of dismissals with Lillee.

I do feel reasonably firm on a near miss for Roberts at the moment but the fortnight is young and so I will continue to listen to the discussion....

Thanks for the response, Corporal.

As a general comment, I do wonder if we are starting to base everything too much on numbers (appearances and averages). Sure, they are very important and must go into the mix. However, they are not everything. Otherwise, we could dispense with voting and leave it all to some ghastly mathematical formula. [Dummy - that's not a particular dig at your last post. Just voicing a feeling I've had for a little while.]

Also, there seems to be a fairly recent and common approach of classing nominees as 'near misses' and wishing them well next time round in sympathetic and supporting tones. However, unless they get at least 50% of the votes there won't be a next time round for them. By all means, give a NO if you think that's correct but don't automatically assume you can change it in a few months' time.