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.

This is going to be very tricky this ballot; it would be as disingenuous of me to omit Roberts or Richards as it would Pollock, Rhodes and Spofforth. As for Hammond, it is shocking that Wilfred Rhodes missed out on being a Founder Member.

To echo guildford's point, and with the inevitable proliferation of Test Matches, some against weak opposition, some against strong, it is important for us all to regard players' records in some sort of context.

In that regard it was gratifying to see a sense of historical perspective in support of Hanif Mohammed; I will try to offer as compelling argument for Roberts.

As for the others, the claims of Rhodes are unimpeachable, Pollock and Spofforth nearly so.
And Barry Richards? He is simply the most exciting sportsman I've ever watched, more time to play the ball than anyone before or since, quite effortless and, as someone added, an even better slip fielder (if that is possible).

Research here on the West Coast of New England is ongoing, but I might have to make a return pilgrimage to Alderney.

Guildford
I think so far the voting has been reasonable as a combination of objective (i.e. statistical) and subjective assessments - certainly a few players (Boycott for one) who had career statistics that are of HoF level have missed out for more subjective reasons and similarly a few players whose stats perhaps fall a tad short (Hanif and May in the last ballot) made it in because of either individual performances or the level of performance at the peak of their career.

I do think though that some (quite strong) value has to be placed on a player's career stats, especially by comparison with contemporary or near-contemporary players. This would be particularly applicable to players who did not have a one-off career-defining performance (for which reason I would argue Bob Willis's case for inclusion based on his often over-looked winning of the Headingley 81 Test) - Roberts was clearly a very good to great quick bowler, and the case for his HoF inclusion is strengthened by his records up to 100 wickets (and the anecdotal evidence from Bird etc), but is undermined somewhat by the second half of his career when he was the least effective of the quartet of West Indian quicks. Had he been able to continue to be as good later in his career as at the start then the case would, in my opinion, push him over the line for inclusion. At the moment however there are definitely others who should be considered before Roberts becomes a certainty for inclusion.

As for Barry Richards, I'm still undecided on how to balance what he achieved with the potential he had and the fact that his absence from Test cricket was not down to him but was from circumstances well outside his control - clearly he had an exemplary first class career and was a hugely talented and destructive opening batsman, but rating him as within the top 5 batsmen ever (as several commentators seem to) has to be at least in part an educated guess as to how the rest of his international career would have panned out. I think Fists made a good point though, that because his lack of an international record was not within his control, he should probably be given the benefit of any doubt. As such I think I'm just edging towards him making it into our HoF.

kwinigolfer wrote:

.... Research here on the West Coast of New England is ongoing, but I might have to make a return pilgrimage to Alderney.

Message for Kwini from Alderney

The glasses are out and the cork screw poised ready as ever ....

dummy_half wrote:Guildford
I think so far the voting has been reasonable as a combination of objective (i.e. statistical) and subjective assessments - certainly a few players (Boycott for one) who had career statistics that are of HoF level have missed out for more subjective reasons and similarly a few players whose stats perhaps fall a tad short (Hanif and May in the last ballot) made it in because of either individual performances or the level of performance at the peak of their career.

I do think though that some (quite strong) value has to be placed on a player's career stats, especially by comparison with contemporary or near-contemporary players. This would be particularly applicable to players who did not have a one-off career-defining performance (for which reason I would argue Bob Willis's case for inclusion based on his often over-looked winning of the Headingley 81 Test) - Roberts was clearly a very good to great quick bowler, and the case for his HoF inclusion is strengthened by his records up to 100 wickets (and the anecdotal evidence from Bird etc), but is undermined somewhat by the second half of his career when he was the least effective of the quartet of West Indian quicks. Had he been able to continue to be as good later in his career as at the start then the case would, in my opinion, push him over the line for inclusion. At the moment however there are definitely others who should be considered before Roberts becomes a certainty for inclusion.

As for Barry Richards, I'm still undecided on how to balance what he achieved with the potential he had and the fact that his absence from Test cricket was not down to him but was from circumstances well outside his control - clearly he had an exemplary first class career and was a hugely talented and destructive opening batsman, but rating him as within the top 5 batsmen ever (as several commentators seem to) has to be at least in part an educated guess as to how the rest of his international career would have panned out. I think Fists made a good point though, that because his lack of an international record was not within his control, he should probably be given the benefit of any doubt. As such I think I'm just edging towards him making it into our HoF.

Dummy - good of you to respond. Only quickly looking in now during a brief break in production at the Woking salt mines.

Re: your opening para. I believe it was totally appropriate for Boycott to be excluded from the HoF for essentially his 'innate selfishness', a term wonderfully coined by Hoggy and upon which he should have sought copyright. That showed to our collective credit that we could look beyond the stats.

My comment about numbers possibly becoming everything was more a perception of how the wind now appears to be starting to blow. By way of example and what I find totally inappropriate is the apparent argument that Boycott's exclusion with his fine Test record should be a reason for considering a NO vote for Richards (Shelsey's first post on Richards refers). The two are totally unconnected as Mike has already pointed out in characteristically clear and forthright terms.

With regard to Hanif and May, strong and detailed cases had to be put to get them in - nothing wrong with that as entry shouldn't be easy. However, I found it disappointing that after such cases had been made, there were still some NO votes and 'only by a whisker' YES votes. This again suggested to me an over emphasis on the numbers. We are agreed that they are very important but I maintain they are not everything.

Clearly, everyone is fully entitled to vote as they see fit and must do so - it still doesn't stop me being disappointed though!

As to Roberts, you state that if the second half of his career had been as good as the first, that 'would push him over the line for inclusion'. This may be down to a mix of preferred terminology and subjective views but I would have thought that in such a scenario he would have skipped over the line with a few yards to spare. Anyway, await further bulletins from Alderney on the specific merits of Roberts.

With regard to the final sentence of your middle para ('definitely others .... should be considered before Roberts) - unless I'm misunderstanding the process (Fists?), that's not the way the process is being conducted. My post on midnight refers.

Finally, you refer to the views of several commentators on Richards as 'an educated guess'. Yes, but that refers to all when you are comparing different players who played for different teams against different opponents in different ages. You have less less Test match evidence for Richards but there is still an abundance of other relevant evidence. You could do worse than look at Kwini's last post.

Must get back to work now - particularly in view of the weather forecast and increased demand expected. Happy to discuss further early evening if you wish. Best, Guildford

You understand the process fine, Guildford. I think the best way to look at it is to isolate that player and decided whether you think he deserves a place, not compare him to others that may or may not have been inducted.

Everyone that deserves due consideration will be eligible for induction at some point, so this isn't a case of waiting until those you would prefer to see inducted have been before you vote for the addition of somebody else, if that makes sense.

Guildford

Thanks for the response, and good luck in the salt mines (not that I remember them from my year of living in Woking... ). BTW, had I been involved in the HoF discussions at the time, I'd have been a strong advocate for Boycott's inclusion - I think at least some of the perception of him being a selfish player come from him not being a media favourite at the time, and so his slow scoring and inherent determination (bordering on obsession) to succeed became reported as selfishness. How many times did his slow play cost England results (World Cup Final perhaps excepted)?

Of course all our discussions are based on us as contributors having different levels of knowledge and backgrounds, and are to a certain extent value judgements (especially on what merits inclusion in the HoF, including that some people have set themselves arbirtrary rules such as only allowing 3 out of 5 nominees a YES vote).
My comment on Roberts and on other potential candidates was because of the 'pool' of nominees who are subject to later consideration - at the moment I don't see Roberts as a bowler on quite the same level as those who are already in the HoF, but as more nominees are voted in the case for him to be included becomes stronger. As I said right from the off, if he could just be parked in the 'for later consideration' category, I'd be quite happy, but that might need some tactical voting.

dummy_half wrote:Guildford

Thanks for the response, and good luck in the salt mines (not that I remember them from my year of living in Woking... ). BTW, had I been involved in the HoF discussions at the time, I'd have been a strong advocate for Boycott's inclusion - I think at least some of the perception of him being a selfish player come from him not being a media favourite at the time, and so his slow scoring and inherent determination (bordering on obsession) to succeed became reported as selfishness. How many times did his slow play cost England results (World Cup Final perhaps excepted)?

Of course all our discussions are based on us as contributors having different levels of knowledge and backgrounds, and are to a certain extent value judgements (especially on what merits inclusion in the HoF, including that some people have set themselves arbirtrary rules such as only allowing 3 out of 5 nominees a YES vote).
My comment on Roberts and on other potential candidates was because of the 'pool' of nominees who are subject to later consideration - at the moment I don't see Roberts as a bowler on quite the same level as those who are already in the HoF, but as more nominees are voted in the case for him to be included becomes stronger. As I said right from the off, if he could just be parked in the 'for later consideration' category, I'd be quite happy, but that might need some tactical voting.

Thanks, Dummy.

Interesting comments about Boycott. Certainly take your point about the media's influence. That was probably even more the case in Boycs' time (and that of Javed Miandad - recent posts on this thread refer). Suspect the greater number of commentators and outlets for them these days leads to a wider variety and overall better balance of views.

Anyway, I believe my main point still holds good. Boycs' exclusion from the HoF for selfishness (regardless as to whether you think that was right or not) should have no bearing on the case for Richards.

Also take your point about personal value judgments coming into play. Much as I adore Kwin's posts, he does seem to have made a rod for his own back with his arbitrary 3 max out of 5 rule. Hoping he will break it (the rule!) this time.

I'm not really in favour of tactical voting - nor do I have the brains for it! For me, after serious consideration, there can be no middle ground. Roberts therefore has to be a YES or a .... YES.

"rod for his own back":
Exactly guildford, but will perhaps be mitigated by the law of averages applying to my Garner, Gooch, Gower and Graveney NO! votes. Stinks of a loophole however, but difficult to see that any of this crop can be denied, by moi at least.

Very prudent, Kwini.

Trust you've seen the earlier message from Alderney.

Greg Chappell re : Barry Richards

''He has undoubtedly been the biggest influence on my career.''

An utterly massive tribute given Chappell's own greatness as a player and highly successful career plus his own celebrated family background. The younger brother of Australian captain Ian Chappell and the grandson of another, Vic Richardson.

[No need to bring Trevor into play here. ]

A couple of little gripes...

guildfordbat wrote:what I find totally inappropriate is the apparent argument that Boycott's exclusion with his fine Test record should be a reason for considering a NO vote for Richards

I have to disagree that this is not a valid course of argument. The point being that we are setting the bar very high during this process and, if we are willing to turn down the likes of Boycott and Chappell (whatever the reasons behind those decisions) then due consideration needs to be given to turning down players lacking the stats of those players but perhaps stronger in other areas (personality, personal appreciation of their skills, contribution to the sport, 'trailblazing', major landmarks etc.). This is of course in no way saying that Richards is excluded from the Hall of Fame because Boycott wasn't included and is merely suggesting that this should be considered as one factor in an overall much bigger picture when making a decision.

guildfordbat wrote:I found it disappointing that after such cases had been made, there were still some NO votes and 'only by a whisker' YES votes. This again suggested to me an over emphasis on the numbers.

You have a valid point here with regard to over-reliance on figures. However, I do believe that they are a major factor, if by no means the only factor, in judging a player whom you have never seen play in the flesh or for a complete innings on TV. My NO vote for Hanif, even after such a strong case, was in my opinion justified on the grounds that my barrier was set very high by my rejection of Greenidge (a decision I stand by and where a strong case was also made). Although the two are both very strong HoF candidates and contrasting cricketers I found it difficult to justify voting NO for Greenidge and then YES for Hanif when I see both as equal in their standing (i.e. below the marker I have set myself by the narrowest of margins).

Fred Spofforth

F.R. Spofforth sails in to CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' at No. 27:

- "the first legendary bowler of the Test match era"
- "a tall, spare, strong and forbidding Australian fast bowler with a big moustache who did more than anyone to make Englishmen appreciate that the 'colonials' not only had to be taken seriously, but might actually be superior"
- "Six foot three, he ran in fast from nine places and leapt menacingly, with his left arm high in front of his face, before delivering the ball with a vigorous turn of the body and a full follow-through"
- "George Giffen thought that he simply frightened many opponents out by the sheer 'devilry' of his appearance"
- "started as a tearaway but developed craft and changes of pace. He studied three types of what he called 'swerve': out, in and 'vertical', the latter a mixture of top spin and back spin, achieved by flicking his fingers down the (then very flat) seam of the ball as he bowled it. He controlled his pace by gripping the ball more or less tightly, sometimes holding on to only a part of it"
- "As a twenty-year-old he clean-bowled seven batsmen in taking nine for ten against Sydney University"
- In England in 1878 he bowled "almost twice as many overs as anyone else and taking double the number of any other bowler's wickets. At Lord's in May he famously bowled W.G. Grace for a duck in taking six for four and five for sixteen as M.C.C. were routed in a day"
- "appeared for Derbyshire for three seasons starting in 1889, taking fifteen wickets in one match against Yorkshire" (the first overseas player? Can anybody (hoggy perhaps) varify this?)
- "The Ashes legend emanates from the reaction to Australia's victory at the Oval in 1882, when 'the Demon' took fourteen for 90. England had needed only 85 to win but Spofforth famously told his colleagues in the dressing room: 'This thing can be done'. It did not seem so when, on a chilly August afternoon, England reached fifteen for no wicket, then 30 for one and 51 for two, leaving only 34 to get with Grace still in. But he was fourth out, caught at mid-off from a slower ball by Harry Boyle. At one point, seventeen overs passed without a single run scored*. Eventually 'the thing' - Australia's first win in a Test in England - was achieved by seven runs, Spofforth bowling unchanged from the Vauxhall end for figures of seven for 46 from 36 overs and three balls*"
- In England "he took 123 wickets at 11.37 in 1878, 118 at 12.12 in 1880 and 216 at 12.23 in 1884"

* Richie Benaud recites exactly the same story in 'My Spin on Cricket' but points out that four ball overs were used during this match

Sir Pelham Warner, my 'pre-war correspondent' but himself hardly a contemporary of Spofforth, states that W.G. Grace felt that "Spofforth was the finest bowler - his variation of pace and flight being most deceptive".

John Polack, in Spofforth's Cricinfo biography, describes him as "an inspiration both for his peers and succeeding generations of pacemen"

To conclude, as a 'trailblazer' for fast bowling in general, the Australian cricket team and swing and seam variations combined with a brilliant record in Tests (all v England) and first-class cricket, Spofforth should in my opinion be a dead cert for the Hall of Fame.

When you then add in his massive role in the legend of The Oval Test Match of 1882, and all that has since followed as a result, I think their could well have been a case for 'The Demon' to have been in our original 30.

Off skiing for a week guys. Very sorry but the votes for this selection of candidates will be a day or two late in being counted. However, I'm sure you'll all find much to discuss.

I return a week tomorrow, so let's say that Saturday (11th) is the closing date for votes - midday.

Catch you all soon.

Cheers

dummy_half wrote:Guildford
I think so far the voting has been reasonable as a combination of objective (i.e. statistical) and subjective assessments - certainly a few players (Boycott for one) who had career statistics that are of HoF level have missed out for more subjective reasons and similarly a few players whose stats perhaps fall a tad short (Hanif and May in the last ballot) made it in because of either individual performances or the level of performance at the peak of their career.

I do think though that some (quite strong) value has to be placed on a player's career stats, especially by comparison with contemporary or near-contemporary players. This would be particularly applicable to players who did not have a one-off career-defining performance (for which reason I would argue Bob Willis's case for inclusion based on his often over-looked winning of the Headingley 81 Test) - Roberts was clearly a very good to great quick bowler, and the case for his HoF inclusion is strengthened by his records up to 100 wickets (and the anecdotal evidence from Bird etc), but is undermined somewhat by the second half of his career when he was the least effective of the quartet of West Indian quicks.

I would agree with these comments. Comparing stats across the decades and in very different circumstances and with very difficult playing conditions is fraught with difficulty. But it becomes much more relevant to look critically at the stats where it is possible to make meaningful comparisons. I would hope not to do so slavishly, and so for example I voted for Gibbs' inclusion notwithstanding his relatively modest strike rate. Likewise, after wavering on Hanif I voted for his inclusion on the basis of wider factors.

Fists of Fury wrote:Off skiing for a week guys. Very sorry but the votes for this selection of candidates will be a day or two late in being counted. However, I'm sure you'll all find much to discuss.

I return a week tomorrow, so let's say that Saturday (11th) is the closing date for votes - midday.

Catch you all soon.

Cheers

Wonder where Fists is going - could be leaving England just as we get some snow.

If he's coming to Northern VT I'll offer to buy him lunch or dinner . . . . .

I'd like to give my opinions on some general points which have been made.

1) Excluding some players because we have excluded others. As stated before I'm not a fan of comparing players to others we have considered before. I believe it is best if we each have our criteria and judge each individual on their own merits against our set criteria. I honestly think it is dangerous if we start worrying about previous decisions made: in particular, it leads to decisions being made based on decisions of others, since you may have voted YES for someone who was ultimately rejected, and thus vote NO for someone else you feel is of equal value, because collectively we rejected the previous applicant.

It also raises the question of comparisons accross eras which are always dangerous (more on this later).

The fact is, each and every one of these applicants is strong in their own right. They deserve to be judged on what they did and not compared to what others did.

2) The merits of statistics: I must say I don't pay that much attention to them. They are a useful guide, but nothing more. In particular, any set of statistics you consider is biased by what you consider and what you do, and what importance you attach to what you consider. More importantly, it is impossible to compare statistics achieved accross different areas: there are too many variables. I am not one of those who thinks batting was much harder/easier in days gone by. I accept that challenges were different, the game has evolved, and one can only judge a person's statistics on how they compare with his peers.

Once we have accepted statistics are biased, I feel we should attach more importance to other biased but more reliable elements, namely opinion. Peer opinion and opinion by those who saw outtrumps statistical data every time for me. For those players I saw, I judge them purely on my opinion of them. For those I didn't (which is the vast majority) I must therefore rely on other people's recollections, hunting out video archive (youtube is a godsend), and of course anecdotal evidence.

This is not to say that statistics don't play any role. Of course they do. But personally for me they merely tell me if someone is elegible, whether he then clinches the deal (apart from statistical anomolies) is then considered independently of statistics.

3) So how do we judge Richards? I repeat what I have said earlier. It is no use judging him on what he may or may not have achieved. That is speculation and serves no purpose. But equally it is unfair to hold his short test career against him. As fists points out, and guilford reitirates, that is not his fault. It may sound simple, but there it is: if we are trying to achieve fairness (and we should) one cannot possibly hold something against someone if they had no say in the matter. And please don't reduce this ad absurdum by pointing out that we shouldn't exclude poor cricketers as it isn't their fault either. You know what I mean.

Shelsey93 wrote:A couple of little gripes...

guildfordbat wrote:what I find totally inappropriate is the apparent argument that Boycott's exclusion with his fine Test record should be a reason for considering a NO vote for Richards

I have to disagree that this is not a valid course of argument. The point being that we are setting the bar very high during this process and, if we are willing to turn down the likes of Boycott and Chappell (whatever the reasons behind those decisions) then due consideration needs to be given to turning down players lacking the stats of those players but perhaps stronger in other areas (personality, personal appreciation of their skills, contribution to the sport, 'trailblazing', major landmarks etc.). This is of course in no way saying that Richards is excluded from the Hall of Fame because Boycott wasn't included and is merely suggesting that this should be considered as one factor in an overall much bigger picture when making a decision.

guildfordbat wrote:I found it disappointing that after such cases had been made, there were still some NO votes and 'only by a whisker' YES votes. This again suggested to me an over emphasis on the numbers.

You have a valid point here with regard to over-reliance on figures. However, I do believe that they are a major factor, if by no means the only factor, in judging a player whom you have never seen play in the flesh or for a complete innings on TV. My NO vote for Hanif, even after such a strong case, was in my opinion justified on the grounds that my barrier was set very high by my rejection of Greenidge (a decision I stand by and where a strong case was also made). Although the two are both very strong HoF candidates and contrasting cricketers I found it difficult to justify voting NO for Greenidge and then YES for Hanif when I see both as equal in their standing (i.e. below the marker I have set myself by the narrowest of margins).

Fred Spofforth

F.R. Spofforth sails in to CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' at No. 27:

Shelsey - a few points.

Re: your first little gripe.

It might help for you to be aware of my starting approach for all nominees. No suggestion that others are expected to do the same but I find it works for me. I ask: ''Is there an overwhelming reason to reject this nominee?''. Nearly always the answer to that is ''no'' and I move on to the meat of the nomination.

However, in two cases so far - Boycott and G Chappell - the answer was ''yes'' and so the nomination was rejected quickly by me. I'm not quite so vain as to think that others have modelled their approach on mine but it was clear from the posts that those who also objected to Boycott and Chappell had the same overriding objection for each which had nothing to do with their final numbers.

In the recent case of Javed Miandad, I had concerns but certainly didn't answer ''yes'' (as I did for Boycott and Chappell) and so went on to fully consider matters.

The answer to my starting question for Richards is most definitely ''no''. That is why I see such a difference.

You may disagree with my initial answers for Boycott and Chappell. Some certainly did and said so strongly. However, I don't believe that invalidates the principle of my approach. I would hope you would reject Hansie Cronje as a nominee before looking up his Test figures.

Re: your second little gripe.

I'm certainly not dismissive of numbers and place more importance on them than Mike does. The difficulty with Mike's (correct) view about the best way to judge a player (ie to watch him) is that you normally need to do so several times to form a meaningful verdict. That's not always possible. After all, ''the world's best-ever right-handed opener'' was out for 9 the only time the Corporal saw him. However, reading and research including YouTube - as Mike so rightly says - provides much additional and valuable information. That all helps so much to put things in context which is so vital and which numbers alone cannot achieve.

I do certainly place great store on the views of contemporaries and certain respected writers [as an aside, I get the impression you rely on CMJ more for the facts of a player's career than his (CMJ's) views - fair comment?]. If I didn't see some of the nominees, it's so important to hear the views of those who did and even more helpful when the view is given by someone with such wisdom as Benaud. If I did see the player (eg Richards), it is reassuring to know that Benaud is of the same view even though he is able to express it so more beautifully: ''No more elegant player has taken the field in our time.''

Where possible, it can also be very informative to listen to or read the words of the nominee himself. I'll flag some thoughts of Andy Roberts over the next few days.

I'm still unclear as to why you feel you have to give the same vote to Greenidge and Hanif. As you say they were ''contrasting cricketers''. I considered they were both (more than) good enough but as their careers were so different I never considered the two could be compared in any meaningful way.

Re: Fred Spofforth.

Thanks for the details which I'll certainly review. Does seem an incredibly strong case already though.

CMJ rates him as the 27th greatest cricketer of all time. Must have been one hell of a player. Can you remind me please who was 28th?

PS Would be good if you have the time to introduce yourself on the ''posters - old and new'' thread. Cheers.

[quote="guildfordbat"]

Shelsey93 wrote:

Shelsey - a few points.

Re: your first little gripe.

It might help for you to be aware of my starting approach for all nominees. No suggestion that others are expected to do the same but I find it works for me. I ask: ''Is there an overwhelming reason to reject this nominee?''. Nearly always the answer to that is ''no'' and I move on to the meat of the nomination.

However, in two cases so far - Boycott and G Chappell - the answer was ''yes'' and so the nomination was rejected quickly by me. I'm not quite so vain as to think that others have modelled their approach on mine but it was clear from the posts that those who also objected to Boycott and Chappell had the same overriding objection for each which had nothing to do with their final numbers.

In the recent case of Javed Miandad, I had concerns but certainly didn't answer ''yes'' (as I did for Boycott and Chappell) and so went on to fully consider matters.

The answer to my starting question for Richards is most definitely ''no''. That is why I see such a difference.

You may disagree with my initial answers for Boycott and Chappell. Some certainly did and said so strongly. However, I don't believe that invalidates the principle of my approach. I would hope you would reject Hansie Cronje as a nominee before looking up his Test figures.

Re: your second little gripe.

I'm certainly not dismissive of numbers and place more importance on them than Mike does. The difficulty with Mike's (correct) view about the best way to judge a player (ie to watch him) is that you normally need to do so several times to form a meaningful verdict. That's not always possible. After all, ''the world's best-ever right-handed opener'' was out for 9 the only time the Corporal saw him. However, reading and research including YouTube - as Mike so rightly says - provides much additional and valuable information. That all helps so much to put things in context which is so vital and which numbers alone cannot achieve.

I do certainly place great store on the views of contemporaries and certain respected writers [as an aside, I get the impression you rely on CMJ more for the facts of a player's career than his (CMJ's) views - fair comment?]. If I didn't see some of the nominees, it's so important to hear the views of those who did and even more helpful when the view is given by someone with such wisdom as Benaud. If I did see the player (eg Richards), it is reassuring to know that Benaud is of the same view even though he is able to express it so more beautifully: ''No more elegant player has taken the field in our time.''

Where possible, it can also be very informative to listen to or read the words of the nominee himself. I'll flag some thoughts of Andy Roberts over the next few days.

I'm still unclear as to why you feel you have to give the same vote to Greenidge and Hanif. As you say they were ''contrasting cricketers''. I considered they were both (more than) good enough but as their careers were so different I never considered the two could be compared in any meaningful way.

Re: Fred Spofforth.

Thanks for the details which I'll certainly review. Does seem an incredibly strong case already though.

CMJ rates him as the 27th greatest cricketer of all time. Must have been one hell of a player. Can you remind me please who was 28th?

PS Would be good if you have the time to introduce yourself on the ''posters - old and new'' thread. Cheers.

Thanks Guildford. A well justified defence of your stance. There may be some semblance of truth in me using CMJ for facts/details rather than opinions although in many ways that is important to me, as a younger poster who has seen hardly any of those up for consideration live. In terms of opinions Benaud (for post-war players) and Warner (for pre-war players) are top of the tree along with any comments I can find from other legends of the game whose books I don't have.

And yes, Barry Richards was at Number 28 with CMJ, ahead of the aforementioned Chappell (38) and Boycott (53).

Shelsey93 wrote:

Thanks Guildford. A well justified defence of your stance. There may be some semblance of truth in me using CMJ for facts/details rather than opinions although in many ways that is important to me, as a younger poster who has seen hardly any of those up for consideration live. In terms of opinions Benaud (for post-war players) and Warner (for pre-war players) are top of the tree along with any comments I can find from other legends of the game whose books I don't have.

And yes, Barry Richards was at Number 28 with CMJ, ahead of the aforementioned Chappell (38) and Boycott (53).

Thanks, Shelsey.

I'll try to look out Warner. My knowledge of pre-war players is ordinary at best.

Never denied that Chappell and Boycott were 'Top' cricketers. That, of course, by itself doesn't make them Hall of Fame worthy. I have though promised to be more conciliatory concerning Chappell when the end of season play offs come round.

guys what do people think about spofforth?

cricketfan90 wrote:guys what do people think about spofforth?

Personally think Spofforth is a shoe-in. Great record at both test and FC level. Defining moments, both in terms of personal performance and the history of cricket, inventor of swing bowling and widely regarded as the best bowler of his generation.
Ticks all the boxes for me.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:guys what do people think about spofforth?

Personally think Spofforth is a shoe-in. Great record at both test and FC level. Defining moments, both in terms of personal performance and the history of cricket, inventor of swing bowling and widely regarded as the best bowler of his generation.
Ticks all the boxes for me.

I agree.

Barry Richards and Andy Roberts - World Series Cricket and Possible Significance

Interesting article from 2003 by Greg Baum seeking to show the significance of World Series Cricket and obtain first class status for the matches played.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177727227.html

Baum has not been successful regarding first class recognition. Nonetheless, he makes some valid points and certainly emphasises the competitive nature of the high quality cricket played. Note in particular the words of Dennis Lillee: 'The wickets I took in World Series Cricket were hard to come by and the standard as high as any I ever played.'

Whilst I was aware of Barry Richards' batting average of near 80 from this Series, I did not know of (or had forgotten) Andy Roberts' 50 wickets not to mention the 'splintered jaw' of David Hookes.

have votes gotta be in this friday?

cricketfan90 wrote:have votes gotta be in this friday?

Saturday noon I think as Fists is away until then.

Been a little quiet this fortnight I think - some of the regulars haven't contributed (Skyeman, MFC, JDizzle, any others?)

MFC has been very quiet altogther...he didnt appear at all on the IPL thread to hand it tactics or apolgies for not handing them in....

skyeman has been very quiet as well.

cricketfan90 wrote:...skyeman has been very quiet as well.

I expect Mrs Skyeman has banned him from posting for a few days.

haha thats what i was thinking :P

I know this is probably a bit early, but there hasn't been much debate this week (mainly, IMO, because there can't be much debate about these 5 candidates), so here are my votes:

Pollock: Definite all-time great. YES

Rhodes: Same again. YES

Richards: Despite playing only 4 tests, I think his talent is undoubted. YES

Roberts: The most difficult to decide on. Not, on the face of it, the greatest of the WIndies pace-men, but that is probably more of a testament to how many great bowlers the WIndies produced during the 1970s and 80s than Roberts being of lesser class. His overall record and testimony of contemporaries still gets him in IMO. YES

Spofforth: 'The Demon'. One of the first great pace bowlers. Innovator and history maker. YES

Pollock -YES

Rhodes-i have been convinced-YES

Richards-YES

Roberts-NO IMO not in the windies greatest ever bowling attack

Spofforth-YES

4 yes's and 1 no

CF - not bad. Only one wrong. All imo. Clues to follow.

well my mind wont change as not around much tomorrow.

guildfordbat wrote: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

CF and anyone else out there - 10 reasons in the clip why I think Roberts who ''let the bowling do the talking'' should be a YES.

A few other factors as well.

Rated the best bowler ever faced by Sunny Gavaskar, Greg Chappell and Ian Chappell.

A ball he bowled to Imran Khan was described by the Pakistan captain as ''the most terrifying'' he ever faced.

Played in the first three (mens) World Cup finals.

One of the two most successful bowlers in World Series Cricket. In good company as the other was Denis Lillee.

Not that it counts as much as it should on this thread but made a massive contribution to English county cricket with tremendously valuable and reliable performances for Hampshire.

A bowler with a real cricketing brain. Spoke about how he planned taking a batsman's wicket over sometimes ''four or five overs''. Such planning is normally only associated with a spin bowler.

A great and early exponent of the slower ball. See clip.

Innovative with the slower bouncer to lull the batsmann into a false sense of security.

He was the first of the Windies' four man pace attack and set the standard for the others who followed. Holding, Marshall and Garner were greats but would they have been so great without Roberts? I believe each of the four built on the other three. The Windies team of Roberts' era was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time. An enormous part of that that success was their first four quicks. I believe it devalues the memory of that team and our own Hall if we exclude Roberts.

YES.

My votes:

Barry Richards: some people seem to want to judge him based on what he didn't do. I prefer to judge him based on what he did, in the knowledge that what he didn't achieve was in no way his fault. Possibly the greatest opener to play the game, judged by many as amongst the finest post-war batsmen, excelled in world series cricket, and enjoyed a long and prosperous career at first class level. One thing not mentioned is how tough it must have been mentally for him to gee himself up knowing that he would never be allowed to play at the highest level (I guess he knows how a few of the better associate players may feel...). A clear YES in my view.

Graeme Pollock: best batsman since Bradman, best ever left-handed batsman and great to watch to boot. Surely an easy YES for everyone.

Rhodes: great figures, some fantastic quirks of which my favourite has to be that he started his England career as a no 11 and ended up as an opening bat (I can sympathise, the first match I played at age-group international I batted 11, the next game I opened!). Records of longetivity and sheer weight of numbers which I'm fairly certain will never be beaten. And a wonderful thinking cricketer. An easy YES.

Spofforth: the first great fast bowler, nicknamed the Deamon. Probably did for pace bowling what Trumper and Grace did for batting. Deserves to be recognised with a place in our HoF. Another YES.

Roberts: probably the most contentious, but somewhat unfairly so. Guilford has made most of the points that need to be made, but let's remind ourselves of them:

The original member of the great West Indian quartet. And an integral part of it. Cricket is very much about partnerships, whether with the ball or with the bat. McGrath and Warne wouldn't have been so good if they hadn't had each other (indeed Warne's record when not playing with McGrath is worse than when he played with him). In the same way, the West Indian quartet would not have been nearly so effective without each of its parts, fulfilling very different roles: Garner was the enforcer, getting steep bounce and with a thundering yorker; Holding was the quiet assassin, terrorising batsmen with sheer pace; Marshall was the one who made the ball talk; and Roberts was the thinking bowler, possibly less gifted than the other 3, but who attacked the batsman with relentless accuracy and asked questions every ball. And an inovator (with the slower bouncer: I was actually talking to a Belgian coach not too long ago, and the slow bouncer came up, his response "nothing new, Andy Roberts was bowling them more than 30 years ago").

I have already said I don't believe we should exclude people because they played along others who may have been even better (although not everyone agrees that there was better than Roberts). There is a case precedent with Grimmett being voted in, despite some feeling he played second fiddle to O'Reilly (again, though, it is about partnerships). And I really think we should be judging candidates based solely on their merit, not on others' merits.

But for me the key is what guilford has said, the West Indies built their considerable success on an outstanding bowling unit. The key word is "unit": without one of its parts it wouldn't have been nearly as good a unit. And the West Indies wouldn't have been nearly as good a side.

Roberts was one of the key of one of the best sides of all time. He deserves my YES vote every time.

So 5 YES's, which I didn't think I'd ever give. But honestly, who could you leave out?

To confirm four clear cut YES votes for Richards, Pollock, Rhodes and Spofforth.

Still thinking about whether to shift from my intended no vote for Roberts in the light of the arguments mounted..... Still concerned about the relatively short period when he was undoubtedly top notch. I have a psychological issue - in that I have very clear memories in my younger days of being relieved when he was brought on to bowl as that brought some respite for the embattled England batsmen....

Voting time...

Pollock - A sensational record, unquestionably South Africa's greatest retired Test cricketer and viewed by many as the greatest left-hander ever. A definite YES

Rhodes - On the face of it a reasonably standard Test player but the sheer scale of his first-class achievements leaves me in awe - 1110 matches, almost 40,000 runs, 4204 wickets at an average of 17, playing in 33 different seasons bridging Grace and Bradman. This unquestionably places him as a legend in my eyes and leaves me with no option but to vote YES

Richards - In no way was this an easy decision for me. Having highlighted some reasons to consider a NO earlier in making the actual decision I felt I had to ask myself three questions:

1) Can we include somebody who played in only 4 Tests? I came to the conclusion that Test cricket is our primary concern but realise that some of our factors don't necessitate a Test career and so somebody not playing much Test cricket needn't be excluded.

2) How good does somebody who didn't play much Test cricket have to be and was Richards good enough? My answer to this is that he or she has to have an undeniable case fulfilling many different criteria illustrating their brilliance and contribution to the game. I actually think that Richards falls marginally short of this (his FC career and general reputation don't, for somebody who didn't see him play, mark him out as one of the greatest ever to play the game although they show him to be an exceptionally good player)

3) A final consideration is whether the special circumstances of SA's exclusion from international cricket give him some more leeway. I disputed this over and over in my head but have eventually decided that they do - Richards's protest against Apartheid where he walked from the field after Proctor bowled one ball at him in an invitational match shows that he retained a desire to play more international cricket and the psychological effect of knowing that your contemporaries can do something that you cannot lead me to conclude that I can indeed give Richards a YES. His talent is undoubted, as emphasised by almost all those who saw him over a number of years, and he may well have rivalled Viv for best player in his era had it not been for Apartheid.

Roberts - A good case has been made for Roberts on here. However, I feel that his success was not maintained consistently enough for him to quite merit a Hall of Fame place. My issue is that we can sometimes hyperbolise about members of great teams - he was certainly a major contributor but, were he from, say, New Zealand or Pakistan, where his individual impact on the team may have been greater, would he still be remembered so fondly? His stats bear out that he is just below the standard set - no other genuine fast bowler in the HoF has a higher Test average.Thus, Roberts gets a NO vote from me.

Spofforth - An undoubted pioneer for fast bowling, swing and seam bowling and Australian cricket. The primary bowler of the 19th Century and largely responsible for the legend of the Oval Test Match of 1882. An underrated trailblazer for the game in comparison to Grace and Trumper but I have no doubts about voting YES.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

.... I have very clear memories in my younger days of being relieved when he was brought on to bowl as that brought some respite for the embattled England batsmen....

I guess, Corporal, that would be around the same time that Imran Khan was facing a ball bowled to him by Roberts that the Pakistan captain described as ''the fastest and most terrifying I ever faced''.

When asked when he was at the peak of his prowess, Roberts replied: ''When I was about 27, 28. And those years were spent playing the Packer Series, where I learned a lot bowling against better quality batsmen.'' That comment is supported by his stats from the World Series and, probably more significantly, by the comments of opponents in that Series such as Gavaskar and the Chappell brothers. World Series Cricket was not televised in this country and was only grudgingly covered in the anti-Packer British media. I think this all goes a long way to explaining why Roberts at his highest peak tends not to be recalled here.

Wonderfully apt tribute from former England seamer Mike Selvey referring to Roberts as ''an intelligent cricketer with a fertile brain, plotting and planning the downfall of batsmen as if it were a military campaign. The modern West Indian game based on the heavy artillery of fast bowlers, that served so well for a quarter of a century, began with him.''

All that together with over 200 Test wicket and three World Cup Final appearances is good enough for me. More importantly it was good enough for the West Indies at their very best. Please remember that at this time they had a host of other fast bowlers - Croft, Daniel and Clarke to name just a few - on the sidelines who would have walked into most other Test teams.

''Barry Richards needing help!! Do the people voting actually understand the question?'' - Rowley, The 606v2 Hall of Fame (Boxing thread), 2 February 2012.

'Jeff' Rowley is an eminent poster on the Boxing threads. He recently discussed with me a nomination I had suggested for the Boxing Hall of Fame together with spin off aspects as above.

Hi - I must apologise for not really being involved with this group - mainly because I've had internet problems which have caused a few lengthy and careful posts being wiped out when the connection vanished suddenly - infuriating! Rather gave up ...
Anyway I think this lot are fairly easy to do. Although I note my earlier post in which I confessed to some trouble with the Richards issue caused some consternation among the ranks , possibly because I didn't make myself clear enough. For the record , I never had any doubt about the man's ability , or his right to be considered as one of the finest batsmen of his or any other time. My concern was only a technical one , of whether a chap who only played 4 Tests was eligible to be selected.On further consideration , the fact that it was good enough for the ICC and is clearly not a problem for anyone on here has solved that for me , so I am quite happy to vote Richards a resounding YES.
(Just wish he'd played more so we could have measured him more accurately against his great countrymen Pollock and Kallis)

The Demon , Spofforth - no problem. Oval , 1882 , 'nuff said. YES

Rhodes - what a record...sheer length and breadth of his career makes him a sure thing, surprised he wasn't in the initial 30 ... YES

Pollock - again no argument , a magnificent batsman, both his figures and the memory of watching him play leave me in no doubt he is a certain YES

Roberts - the one a few people have had trouble with : I am not one of them.
His early Test career was spectacularly successful , and if he later tailed off a little and was somewhat overshadowed by the other great West Indian fast bowlers of his era , it shouldn't be forgotten that he was the first of that amazing pack of destroyers of the 1970s to 1990s , and the like of Holding arguably benefited from coming into the team initially to support him - in other words he gets trailblazer points, no?
I also note his success on dead sub-continental wickets (49 wickets at 21 !) Not too many fast bowlers can better that I suspect. He had a real cricket brain , which probably helped him achieve those results in unfavourable conditions .
Others have made a good case for him in the preceding pages , so I'm nearly sure he'll get in (I will be seriously p****d off if he doesn't !) and he has my vote as a clear YES

Blimey , five out of five again - what is the world coming to

Easy votes:
Pollock - YES. Obviously a tremendously talented batsman, with the second highest Test average of any to have played more than 20 tests, mostly achieved before he turned 23. Had political circumstances been different and he continued to play through his peak years, he may well have been away and clear as the 2nd best ever.

Rhodes - YES. While his Test career doesn't have the numerical power of other HoF members, it has its quirks - batting 11 and opening and being the oldest player ever to play an official Test. The versatility is amazing, but not as amazing as the career record for first class appearances and wickets. Records surely never to be broken.

Spofforth - YES. Was probably as important to the development of pace bowling techniques as Grace was to batting technique. First hat-trick taker in Test cricket and a devastating record of match winning performances in a short career.

Slightly more difficult to judge:
Richards - No-one has ever disputed his talent, but his fledgling Test career was curtailed by SA politics. His first class record was extremely good but others with equal or better FC records have turned out to be disappointments at International level. However, from the anecdotal evidence, from the videos available of him and from reputation, he did enough to get in - YES

Roberts - a great thinking fast bowler forming one of the four parts of the most dangerous bowling attack to ever play the game. Career stats suggest he was the least of the four, but he was the foundation on which the others built and the first half of his career was much better than the second. Innovative, with slower balls and especially the ability to bowl both a slow and a very quick bouncer. Having been a little critical of his record earlier, I am going for a tactical YES, to ensure that he at least makes it in to the later consideration list.

My votes without resorting to redundant commentary:
Rhodes: YES!
Pollock: YES!
Spofforth: YES!

Three unequivocal all-time greats.

As I also consider the two Andersons to be.

Barry Anderson Richards:

Before going to see John Arlott in Alderney, I made a pilgrimage to visit two cricketers from the first first-class match I ever saw:
Leo Harrison, who'll be 90 this coming June and, as well as being a long-time wickie just below Test class, was also Hampshire County Coach for many years.
Leo Harrison, who first saw Barry Richards before his 18th birthday and declared: "This is the best young batsman I have ever seen."
As a result of what Arlott calls Harrison's "unwavering belief in his genius", Hampshire snatched Richards from the jaws of Gloucestershire (on whose staff he had played as an unregistered player with Mike Proctor) and Sussex who were negotiating with him.
Thanks Leo.

And:
Peter Sainsbury, fine all-rounder and one of the best close fielders of any generation, Wisden Cricketer of the Year, the first man to take 7 wickets in a one day game, first class gentleman.
As Arlott says, "Peter Sainsbury has kept one of the most observant cricketing eyes on Barry Richards for the last ten years. He is not one given to extravagant statements but he said, simply, 'If I had to pick one batsman to make a hundred for my life, it would be Barry'"

So, Mr.Arlott, what do you think of Barry Richards? And Arlott, warming his snifter of Armagnac, burred, "A superlative cricketer. Barry Richards is a great batsman. Once in two or three generations there comes a batsman who beguiles even his opponents; such is Barry Richards."

Barry Richards, who was chosen to open the innings in Dickie Bird's all-time team of players he's seen, and Bradman's 20th century team.

Barry Richards who had more time to play the ball than any other sportsman I've ever seen.

Barry Richards who has been called the finest ever slip fielder and whose cover drive "the experts agreed equalled Hammond's", in the words of Peter Wynne-Thomas.

Barry Richards who, despite exclusion from Test Cricket, nevertheless accumulated 28,000 runs at 54, and scored more runs at the time in an Australian season than anyone except Bradman.

Barry Richards, of whom Wisden wrote in celebration of the 23-y-o's choice as Cricketer of the Year:
"Richards' horizons seem limitless, and it will be fascinating to see how far his talents take him. Few, anywhere in the world, have his possibilities".

Now that we know how far his talents stretched those horizons, let's vote:

Barry Richards: YES!


And last, but not least, Anderson Montgomery Everton Roberts:

Andy Roberts was the first of the great West Indies fast bowlers of the 70's and 80's, to be joined by Michael Holding and Wayne Daniel in 1976 as, in Arlott's words, "the three fastest bowlers ever to play in the same team".

Andy Roberts will never evoke the lyrical waxings that Barry Richards was accorded, rather we have of the image of the "silent assassin", the "brutality" of his bowling or, as Arlott describes, the "savage bouncer" that dislodged four of Botham's teeth.

Andy Roberts became the first Antiguan to play Test Cricket (paving the way for Viv Richards), but had only played one Test when he embarked on his Hampshire County career and, in 1974, took 119 first class wickets for 13.62 runs apiece.

The History of Hampshire rightly regards Roberts as "a fast bowler who realised that speed was his strongest asset". His variation of bouncers has been described elsewhere, as has the famous Imran quote of the ball delivered by Roberts as the "fastest and most terrifying" he had ever faced.

Andy Roberts has been criticised as one whose Test career was perhaps not at the level of Michael Holding, for instance. But he took his first 100 wickets in two years (at 22.56), a record at the time, before his battery-mates joined in the fun.

A United States Cricket Hall Of Famer!
And surely a 606v2 Hall Of Famer too!!

Andy Roberts: YES!

im glad im not the only one who voted no for roberts..

to be honest i dont think he will gain enough votes for entry.

Unlike other people on here I can't really fathom anyone leaving out Barry Richards - fantastic player who did well enough in his 4 test matches to suggest that he could make the switch from first class cricket seamlessly. Any cricketing expert looks back at regret at what ought to have been. Showed an ability to pick spin out of the hand after taking but a single look at the aussie spinner and didnt get out to him once - even though the bowler was decent enough to take 19 wickets. I think that he gets in because he is one of the few that a majority of his colleagues, fans, experts would back a statement saying that he was robbed of what WOULD have been rather than what could have been. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Roberts as well - a seriously intelligent cricketer who knew just where to put it to make it most difficult for the batsmen to play it. Until he was joined by a host of other frightening wicket takers he was knocking them over like dominoes - they were brutalised, battered and then knocked over. The fact that he couldn't distinguish himself from the rest of his team shouldn't be held against him because if his colleagues are the benchmark to gain entry to the hall of fame then it could end up a rather empty place. Having to compete with those is a serious bar to smashing wicket records and his record doesnt really reflect his ability as a bowler. Yes.

Other 3 are of course nailed on certs.

Richards has to be a yes, there is no doubt about that IMO.

First vote.

Barry Richards: YES.

''He is simply the most exciting sportsman I've ever watched.'' - Kwinigolfer, 1 February 2012.

I consider it highly significant that without drawing attention to the term, Kwini's tribute to Richards uses the word ''sportsman'' rather than, as might normally be expected, restricting it to ''cricketer''.

An all time great. A giant remains a giant even if hardly allowed to be seen. Some here ask the question, ''how can we be sure?''. My answer is that I saw enough of him to be sure. That has been complemented by the views of others and my own reading.

A few drops of supporting evidence.

The views of Benaud, Bradman and Greg Chappell.

The South Africa v Australia series.

His many seasons at Hampshire.

Wisden Cricketer of the Year.

Rest of the World 1970 v England. A bit about this series. Even though not his finest summer as Shelsey has pointed out, Richards still proved the turning point in a highly competitive series. Trailing 2-1, England were on the brink of winning the fourth match when RoW's eighth wicket fell with more than 40 still needed to win. Despite still suffering from an injury incurred fielding on the first day which prevented him from batting in the first innings and meant he went in at number nine in the second, Richards produced a wonderful cameo knock in conjunction with Mike Procter to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Rather than the series being levelled 2-2, RoW now had an unbeatable lead of 3-1 and went on to win the final match for good measure. The ICC (or whatever it was then called) had assured all this series would be afforded Test match status. Two years later, the ICC shamelessly and retrospectively reneged on their promise. That cost Richards five Tests. Yes, it improved (or maintained) his Test batting average but even with this series included it still would have been comfortably in the mid 50s.

World Series. He has said that he played because he wanted to test himself against the best. He emerged with flying colours. I do not claim it would necessarily have been the case but maybe, just maybe, with greater and more regular challenges Richards would not just have met but actually surpassed expectations.

His unbeaten 325 in a day for South Australia against five Test bowlers including Lillee, McKenzie and Lock. He was finally dismissed LBW the following day by Australian leg spinner Tony 'Rocket' Mann who acknowledged ,''it would probably have missed leg stump''. Years later in an interview, Richards still bristled at his dismissal: ''It took a terrible LBW decision to get me out.'' I offer that as a challenge to those who have questioned his attitude and desire to kick on.

Sometimes you just know. Leo Harrison knew as Kwini points out in his excellent post above. So did Ali Bacher before the Australia series in 1969-70:
''Even before that series, everybody knew he was going to be a batting genius.'' He was. He is the strongest YES I have ever given.

Following my YES for Barry Richards, my votes on the remaining four nominees:

Fred Spofforth: YES. Thanks to those who outlined his career highlights and especially JDizzle. A clear all time great. As flagged by Dummy this morning, the fact that he took the first hat trick in Test cricket particularly caught my eye.

Wilfred Rhodes: YES. I remember several of the many tributes when he died in 1973. Thanks also to the Corporal for his wonderful feature. To have played Test cricket for a time span in excess of thirty years is utterly amazing. However, far more than a time server and also a fine cricketer. I read and loved an account of the great Victor Trumper becoming so frustrated at Rhodes' precision and cunning flight that he implored, ''For God's sake Wilfred, give me a minute's rest!''.

Graeme Pollock: YES. Another all time great. It is pleasing and clearly correct that no one has queried Pollock's place in the Hall of Fame. The only slight downside is that we probably haven't paid tribute to him sufficiently on this thread. Certainly displayed his batting brilliance throughout twenty-eight seasons of cricket even though many years of Test cricket were lost due to the vile apartheid regime. He scored his maiden first class century at the age of just sixteen and his maiden Test century whilst only nineteen. I saw him play for the Rest of the World in 1970. It was not enough to satisfy but it was enough to know.

Andy Roberts: YES. I have commented over the fortnight and particularly the last day or so as to my reasons. An integral but much under rated member of one of the greatest teams, if not the greatest team, of all time. We already have many fine cricketers in our Hall of Fame but I am not convinced we have such ''an intelligent cricketer with a fertile brain''. Very heartened by posts of others since last night and, in particular, the tremendous and much deserved tribute from Kwini.

So 5 YES votes from me. Almost certainly the strongest group of five nominees. Backed up by Kwini resisting his own normal rule of 'no more than 3 out of 5'. [Kwini - particularly liked the two Andersons reference. ]

Shelsey93 wrote:

Roberts
.... My issue is that we can sometimes hyperbolise about members of great teams - he was certainly a major contributor but, were he from, say, New Zealand or Pakistan, where his individual impact on the team may have been greater, would he still be remembered so fondly? ....

I very much disagree with that view.

Of those two Test sides mentioned, New Zealand and Pakistan, the bowler remembered most fondly from Roberts' era is Sir Richard Hadlee. Hadlee was an exceptionally fine bowler and the lynch pin of New Zealand for many years. Let me make very clear that he certainly deserves to be in our Hall of Fame. However, one of the reasons he shone like a beacon was because his Kiwi bowling partners in comparison flickered like mere candles in the wind. This also gave Hadlee first bowl at any batting rabbits and ferrets of other Test teams whilst Roberts had to share those pickings with three other World greats. Had nationalities been reversed, I doubt that Hadlee would have been a nailed on certainty for the Windies team for all the years that he represented New Zealand. I don't really see Roberts having had to fight too hard against the likes of Ewen Chatfield and three others for a continuing place in the New Zealand Test side.

Had their nationalities been reversed, Roberts would almost certainly have been in our inaugural thirty and I would probably be now having to fight the case for Hadlee.

Roberts' legacy continues to suffer and his contribution not fairly appreciated as a result of who he played alongside.

A wise man once said that the best place to hide a particular diamond is not amongst a pile of rocks but in a line of diamonds.

After much dithering I have decided to award Roberts a NO. The arguments for and against are well rehearsed and so I will not repeat them here, tho' I will say that some telling points have been made by various people in the yes camp which have inched Roberts upwards for me. To my mind he is the nearest candidate to the borderline we have had so far and can well sympathise with Dummy's tactical vote.

Sorry this will not please everyone - but have given a good deal of thought to it.