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.

Happy to see 5 worthy inductees inducted in the previous round.

This round is another fine set of candidates, although for me not quite as indisputable as the previous one.

Personally I would agree with hoggy on Walcott, although accounts of his keeping ability do vary.

I am biased towards Underwood, he played for the MCC against France in 1989 and one of our guys hit him for two massive 6s, which makes him quite the hero in these parts! However I see I may have to construct quite a robust defence.

Sutcliffe, although somewhat the forgotten man in his partnership with Hobbs, deserves to get in comfortably.

However, to somewhat be controversial (again! I know) the two fast men I may need a bit of convincing about, despite their obvious benefits. What was their impact? Certainly Trueman made 300 wickets appear doable (parallels with the 4minute mile?), and Statham was a wonderful supporting act, but impact wise?

What do you mean by 'impact' Mike?
Trueman is still a name known by cricket fans around the world, and while Statham was less obtrusive, I've no doubt that made an impression on both the cricketers and fans of his day.

Impact on the game overall I suppose. It is a very loose definition, but for example Spofforth is generally credited with "inventing" fast bowling, Roberts was an integral part of one of the greatest sides of all time, Warne made leg-spin fashionable, Rhodes was the catalyst for the fielding revolution etc.

I guess I'm a bit harsh on Trueman, but apart from being excellent/great, what else does Statham have going?

Having looked at the Wikipedia entries for each:

Trueman - first bowler to take over 300 Test wickets (at 21.5), despite not playing in about half of the matches between his Test debut and final match mainly because he didn't get on with the selectors or Len Hutton. Set standards as a fast and then fast medium bowler that very few have matched. Looks a shoo-in unless the personality issues go against him.

Statham - briefly held the record for most Test wickets before Trueman passed it. Occasionally the spearhead of the attack, but more often the number 2 to either Tyson or Trueman. Outstanding first class record probably raises his status, but he's close to the borderline for our HoF by my reckoning.

Underwood - just under 300 Test wickets at under 26 was outstanding for a 'spin' bowler (even if Deadly was more a bowler of medium pace cutters than pure spin). More effective in home conditions with uncovered wickets, but clearly must have been pretty special. Interesting that he usually got dropped during a series to bring in a pure spinner on the real bunsen. Wisden cricketer of the year in 69 and with an outstanding performance to claim the final 4 Aussie wickets in under 30 minutes and in 27 balls to win the 5th Ashes test in 69 and so level the series. Interested that a few think he's a marginal candidate, as to me there looks to be sufficient there to see him in quite comfortably.

Sutcliffe - As others have said, a slightly unsung hero, but actually had a better Test record than Hobbs. A tough competitor, known for being a fine performer on poor wickets, he was most noted for gritty determination than fluency, although was also reputed to be the finest exponent of the hook shot of his era. That his County average was 54 and his Test average over 60 tells much of how he relished a challenge. Also widely acknowledged, along with Hobbs, as being fundamental in bringing acceptability to the cricket professional - unlike Trueman or Boycott, his Yorkshire up-bringing never made him a controversial character.
Perhaps the highest averaging Test batsman without a double hundred to his name? Certainly was a consistent performer - 54 Tests with 23 fifties and 16 hundreds.

Walcott - A Test career brought to a perhaps premature end (by dispute with the West Indian authorities), but 44 Tests and an average of 56 certainly has the statistics to suggest HoF potential, but Wikipedia offers relatively little further assessment other than to say he was considered perhaps the finest batsman of the late 50s. Went on to be a very successful cricket administator, initially in the West Indies and ultimately with the ICC. Am looking forward to hearing more about him, but am minded towards a yes.

Mike, on Statham

2000+ FC wickets at a lower average than anyone whose taken that many wickets since 1900.
Most wickets ever for Lancashire.
Brilliant team-man without whom, in all probability, Tyson and Trueman wouldn't have had as much success as they did.
Also an outstanding fielder, which was unusual for a fast-bowler in those days.
And in addittion he was universally liked (again unusual for a fast bowler)
Peter May said of him:
"George Statham had a lovely temperament. It never mattered what you asked him to do, whether it was to come on for a few overs, to bowl until lunch, to bowl uphill or upwind. Whatever it was, he would take the ball and do it."
He went on "He had that amazing accuracy on and around the off stump which undoubtedly provoked batsmen whom he tied down into taking liberties at the other end. He must have got a lot of wickets for whoever bowled with him. He really hit the bat hard, and although he usually bowled a full length, there were times when if the ball missed the bat, you suffered.
Once at Old Trafford he brought a ball back to hit me inside the right thigh where there was no protection. The pain went right through me. It was the last ball of an over, and I stood there determined not to show that I had been hurt. Then I noticed George half down the pitch, hands on hips, looking a me with a half smile. 'Go on, skipper, rub it,' he said, 'I know it hurts.' There was a touch of sympathy in it. He bowled without a trace of animosity."

I admit that he didn't invent a new ball or anything like that, but I think his impact on the game is up their with many others in the HoF.

Mike Selig wrote:

I am biased towards Underwood, he played for the MCC against France in 1989 and one of our guys hit him for two massive 6s, which makes him quite the hero in these parts! However I see I may have to construct quite a robust defence.

Hi Mike - let me get this right. Underwood turns up in France, gets clobbered for two almighty sixes by some local and on the basis of that should waltz into the Hall of Fame. Hmmm. Think the case might need a bit of work yet.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

I am biased towards Underwood, he played for the MCC against France in 1989 and one of our guys hit him for two massive 6s, which makes him quite the hero in these parts! However I see I may have to construct quite a robust defence.

Hi Mike - let me get this right. Underwood turns up in France, gets clobbered for two almighty sixes by some local and on the basis of that should waltz into the Hall of Fame. Hmmm. Think the case might need a bit of work yet.

Working on it...

Hoggy and Mike,

Brian Statham's cricket career was just about ending as I began following the game. His Test career had already finished two or three years before that. I'm also therefore going to have to do some research and digging around.

I do though have clear memories of the BBC Test Match Special Team talking about him in highly respectful tones on several occasions over the last forty odd years, particularly from his home ground of Old Trafford. For those radio broadcasters his name was like a byword for accuracy. His saying of ''you miss, I hit'' often being told to listeners.

I'm slightly intrigued by his nickname of 'George'. Wikipedia and one or two others suggest that was just an alliterative term to go with the 'Genteman' tag that rightly belonged to him. I don't doubt that being at least part of the reason. However, I vaguely recall that 'George' was some form of radar system in the war and believe that name was also attached to him because of his unerring accuracy. Hoggy?

On the Underwood debate.
'Dickie' Bird rank him as one of the best three spinners he'd seen as an umpire (along with Shane Warne and Abdul Qadir). In that same clip he picks Barry Richard's as the best batsman he saw, so you can tell he has impeccable judgement Guildford
http://cricketcrowd.com/displayvideo.html?ccvideo=2615&ccdesc=Dickie+Bird+picks+Abdul+Qadir+as+better+spinner+than+Warne

Greg Chappell, meanwhile, said this of him:
"I give a special mention to Underwood who does not fit into the traditional mould of a spin bowler. He ran further than most spinners and bowled it faster through the air than the rest, but his subtle changes of pace and his fantastic control of length were his greatest assets. Given some moisture in the wicket or a broken, dusty surface, I would put him up against Warne and Murali as the most dangerous bowler most likely to bowl any side out cheaply."

Underwood was also selected, by a pretty knowledgable panel, as part of the best post-war English XI in 2004.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/143234.html

As a side note, Underwood was pretty effective against Sunil Gavaskar. Taking his wicket 12 times.

Guildford
WIkipedia has it that Lancashire had included a player called George for decades before Statham's debut, but in Statham's first season they didn't have a George in the squad and so the new boy got the name by default - I guess all nicknames have to start somewhere.

Some more great stuff on Statham here:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152402.html

Particularly like the quote from Frank Tyson about the 1954-55 Ashes:

"The glamour of success was undoubtedly mine. When in the second innings of the Sydney Test I captured six for 85, few spared a thought for Statham, who on that day bowled unremittingly for two hours into a stiff breeze and took three for 45."

Tyson adds that he "owed much to desperation injected into the batsmen's methods by Statham's relentless pursuit. To me it felt like having Menuhin playing second fiddle to my lead."

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Some more great stuff on Statham here:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152402.html

Particularly like the quote from Frank Tyson about the 1954-55 Ashes:

"The glamour of success was undoubtedly mine. When in the second innings of the Sydney Test I captured six for 85, few spared a thought for Statham, who on that day bowled unremittingly for two hours into a stiff breeze and took three for 45."

Tyson adds that he "owed much to desperation injected into the batsmen's methods by Statham's relentless pursuit. To me it felt like having Menuhin playing second fiddle to my lead."

Good stuff, Hoggy.

On some of the Surrey threads and at the Oval itself, there's a running gag that Salisbury owes so many of his wickets and England call up to Saqlain. Batsmen were said to be so relieved not to be facing Saqy that they completely lost all concentration against Solly and gifted him a shedload of wickets. Like many jokes, more than a grain of truth in it.

As you would expect, I'm lapping up the references to Statham playing an invaluable supporting role and the Typhoon talking about ''having Menuhin playing second fiddle to my lead''. Have I ever mentioned an immensely valuable middle order West Indian batsman?

Could Larry gomes play the violin?

dummy_half wrote:Guildford
WIkipedia has it that Lancashire had included a player called George for decades before Statham's debut, but in Statham's first season they didn't have a George in the squad and so the new boy got the name by default - I guess all nicknames have to start somewhere.

Dummy - thanks for that and your earlier summaries from Wiki of all this week's mominees. Appreciated and useful starting points. If you're not aware, just to flag that ESPN CricInfo usually provides lots of stats and articles for all nominees.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Could Larry gomes play the violin?

Oh yes. At his best when the rest of the orchestra had lost their instruments!

Hoggy_Bear wrote:On the Underwood debate.
'Dickie' Bird rank him as one of the best three spinners he'd seen as an umpire (along with Shane Warne and Abdul Qadir). In that same clip he picks Barry Richard's as the best batsman he saw, so you can tell he has impeccable judgement Guildford
http://cricketcrowd.com/displayvideo.html?ccvideo=2615&ccdesc=Dickie+Bird+picks+Abdul+Qadir+as+better+spinner+than+Warne

Greg Chappell, meanwhile, said this of him:
"I give a special mention to Underwood who does not fit into the traditional mould of a spin bowler. He ran further than most spinners and bowled it faster through the air than the rest, but his subtle changes of pace and his fantastic control of length were his greatest assets. Given some moisture in the wicket or a broken, dusty surface, I would put him up against Warne and Murali as the most dangerous bowler most likely to bowl any side out cheaply."

Underwood was also selected, by a pretty knowledgable panel, as part of the best post-war English XI in 2004.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/143234.html

As a side note, Underwood was pretty effective against Sunil Gavaskar. Taking his wicket 12 times.

Thanks also for all that, Hoggy. A host of fine information there.

I agree that Dickie Bird certainly had 'impeccable judgement' regarding Barry Richards. I trust he thinks the same about me and my other nominations.

Probably being a bit churlish but, like Greg Chappell above, so many of the comments from 'professionals' about Underwood seem to emphasise, ''If the wicket was damp etc, Underwood proved how 'deadly' he was''. That, for me, is not in doubt. As the Corporal touched on last night, I would though like some more evidence of success where the conditions were not stacked in his favour.

Interesting post-war English XI. Yes, Underwood makes that cut and that's clearly to his credit although I note he was the second choice spinner behind Laker. No place for Lock who only got a couple of votes. Thought Lock might have done better based on my reading - Kwini, thoughts if you saw all of them? [Hoggy - you need to be careful with the panel who chose this English XI. Not too many votes for Willis! ]

I'll be interested if Gavaskar has commented on Underwood. Sunny has been a good character witness for some of my previous clients so I'm certainly not going to ignore him now.

One other thing that might as well go in the mix now. When we did our Ten Greatest All Time Spinners at the end of last September, Underwood ended up in ninth spot. The final places were: 1. Warne; 2. Muralitharan; 3. O'Reilly; 4. Laker; 5. Abdul Quadir; 6. Grimmett; 7. Gibbs; 8. Bedi; 9. Underwood; 10. Kumble. I certainly don't need reminding that Gibbs didn't get in the HofF first time round . Bedi missed out alogether with, from memory, just one vote. This Top Ten doesn't lay down any rules for the HofF and nor should it. However, I don't feel it should be totally ignored either. I'll certainly be interested in explanations from any voting YES to Underwood who turned down Gibbs.

This genuinely is not a NO campaign being mounted by me. There is a heck of a lot going for Underwood but also some doubts. I'm flagging my uncertainty more in the hope that it can be addressed rather than trying to lead others.

guildford,
Laker vs Lock vs Underwood?
I would probably pick Lock for his overall contribution, a brilliant close catcher (wonder how many ct Lock b Laker 's there are in the Surrey record books?) and the best batsman of the three. But he will always suffer in retrospect because of occasionally being called for throwing.

Guildford
On the Underwood debate, you do raise some good points.
With regard to the quote I gave from Chappell, I reckon it actually enhances Underwood's claims a great deal. The record shows that, after pitches were covered, Underwood was as good as virtually any other spinner of the same period. What Chappell's opinion states (and the statistical record and memory suggests) is that when there was something in the pitch, Underwood was as good at exploiting that as the (probably) greatest spin bowlers in history.
So on good pitches he was at least as good as anyone else, and on helpful pitches he was better than almost everyone.
As for the Gibbs comment, I'm not saying that I'm nailed on to vote yes to Underwood, but it is what I'm thinking at the moment, and I believe I voted no to Gibbs, so maybe I should try at give my reasons.
Quite simply, I believe that Underwood was a better bowler. I know that I have no memory of Gibbs bowling, whereas I do of Underwood's which may, of course, mean that I'm biased but, if you look at their records Underwood's is superior in almost every respect apart from wickets taken. Better average, better s/r, more 10 wicket matches. Also, over the years, from what I've read, I always got the impression that Underwood was very highly rated in the pantheon of spinners. I don't remember getting the same impression with regards to Gibbs, but that might just be what I was reading.
I understand the point about Gibbs always being selected for the WIndies while Underwood wasn't for England, but I really don't think that the idiocy of England's selectors should count against him. It wasn't the first time England selectors had picked inferior players over superior ones, for reasons known only to themselves, and it wasn't the last.
To me Underwood is one of the best spinners of all-time. After pitches were covered (post 1970) only 4 spin-bowlers who have taken over 100 wickets have done so at an average less than Underwood did in the same period.
Before covered pitches (end of the 60s IIRC), only one spin bowler had taken 50 or more wickets at at better average than Underwood, and he'd played in the 1880s.
Add in his, short but impressive, ODI career, his FC and list A career, the fact that, had he not gone to WSC or the rebel tour of 1982, he would probably have taken quite a few more test and ODI wickets and, for me, you have a very strong case for his inclusion.

And as an addendum to my earlier point about Underwood having taken Gavaskar's wicket 12 times (more than any other bowler), he also took the wickets of Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell and Dougie Walters more often than anyone else. Quite a list.

underwood was massively underrated IMO.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
Laker vs Lock vs Underwood?
I would probably pick Lock for his overall contribution, a brilliant close catcher (wonder how many ct Lock b Laker 's there are in the Surrey record books?) and the best batsman of the three. But he will always suffer in retrospect because of occasionally being called for throwing.

Thanks, Kwini.

Pretty sure we chose our Top Ten spinners just before you joined the party. I thought Lock deserved to be in there, albeit at the bottom end. Unfortunately, no one else agreed.

cricketfan90 wrote:underwood was massively underrated IMO.

Other than the odd comment on here, I don't believe there is any evidence for that whatsoever.

hence why i said IMO.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:And as an addendum to my earlier point about Underwood having taken Gavaskar's wicket 12 times (more than any other bowler), he also took the wickets of Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell and Dougie Walters more often than anyone else. Quite a list.

Hoggy - good points here and in your immediately previous post.

Underwood seems to have some very decent support here (and I don't say it's undeserved). I gather Mike will also be fighting his corner - Mike doesn't normally pull his punches.

Cheap jibe - anyone could have taken Dougie Walters' wicket in England. In Australia - or anywhere else in the world for that matter - a prize wicket indeed.

Cheaper and threatening jibe - notice you've gone quiet on the panel that only gave Willis 4 votes!

cricketfan90 wrote:hence why i said IMO.

guildfordbat wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:underwood was massively underrated IMO.

Other than the odd comment on here, I don't believe there is any evidence for that whatsoever.

Well he's obviously underrated by some people on here if he finished below Gibbs in the top 10 spinners list.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:And as an addendum to my earlier point about Underwood having taken Gavaskar's wicket 12 times (more than any other bowler), he also took the wickets of Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell and Dougie Walters more often than anyone else. Quite a list.

Hoggy - good points here and in your immediately previous post.

Underwood seems to have some very decent support here (and I don't say it's undeserved). I gather Mike will also be fighting his corner - Mike doesn't normally pull his punches.

Cheap jibe - anyone could have taken Dougie Walters' wicket in England. In Australia - or anywhere else in the world for that matter - a prize wicket indeed.

Cheaper and threatening jibe - notice you've gone quiet on the panel that only gave Willis 4 votes!

Yeah well, panels like that often make mistakes, but they didn't when picking Underwood

Brilliant story (which may, or may not, be true), demonstrating the respect for Derek Underwood held by Ian Chappell:

The year is 1974. The first cricket test of the Australian summer is about to get under way at the Gabba ground in Brisbane, with England defending the Ashes. Ray Illingworth, the victorious England captain on the previous tour, has set the tone by channelling Lance-Corporal Jones from Dad’s Army: the Aussies talk a good game, he says, but they don’t like it up ’em.

In the home dressing room captain Ian Chappell is leading a strategy and tactics session, outlining specific plans to combat each English batsman and bowler. He starts with their batsmen: “Amiss,” he says. “Bounce the c—.”

(By “bounce” he means deliver a barrage of bouncers, fast, short-pitched deliveries that rear up head high. Remember in those days there were no protective helmets or restrictions on the number of bouncers per over. Remember, too, that Australia had at its disposal possibly the most frightening fast-bowling combination of all time in the form of Dennis Lillee and Jeff Thomson. “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” went the chant. “If Lillee doesn’t get you, Thommo must. By “c—” he means English person.)
“Luckhurst,” continues Chappell, “bounce the c—. Edrich: bounce the c—.” And so on, all the way down the English batting list.

The English bowlers are then subjected to analytical scrutiny. “Hendrick: slog the c—. Willis: slog the c—.” Chappell gets to left-arm spinner Derek Underwood. “Underwood.” Long pause. “This bloke can bowl.” Another long pause. “Ah, f— it, slog the c—.”

At least Underwood made him pause.

Thanks for sharing that Hoggy - made me giggle. Several of my uncles in pakistan rate him highly and suggest he has to be a shoo in. Unfortunately the last time one of them had a cd it ended up on a turntable then in a bin as it clearly didn't work so cant get em on here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MbRuLFBepo

Statham

An outstanding first class record:
"In 1967 Statham passed Johnny Briggs to become Lancashire's leading wicket-taker, and he added 69 more in his last season, 1968. In all first-class cricket, he took 2,260 wickets, putting him 19th on the all-time list. But his average of 16.37 is the best of the top 20 wicket-takers and beaten only by Briggs - who bowled on the primitive pitches of the 19th century - among the top 30."

And a defining moment:
"At Lord's in 1955, he bowled unchanged in the second innings as South Africa were dismissed for 111 to lose a match they had been dominating. His figures were 29-12-39-7: it was a feat of endurance even allowing for a lunch break extended to two hours by bad light."

Brian Statham

As such a borderline case, I thought I'd start with Statham this time round. He comes in at No. 89 in Christopher Martin-Jenkins's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "a superb fielder in the deep"
- Loose effortlessness, a result, perhaps, of being double-jointed "was the chief characteristic of a bowling action that made him England's most accurate and reliable fast bowler through a long, distinguished career in which the only thing he ever complained about was sore feet"
- "got on with the job and carried on until it was done. He was a complete natural, his run-up and delivery fluid and uncoached"
- "stoically unselfish, leaving any downhill slope or, more importantly, any following wind, to his two great partners Frank Tyson and Fred Trueman"
- "In his second game [for Lancashire, following national service], having just turned twenty, he had taken the first five Somerset wickets for five runs at Bath"
- "Statham's alliance with Tyson won the Ashes for England under Len Hutton in 1954-55. Tyson was the typhoon, a little wild but frighteningly fast, Statham the one who gave the batsmen no respite at the other end"
- In '54-55 "He took five wickets bowling into a brutal wind from Botany Bay in the Test at Sydney just before Christmas"
- "His seven for 39 at Lord's in 1955 won a close game against South Africa and he took eleven wickets against the same opposition at Lord's in 1960, exploiting the invisible ridge; but seven for 57 at Melbourne in 1958-59 was not enough to make up for England's batting failure"

Graham Tarrant adds in 'The Lord's Taverner Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers up to 1983 that "time after time he would miss the stumps by a coat of varnish, earning a reputation for being an unlucky bowler" and that "He took more than 100 wickets in a season thirteen times, ten of them in a row, and on three occassions performed the hat-trick. Twice he took fifteen wickets in a match: against Warwickshire in 1957 (8 for 34 and 7 for 55) and Leicestershire in 1964 (7 for 71 and 8 for 37).

John Thicknesse, writing Statham's Wisden obituary, comments that he "was one of the best of all English fast-bowlers, and beyond question the best-liked". He rejects the idea that he was just an accurate medium-pacer by saying that "Statham kept his line and length at a very high pace indeed, comparable with all but the very fastest of Test match bowlers".

This match, from 1953-54 is not mentioned in the career highlights listed by CMJ and Tarrant:

"At Sabina Park, he opened the bowling with Trueman for the first time for England and, in the Third Test at Georgetown, turned the series with a devastating new-ball spell, sending back Worrell, Stollmeyer and Walcott for ten runs. Alex Bannister of the Daily Mail reported that Stollmeyer had received the best fast ball bowled for England since Alec Bedser bowled Bradman for a duck at Adelaide seven years earlier."

Thicknesse does, however, note that he was never a nailed on selection for England due to selectorial whims and injuries and by his early 30s had "appeared to fade out of Test cricket". He then points out that his average is the best of all those in the top 30 first class wicket-takers (slightly artificial as English players between 1900 and 1970-odd played so much more FC cricket than anybody before, since or elsewhere in the world but still a great stat to have).

A little more detail on his skills as a bowler from Thicknesse:

"His methods remain a matter of some debate. His action was certainly too chest-on to be accepted as classical. He swung the ball only rarely, and perhaps never by design."

Thicknesse's conclusion showing that Statham, like many others, struggled with life after cricket:

" Despite his huge popualarity, his life after cricket was a difficult one. He was employed by Guinness to go round pubs and clubs - more celebrity PR than selling. But after the company was taken over, a stern new management tried to force timetables and paperwork on him, and Statham's life was made intolerable. He became ill and in 1989 his financial plight was such that his friend Trueman organised some benefit dinners for him. More than 1,000 turned up at the Grosvenor House in London. He was a cricketer who engendered admiration and affection from both those who saw him from a distance, and those who knew him best. "I knew him for 50 years and we never had a wrong word," said Trueman."

One criticism which comes up in a few of the Cricinfo articles is that he was not a particularly good Lancs. captain.

A quote from Farokh Engineer: "He truly never knew how great he really was... not only as one of the greatest ever quickies but for me one of the greatest of all men"

And finally, a quote from Sir Neville Cardus: "Trueman, on occasion, nearly lost a big match by loss of technical (and temperamental) control; Statham never."

I'm undecided as yet on Statham. As I said at the start I think he is extremely close to the boundary.

Shelsey - good stuff on Statham

I'd like to throw an interesting statistic into the pot which may help to illustrate why some might put Gibbs ahead of Underwood at least on the issue of consistent impact.

Number of test series in which the bowler took over 17 wickets in a series:
Lance Gibbs 11
Derek Underwood 3

Not really surprising corporal, given that Gibbs usually played in all the tests of a series (more often than Underwood, anyway), and usually bowled more as well.
If you include series when the bowlers took 15 or more wickets, Gibbs had 13, Underwood 10.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Underwood was a very defensive bowler unless conditions suited and that's a reason why he so seldom played every Test in a Home series.

He couldn't be relied upon for runs and was average at best in the field, so a County player with wider attributes was more often selected - that option applied less often on Tour as there were fewer alternatives available.

kwinigolfer wrote:Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Underwood was a very defensive bowler unless conditions suited and that's a reason why he so seldom played every Test in a Home series.

He couldn't be relied upon for runs and was average at best in the field, so a County player with wider attributes was more often selected - that option applied less often on Tour as there were fewer alternatives available.

Sorry, don't neccessarily agree that Underwood was any more defensive than a number of other spin bowlers of the time, including Gibbs. Accurate, yes. Tight, yes. But not, neccessarily, defensive (or at least, anymore than other spinners of the time).

Interesting comments on Statham - makes him sound like a prototype for Glenn McGrath (although perhaps a fraction quicker). Accurate, loose and economical action and not a great mover of the ball in the air (although other reports suggest he had a dangerous in-seaming delivery, but struggled to get any away movement).

Interesting also that Trueman was such a good friend even after cricket, as Fred was known to be a much more spiky character - loved by some and loathed by others (including at various times England selectors and captains).

I must admit straight away to a Personal Bias in the case of Statham.

He was my boyhood idol and the cricketer who inspired me to take up the physically demanding role of the pace bowler (apart from the fact that I was probably too impatient/clumsy/silly to do anything more refined like batting or leg spin ) . So much so that I attempted to model my action and method on his - with perhaps ..."qualified" success. Still the fact that said action has kept me relatively injury free and still bowling after more than 50 years may show that some the smoothness of his actually did rub off...

Anyway , I am an automatic and unapologetic Yes vote for "George". But I realise that the childhood memories of an old buffer are not going to win over hard headed modern enthusiasts like Mike and Shelsey so I'll have to find some more Facts ...

How about 1954/55 : His partnership with Tyson has been mentioned already, but I would like to highlight the contrast between this 3-1 English "Away" Ashes victory and the more recent version.
In 2011 Anderson Tremlett and Bresnan are rightly lauded for their fine bowling performances; but the success of the team also owed much to the terrific batting efforts of Cook , Trott etc who consistently ensured huge totals for their bowlers to work with.
Back in 1954 the leading English average was Tom Graveney with just 44. May averaged 39 , and so on down...So it could truly be said that this Ashes win was overwhelmingly down to the two pace bowlers. The Australian team was hardly weak either : Harvey, Miller , Lindwall , Benaud, Morris, Johnston...
I always think a leading role in a famous Ashes victory goes a long way to put a player high up in the pantheon ...

We've also already mentioned the fact that Statham at one time held the Test wicket taking record - not for long , it is true , before his partner Trueman passed him - but nonetheless he held it , and I think we'll eventually see most of the bowlers who have ever held that record in this HOF. (Quite a few in already ! And yes , I voted for Gibbs )

One last point : Statham fell out of the England team in 1963 and seemed to have ended his international days ; but in 1965 England went into the Oval Test one-down against a strong South African touring side (Pollock, Barlow , Lindsay etc) and recalled the 35 year old for a final Test. He took 5/40 in putting SA out for 208 in their first innings. Unfortunately for the fairytale Peter Pollock did a similar job on England and after a much better SA second innings England were left chasing nearly 400 to win , and ran out of time though quite soundly placed at 300/4 so it all ended tamely enough in a draw and a series loss ... but it was still I think a sign that Statham never gave less than his best and might well have threatened the 300 wicket total himself had the selectors not looked to younger bowlers in the early '60's.
(I also vaguely recall media talk in 65/66 that he might have been recalled again when reinforcements were needed in Australia - it didn't happen , but when questioned as to whether he would be prepared to go if asked , "George" quietly said it was unlikely he'd be asked , but "One does not refuse to play for England". I fancy he'd have tried his heart out if the call had come.

Well that is long and rambling enough so I'd better stop here , but I hope it may help some waverers move closer to the right side of the line and put the gentleman fast bowler Brian Statham where he belongs : in our Hall of Fame.

Excellent piece, Alfie. Certainly solidified my own thinking, anyway.

Fists of Fury wrote:Excellent piece, Alfie. Certainly solidified my own thinking, anyway.

Alfie - I second Fists' comments. Thank you.

By implication, you seem to classify me as ''an old buffer'' rather than ''a modern hard headed enthusiast''. I thank you for that as well.

Alfie - you must have seen a fair bit of Underwood.

A great of the game too often mistakenly left out by the selectors or just a wet wicket bully? Interested in your thoughts. One old buffer to another ....

I'll be interested to read the views of others on Underwood; I've offered my two-penny worth after having met him and watched him bowl half a dozen times, not to mention interminably on TV.

Not sure here which of guildford's characteristics is valid, if either.

His selection in Home Tests was almost invariably a matter of conjecture but I certainly wouldn't label him a "wet wicket bully". Think he was much better than that, but still question his HOF credentials in this company.

Almost a shame that he and Alan Knott can't go in together . . . . . as a partnership.

Kwini
You've probably gathered my thoughts on Underwood already, but I do think it's a question of your criteria for inclusion to the HoF.
Underwood's case is interesting because his career (like Gibbs and a few others), straddled the change from uncovered to covered wickets. What I think is fair to say is that, on good wickets, Underwood was as good at winkling out batsmen as anyone apart, perhaps, from Warne and Murali, but on wickets which offered him some assistance, he was as devastating as virtually anyone in the history of the game.
In a way, I believe that he became a victim of his own success. His skill on damp wickets, the idea that he should be carried around like an umbrella, in case of rain, led (erroneously, in my view), to the opinion that he wasn't good on good wickets. In truth he was as good on such wickets as most other spinners.
So, as I say, it's down to your criteria for selecting people for the HoF. If you require that a spin-bowler be oustanding in relation to bowlers of similar ilk on both good and poor pitches, fair enough. But if you think it's enough that a bowler is among the best of his type on good pitches but also one of the most devestating bowlers of all-time when conditions favour him, then Underwood should be in IMHO.
Sorry for rambling on a bit.

kwinigolfer wrote:I'll be interested to read the views of others on Underwood; I've offered my two-penny worth after having met him and watched him bowl half a dozen times, not to mention interminably on TV.

Not sure here which of guildford's characteristics is valid, if either.

His selection in Home Tests was almost invariably a matter of conjecture but I certainly wouldn't label him a "wet wicket bully". Think he was much better than that, but still question his HOF credentials in this company.

Almost a shame that he and Alan Knott can't go in together . . . . . as a partnership.

Kwini and all (especially Hoggy ) - to be entirely clear, I was asking a question revolving around two highly contrasting views. I'm not saying one of those two views must apply.

My use of the word 'bully' was deliberate to stir things up a bit, implying rather naughtily that Underwood couldn't do it on good wickets. As Hoggy has touched towards, it is probably more accurate - and certainly kinder - to call him 'a wet wicket maestro'.

Until Kwini's post now, I don't think anyone has mentioned anything of Underwood's Test and county partnership with Knott. That shouldn't be overlooked. I suspect Mike hasn't ....

Yup, Hoggy, don't disagree with that assessment. Consistent excellence can sometimes be seen as faint praise, rather than something to be applauded.

Not sure that I completely agree though with the "winkling out" characterisation however; he was often bowling close to military (no offence, Corporal) medium pace, "line and length and keep the runs down".

On wickets that offered some encouragement? The best of his time, no doubt.

kwinigolfer wrote:Not sure that I completely agree though with the "winkling out" characterisation however; he was often bowling close to military (no offence, Corporal) medium pace, "line and length and keep the runs down".

True enough. But I'd argue that keeping it tight and waiting for the batsman to make a mistake is a tactic that has been used by numerous slower bowlers on good pitches over the years.

guildfordbat wrote:

Until Kwini's post now, I don't think anyone has mentioned anything of Underwood's Test and county partnership with Knott. That shouldn't be overlooked. I suspect Mike hasn't ....

You know me too well guilford... Knott's partnership with Underwood will indeed feature in my future defence (which I may post tomorrow if I have time, but may have to wait until Thursday).

kwinigolfer wrote:Yup, Hoggy, don't disagree with that assessment. Consistent excellence can sometimes be seen as faint praise, rather than something to be applauded.

And that probably takes us back to Statham ....

To continue the theme of consistent excellence, what about this record of productivity?

The BBC Obituary of Clyde Walcott reports that the same midwife delivered Walcott, Weekes and Worrell.

Believe that is consistent excellence which should be accorded a special plaque in the HOF!

Sorry to go on about Underwood, but I've just come across this piece in Wisden, which touches on a few of the points we've been discussing (although it concentrates more on his county than test career):


Derek Underwood - an appreciation


The full significance of Derek Underwood's retirement from first-class cricket will not properly be manifest until four o'clock, or thereabouts, on the last day of a moribund Championship match at Canterbury. Tardyshire, batting as only they can when challenged to score more than 4 runs an over, will be entrenched at 116 for three, many of the Faithful will be departing for Evensong, and seasoned correspondents will have advised their sports editors that the inevitable draw warrants no more than a brief litany.

Doubtless they will be right. Whereas, in the foregoing 25 years, the remarkable Derek Leslie Underwood frequently proved them wrong. For, in his capacity and determination to take, rather than buy, wickets on an unresponsive pitch, Underwood was a rare bird among spin bowlers. Whereas, against the average slow bowler, batsmen were principally alert to the prospect of punishing loose balls, when facing Underwood they steeled themselves against the unexpected - often to discover that, when it came, neither temperament nor technique was adequate. Not the least of their problems was that Underwood was not strictly a slow bowler in the traditional sense.

And so it would come to pass, shortly after the tea interval, with the match on its sick-bed and polite adjectives thin on the ground, that Underwood would peel off his sweater, trudge out his flat-footed run-up and wheel in to bowl. Alas, to elder statesmen deck-chair deep in disconsolation, it was not an edifying sight: the approach too long, the delivery too flat. Yet, even as they hrrumphed to the heavens in the name of Alfred Percy Freeman, Underwood's unique talents were at work. The obdurate batsman pushes forward and is caught off the handle. He takes his leave, a sadder - though little wiser - man, to be replaced by another who, already impregnated with doubt, dithers, dabbles and departs. The encircling vultures resettle and Underwood toils on until, at 6.15 in the final over, the last wicket falls and Kent win by 78 runs: Underwood six for 48.

In this typical scenario lay the real mark of a master bowler; a measure of the professionalism too often overlooked when, in league with a spiteful pitch, Underwood became virtually unplayable. Canterbury, 1984, and during the Championship match against Hampshire, overnight rain crept under the covers and lay brooding on a length. Those who had played and watched cricket only in recent years had never seen Underwood, or anyone else, bowl on a sticky patch. They were in for a salutary 90 minutes. So ruthlessly did Underwood exploit the conditions that, in 11.2 overs, he claimed seven wickets for 21 runs as Hampshire collapsed to summary defeat.

An easy haul? Comparatively speaking, yes. But, in the high summer and autumn of his professional career, such heaven-sent wickets had become a rare luxury. One would guess, in fact, that during a long and illustrious campaign, for each wicket plucked from a helpful pitch, Underwood quarried 50 from solid rock by the sweat of his brow and sheer tenacity of purpose.

Ironically, then, during the burgeoning maturity of his career the game's administrators, in their questionable wisdom, conspired to ensure that pitches should become as rock-like as possible; that, notwithstanding the odd, mischievous covers, they should remain dry and faithful to a new breed of batsmen who expected - nay demanded - that the ball maintain a line of such predictability that it may be cross-batted, almost with impunity, to all parts.

The declared object of the exercise was both mis-begotten and unsuccessful in that, far from providing maximum entertainment for the public (who were said to be interested only in positive results), it reduced the average Championship fixture to a two-and-a-half day bore between sides incapable of forcing a victory - followed by a limited-overs accommodation neither was prepared to lose. Under such circumstances Underwood's faculty for confounding the system was even more remarkable.

There was especial irony, therefore, when in his last season pitches were re-opened to the elements. Those among us who rejoiced scanned the sullen skies and smiled in anticipation of a rich Underwood harvest. Where, after all, were the batsmen with the technique to deal with the spinning ball on a steaming pitch? In the event it transpired that the turf technicians had done their work too well. Rain it certainly did, but pitches so rigorously tailored for batsmen produced not the anticipated sticky dog but rather the Plasticine pup on to which the bowler might as well lob a ball of wool. So Underwood was back to the hard graft: 611 overs and 45 wickets at 28.77 runs apiece. No mean performance, but neither an outstanding conclusion to a career during which, in his first season, he took 100 wickets - at eighteen, the youngest player to do so - and repeated the feat nine times.

Such are the bald statistics that all too often dominate the archives of achievement. Certainly they cannot be ignored. Underwood, D. L. - 86 Tests: First, West Indies 1966; Last, Sri Lanka 1981-82. Test wickets, 297; average 25.83. Best performance, against Pakistan at Lord's in 1974- five for 20 in the first innings; eight for 51 in the second.

Most memorable, perhaps, was his match-winning seven for 50 at The Oval to square the 1968 series against Australia. Here was the young Underwood in his element. Torrential rain in the morning flooded the outfield, scores of volunteers joined the groundstaff in mopping up, and so began an agonising race against time that ended with five minutes to spare as the England spinner took his fourth wicket in 27 balls. A splendid statistic but, in perusing the Underwood curriculum vitae, it is equally pertinent to consider his analysis for the first innings of that same match - played on a pitch which yielded 494 runs for England and 324 for Australia. Underwood claimed only two wickets but, in so doing, conceded fewer than 1.7 runs for each of his 54 overs; a degree of economy, not to mention stamina, that seldom deserted him.

Facts and figures produce scope, for those so disposed, to speculate. What had he not forfeited two years of his Test career by defecting to World Series Cricket in 1977? Suppose he had not, in 1981, been banned from the international arena following an unauthorised tour of South Africa? Certainly he might have retired as the most prolific wicket-taker in Test history, which would have meant a great deal to archivists and doubtless something to Underwood himself. But if one respects individuality, honestly pursued, a generous sporting spirit and professional skill, unstintingly applied, then some may consider that many of Underwood's finest hours were spent in settings some way removed from the Ovals of Kennington or Adelaide.

He will be well remembered, albeit with somewhat grudging affection, at Bournemouth where, amid the sylvan charm of Dean Park, he invariably undid Hampshire. Likewise at Hastings where, in June 1964, he achieved a career-best bowling analysis of nine for 28 and, twenty years later, hit his maiden and only century.

Underwood's batting, like his bowling, though not a thing of beauty was rich in intent. Essentially fundamental in style, it relied on three basic strokes; the dogged forward thrust, the square, hunch-shouldered punch to the off, and the squat, short-arm pull between square leg and mid-wicket. It was a method which served Underwood well enough over the years, not least in scoring an unbeaten 45 against Lawry's Australians at Leeds in 1968. Even so, it was stretching credibility too far to imagine that, in his 40th year and at best a paid-up member of the night-watchmen's union, Underwood could coax, from such a limited repertoire, a first-class century.

Yet he did; nudge by nudge, stab by stab, scrambling between wickets in those Chaplinesque boots. And one suspects that, not until he stumbled into the 90s, was Underwood motivated by anything other than the responsibility of doing a job for his side to the utmost of his ability. Afterwards, of course, it was different. The unconfined delight as he acknowledged the congratulatory toasts of his peers was a joy to behold and to cherish - something that cannot be expressed in a mere statistic. So it was in everything Underwood approached; he took pleasure in his craft but placed craft above all.

Is he replaceable - if indeed there is to be encouragement in a changing game for bowlers of his ilk? Unless the TCCB decrees that, in future, all pitches are to be of rolled steel, the fourth day of a Championship match must offer rewards for even the most modest flipper. Specialists such as Emburey, Hemmings, Marks and Gifford will undoubtedly enjoy a brisk trade. But what happens at the St Lawrence when Somerset sit on the splice? To whom do they turn at The Mote when Middlesex mount a rearguard action? No doubt the chaps in the deck-chairs will tell them.