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.

And here's an appreciation of Statham from Colin Cowdrey:

Brian Statham was a magnificent bowler, and one of the best-natured cricketers that I have played with and against. He was a real competitor, always giving everything he had to his captain and the team, and extremely patient when catches were dropped off his bowling.
He was an outstanding fielder, fast over the ground, with a strong accurate throw into the wicket-keeper's gloves. Amazingly, he very rarely missed a catch himself.
Fielding practice was a non-event as far as he was concerned. He would have to participate so as to keep everyone happy. I used to hit the balls at the fielders - he picked up the ball so cleanly every time and there was no way that he would drop one, however high or awkward it was.
Sitting next to him at dinner recently, I reminded him of the only catch that I saw him drop, and that was at Cape Town, a high but straightforward skier off Jim Laker. We couldn't believe it. Jim Laker wasn't very happy, and Brian was mortified, but there were relieved smiles on all our faces that even he was human. Replying to my comment - he did say that he thought it was the only bad one that he missed, except for one astonishing caught and bowled' which mysteriously went astray. But isn't that an extraordinary commendation. I played with a number of great catchers, but no one with safer hands than Brian.

Speed, Movement, Accuracy

But what a bowler he was. His strength lay in his accuracy, aiming to pitch the ball just outside the off stump and to flick the off bail. You would have to play all the time, and you find yourself coming in too often on the inside of the ball with the bat slightly open faced, so giving him a chance behind the wicket. Because of his genuine pace, you had to move fast to square the bat on the ball and play back down its line. Having done so, you had to watch the ball very carefully because it could move just enough off the seam to cause destruction.
He varied his pace cleverly, and would throw in a nasty 'yorker', especially at the tail-enders. He had one speciality. He would go wide at the crease and bowl a very fast break back oft cutter. Your first glimpse of the ball led you to believe that it would go by harmlessly wide of the off stump. Then, as it pitched, the yellow light went up to shout out to you to move, but so often it would be too late - the ball would come back and take the off stump. Your only hope was that through his beautiful rhythm he would get a lot of bounce and the ball might just go over the top. I have seen so many people being bowled out by this ball, the batsmen letting it go - I was a victim of it myself in the match I played against him at Oxford in 1953.
Although I was to play against him a few times for Kent against Lancashire, it was not until I was picked for Len Hutton's MCC team to Australia in 1954 that I really came to know him, and appreciate his skills.
On that tour it was his support of Frank Tyson, the two of them bowling in harness, that provided the foundation of our winning The Ashes. So often, he was bowling from the more difficult end, up a slope or into the breeze, Frank Tyson being given every advantage - and quite rightly. Yet, such was the character of the man, that he never complained or showed any disappointment.

A Bowler of Maturity

The fast bowling fraternity are known to be volatile, and not surprisingly, for they are always having to burst themselves and show aggression. Brian showed his aggression only through the way the ball kept whistling by the batsmen at great pace.
He was a man of integrity. He did not enjoy bowling short; he bowled very few bouncers. Just occasionally a batsman would overdo the 'confidence bit' and put on an act that he was not the least concerned or scared of Brian. The fielders would pick up the signs of increasing aggravation and the batsman would come under fire, but only for a few balls.
There were many occasions when his own batsmen would try and rouse him into sorting one of the opposition bowlers Out, because they had given us a hard time, but Brian would be difficult to persuade. He had hit one or two tail-enders, or even some inexperienced batsmen up the order in his earlier years, and he took no pleasure from seeing them quite badly hurt. He was the fairest bowler, in this regard, that I have ever played with.
From my point of view, I found him a real handful. If he was running in well with a new ball on a grassy pitch with a little moisture on the top some overhead cloud cover, survival was all I could hope for as he pursued the top of my off stump mercilessly and relentlessly. He was a wonderful opponent in that he would beat you all ends up time and time again, and just give a faint smile - and occasionally 'jammy'. Not for him, a torrent of abuse and a loss of his rag - for he had so much in reserve.

A Player - and a Gentleman

He was highly intelligent in the way that he looked after himself and prepared himself for the big matches. He might do a little running by way of training prior to the season, but once the season had started he would take every opportunity to rest and let nature heal the strains. He would start a campaign of a season more than a stone up in weight. Gradually he would bowl if off to fit the peak of the season and his worry was not to lose too much weight for the last part of the season.
Surprisingly, he was very nervous on big match days, finding it hard to eat anything and he would remain in quite a twitch prior to the start of play. But strong man that he was, there was a delightful charm and caring sensitivity about his approach to life and to the people around him. He was one of the nicest cricketers I have been privileged to know.

(Sorry it's a bit long)

I love these "appreciations", truly sport of a different era, for player . . . . and spectator.

Just as an aside, I sincerely hope that Statham's fielding excellence will be rewarded more than Neil Harvey's was.
I love the notion that he'd only dropped one straightforward chance - hadn't recognised the safe and sure hands in his fielding and catching, but will never forget the head-high rockets he used to fire in from the boundary, saving a run here, a run there and keeping a generation of batsmen honest.

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".

Military medium bowlers have a long and reasonably honourable tradition... But this comment does go to the heart of the matter. Being pretty much in the old buffer category I can well recall the frustration quite often expressed during his career over Underwood firing it in fast and low on unresponsive pitches. Hence the perennial hope on the part of the selectors and others that someone who tossed the ball up a bit more might be more likely to make something happen. The other side of the argument has of course been well expressed by other posters, including that his mastery of the wet wicket tended to engender an expectation that was unrealistic. No idea how I shall vote on Underwood...

As regards Statham, like Alfie and probably a few others I do have a soft spot for Statham and his approach to cricket. His figures are pretty much worthy of HoF anyway...

kwinigolfer wrote:
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!

Quite so. Instrumental in the birth of the www. Clearly beat Tim Berners Lee by some years.

And all within one mile of Kennington Oval (saw Barbados play there on my honeymoon - Mrs kwini hasn't been to a game since).

Fred Trueman

Trueman slots in at No. 22 in CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "a national treasure"
- "the essence of his success was a physique of great strength and a superb action. The son of a coal miner, he had legs as thick as an elephant's, broad shoulders and beam, a deep chest, and a bowling action that built momentum like a gathering storm"
- "The first bowler in history to take 300 Test wickets, in 1964, he had everything needed to be a great fast bowler. The magnificent rhythm and coordination of his delivery, following a long final stride during which his head was perfectly level as he looked over his left shoulder before releasing the ball, gave him natural speed. To this he added the necessary mental aggression"
- "Most of his wickets were the product of consistent late out-swing, leading to catches in the slips or at the wicket. In his youth especially he was also happy to pepper the batsmen with bouncers"
- "developed a great craft that enabled him to bowl opponents out with off cutters or by changing his angle of delivery, but he would trade on his hostility against any opponent who looked timorous, sometimes softening them up further by going into their dressing-room to say how much he was looking forward to getting them out; and telling them how he would do it"
- "Both his speed and his visible belligerence were too much for the Indians in his first Test series in 1952. He took 24 wickets in three Tests, including seven at Leeds, when, sensationally, four India wickets fell before the first run was scored in their second innings, three of them to Trueman. He followed up with eight for 31 in the first innings at Old Trafford"
- "India's number three on that day, H.R. Adhikari (caught Graveney bowled Trueman 0), came back to England many summers later as Colonel Adhikari, manager of another Indian touring team. 'Nice to see you again, Colonel,' said Fred on being reintroduced. 'And good to see you've got some colour back' "
- "the rough edges evident on his first MCC tour in the West Indies in 1953-54 led to his surprising omission from Len Hutton's side in Australia the following winter, despite his having taken 124 wickets at sixteen in the intervening summer. Frank Tyson, who was even faster, kept him out of the side and by 1957, five years after his extraordinary debut, he had played only seven Tests. That year, however, he started a six-year association with Brian Statham that became the most productive in the world"
- "For ten consecutive seasons between 1957 and 1966 he took at least 100 wickets, including 175 at 13.98 in 1960. In the first eight months of that year he played ten Tests and took 46 wickets. The following year at Headingley he slowed his pace to bowl off-cutters in the third Test against Australia, and dismissed five prime batsmen without conceding a run. He took eleven for 88 in the match and England won"
- "a useful batsman who liked to give the ball a hearty biff and a fine fielder anywhere, not least at short-leg to spin bowlers"

Trueman makes Richie Benaud's 2nd World XI in 'My Spin on Cricket' in a 5-man pace attack with Lindwall, the bowling all-rounders Miller and Hadlee, and the batting all-rounder Hammond. Benaud describes him as "for me one of the finest bowlers of the post-war period, a classic action, plenty of pace and no one has had a better outswinger, except perhaps Dennis Keith Lillee".

Benaud talks in detail about Trueman's performances against the West Indies in 1963:

"This was a remarkable time for that outstanding bowler, Fred Trueman. At Lord's he showed wonderful control of swing and length and he seemed to be as lively at the end of the day as the beginning... The England-West Indies game at Lord's was one of the best matches I have ever seen; Fred was magnificent, so too the rest of the team members. In the next Test at Edgbaston, England still one down in the series, squared it all up and Fred followed his 11/152 at Lord's with 12/119. In the second innings he routed the very strong West Indian batting line-up. When he came back on to bowl for his second spell he quickly took the last six West Indian wickets at a cost of an edged boundary, and it took him only 24 balls in which to end the innings. Fred eventually became the world's highest wicket-taker; though 18 others have since gone past his figure of 307 wickets which he took in only 67 Tests"

Benaud and Graham Tarrant both mention that "Not all the stories that have sprung up around the legendary character of 'Fiery Fred' are true" !

I though this quote from Rob Steen, whilst reviewing Chris Waters's 2011 biography of Trueman, was interesting: " So vast does he still loom in the popular imagination, if a vote were taken to acclaim England's greatest fast bowler, he would probably still pip John Snow and Bob Willis; Harold Larwood too. Unlike those luminaries, he failed to make an indelible stamp on a victorious Ashes series, but where Larwood, Snow and Willis fanned the flames of controversy almost despite themselves, Trueman did not so much embrace the spotlight as eat it whole. And demand another helping."

In this article this major incident, brushed over by CMJ and others, is detailed:

" Context was all. Emboldened by changes in India, Jamaicans and Bajans and Trinidadians were clamouring for independence. "For God's sake, beat these people," Charles Palmer, the assistant manager, recalled members of the white ruling class pleading at official functions, "or our lives won't be worth living." During the game against British Guiana in Georgetown, Kippins no-balled Trueman, who was already seething at a dropped catch and a string of rejected lbw appeals. Kippins suddenly walked towards gully, where Hutton, the MCC captain, was fielding, and spoke to him. At stumps, Trueman was accused of calling Kippins "a black Bar Steward", which despite vehement protestations of innocence saw him docked his £50 tour bonus. Kippins, now living in the US, holds his hands up: "It was my fault entirely. It wasn't Freddie, it was Johnny Wardle. I mistook one for the other." He did not correct his error, he added, because he'd fallen out with Hutton.

Trueman never played under Hutton again and missed 23 of England's next 26 Tests. Had he been born in less class-conscious times, he would surely have exceeded Ian Botham's national record of 383 Test victims instead of settling for 307; bar Simon Jones (59 at 47.8), no English player with 50 wickets on his CV since the First World War has matched Trueman's strike-rate of 49.4. The year before he died, reunited for the first time in 30 years with the other three standout Yorkshire cricketers of the second half of the 20th century, Boycott, Brian Close and Ray Illingworth, he was still incandescent: "The selectors seemed more interested in picking decent blokes than decent bowlers." "

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

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".

But this comment does go to the heart of the matter. Being pretty much in the old buffer category I can well recall the frustration quite often expressed during his career over Underwood firing it in fast and low on unresponsive pitches. Hence the perennial hope on the part of the selectors and others that someone who tossed the ball up a bit more might be more likely to make something happen.

This comes back to my point. They never did find anyone who caused more to happen on unresponsive pitches. At least with any consistency.
Indeed the stats suggest that very few spinners, other than Murali and Warne, have been that much better at making things happen on unresponsive pitches. Trouble is, because of his abilities on damp pitches, people expected him to be almost as devestating on flat-tracks and questioned his ability because he wasn't, rather than simply acknowledging that he was never going to be.
There's an interesting quote from John Woodcock, the former Times cricket correspondent, about Lance Gibbs (and I'm not having a go at Gibbs, honest). Woodcock said "Gibbs...is a relatively better bowler on good pitches than on bad ones. He likes to wear a batsman down by gnawing away at his patience, coming at him off a short, bounding run with no time at all between balls. Even at the age of 41 Gibbs likes to bowl and bowl and bowl." To me that sounds like the sort of bowling alluded to earlier. Keeping it tight and waiting for the batsman to make a mistake. It also seems to me that Woodcock didn't think that Gibbs had the weapons to fully exploit more helpful pitches.
The trouble for Underwood is that he did have such weapons and, therefore, people unreasonably expected him to do more when the pitch wasn't helping. If he, then, bowled in the same manner as Gibbs did (and there's nothing wrong with that tactic), people were disappointed with him.
Of course, if you think that not being superior to his peers on good pitches is enough to exclude him that's up to you. But personally I'm not sure that that should be the case.

kwinigolfer wrote:I love these "appreciations", truly sport of a different era, for player . . . . and spectator.

Me too, Kwini, me too.

Although from a 2009 interview, I loved these comments which I came across whilst reading of Underwood's Ashes exploits at the Oval in '68. They seem to concern not only a different age but a different world.

Australia opening batsman John Inverarity: ''The thinking between two and three in the afternoon was that there was no possible chance for play to resume. But we did resume at close to 5 o'clock. Colin used his great charm to get the ground staff and a lot of spectators to dry the ground out.''

Australia wicketkeeper Barry Jarman: ''The crowd should have got a medal for winning the game. They put their blankets on the ground, dug holes with their knitting needles or whatever was available to get rid of the water.''

I was unaware of the role played by Colin Cowdrey in spurring the crowd into action. I have mentioned Cowdrey's charm before but had overlooked how effectively it was utilised on this occasion.

I also just love the picture conjured up by Jarman of elderly wives putting aside their knitting to attack the sodden outfield with their needles!

While Jarman was watching the elderly ladies of the Oval and their knitting needles, I was working in the City surreptitiously listening on my tranny!

'Course, they could have used Cowdrey as a roller and persuaded every last cubic inch of moisture from the wicket . . . . . . Not a "Gentleman"ly thing for him to do though.

PS: guildford, you'll be sorry to hear that the guards at the pearly gates have tossed down a couple more volumes of "old buffer" recollections. Watch this space.
(Lots of ammunition for when Messrs Gray, Harrison, Horton, Marshall, Sainsbury, Shackleton and White come up for election into the HOF.)

another quiet day on here....

Massive support for Fred Trueman from ....

.... Fred Trueman in his 1976 autobiography Ball of Fire.

However, when Trueman allows others to get a mention, he's also supportive of Brian Statham - ''there's no question of his stature as a fast bowler. He certainly proved his greatness, and I never begrudged him his success as many have suggested.''

This is certainly in contrast to his view of other current (ie 1976) and past bowlers.

Statham was certainly a very decent man. That of course doesn't gain him entry to the Hall of Fame. However, I'm very much warming to him as a cricketer which well might get him a YES from me.

It seems clear to me that Statham was in so many ways opposite to Trueman and thus the perfect partnership foil for him. The one person who rather surprisingly and sadly never seemed to fully appreciate the importance of that is Trueman.

I'll try to write more tomorrow evening.

Some great stuff so far, gents. Despite knowing of the exploits of the likes of TRueman and Statham, these additional bits of information are not only hugely intriguing but also add a few different pieces of food for thought in to the HoF worthiness issue.

kwinigolfer wrote:
'Course, they could have used Cowdrey as a roller and persuaded every last cubic inch of moisture from the wicket . . . . . . Not a "Gentleman"ly thing for him to do though.

Trueman will be a yes from me.

CF90
I'd be extremely surprised if Trueman doesn't get 100% yes's. One of the truly great fast bowlers of any era.

Statham is a much more interesting discussion - I'm edging towards a YES, based on both his Test and FC records, but it is still a slight concern tht he spent most of his career as the 'other' fast bowler behind Tyson or Trueman.

Looking for moer info on Walcott, although love the idea of including the Bridgetown midwfe as a special inductee in the HoF for her role in the birth of the three Ws.

Surely in that instance the parents of The Don must be included, too? This is about to get messy

Dummy - briefly looking in from work.

You make a heck of a lot of good points in that brief post.

Trueman. Definite YES. Tick.

Walcott. Need more info but a likely YES. Tick.

Bridgetown midwife. Special inductee. Double Tick. Does anyone have her name?

Statham. I agree with you about him being the 'other' fast bowler to Trueman but also edging towards a YES. Tick. I'll leave you with a question. [Ignore Tyson for now. ''He were only around for five bl**dy minutes anyway.'' - to paraphrase Trueman.]

Would England have been better off with two Truemans and no Statham?

I'm not so sure they would. I'll write more tonight. I don't expect all to agree with my line of thinking - Trueman doesn't for one!

PS I'll also give tonight Trueman's view on Underwood's bowling to the Aussies in '75 (Hoggy - you might want to go out! )

dummy_half wrote:CF90
I'd be extremely surprised if Trueman doesn't get 100% yes's. One of the truly great fast bowlers of any era.

Perhaps... No one has yet made a case against based on character (as was made against Miandad). Certainly I'm sure of a YES for his cricketing achievements, but this could be counteracted by a poor character reference from someone who knows more.

dummy_half wrote:Statham is a much more interesting discussion - I'm edging towards a YES, based on both his Test and FC records, but it is still a slight concern tht he spent most of his career as the 'other' fast bowler behind Tyson or Trueman.

I agree. What impact did Statham have on the game of cricket? That is a question I'd like a full answer to.

dummy_half wrote:Looking for moer info on Walcott, although love the idea of including the Bridgetown midwfe as a special inductee in the HoF for her role in the birth of the three Ws.

guildfordbat wrote:

Would England have been better off with two Truemans and no Statham?

Very pertinent. I have talked at length about the need in cricket for partnerships, and indeed argued strongly for Roberts's inclusion based on his role as a team-man in one of the best teams of all time.

My issue here is very few would talk of the England side Trueman and Statham carried in such terms. What aspect of cricket did they change? What legacy (I dislike the word) did they leave? Trueman's legacy for me was "300 wickets for a fast bowler is possible" (I refer to the commentary at the time I took it, something along the lines of "a first time achievement, and one I don't think I'll ever see again"). Is Statham's supporting role in enabling Trueman to achieve this a good enough reason (along with all the others) to induct him? I'm not coming up with any answers just yet.

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Would England have been better off with two Truemans and no Statham?

Very pertinent. I have talked at length about the need in cricket for partnerships, and indeed argued strongly for Roberts's inclusion based on his role as a team-man in one of the best teams of all time.

My issue here is very few would talk of the England side Trueman and Statham carried in such terms. What aspect of cricket did they change? What legacy (I dislike the word) did they leave?

Don't know that this is so important.
There are numerous people in our HoF who can't be said, really, to have changed any aspect of cricket and whose legacy is simply that they were very, very good. Even from these 5 candidates, for example, what aspects of cricket did Sutcliffe or Underwood or Walcott change?

[quote="Hoggy_Bear"][quote="Mike Selig"]

guildfordbat wrote:
Don't know that this is so important.
There are numerous people in our HoF who can't be said, really, to have changed any aspect of cricket and whose legacy is simply that they were very, very good. Even from these 5 candidates, for example, what aspects of cricket did Sutcliffe or Underwood or Walcott change?

me

It is to me.

Sutcliffe and Hobbs were the greatest opening partnership of all time, that's their legacy.

Walcott needs more information.

Underwood I am preparing my defence of.

Remember my criteria: I am looking for "excellent and a little extra". I am not sure Statham (or indeed Walcott really) satisfy the "little extra" criterion.

Fair enough, it's certainly up to you to decide on the criterias you're looking for.
I'm just pointing out that it's a very difficult criteria to meet and that a number of acknowleged all-times greats probably wouldn't.
As for Walcott, would his coaching/selectorial/administrative career not count as that 'something extra'?

Mike

With regard to Sutciliffe, he was also (along with Hobbs) one of the first professional players to be very highly regarded by his peers and establish professional cricket as a respectable occupation. Plenty of legacy there.

Trueman's legacy, as well as being the first quick to take 300 wickets (and that despite the number of matches he was not selected for) was really one of the first England players to have a 'win at almost any cost' attitude. Oh, and statistically he compares very well with any other bowler in the modern era - average of 21.57 and strike rate of 49.4 are both marginally better than Glenn McGrath (21.7 and 51.6) and only really bettered by Malcolm Marshall (20.94 and 46.7).

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Fair enough, it's certainly up to you to decide on the criterias you're looking for.
I'm just pointing out that it's a very difficult criteria to meet and that a number of acknowleged all-times greats probably wouldn't.
As for Walcott, would his coaching/selectorial/administrative career not count as that 'something extra'?

I should add that "undisputed all time great" also counts as "something extra". As to what constitutes "undisputed all-time great" is entirely up to me. Sorry, I can have quite a high opinion of my opinions sometimes.

For clyde walcott - he has to be guaranteed a place surely. Notwithstanding his average of 56.68, wisden cricket of the year in 58 or 59 he also managed world cup winning sides in 75 and 79 was on the selectors panel for about 16 years. 4000ish test runs 11000 first class runs at 56.55. first player to score 5 centuries in a series, helped his side with 160 odd to win their first test and series in england. Icc chairman beforehe retired in 2000.

Personally - we got another set of greats and I cant see any of them missing out. All 5 yes to me, just in case I can't make it on tommorow

Shahenshah - like your enthusiasm but you can take your foot a bit off the gas. We have another week to get votes in.

Useful supportive summary about Clyde Walcott as well,

I though it was due in tommorow - going to get back to work but will keep an eye on here during the match on sat.

See you!

Fred Trueman on Derek Underwood

As threatened, from Fred Trueman's 1976 autobiography Ball of Fire:

''Bowlers today seem to have forgotten how to attack. In 1975 I sat at the Oval commentating for the BBC and watched Derek Underwood bowling on a good wicket against Australia with a fine leg and another fielder behind square and fine as well. He should have been throwing the ball up in the air at the off stump or just outside and, with five in the cover, making them drive the ball. But he seemed incapable of doing it. He ended up with just over one wicket per Test match and played in all four! If I didn't get four or five wickets in each innings I didn't play in the next Test.''

Certainly no one seemed to feel Trueman was as hard done by as Trueman did.

Unlike Trueman apparently, I'm still undecided on Underwood. I'll see tomorrow if I can find any one else on the Bat bookshelves to redress the balance. I appreciate Hoggy and Mike are already working hard on it.

I now plan to cover Trueman on Statham tomorrow.

Difficult to take Trueman's words too seriously . . . . .
Couldn't stand him or Laker in the commentary box, the older they got, the better they were, to paraphrase John McEnroe who exemplifies that trait.

Herbert Sutcliffe

Not much has been said about Sutcliffe yet, probably because he would appear such a dead cert. But it is interesting that CMJ only has him at 43 in his 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' between the more hotly debated PBH May and the rejected Graham Gooch in our HoF:

- "England's rock between the wars and the other half of famous opening partnerships for England with Jack Hobbs and for Yorkshire with Percy Holmes"
- "There has never been a more consistent batsman. Serenity was his greatest quality: according to R.C. Robertson-Glasgow, he was the sort of man who would 'rather miss a train than be seen in disorder and breathing heavily'. He played countless long innings yet, batting without a cap unless the sun was especially hot, photographs suggest that there was never a moment even in any of his many long innings when a single strand of his neatly groomed hair fell out of place"
- "he showed bottomless courage and unlimited concentration, and when the bowling was exceptionally fast or the pitch especially awkward he could be relied upon to excel"
- "There was none of Hobbs' grace or obvious pedigree about his batting, which was functional and simple. He kept the face of his bat open, quickly assessed length, and played with the full face of the bat before breaking the wrists to keep the ball down when defending. Anything short would be cut, pulled or hooked. He was a superb judge of a run, always prepared to go for the quick single"
- "145 opening partnerships of 100 or more, 74... with Holmes and 26 with Hobbs, with whom he shared comfortably the most reliable pairing ever seen. Their average partnership was 87. The alliance started in 1924 against South Africa, with stands of 136 and 268. Sutcliffe himself, all the better for starting Test cricket as a mature player, never looked back from his hundred at Lord's in his second Test"
- "His wonderful record against Australia started when with a glorious tour in 1924-25 when he and Hobbs put on 157, 110 and 283 in England's first three innings of the series. Sutcliffe averaged 81 for his 734 runs in the series, and reached 1,000 Test runs in only twelve innings"
- "the Ashes were regained by England at home in 1926 when Sutcliffe's 161 in the second innings made possible the decisive victory at the Oval"
- "averaged better than 50 in each of the four more series that he played against Australia, and 66.85 in 27 matches against them overall"
- "more than 2,000 runs each season between 1922 and 1935 and in 1932, a wet summer, he somehow managed fourteen centuries and 3,336 runs. His opening partnership of 555 with Holmes against Essex at Leyton that season was the first-class record for 45 years"

Sir Pelham Warner's views and some bits from Cricinfo to follow, probably at the weekend

I'm very surprised [that's not a polite way of saying it's wrong; just that I am very surprised ] that CMJ rates Trueman as the 22nd best all time world cricketer and Sutcliffe as relatively lowly as 43rd.

guildfordbat wrote:I'm very surprised [that's not a polite way of saying it's wrong; just that I am very surprised ] that CMJ rates Trueman as the 22nd best all time world cricketer and Sutcliffe as relatively lowly as 43rd.

Only because both are under-rated at that, especially Trueman (if he was as good as he thought ).

To be honest, how many Test match fast bowlers have been clearly better than Fred? Marshall is probably the only one whose career stats for both average and strike rate are better, but after that you're into a bunch who all achieved similar - mayber marginally better averages that Trueman in some cases, but poorer strike rates (I believe Fred is second in career strike rate for bowlers with over 100 test wickets). Where being one of the half dozen best ever quick bowlers should rate you in the overall panthoen of greats of the game is an intersting question gven the diversity between pure batsmen, pure bowlers, all-rounders and keepers.

Sutcliffe suffers because, while a fine and effective batsman (and noted for being amongst the very best 'bad wicket' players), he was not a flamboyant player and he was from before the television era and so is less strongly in the public consciousness. Also, to a lesser extent that Statham, he is perhaps perceived to have been the lesser partner in a double act (Sutcliffe and Hobbs), although the caereer statistics would actually have HS as the better Test player (Hobbs having the superior County career). The numbers suggest that he was a class better an opening batsman than Gooch, yet CMJ rates them consecutively, which over-rates Gooch and under-rates Sutcliffe.

As promised Plum Warner's words on Herbert Sutcliffe:

Talking about The Oval Ashes Test of 1926 he says that "The wonderful batting of Hobbs and Sutcliffe on a really difficult wicket will be talked about as long as there is a history of cricket".

He later produces a full profile of Sutcliffe in his 'Some Cricketers of My Time' section:

"H. Sutcliffe is a cricketer for whom I have a great admiration. At the end of a Test Match, at Leeds, I congratulated him on a splendid innings and he responded: 'I love a fight' - which is the keynote of his cricket. There may be other batsmen who are greater in pure technique, but Sutcliffe is essentially a big match player. Nothing upsets him, nothing destroys his equanimity. He can be beaten three balls in succession, and yet he goes on his way just as if he had hit those three balls for four each. He is a great player. His deeds for Yorkshire would fill many a page, and in Test Matches he has a glorious record. In his first two games for England v. Australia he scored 59 and 115 at Sydney, followed by 176 and 127 at Melbourne. On that tour (1924-5) he scored four centuries in the Test Matches. His two finest innings against Australia have been, I think, his 135 on a sticky wicket at Melbourne, and his 161 at the Oval in the memorable 1926 match, seven-eighths of which gave the bowler every assistance, heavy rain in the night having been followed by hot August sunshine. Finer cricket than he and Hobbs played I have not seen. Indeed, England never possessed a finer first-wicket pair than Hobbs and Sutcliffe. Eleven times they have shared in a partnership of over a hundred tuns v. Australia. Sutcliffe's defence is perfect and his judgment rarely, if ever, at fault, he knows exactly how much to attempt. He is a superb hooker of any ball the least short, a good leg hitter - often sweeping a bowler like Grimmett to long-leg - and, indeed, exceptionally strong in all on-side strokes. His off-driving is, occasionally, very good, and he can square cut effectively and safely. He has one fault - he overdoes the 'pad' play, and unfortunately other people are apt to follow the example of so great a cricketer. On the short side, but so neatly built that he looks taller than he is, Sutcliffe nearly always plays without a hat, or cap, and his beautifully brushed hair which never seems to become ruffled even during the longest innings is as well known at Sydney, Johannesburg, or Bombay, as at Lord's, The Oval or Headingley. Sutcliffe is, incidentally, an excellent companion on a cricket tour."

This quote, from his Wisden obituary, highlights that though gritty he wasn't a blocker:

"His defensive patience and skill became a byword, yet at need his hitting was brilliant in the extreme. Against Northamptonshire at Kettering he met spin on the sticky wicket with an innings of 113 which included ten 6s. At Scarborough against the fast bowling of Farnes and Nichols, Sutcliffe took his personal score from 100 to 194 in forty minutes. His 100th first-class century was the 132 he hit in less than two hours at Bradford when Yorkshire were hurrying to defeat Gloucestershire."

From the same obituary his post-playing contributions to the game:

"His repayment to the game which had given him so much was service on the Yorkshire committee, as an England selector, and as sponsor for many good causes in cricket."

Clyde Walcott

Walcott is another of this round's candidates ranked lower than you might imagine by CMJ in his 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time', coming in one place after Graham Gooch at 45 and as the lowest of the three Ws:

- "The tallest and hardest-hitting of the immortal 'Three Ws' "
- "both a brutal and scintillating batsman"
- "an integral part of the forward surge enjoyed by the West Indies teams after the Second World War, and by dominating good bowling as he often did he blazed a trail for other commanding players such as Clive Lloyd, Vivian Richards and Chris Gayle"
- "Walcott's special glories were full blooded square-cuts and cover drives"
- "despite his height, six foot two, and his broad-shouldered bulk, it was as a wicket-keeper that he first made the Test side. When he handed on the gloves he became instead a brilliant slip catcher"
- "His first big impact as a batsman came in India between 1948 and 1950. He scored 452 runs in five Tests at 64 and five centuries on the tour. He improved that to seven centuries in England in 1950, powering his way to 1,674 runs, including the pounding 168 not out in the Lord's Test that paved the way for a victory that was subsequently made famous in a calypso. England's first two wickets in that game were: Hutton stumped Walcott bowled Valentine 35; Washbrook stumped Walcott bowled Ramadhin 36. These were the highest individual scores in the innings. The tide had turned"
- "Within 27 months between 1953 and 1955 Walcott hammered the respective attacks of India, England and Australia for ten hundreds in twelve successive Tests. England were on the receiving end of his 228 at Bridgetown but it was the following season, 1954-55, that his peak achievement came: 827 runs in three Tests against Australia including a century in each innings at both Port of Spain and Kingston. Australia won the series but Lindwall, Miller, Benaud and Bill Johnston were amongst those put to the sword"
- "served on the cricket boards of Barbados and the West Indies for many years, and was president of the WICB, and then of the ICC at a time when his style of quiet diplomacy was needed to steer a path between the differing viewpoints of England and Australia on one side and an increasingly ambitious India, supported by the other Asian countries, on the other"

guildfordbat wrote:Fred Trueman on Derek Underwood

As threatened, from Fred Trueman's 1976 autobiography Ball of Fire:

''Bowlers today seem to have forgotten how to attack. In 1975 I sat at the Oval commentating for the BBC and watched Derek Underwood bowling on a good wicket against Australia with a fine leg and another fielder behind square and fine as well. He should have been throwing the ball up in the air at the off stump or just outside and, with five in the cover, making them drive the ball. But he seemed incapable of doing it. He ended up with just over one wicket per Test match and played in all four! If I didn't get four or five wickets in each innings I didn't play in the next Test.''

Certainly no one seemed to feel Trueman was as hard done by as Trueman did.

Unlike Trueman apparently, I'm still undecided on Underwood. I'll see tomorrow if I can find any one else on the Bat bookshelves to redress the balance. I appreciate Hoggy and Mike are already working hard on it.

I now plan to cover Trueman on Statham tomorrow.

Not saying that Trueman was wrong in his assesment that Underwood could have attacked more in that situation but, just a couple of points.
First, underwood wasn't really a 'give it some air' type of bowler. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Underwood's role would depend a lot on the captain. In this context it's interesting to note that Len Hutton said that he wished more people would aspire to the type of accuracy and subtle variations of pace that Underwood possessed, and that Colin Cowdrey, who was Underwood's first international captain, reportedly told him that "The next best thing to a wicket maiden, is a maiden". Perhaps Underwood's failure, at times, to attack more on good wickets was as much a failure of imagination on the part of the captain as the bowler?

Just to expand a bit on my last comment. A point was made when we were discussing Lance Gibbs about the attritional nature of the cricket played at the time of his career, (and no, I'm not having a go at Gibbs, simply using his case for comparison). Now, I realise that Underwood bowled in a slightly different era, but I would argue that the cricket of the 70s was probably just as attritional as that of the 60s. I would also argue that the covering of wickets and the success of pace in that decade led to a belief among many, particularly outside of the subcontinent, that, other than on wickets which helped them, a spinners main role was to tie down an end and allow the pacers to rotate at the other. Attacking spin bowling on such pitches was, while not exactly discouraged, simply not thought possible. That's why Shane Warne was such an important figure. Not because he ressurected spin-bowling per se , but because he reminded people that good spin-bowling could be an attacking option on most pitches.
So, when considering Underwood's career, I think you have to place him within the context of what was happening within cricket at the time during which he played.

Before I move on to 'Deadly', a point to make about the Three Ws which I believe will be relevant to Walcott and the other two when they come up next week:

In my opinion it is easy to say than any great player was a trailblazer for something or other. In particular this has been seen with West Indians - strong arguments could and have been made for Headley (first West Indian great), Lloyd (captain attributed with moulding a dominant force) and Roberts (debatably first of the great pace attack though in my opinion Griffith and Hall would have something to say about that).

However, it was the Three Ws that made their debuts within a month of each other and, almost overnight, turned West Indies from a batting line-up which had been very average with the exception of Headley, into an emerging world force. For me this is more significant than the 'trailblazing' contributions of Lloyd and Roberts.

Walcott himself was also, according to this article responsible for the development of Guyanese cricket:

"Walcott went to British Guiana to work on one of the sugar estates developing cricket. He coached, organised clubs and competitions, and helped improve and create facilities. He described his Guyana sojourn from 1954 to 1970 as "one of the most satisfying periods" of his life. From it emerged players like Rohan Kanhai, Basil Butcher, Lance Gibbs, Joe Solomon and Roy Fredericks. "this article

His role with the ICC was as the first non-English chairman.

Derek Underwood

So far, it seems to have been established that two opposing views of Underwood have been proposed:

View 1: 'One of the best wet wicket slow bowlers of all time and certainly the greatest English spinner post-Laker. Also not too bad on good wickets and playing a key role for the team in restricting the scoring.'

View 2: 'A decent defensive bowler whose stats were flattered by bowling on wet wickets with uncovered pitches. Should have been more attacking.'

Well, CMJ seems to subscribe to View 2. Underwood is omitted from 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' and amongst spinners he is beaten by Chandrasekhar (94), Gibbs (90), Qadir (88), Bedi (62), Verity (59) as well as the undisputed legends. Many of these have been rejected by us or haven't been up for consideration.

Graham Tarrant offers an appraisal in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers up to 1983:

"Until he signed on for World Series Cricket, it was a fair bet that Derek Underwood would become the leading Test wicket-taker of all time. As it is, only Lillee, Gibbs and Trueman have more to their name. Back in 1963, the 18-year old Underwood created quite a stir when he became the youngest bowler ever to take 100 wickets in a season, his maiden season in first-class cricket. He was still only 25 when he reached the 1000 mark (only Wilfred Rhodes and George Lohmann from the 'Golden Age' had achieved the feat earlier in life). Although generally classified as a left-arm spinner, Underwood cuts rather than spins the ball, relying on clever variations of pace and angle to confound the batsman. His slow-medium pace is faster than that of most spinners, and on rain-affected wickets especially he can make the ball move and lift alarmingly. His almost painful aversion to having runs scored off him is reflected in his unflagging accuracy. He won his England cap against West Indies in 1966, but it was against Australia two years later that he really got among the Test wickets. In the last match of the series at The Oval, on a drying pitch after a thunderstorm, and in a race against time, he took 7 for 50 in 31.3 overs to win the game for England, snatching the last wicket five minutes from the end. He showed the same destructive form in 1969, taking 24 New Zealand wickets in three Tests for just over nine runs apiece. His biggest haul in a single Test match came at Lord's against Pakistan in 1974, when, once again on a wet wicket, his figures were 5 for 20 and 8 for 51. Overseas his 29 wickets (17.55) in the 1976-7 series against India, and his 7 for 113 in Australia' first innings at Adelaide in 1975 (11 for 215 in the match), must rank among his finest performances. Performances which have justly earned Derek the nickname 'Deadly'. "

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
.... I would argue that the cricket of the 70s was probably just as attritional as that of the 60s. I would also argue that the covering of wickets and the success of pace in that decade led to a belief among many, particularly outside of the subcontinent, that, other than on wickets which helped them, a spinners main role was to tie down an end and allow the pacers to rotate at the other. Attacking spin bowling on such pitches was, while not exactly discouraged, simply not thought possible. That's why Shane Warne was such an important figure. Not because he ressurected spin-bowling per se , but because he reminded people that good spin-bowling could be an attacking option on most pitches.
So, when considering Underwood's career, I think you have to place him within the context of what was happening within cricket at the time during which he played.

Hoggy - you certainly have a decent general point there although probably not one that applied across the whole board at the time.

I appreciate you do say 'particularly outside of the subcontinent' but would emphasise that you can't ignore how India were playing and bowling at this time. An attacking and highly inventive spin quartet of Prasanna, Chandra, Bedi and Venkat.

The Aussies also played Ashley Mallett, a more attacking bowler than Underwood. Whilst he was nowhere near the magical level of Warne, he was always looking to do more than tie down an end.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
.... I would argue that the cricket of the 70s was probably just as attritional as that of the 60s. I would also argue that the covering of wickets and the success of pace in that decade led to a belief among many, particularly outside of the subcontinent, that, other than on wickets which helped them, a spinners main role was to tie down an end and allow the pacers to rotate at the other. Attacking spin bowling on such pitches was, while not exactly discouraged, simply not thought possible. That's why Shane Warne was such an important figure. Not because he ressurected spin-bowling per se , but because he reminded people that good spin-bowling could be an attacking option on most pitches.
So, when considering Underwood's career, I think you have to place him within the context of what was happening within cricket at the time during which he played.

Hoggy - you certainly have a decent general point there although probably not one that applied across the whole board at the time.

I appreciate you do say 'particularly outside of the subcontinent' but would emphasise that you can't ignore how India were playing and bowling at this time. An attacking and highly inventive spin quartet of Prasanna, Chandra, Bedi and Venkat.

The Aussies also played Ashley Mallett, a more attacking bowler than Underwood. Whilst he was nowhere near the magical level of Warne, he was always looking to do more than tie down an end.

Fair enough Guildford.
I do think it was a point of view that was quite prevelant within English cricket though, as is implied by the views of Hutton and Cowdrey I referred to earlier. Ray illingworth was another who was known to have placed a great deal of emphasis on keeping it tight. It is, of course, likely that Underwood himself placed too much emphasis on keeping it tight rather than on attacking, but I'd argue that he wasn't exactly bucking the trend in that sort of thinking.
I'd also argue that it's difficult to assertain exactly how much more defensive (if at all) Underwood was on good pitches than other spinners of his time. Certainly, of those spinners who took 100+ wickets in the period Underwood was playing only Chandrasekhar had a better S/R. Surely that can't be accounted for solely by Underwood bowling at times on wickets which suited him. Did other spinners nnever bowl on wickets which suited them?
Maybe then, he wasn't really anymore defensive on good wickets than anyone else, but, as I've suggested, maybe his skill at running through teams on wickets that suited him, made his efforts on good pitches more disappointing to those who (possibly unreasonably) expected him to run through teams on such wickets as well.

Shelsey93 wrote:Derek Underwood

So far, it seems to have been established that two opposing views of Underwood have been proposed:

View 1: 'One of the best wet wicket slow bowlers of all time and certainly the greatest English spinner post-Laker. Also not too bad on good wickets and playing a key role for the team in restricting the scoring.'

View 2: 'A decent defensive bowler whose stats were flattered by bowling on wet wickets with uncovered pitches. Should have been more attacking.'

Well, CMJ seems to subscribe to View 2. Underwood is omitted from 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' and amongst spinners he is beaten by Chandrasekhar (94), Gibbs (90), Qadir (88), Bedi (62), Verity (59) as well as the undisputed legends. Many of these have been rejected by us or haven't been up for consideration.

Graham Tarrant offers an appraisal in 'The Lord's Taverners Fifty Greatest' post-war cricketers up to 1983:

"Until he signed on for World Series Cricket, it was a fair bet that Derek Underwood would become the leading Test wicket-taker of all time. As it is, only Lillee, Gibbs and Trueman have more to their name. Back in 1963, the 18-year old Underwood created quite a stir when he became the youngest bowler ever to take 100 wickets in a season, his maiden season in first-class cricket. He was still only 25 when he reached the 1000 mark (only Wilfred Rhodes and George Lohmann from the 'Golden Age' had achieved the feat earlier in life). Although generally classified as a left-arm spinner, Underwood cuts rather than spins the ball, relying on clever variations of pace and angle to confound the batsman. His slow-medium pace is faster than that of most spinners, and on rain-affected wickets especially he can make the ball move and lift alarmingly. His almost painful aversion to having runs scored off him is reflected in his unflagging accuracy. He won his England cap against West Indies in 1966, but it was against Australia two years later that he really got among the Test wickets. In the last match of the series at The Oval, on a drying pitch after a thunderstorm, and in a race against time, he took 7 for 50 in 31.3 overs to win the game for England, snatching the last wicket five minutes from the end. He showed the same destructive form in 1969, taking 24 New Zealand wickets in three Tests for just over nine runs apiece. His biggest haul in a single Test match came at Lord's against Pakistan in 1974, when, once again on a wet wicket, his figures were 5 for 20 and 8 for 51. Overseas his 29 wickets (17.55) in the 1976-7 series against India, and his 7 for 113 in Australia' first innings at Adelaide in 1975 (11 for 215 in the match), must rank among his finest performances. Performances which have justly earned Derek the nickname 'Deadly'. "

Shows how greatly opinions can differ. Underwood aside I think there'd be a few eyebrows raised on this board on CMJ ranking Bedi so much higher than Gibbs.
Another question. Are Bedi and Chandrasekhar included in Tarrant's list?

Shelsey93 wrote:Before I move on to 'Deadly', a point to make about the Three Ws which I believe will be relevant to Walcott and the other two when they come up next week:

In my opinion it is easy to say than any great player was a trailblazer for something or other. In particular this has been seen with West Indians - strong arguments could and have been made for Headley (first West Indian great), Lloyd (captain attributed with moulding a dominant force) and Roberts (debatably first of the great pace attack though in my opinion Griffith and Hall would have something to say about that).

However, it was the Three Ws that made their debuts within a month of each other and, almost overnight, turned West Indies from a batting line-up which had been very average with the exception of Headley, into an emerging world force. For me this is more significant than the 'trailblazing' contributions of Lloyd and Roberts.

Walcott himself was also, according to this article responsible for the development of Guyanese cricket:

"Walcott went to British Guiana to work on one of the sugar estates developing cricket. He coached, organised clubs and competitions, and helped improve and create facilities. He described his Guyana sojourn from 1954 to 1970 as "one of the most satisfying periods" of his life. From it emerged players like Rohan Kanhai, Basil Butcher, Lance Gibbs, Joe Solomon and Roy Fredericks. "this article

His role with the ICC was as the first non-English chairman.

Derek Underwood

So far, it seems to have been established that two opposing views of Underwood have been proposed:

View 1: 'One of the best wet wicket slow bowlers of all time and certainly the greatest English spinner post-Laker. Also not too bad on good wickets and playing a key role for the team in restricting the scoring.'

View 2: 'A decent defensive bowler whose stats were flattered by bowling on wet wickets with uncovered pitches. Should have been more attacking.'
....

Shelsey - I saw that Three Ws article this afternoon and another one full of stats that I meant to post, heavily with you in mind, if not Mike. Maybe tomorrow.

At risk of being seen as too keen a YES man, I'll take some persuading to vote against Walcott or Weekes. The two are forever linked with Sir Frank Worrell, one of our inaugural thirty members. Having just one or two Ws in our Hall of Fame just doesn't seem right. That said, Walcott's own playing achievements and post-playing roles surely give him sufficient individual stature anyway.

As regards some of your initial asides, you are quite right to praise Wes Hall. However, I can't go along with your support for Charlie Griffith. In my book, a great paceman has to bowl within the laws of the game and there are far too many unanswered questions about Griffith.

Despite my probing of Hoggy about Underwood, I haven't decided how I'm going to vote there. It would certainly be wrong to rush to judgment when I know Mike is still preparing a case.

Btw, I certainly don't always go along with CMJ but he provides good food for good thought. Thanks for continuing to supply.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Shows how greatly opinions can differ. Underwood aside I think there'd be a few eyebrows raised on this board on CMJ ranking Bedi so much higher than Gibbs.
....

Definitely agree.

Right, time for a defence of Derek Underwood. I must first make an admission that I never saw him play (although I have seen footage), well, I wasn't born early enough. I base myself on the views of others, and bring very little new to the table, but hopefully construct a coherent argument.

1) The "defensive" bowling aspect.

Let me start with an anecdote recounted many times by Ian Chappell: a young Australian off-spinner was bowling in the nets and a former Australian spinner was watching. The latter told the young'un that he reckoned he could defend against him blindfolded, and duly played a textbook forward defence off the middle of the bat, despite not being able to see. His judgement was "too predictable". But there are two sides to one coin, and the other side is surely "amazingly consistent"! How many bowlers, slow or fast, could land consecutive balls on the exact same area, to that extent? I suggest not many...

Kerry O'Keefe was often criticised for bowling too flat also: Bill O'Reilly used to just tell him "mate, you've got a wonderful ability, you can hit one stump consistently. Never lose that"

What's my point? My point is we are often guilty, where spin bowling is concerned, of judging people based on what we'd like them to be, rather than what they are. Indeed, Monty Panesar was regularly messed around by coaches (and media) who deemed that his style of bowling wasn't the right one, he should be tossing it up more, looking for more variation. This is ignoring one simple fact: Monty Panesar is not a "variation" bowler, he relies on pressure and natural variation in turn from a pitch. Pakistan have never told Rehman to toss the ball up more; no one tells Kumble he bowls too flat. Yet England (and Australia with Hauritz) seem still to have this fixed idea of how a spinner should bowl.

Yet this doesn't extend to pace bowlers. No one blames Glenn McGrath for not being exciting, or just putting the ball in the same place time after time and waiting for something to happen.

The point is, there are (far more than, but at least) 2 types of spinners: those who toss the ball up, rely on big-spinning deliveries, variation of flight, etc (the so-called "attacking spinners", like Warne, and of course nowadays Swann) and those who rely on relentless accuracy until the batsman makes a mistake or the pitch does something for them. Underwood very much belonged to the latter category; in fact he's probably the greatest ever in that category.

2) Underwood, a victim of circumstances?

Hoggy has touched on the fact that Underwood played his cricket during a fairly attritional period. But I think this misses the point. Underwood at any period would have been the bowler he was. The fact is, he was fairly well-suited to his period.

But there is one point which no one has mentioned which needs to be: Underwood played his cricket at a time when spinners didn't get given LBWs on the front foot. Now think about the recent evolution of umpiring (due in large parts to Hawk-eye) and how it has especially helped the SLA to a right-hander (and off-spinner to a left-hander) when pitching in line and straightening. But this was Underwood's stock delivery!

Just think how many LBWs he was denied due to "too far forward, can't tell" umpiring. Also remember he started his career fairly shortly after Cowdrey and May made "pad-play" an effective technique during their epic stand. On a pitch which wasn't doing much, and given Underwood's style, how many times would a batsman have propped forward, been hit on the pad and got away with it?

3) Underwood and Knott:

Briefly touched upon earlier. Everyone on here knows how cricket is a game of partnerships, and how being part of a great partnership is worth recognition. We recognise this with Roberts (although more as a team of 4 in his case), the 3 W's (who as guilford says are simply inseparable), Hobbs and Sutcliffe, Warne and McGrath, etc.

Is it not fair then to take into account Underwood's role in bringing out the best of the genius (I don't use the word lightly) of Alan Knott? Knott wouldn't have been known as half the keeper he was had he not been keeping to Underwood. And although this is more an eulogy of Knott's keeping than Underwood's bowling, it does mean we have something else to be thankful for. And of course, it was Underwood's bowling which created those (half) chances which Knott so brilliantly took. Sometimes a pair are not worth splitting; I certainly feel this to be the case here.

4) To conclude:

I haven't spoken about Underwood's obvious match-winning ability when the pitch was somewhat helpful. Others have done so and I have nothing to add. But I must again exhort you to judge Underwood not on who you wanted him to be, but on who he was. Which was an extraordinarily talented bowler who could put the ball on the spot ball after ball until the batsman made a mistake. Such a skill is not only technical but mental as well (just like batsmen get frustrated when they aren't scoring runs, so do most bowlers when not taking wickets). And Underwood was probably the best ever of this type. That, in itself, should be enough to guarantee him entry into our HoF.

Good post, Mike.

I know you're not a great one for stats but you could have plugged Underwood's Test haul as well. Over 300 Test wickets is not to be sneezed at!

I'll write a bit more later, particularly on the Knott / Underwood pairing.

Interesting points about Underwood's bowling on good wickets made in a Wisden piece about him:

"To describe Derek Underwood as a slow bowler, or simply a spinner is to give a false picture of a unique performer. Much of his bowling was delivered at a respectable medium pace, and always off a plodding run-up of ten yards or so. When conditions were right he would turn the ball extravagantly, but on good pitches, against good players, he would still take plentiful wickets through his unfailing accuracy. Batsmen, infuriated or entranced by the unhittable length and line firing at them with the remorseless regularity of a bowling machine, would very often commit cricketing suicide in their frustration.

Underwood was at his most effective on the uncovered English pitches of the sixties and early seventies. On a "sticky dog" the cricket slang for a pich affected by rain he could be unplayable. Full covering failed to thwart him, however, and both in county and Test cricket he maintained a high success rate through his dedicated attention to detail. A bad delivery from Underwood was a rarity and the anguish over it would be etched on his expression. Although sometimes accused of bowling, a negative, flat trajectory, when conditions demanded something more flighted, Underwood was a master of variations of pace and slight shifts in angle. He won countless lbw victims with the ball which swung in to the right hander, "with the arm"."

Mike Selig wrote:

2) Underwood, a victim of circumstances?

Hoggy has touched on the fact that Underwood played his cricket during a fairly attritional period. But I think this misses the point. Underwood at any period would have been the bowler he was. The fact is, he was fairly well-suited to his period.

But there is one point which no one has mentioned which needs to be: Underwood played his cricket at a time when spinners didn't get given LBWs on the front foot. Now think about the recent evolution of umpiring (due in large parts to Hawk-eye) and how it has especially helped the SLA to a right-hander (and off-spinner to a left-hander) when pitching in line and straightening. But this was Underwood's stock delivery!

Just think how many LBWs he was denied due to "too far forward, can't tell" umpiring. Also remember he started his career fairly shortly after Cowdrey and May made "pad-play" an effective technique during their epic stand. On a pitch which wasn't doing much, and given Underwood's style, how many times would a batsman have propped forward, been hit on the pad and got away with it? .

I think there's a good point point there. Indeed I strongly suspect this is one factor which may have also weighed against Sir Lancelot Gibbs when he received some criticism for his strike rate in our earlier HoF discussions. One explanation for that strike rate could be that Gibbs had what has been described as an incredibly low proportion of LBW dismissals for an off spinner - at just 6.8%! Do we know what the % was for Underwood, given that he too was mostly an attritional bowler...?

Corporal.
Amazingly, given Underwood's style and references to his 'arm ball', only 24 of his 297 test victims were LBW

Here's the list, Corporal.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/22149.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling;view=dismissal_summary

Of his 297 test wickets, just 24 were LBW (79 bowled, 186 caught - 26 by the keeper - and 8 stumped), so roughly 8%. A tad better than Gibbs, but really not much, and there's no doubt this is a good argument by Mike.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Shows how greatly opinions can differ. Underwood aside I think there'd be a few eyebrows raised on this board on CMJ ranking Bedi so much higher than Gibbs.
Another question. Are Bedi and Chandrasekhar included in Tarrant's list?

Bedi is but not Chandra. I'd point out that Tarrant only writes the biogs - the list was picked by a panel of Trevor Bailey, Richie Benaud, Colin Cowdrey and Jim Laker. Of course, its a far more narrow list than CMJ's as it only covers the years between 1945 and 1983.

Hoggy -thanks. Yes, I would have thought that, even though bit higher than Gibbs, Underwood's proportion of LBWs must still be far down the order. A factor that probably ought to be taken into account.

Whilst on the area of attritional bowlers not getting due recognition, I look forward to Mike's support for Gibbs when it comes to the play offs for his amazingly consistent level of performance. Which if anything exceeds that of Underwood (to the extent that WI selectors kept faith with Gibbs and series after series he continued relentlessly to pressurise batsmen.) Oh dear ....I seem to be fighting the last war here! Clear sign of senility when military men do that!