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.

Mad - no issues with you needing to be more convinced but surprised you (and apparently Hoggy) seem a bit lukewarm on Weekes to begin with.

Guildford, I probably will say yes to Weekes, seems a bit churlish to split the three Ws. However, Weekes' stats against England and Australia are, as far as I remember, comparatively worse than either of the other two Ws, and he doesn't have the added bonus of being either a great captain or an oustanding administrator.

Fair enough, Hoggy. His 'at a glance' overall stats are very good though.

True enough Guildford, but he did average something like 106 against India, 65 against Pakistan and nearly 60 against New Zealand, while he only averaged 45 against England and less than 40 against Australia.
Bit of a minnow basher perhaps?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
Bit of a minnow basher perhaps?

Take your point although suspect some of the posters on the old 606, in particular, might take exception to their country being labelled a minnow!

First impressions:

Walsh - Strong case as one of only two seamers with 500 Test wickets.

Waugh - Toughish though didn't realise he averaged over 50 until I looked it up a second ago.

Weekes - I've made my thoughts on the Three Ws clear. Would expect to make the same decision I made for Walcott.

Woolley - I'll admit to knowing precisely nothing about him. Stats are nothing special but there must be more to him. On the basis of stats alone there are miles better cricketers (Lohmann particularly) who didn't make the ICC list.

Walsh is going to be an interesting one. Remarkable longeveity in the sense that he seemed to never get injured and his economical action allowed him to carry on playing for a long time. How many would rank him in say the top 15 seamers of all time though? Does he really have HoF greatness? I'm a bit unconvinced personally.

To put up a marker, for me Woolley is a true legend of the game. Even on pain of a net session with Andy Roberts I would argue for Woollley's inclusion in the HoF.

A cricketer of sparkling elegance, in a career lasting more than thirty years, he scored more first-class runs than anyone but Sir Jack Hobbs, and took over 2,000 wickets at an average of under 20. He is also the only non-wicket-keeper to have held more than 1,000 catches. His batting was remarkable both for his well documented elegance and his rapidity of scoring.

Maybe his test record was good rather than great. But a true romantic great of cricket....

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Walsh is going to be an interesting one. .... How many would rank him in say the top 15 seamers of all time though? ....

Mad - very interesting nomination as you say and an immensely tricky question that you ask.

Very much to do with perceptions held and measures used.

If asked to immediately name my top fifteen seamers of all time, I have to say that Walsh would most probably fail to make the cut or, at best, be at the bottom end of it. I think that's initially understandable as my judgment would be heavily based on players I've seen (or read about in some detail) when they were at their best and most exciting.

However, the length of time such bowlers were at the top of their game has to come into the equation.

For this reason, Australia's Bob Massie never makes such a list and his fantastic success in the '72 Ashes series is rightly regarded as no more than a one off series wonder. In comparison to Massie, Frank Tyson was around for a lifetime. However, notwithstanding his 'typhoon' like pace and series winning performances, his seventeen Tests over four and a half years are still generally regarded as insufficient to qualify him for a list of all time greats.

Whilst I and others are quite prepared to exclude seamers from our lists who in our view haven't played enough Tests, I suspect we're not so good or fair at giving credit to those who have delivered consistently over many years if they haven't too often made hairs on the back of our necks stand up. Walsh would seem to be a classic case in point. Not for me as thrilling or terrifying as some of the West Indian greats we've spoken about in recent weeks. However, perhaps our measures should include:
* Length of Test career: sixteen and a half years
* Wickets taken: over 500
* Bowling average: under 24.5.

Whilst, as I've tried to say to others before, stats can't tell you everything, they shouldn't be ignored either. Applying just these stats seems to make a good early case for Walsh being admitted to our Hall of Fame and for me to revisit my top fifteen seamers of all time list!

Corporal - without wishing to put a dampener on the romanticism you speak of so movingly, don't you think there might have been a bit of English bias in Woolley getting into the ICC Hall of Fame? Would someone with a comparable record from, say, Australia or India have been elected?

Interesting question Guildford.
Personally reckon there are less Australians (especially) in the ICC HoF than there perhaps should be, but whether that means that Woolley shouldn't be there is a difficult one to answer.
Personally I know where the Corporal is coming from. Woolley's FC record is phenominal and his test record has to be seen in terms of how he played as much as how many he scored IMO.

In terms of how he batted here's a great quote from R.C. Robertson-Glasgow "when you wrote about him, there weren't enough words. In describing a great innings by Woolley, and few of them were not great in artistry, you had to be careful with your adjectives and stack them in little rows, like pats of butter or razor-blades. In the first over of his innings, perhaps, there had been an exquisite off-drive, followed by a perfect cut, then an effortless leg-glide. In the second over the same sort of thing happened; and your superlatives had already gone. The best thing to do was to presume that your readers knew how Frank Woolley batted and use no adjectives at all.....there was all summer in a stroke by Woolley, and he batted as it is sometimes shown in dreams." While R.L. Arrowsmith wrote that "his average rate of scoring has been exceeded only by Jessop ("the Croucher") and equaled by Trumper. His philosophy was to dominate the bowler. "When I am batting," he said, "I am the attack."

And some more.
Neville Cardus: "To add up the runs made by
Woolley---why, it is as though you were to add up the crochets
and quavers written by Mozart."

C.L.R. James "He was one of the great cricketers of his time, but he was more than that. He gave to thousands and thousands of his countrymen a conception of the beautiful which artists struggle to capture in paint and on canvas......They recognised in him something beyond the average scorer of runs, some elegance of line and harmony of movement which went beyond the figures on the scoreboard. That, indeed, will give him his place in the game, a place higher than many who won more matches for their side.
For if the game of cricket were ever put on trial for its life, its advocates would bring Grace and Bradman and Ranjitsinjhi and a few others as evidence on behalf of the defence. But they would bring Woolley too. And if they were clever advocates they would play him as their strongest card. For if could not win the sympathy of the jury then what other cricketer could?"

First thoughts:

Waugh - Would be a marginal candidate on performance alone (probably good enough to make it in, but certainly lots of debate), but when you add in his captaincy record, his reputation certainly improves.

Walsh - An interesting one. Clearly a great career in terms of longevity and consistency but, as MfC argues above, perhaps a little short of the elite in terms of how good a bowler he was at any point during that career. Then again, Statham made it in with a similar record and position (i.e. frequently the no 2 bowler in the team).

Weekes - Some interesting comments already about him being more successful against 'lesser' teams of the era than against England and Australia. More discussion needed

Woolley - Nothing more than a name to me before this nomination. Certainly appears to be an interesting nominee. Test record was OK rather than scintillating, and his FC career records for runs and catches are extraordinary. Oddities abound though - his batting average at both FC and Test level is only that of a good player (40 and 36 - so pretty good for an all rounder if they are also contributing with the ball), while his bowling average at FC level is exceptionally good (under 20), yet he appears to have been not much more than an occasional bowler at test level (averaging only about 1.3 wickets per match at about 33). How much of that was because his bowling was only effective for part of his very long career? Certainly some more detailed discussion is needed.

Fists,
I would be grateful if you would permit me an abstention regarding Steve Waugh - not only did I never watch him play, or even read about his exploits, none of my heavenly correspondents saw him either, except of course via their all-seeing eye which they're not permitted to comment on.

Would be unfair for me to cast a vote, yea or nay.

A few words about Frank Woolley.

I have rounded up my literary mates at the bar in the Valhalla Arms and sought their comments regarding Mr.Woolley.

Robertson Glasgow waxed poetic:
"I ceased, and turned to Larwood's bounding run,
And Woolley's rapier flashing in the sun."

And reflecting on Hutton's 100th hundred came to the memory of the "great" Frank Woolley, "playing as if batsmanship were an exhibition of beauty, to be broken off at his, not the bowler's will."

Geoffrey Green took time out from extolling the virtues of Jimmy Dickinson by reminiscing:
" . . . . in my secret heart my REAL favourite individual was Kent's Frank Woolley. Tall and slim he cut a stately figure at the wicket; the straight drive past the bowlers and the stroke that left extra cover flat-footed were sheer poetry of timing and effortless movement." " . . . . cricket was graced by giants like Jack Hobbs and Frank Woolley."

Here's Neville Cardus discussing Bradman and Woolley:
"A Bradman innings is designed - it does not fall on him 'by grace'. An innings by Woolley just happens, like the bloom on the peach of a sun-stained wall. The flight of a bird and the flight of an aeroplane mark the difference between an innings by a Woolley and one by a Bradman."
Of course, " . . . in a war the aeroplane has the grandest eagle beaten."

And here's Ian Peebles, who rather goes on lyrically about Woolley's place among the "immortals of the game".
"Of all such figures in the game of cricket Frank Woolley has ample claim to be the most eminent. . . . . there is a prodigious record of material success, but no scale exists upon which to estimate the pleasure which iys compilation gave to countless thousands. It may be said that Woolley was the most graceful of the efficient and the most efficient of the graceful."
Almost 60,000 runs, 2,000 wickets, 913 catches, 145 centuries.
"Frank was, in his active career, and is to this day (1969), a yardstick against whom all left-handers are measured and to whom the aspiring are compared. No one has, as yet, quite equalled the standard."
At this John Arlott sputtered out his Beaujolais and was heard muttering Philip Mead, Philip Mead as he hit the sawdust.

(Interestingly, Woolley is said to have considered Larwood the fastest and fairest and best fast bowler he faced.")


None of this warrants Woolley a place in the v2 Hall Of Fame, necessarily, but it illustrates the esteem with which he was held by generations of cricket writers. The sheer volume of statistical achievement is immense and, while his Test Match productivity may not seem massive by present-day standards, all but six of his Test appearances were against Australia and South Africa.

I shall be voting YES! for Frank Woolley.

(As an aside, I'm not sure why County achievements should not be taken into consideration for those players of the pre 1939 era when there was relatively little Test cricket. Frank Woolley was a giant of the game, pre-eminent in his era, standing perhaps just a shade behind Bradman and Hobbs of those of his era.)

(PS: Remember also that he lost almost SEVEN years from his prime due to WWI, he played no Tests between February 1914 and December 1920.)

Kwini
Very eloquent and evocative. My impression from your series of quotes is that we are to some extent looking at another David Gower type - someone for whom batting came so easily that they perhaps didn't work so hard or have as much success (at least at Test level in Woolley's case) as some with less talent but more graft.

In some ways, the best comparison would be with Jack Hobbs, as they were pretty much as close to contemporaries as you could find (SJH made hsi first class debut in 1905 and retired in 1934, Woolley debuted 1906 and retired 1938). Woolley was clearly a genuine all rounder at FC level (over 2000 wickets), but his Test bowling figures suggest he was a bit more than a fill-in bowler but wasn't really a front line member of the attack (83 wickets in 64 matches), so his HoF candidacy will have to be judged primarily on his batting. On this basis, for me both his FC and Test records appear to fall a bit short - 3283 runs in 64 Tests at 36, and an average of just over 40 at FC level do not compare well with Hobbs record of 5410 runs in 61 tests @ 57 and a FC average of over 50 for a similar number of first class runs - OK, so Hobbs wasn't a marginal candidate for HoF status, but it still makes me think Woolley might be a bit short of true greatness.

An interesting nominee, and I do agree that FC performances should be considered (indeed, both Wilfred Rhodes and Brian Statham gained a bit by consideration of these issues), but other than for the absurd longevity, I'm not yet swayed that Woolley's is a career of outstanding achievement to stand comparison with the world's finest. No doubt though that he'd be in the first 2 or 3 selected for a Kent CC Hall of Fame.

I rather feel he might be first in any Kent HOF. Can't imagine who might go in ahead of him.

Seems Woolley is a tricky one.
Those who saw him play would, seemingly, demand his inclusion in the HoF, those who didn't might look at his Test stats (in particular) and wonder what the fuss is all about.
Is style, if great enough, sufficient to overcome deficiencies in substance?

Kwini
I did consider rephrasing to suggest he'd be in the first one of one nominations, but was considering the positive cases for Cowdrey (Graham, obviously ) Knott and Underwood as being undisputed world class performers.

Hoggy
It's a good question, and also allows us to bring Steve and Mark Waugh into the discussion. Most of us, having seen both Waugh twins, would acknowledge Mark as being the more stylish batsman, especially after Steve remodelled his technique to make himself more secure against quick short-pitched bowling (i.e. stopping hooking and playing from slightly less 'side on'). However, looking at their relative career stats, Steve averaged 51, in the ranks of 'great' batsmen, while Mark averaged 41, which would only be considered 'good'. So one 'natural talent' was OK, while the other more 'made' player was a great.

I wonder who our All World team would be 1910 - 1928?

Would think Woolley would be among the first four or five on the team sheet.

Also feel you have to consider the (almost) seven lost years during the Great War. An absence beyond his control even his harshest sceptics must agree.

Is it just me or do we acknowledge players as being world class performers (as Knott so undoubtedly was but hardly Cowdrey or Underwood), of the past fifty years but demand 21st century stats for early 20th century greats?

dummy_half wrote:First thoughts:

Walsh - An interesting one. Clearly a great career in terms of longevity and consistency but, as MfC argues above, perhaps a little short of the elite in terms of how good a bowler he was at any point during that career. Then again, Statham made it in with a similar record and position (i.e. frequently the no 2 bowler in the team).

I'll leave others for now to consider Woolley - wonder if the Corporal will honour him with an ode?

Back for a minute to Walsh. I'm surprised he's not a nailed on YES for all. I acknowledged yesterday that he wasn't as menacing or exciting as others. However, he's one of only a very small number to take 500 Test wickets and was the first to reach that huge milestone. For that alone, it's going to take something more than a girly first name to stop him getting a YES from me.

Guildford
I'm ust trying to string the debate along - pretty sure by the end most of us will be persuaded that Walsh did enough as the last great Windian fast bowler to merit recognition in our HoF.

As I suggested above, I think a comparison with Statham is interesting. The stats are fairly similar - both had long careers sufficient to become the leading widket taker of all time (if only briefly) with a bowling average a touch under 25, and both probably spent more of their career as the second fast bowler rather than the premier strike bowler for their respective sides.

kwinigolfer wrote:I wonder who our All World team would be 1910 - 1928?

Would think Woolley would be among the first four or five on the team sheet.

Wouldn't have thought so.
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Macartney, Barnes, Tate, Armstrong, Gregory, Faulkner??

Dummy - you're stringing along well. The analogy with Statham is a good one.

As I tried to touch on last night in response to a post from Mad, greatness is much easier to talk about than define.

Not only taking 500 Test wickets but being the first to that milestone suggests almost unsurpassable greatness. However, I'll readily admit that Walsh will always be behind at least Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Garner and Hall when I choose my all time West Indian pace attack.

Hoggy,
Hammond only just qualifies under that criteria, but he doesn't evoke anything like the extraordinary appreciation accorded to Woolley.
The voters to the ICC Hall Of Fame clearly rated Woolley higher than Maurice Tate, Armstrong, Macartney, Gregory and Faulkner as they have yet to be elected.
Interesting that neither Macartney nor Armstrong were in the initial intake into the Aussie HOF, Macartney not making it until 2007, and Gregory has yet to make it. Having trouble calibrating Faulkner's comparable ability, but sure you make a good point there.

I'm struggling to see the point of not acknowledging the very best of certain eras.

Would hope that Maurice Tate will be elected to the ICC HOF sooner rather than later . . . . .

kwinigolfer wrote: I shall be voting YES! for Frank Woolley.

Kwini - and others - a superb anthology of quotes in support of Frank Woolley. No disrespect to Underwood - I eventually voted for him - but I think there's something not quite right if we vote in one of the greatest attritional bowlers of all time and jettison someone like Woolley

Evening all.

A brief appearance as for once work is taking up a lot of my time, with coaching the rest of it (I coached for the first time this year at the week-end which was great, but a lot of work before and after).

Walsh and Waugh IMO are musts: Walsh was the first bowler to 500 wickets, which in itself should place him alongside Trueman as an easy yes, without the problems which Trueman's personality may have caused.

Waugh was a great batsman, arguably the best of the 90s (he was certainly ranked no 1 in the ICC rankings for most of that decade), who showed a sheer bl00dy-mindedness to change his style of play so as to become more successful. He was also a fantastic ODI death bowler who did much to help Aus to the 87 WC win in his early years: indeed in the final, after McDermott had conceded a large number of runs to De Freitas in the 48th over, he bowled the 49th, conceded just 2 runs and got rid of De Freitas, essentially sealing the cup for Australia.

Then there's his captaincy: guilford and I shall have to agree to disagree about whether the side he captained was the greatest of all time, but there is no doubt the side he captained redefined a lot in the way test cricket is played. To take 2 examples, fast scoring rates became the norm (before Waugh's Australians it was rare for a side to score more than 300 in a day; nowadays you would expect it) and attacking fields: one of the lasting images of his period in charge for me is the first over bowled by McGrath to Trescothick in the 2002/03 ashes; Australia had just collapsed (the word is harsh but fair) from 360odd/2 to 494 (?) all out.; McGrath came on to bowl with 4 slips, two gullies and a short leg. The other 2 fielders were fine-leg and wide mid-off. Now this is McGrath (who doesn't just bang it in, in which case such a field would be more reasonable) to Trescothick (who was hardly the most defensive batsman). IIRC Tresco pushed the ball through mid-on for 2 or 3, but I remember being flabbergasted by the sheer aggressiveness of the field.

In ODIs and tests, Waugh was always of the belief that attack was the first option. I remember him bowling out his 4 main bowlers several times in ODIs in an attempt to get 10 wickets before the 40 over mark (occacionally he failed, and had to have Martyn/Symonds/etc. bowl the last 10 overs - in fairness Warne when he captained in 98/99 was probably the precursor of this tactic, but Waugh made it fashionable in the early 00s). I also remember him saying "no matter how flat the wicket, I always fancied your best chance of winning (a test) was to bowl first; after all, to win you needed 20 wickets, so you may as well take 10 up front".

Waugh's work off the pitch is equally impressive, notably in India.

I honestly think he should be an absolute shoe-in to our HoF. If people disagree (Kwini's fair enough objection not withstanding) I am happy to develop further.

Weekes is probably the weakest of the 3 Ws, but like guilford I have trouble separating them. I'm quite big on team-work, and I feel the presence of 3 such greats in a side must have been a contributing factor to each of them as individual greats.

Similarly to most I ask myself about Woolley. He is a long way before my time, so am happy to listen to opinions before making up my mind.

Mike,
I'm not making an "objection", I'm making an abstention! Just not qualified to discuss those I have neither seen nor read about.

Whereas, for instance, those of us of a certain age grew up to the larger than life legands of many pre-war protagonists, the Ames, Farnes, Freeman, Hammond, Hayward, Hendren, Hobbs, Jessop, Leyland, Mead (of course! I saw him once, in the pavillion at Southampton. Blind. What a tragedy.), Rhodes, Strudwick, Sutcliffe, Tate, Verity, Woolley etc, and one read of their exploits. Felt we could get a sense of the truly exceptional.
Not so Mr.Waugh for moi, so I plead for an abstention.

I'm sorry. Poorly worded.

I just wanted to make the distinction . . . . !

Coporal, Hoggy and Kwini - some very infomative and helpful posts concerning Woolley, thank you.

Please allow me to play devil's advocate for a few moments. Not for the first time my stance is based upon pure ignorance.

Slim ... elegant ... graceful ... exquisite timing. Some of the described virtues of Woolley. As Dummy flagged earlier, they also apply to Gower who was turned away from the Hall of Fame.

My main objection to Gower was that he too often flattered to deceive and ultimately failed to deliver on his massive potential and undoubted ability. I wonder if such an objection can be said to apply also to Woolley, particularly at Test level.

C.L.R. James refers to Woolley winning the sympathy of the jury if cricket were ever put on trial for its life. Maybe so. Whilst I agree the game is more important than anything else, I want my nominees to not only win one theoretical jury's sympathy but also a few actual games as well. Did Woolley actually do that enough? I'm all for elegance but it needs to be allied to effectiveness and the gutsy determination to scrap it out at times amongst the muck and bullets.

As with others before, I'm not campaigning for a NO vote but do feel the need to discover more.

PS Nothing to do with the HoF but given you guys go back a few years (like me, let me add stongly) and know a lot about football of yesteryear, thought something I only found out today might interest you. That is, Surrey CCC's Chief Executive, Richard Gould, is the son of that much travelled striker Bobby Gould - surprised me anyway!

guildfordbat wrote:Coporal, Hoggy and Kwini - some very infomative and helpful posts concerning Woolley, thank you.

Please allow me to play devil's advocate for a few moments. Not for the first time my stance is based upon pure ignorance.

Slim ... elegant ... graceful ... exquisite timing. Some of the described virtues of Woolley. As Dummy flagged earlier, they also apply to Gower who was turned away from the Hall of Fame.

My main objection to Gower was that he too often flattered to deceive and ultimately failed to deliver on his massive potential and undoubted ability. I wonder if such an objection can be said to apply also to Woolley, particularly at Test level.

C.L.R. James refers to Woolley winning the sympathy of the jury if cricket were ever put on trial for its life. Maybe so. Whilst I agree the game is more important than anything else, I want my nominees to not only win one theoretical jury's sympathy but also a few actual games as well. Did Woolley actually do that enough? I'm all for elegance but it needs to be allied to effectiveness and the gutsy determination to scrap it out at times amongst the muck and bullets.

As with others before, I'm not campaigning for a NO vote but do feel the need to discover more.

PS Nothing to do with the HoF but given you guys go back a few years (like me, let me add stongly) and know a lot about football of yesteryear, thought something I only found out today might interest you. That is, Surrey CCC's Chief Executive, Richard Gould, is the son of that much travelled striker Bobby Gould - surprised me anyway!

Spot on. Walsh weekes and Waugh in. Woolley - convince us please :d

Mike Selig wrote:
....
Waugh was a great batsman, arguably the best of the 90s (he was certainly ranked no 1 in the ICC rankings for most of that decade), who showed a sheer bl00dy-mindedness to change his style of play so as to become more successful. He was also a fantastic ODI death bowler who did much to help Aus to the 87 WC win in his early years: indeed in the final, after McDermott had conceded a large number of runs to De Freitas in the 48th over, he bowled the 49th, conceded just 2 runs and got rid of De Freitas, essentially sealing the cup for Australia.

Then there's his captaincy: guilford and I shall have to agree to disagree about whether the side he captained was the greatest of all time, but there is no doubt the side he captained redefined a lot in the way test cricket is played. ....

Waugh's work off the pitch is equally impressive, notably in India. ....

Mike - even though you are palpably incorrect about the greatest side* of all time, I agee with you strongly about Waugh's major contributions as a player, captain and charity founder.

I had forgotten how effective his death bowling in ODIs could be - thanks for the reminder.

A definite YES fom me.

* Did you watch 'Fire of Babylon' earlier this week or have you seen it before? Wonderful film although the time allotted could never do that team and its accomplishments true justice. I was particularly pleased that it gave strong indications that Lloyd was a captain and 'a leader' who did an awful lot more than give four fast guys the ball. Good as well to see Roberts going pretty much centre stage and getting the attention he so much deserves but was so often denied in his playing days. Finally, as mentioned on another thread, history already seems to be viewing World Series Cricket in a much kinder light. Off topic I know but hopefully all cricket lovers will permit the digression.

I think some are condemning Frank Woolley for being 124 - he was clearly among the very best of his era, poorly represented here though it is.

He amassed extraordinary statistical achievements even after losing at least four seasons to the Great War, almost seven years of Test cricket in the prime of his career, and was a Founder Member of the HOF.

I have nothing more to add but still would imagine we'd all vote for him in our All World Team in his 1910-1928 pomp, as I suggested earlier, one of the first four or five names on the team sheet.

Except to say I shall be voting YES! for Weekes and Woolley.

Kwini
The point about Woolley losing 7 years of test cricket at his peak is a good one I feel.
I'm still not convinced that he was quite as good as you argue, but there's no doubt that he is highly rated, particularly for his style and for his FC record which was tremendous.
Have to think about it a bit more.

Hoggy

I am certainly not arguing about how good Woolley was compared to leading batsmen and all-rounders from another generation, but I find it compelling how he was regarded by his peers and writers of the day.

His overall record was extraordinary and would doubtless have been even more so with out that seven year itch. Thanks.

(Now to consider a suitable response on Bobby Gould . . . . . )

Just one more thought on Woolley.
I'm not trying to sway peoples vote on him, but I would just point out that yes, he was lauded by contemporary writers, however, writers such as Cardus especially were more likely to laud a player for great style than they were for effectiveness. Thus I vaguely remember, a few years ago, an analysis of the contemporaneous careers of Victor Trumper, a man lauded as the greatest Austarlian batsman ever seen by writers such as Cardus, and Clem Hill who, while noted as a great batsman was never the recipient of the type of praise given to Trumper. This analysis concluded that, if you wanted to watch a batsman, you'd pick Trumper, but if you wanted someone to bat for your life, you'd pick Hill.
So the question remains IMO. Does great style and an ability to change the course of a match, (which, it must be admitted, both Trumper and Woolley possesed), outweigh greater consistency?

Hoggy - an extemely valuable post. Thank you for pretty much confirming a suspicion I held about contemporary writers but had not yet dared raise.

Do you (or others) know if Arlott ever saw Woolley? Arlott would have been 20 when Woolley played his final Test.

PS Off to the pub now for my first of 2012 - bl00dy amazing! Hope to have a Bobby Gould story from Kwini upon my return.

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - without wishing to put a dampener on the romanticism you speak of so movingly, don't you think there might have been a bit of English bias in Woolley getting into the ICC Hall of Fame? Would someone with a comparable record from, say, Australia or India have been elected?

Guildford - if in the next round of voting you or fellow posters put forward someone from Australia or India who scored anywhere near Woolley's 145 first class centuries or his world record number of catches for a non wicket keeper I will give them very serious consideration!

Not directly relevant to Weekes' case but I did warm to the man when a few times in recent years he has put in an appearance on test match special....

Did Zaheer Abbas make it into the HOF?

No Shah, not yet anyway.

guildford, I trawled through a couple of Arlott's books and he mentions him, but only in passing, nothing relevant to this discussion that I could find.

guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - an extemely valuable post. Thank you for pretty much confirming a suspicion I held about contemporary writers but had not yet dared raise.

Don't know that it was just writers either. I'm certainly not trying to denigrate Trumper in any way, but I do think that style was something that was viewed as being a more important determinant of a batsman's greatness during the period in which he played than during any other time in cricket history, and that something of that attitude can be seen in the plaudits given to Woolley.
Whether those of the 'Golden age' and after were correct to give such weight to style is an interesting question. Certainly style is an important attribute. Cricket is, after all, entertainment, and aesthetics are a vital part of that. Few would argue that they'd rather watch, for example, Alan Border bat than David Gower. But if they were picking a team which of those two would they choose? Border, gritty, determined, consistent. Or Gower, mercurial, more likely to throw his wicket away, but also more likely (IMO) to change the course of a game with an hour or two's electric batting.
That's the interesting conundrum with regard to Woolley. He may not have been as consistent as some of the other batsmen of his day, but he brought in the crowds through his style, and through his attacking batting was, at times, able to change the course of a game. Add in his bowling which, while largely ineffective at test level, was still a useful tool for the England test team, and his slip fielding, and maybe his lack of consistency at test level is not quite such an issue.

Just think, if Woolley had been a grinder, he might have hit 200 centuries, 80,000 runs . . . . .

But I did see the same sort of Trumper / Hill analogy with Woolley vis-a-vis Mead.

guildfordbat wrote:

* Did you watch 'Fire of Babylon' earlier this week or have you seen it before? Wonderful film although the time allotted could never do that team and its accomplishments true justice. I was particularly pleased that it gave strong indications that Lloyd was a captain and 'a leader' who did an awful lot more than give four fast guys the ball. Good as well to see Roberts going pretty much centre stage and getting the attention he so much deserves but was so often denied in his playing days. Finally, as mentioned on another thread, history already seems to be viewing World Series Cricket in a much kinder light. Off topic I know but hopefully all cricket lovers will permit the digression.

Yes, I did (both actually, I'd already seen it but rewatched it as I'd enjoyed it at the movies): a great watch and a treat to see and listen to some of the greats I never had the chance to watch live. As you say, Lloyd's work (which followed from Kanhai) in unifying the side was a real contributing factor.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Corporal - without wishing to put a dampener on the romanticism you speak of so movingly, don't you think there might have been a bit of English bias in Woolley getting into the ICC Hall of Fame? Would someone with a comparable record from, say, Australia or India have been elected?

Guildford - if in the next round of voting you or fellow posters put forward someone from Australia or India who scored anywhere near Woolley's 145 first class centuries or his world record number of catches for a non wicket keeper I will give them very serious consideration!

''A batsman of rare talent, combining a classically English technique with an un-English intensity ... A star - at 17 ... a fielder of world class at cover and bat-pad, and a county run-machine ... in his 20th county season, he was Bradmanesque - averaging over 100 ... at county level he was head and shoulders above his peers ... when the 100th [first class hundred] came - may well be the last to reach that number - the floodgates again opened'' - select comments of cricket writer Tim de Lisle about Mark Ramprakash.

These comments of course are only one side of the coin. Much as I value Ramps' contribution to the game as highlighted above, I wouldn't seriously consider him for the Hall of Fame.

Nice debate so far guys

Steve Waugh

Whilst I already feel myself heading well in the direction of a YES, my doubts about Waugh stem from a feeling that I wouldn't put him in my top 5 or so batsmen of the post-1990 era. In that list Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Gilchrist, Dravid and A. Flower would probably all go down as greater/more pioneering when looking back on purely the batting talent on show in 20 or so years time (though some of them are, of course, not yet HoF eligible). Nevertheless, Waugh's 50+ Test average and almost 11,000 runs is superb before you consider his many other attributes.

Christopher Martin-Jenkins has him at 63 in 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "So tough it was easy to overlook his class"
- "eclipsed in terms of grace and poise by Mark Waugh, who briefly took his twin brother's place in Australia's batting line-up before they joined forces to great effect for many years"
- "his fame rests also upon inventive, confident captaincy that would never admit that any Australian side could be second-best until a game was finally lost. Under Waugh it seldom was: Australia won a then record sixteen Test matches in succession between 1999 and 2001; and 41 of his 57 Tests in charge. They also won 67 of his 106 one-day internationals as captain"
- "he made it his business as captain to encourage fast scoring"
- "Australian teams under Waugh also benefited from his enlightenment as a man. As Tim May expressed it in his foreword to the 700-page autobiography that Waugh wrote without the usual recourse to a journalist's assistance, he was a leader 'able to educate and influence both young and old team members about the balance needed in life and the relevance of the plight of others. He is a person who inspires and invites mateship, respect, unselfishness and loyalty' "
- "Always a fast and committed fieldsman, he made the first of his many indelible marks on English opponents when his thoughtful medium-paced bowling earned him five for 69 in Perth"
- "changed his pace skilfully in the closing stages of the closely-fought World Cup final against England at Calcutta in 1987"
- "Waugh's part in the 1989 regaining of the Ashes in England was crucial. He played successive innings of 177 not out and 152 not out at Headingley and Lord's that exuded class, commitment and concentration. In particular he drove superbly through the covers, often with his back leg parallel to the ground. This strength off the front foot, and a certain jumpiness in defence off the back foot, led bowler after bowler to waste his energies in future years in trying to bounce him into submission. He decided to cut the hook shot from his repertoire but nimbleness, cussedness and infinite patience enabled him to win most of his battles with fast bowlers, not least the West Indian titans who alone got the better of Australia in most matches until the tables were turned at last in 1994-95. In that series Waugh averaged 107, and scored 200 in the final Test at Sabina Park that clinched the series"
- "Against England in 1997, his obdurate centuries in both innings turned the series towards Australia in a relatively low-scoring game"
- "In 2001 he seriously pulled a calf muscle in the game in which Australia regained the Ashes at Trent Bridge and was written off for the rest of the series, but by sheer hard work and willpower got himself sufficiently fit to play the last game at the Oval and duly scored a century"*

* The image of Waugh collapsing through the crease for his century, essentially on one leg, and using his last ounce of energy to raise his bat is an abiding one for me - perhaps, along with Walsh and Ambrose destroying England in 2000, the first I can remember watching live on TV and really taking in. I was lucky enough to be taken, as a seven-year-old (sorry for offending older posters with my relative youth!) to the Sunday of that Test and saw Atherton bow out of Test cricket in typical fashion (c Waugh b McGrath).

Interestingly, Richie Benaud has the more aggressive attitude towards Test cricket attributed first to Mark Taylor rather than to Waugh.

Later on in 'My Spin on Cricket' he writes in length about a Waugh innings against West Indies in 1995. He says that it was:

"one of the best single performances I have ever seen, Steve batting for more than ten hours and withstanding early spells of great fast bowling, then dominating with bat and mind. It seemed to me that only Courtney Walsh stood up to Steve Waugh"

He also describes Waugh's twin centuries at Old Trafford in 1997 as "two of the great knocks I have ever seen"

Greg Baum, writing Waugh's Cricinfo biography adds that he was the "ultimate evolved cricketer". This relates to how he started as an all-rounder, uncertain against quick bowling and lacking accuracy in the bowling department, before developing into a world-class gritty batsman and dropping the bowling after back injuries.

Perhaps an additional quirk is that he often batted at No. 6 (usually held for an all-rounder or aggressive hitter rather than a world class batter with a good technique and average over 50).

He averaged 58 in Ashes matches (including 74 from 22 matches in England). A detailed analysis of his Test career would also reveal that his batting average would have been considerably higher still had he not averaged under 40 in 7 of the first 8 calendar years of his career.

kwinigolfer wrote:I think some are condemning Frank Woolley for being 124 - he was clearly among the very best of his era, poorly represented here though it is.

.... I shall be voting YES! for Weekes and Woolley.

Kwini - there's no deliberate condemnation of Woolley on my part. I do though need to be fully satisfied before I give a YES vote to any nominee and, being honest, Woolley starts from a difficult position for me. I obviously never saw him play and I cannot recall conversations with any who might have done. Furthermore, unlike Larwood for instance, there is not nearly so much other evidence thick on the ground and relatively easy to find.

I am though still looking and have been given this very morning some helpful, if inconclusive, pointers from a late mutual friend. I'll write further on that shortly.

With regard to Woolley's era being ''poorly represented here'', any blame for that, if justified, lies at the door of the ICC as we work our way through their list. You can certainly make nominations from this era when we move on to the next phase and I very much hope you do.

Finally, do I correctly interpret your final comment as a NO vote for the first man to take 500 Test wickets?

'Morning guildford,
No, I understand that the list is ICC-driven, and that's an entirely appropriate place to start. Think it gets very messy if there's not a pre-defined benchmark, and any debate not nearly as interesting.

I found a lovely appreciation of Woolley from Ian Peebles, but can't find it on-line anywhere, way too long to reprint!

I have to catch up on Courtney Walsh - given the reluctance to honour the first to 300 wickets, I need some convincing that 500 wickets is that important at that sort of average.

But I can't separate Walcott and Weekes in my mind so, with Walcott in, Weekes has to be also!

Still brushing up on my Bobby Gould. Saw him play for Cov and the Iron; wasn't he the player caught on MOTD with his eyes rolling round their sockets in such a physically improbable way that they used the clip on MOTD intros for a few years??!! Good to see his son is a chip off the sporting block.

Just bought a PowerBall ticket so, if PFC's troubles are put to bed in the coming week, you'll know I hit the jackpot.

Hi Kwini,

Meant to emphasise in my last post that the quotes you've already supplied about Woolley - including from Peebles - have certainly been helpful and appreciated.

First to 300 and first to 500 were massively significant milestones in their eras for me.That's mainly why Trueman and Walsh have to get YES votes from me.

Bobby Gould started off at Coventry, my childhood town, and I saw him score many of the the goals that won us promotion to the top English division in 1967. He then played for a host of Midlands, London and West Country clubs - a real journeyman footballer. Don't think that was him with the rolling eyes on MOTD. The Corporal might know. He must remember Gould - he was West Ham's unused sub when they won the FA Cup in '75 (Alan Taylor twice netting past Fulham's teflon-like Gerry Peyton!).