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.

guildfordbat wrote: ..... 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.

Guildford - as you know I value Ramps very highly and certainly the best innings I have ever seen was played by Ramps - albeit against a fairly modest county attack and on the small Whitgift ground. But Ramps is an apt comparison - or rather I should say contrast - because, fine batsman tho he has been, I don't think Ramps has had anywhere remotely near the impact on the game of cricket that Woolley had.
Granted, for anyone voting entirely or very largely on test cricket, I imagine they will vote no without many qualms. But personally I would take a broader view of the HoF - in addition to Test Greats I am looking at those who have captured the imagination of the cricket world big time and over a prolonged period.

Woolley is a man who enraptured the cricket watching public (and a time when the county game had a very much higher standing than it does now) with his flair and panache over decades. As Kwini has pointed out, he lost a number of years of his prime due to the Great War. (See below for further evidence that he lost his peak years). Without that it seems a nailed on certainty that we would be looking at approaching 200 first class centuries and his world record for catching would also be out of sight. Add to that a shed load of wickets in the first class game.

No one else scored 2,000 runs and took 100 wickets in a season more often, a feat he performed in 1914 and 1921-23. (Note the way this feat sandwiches World War I - and what he and we missed out on.) Only W. G. Grace scored a century and took ten wickets in a match more often. Woolley also scored 1000 runs in a season 28 times.

In a sense I am piling up these remarkable statistics, along with the numerous testaments to his panache and flair, to argue that he was one of a kind if we are looking at the overall impact of a player on the history of cricket.

In conclusion I see no inconsistency at all in giving a YES to Woolley while saying no to the likes of Gower who were also pleasing on the eye.

Corporal - an extremely fine and thoughtful response.

I'll throw several comments from Arlott into the mix a bit later on. (I'm currently losing internet connection too frequently so don't want to risk trying that now.)

A couple of comments and related questions (to which I make no claim to have the answers):

1. Like yourself, I'm a great supporter of the county game. It's not only right but essential in my book for performances there to be taken into account when voting - either way - on HoF nominees. However, I have great difficulty in seeing even massive county success compensating for dismal failure at Test level. That's why I could never vote YES for the likes of Ramps and Hick. For all his county triumphs as shown in the stats you helpfully highlight, I'm still uneasy about Woolley's Test record. It certainly wasn't dismal but was it good enough? If not, is it right to just ignore it for this exercise?

2. Following up a point flagged by Hoggy which Arlott also raises, was Woolley's impact and capture of the public imagination all down to him or did the cricket writers of his age play an undue part? The question may appear harsh as writers don't score runs, take wickets and hold catches but the suspicion still lurks that they may have overegged the pudding.

My contribution to the debate regarding Frank Woolley

I will be arguing the case for a NO vote in this case but, like any good aspiring journalist, I'll deliver all sides of the argument impartially to start with. That will begin with CMJ who places him at a high-ish No. 40 in his 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time', 3 places ahead of Herbert Sutcliffe and 1 behind Frank Worrell:

- "Some great players were revered for their consistency, some for their ability to entertain, some because a special aesthetic beauty so pleased the eye. Frank Woolley of Kent and England managed all three"
- "When all his first-class figures have been marvelled at once more, what remains is the impression of unrivalled grace left behind by batting"
- "H.S. Altham recalled his tall, graceful figure and the majestic, almost casual command of his stroke-play. R.C. Robertson-Glasgow remembered from personal experience how his long reach, and the power of his pendulum swing, could muddle a bowler's length. 'Balls that you felt had a right to tax him he would hit airily over your head.' "
- "this straightest of drivers off either foot was also a delicate late-cutter and, like David Gower, his nearest replica since, a pretty deflector to fine-leg of the ball rising to his hip*"
- "If Woolley had a fault as a cricketer it was unwariness. He batted the same way, it seemed, whatever the situation and whoever was bowling, with an air of casual indifference. Utterly unselfish, he would take on a bowler with whom his partner at the time was obviously struggling unequally. 'The thing he never seemed to contemplate, let alone fear', wrote Swanton, 'was getting out himself. He was the antithesis of the calculating, bread-and-butter run collector' "
- "Two of his most remarkable innings... were the 95 and 93 that he made in thrilling resistance to the otherwise invincible Gregory and McDonald at Lord's in 1921"
- "His hundred at Sydney in 1924-25 was scored in two and a half hours"

* Whilst I am obviously not old enough to have seen Gower bat in anything other than highlights, this description of Woolley by CMJ sounds very Tendulkar-esque.

Now to turn to the contemporary work of Plum Warner (more on the value of contemporary sources later in this post):

"Woolley is very tall, and makes the most glorious strokes, his long swing and power of timing enabling him to drive a long ball. His driving and back play being extraordinary, and his off-driving and cutting equally fine. He is, in the opinion of many, the greatest of all left-handed batsmen - I would rather see him bat than any one. He is, and will remain, one of the big figures of cricket, and his batting has given sheer delight to thousands both here and in Australia. He can hit the ball straight over the bowler's head with great power, and he has a very fine forcing stroke past mid-on off a ball just short of a good length. When bowling Woolley had a nice action after the manner of Blythe, but he was faster through the air, and brought the ball down at a greater height. He could be very difficult on a sticky wicket, but he has bowled little in recent years. He was a fine field either in the slips or at short leg, and was the best all-round cricketer in England ten to fifteen years ago. He has been called 'The Pride of Kent'."

This is a very positive assessment though, to me, Warner writes strikingly little about Woolley compared to other cricketers such as Rhodes, Hammond and Sutcliffe that I have used his work as evidence for.

So, why do I endorse a NO vote for Wooley?

I'll start by saying that I'd imagine his place in the ICC Hall of Fame and at such a high rank in CMJ's list is primarily because of the 145 first-class hundreds he scored. This is a staggering statistic but one the importance of which is probably exaggerated when looking back on players that you haven't seen play. Woolley played 978 first-class matches (a ridiculous figure in itself), meaning that he scored a 100 about every 7 matches. Translated to a modern played that would only be about two or three hundreds each season. At Test level this increased to a 100 about every 13 matches (1 a year in modern terms).

Remembering that players played so much more FC cricket at this time (32 Championship matches a season + matches against the MCC + matches against Universities + Test Matches) compared to today and also played huge numbers of tour matches away from home, in fact makes the feats of modern players like Hick and Ramprakash all the more brilliant. Ramps has conveniently played almost exactly half the number of FC matches than Woolley did... and scores a 100 every 4 matches, whilst Hick also averages a 100 every 4 matches.

Yet we would never consider either of them as a genuine HoF canditate. The reason? They never quite did it at Test level. Well, nor did Mr. Woolley, however beautiful his strokeplay. Again conveniently, Hick played 65 Tests and Woolley 64. Woolley admittedly had the better average but Hick scored 1 more 100.

So if we dismiss the notion of Woolley as statistically superior to the likes of Ramprakash, Hick, Bevan and anybody else that older posters might be able to name as not coming near to achieving their FC career record in Tests, we are essentially left with three lines of argument:

1/ "He was the best batsman to watch in the pre-war era"
2/ "County cricket was more important then that it has been in more recent times"
3/ "He was deprived of his best years by the war"

1. I wouldn't necessarily take best batsman to watch aesthetically as a reason for Hall of Fame inclusion or even continued repute. For me, unless backed up by a proved record - both statistically and in match-winning innings for ones country - I must resort to placing them in the "style over substance" category. It interests me greatly that those whose names immediately associate with aesthetic beauty (Richards B., Gower, Woolley, Ranji) all lack the Test figures (and I have concluded justifiably in Richards's case obviously) that others have. Perhaps this is because aesthetics are called on as a defence when other parts of a player's game are lacking - as I have mentioned earlier (and apologies for using the modern era) Tendulkar is an incredibly aesthically pleasing player to watch but in any biography this would be mentioned after his runs, records and match-winning innings. I wonder if this is also why this very vague term 'aesthetics' is not the first though which comes to our heads when thinking of Bradman, Sobers, Sir Viv or Lara.

A further point on this issue is that we are largely relying on writers offering their thoughts on a player as part of a book or article. Authors are unlikely to be negative about people - articles are usually written to celebrate a player's career and hence not written to find criticisms, whilst in a book a writer is likely to only discuss the player concerned relatively briefly. All of these players nominated for the HoF are obviously very good and so the abiding memories written on players will not be negative.

2. County cricket was indeed given more prominence pre-war and really for two linked reasons:
- Less Tests were played
- It would have been much harder for writers to follow overseas cricket so an emphasis would have been placed on the English game

However, I don't think this makes county performances in any way more valuable to us. I struggle to believe that the standard was higher than it was in later eras (or indeed even that strong at all though I would need clarification for that), and, of course, it would have been impossible for the writers to attend most games so would themselves be relying on second hand accounts. In any case Woolley played more than enough Tests for his record to be a reliable indication of his ability.

It should also be remembered that county games were three day affairs - thereby encouraging a different brand of cricket from Tests, particularly as with uncovered pitches, you've got to imagine many had 2 or less days of actual playing time.

3. There is some truth in this - he was at what a modern batsman would consider his prime between 1914 and 1918. However, his FC stats didn't actually reach a peak until the period between 1928 and 1930 when he was more than 40 years old. And, unlike Barry Richards, he did manage 65 Tests (a complete career) either side of Test cricket being deprived of him. You would expect somebody to be considered as a bona fide legend to have done better in that number of matches, even if he didn't play during some key years.

Shelsey,
Lots of good stuff there, both pro and con.

In the final analysis I don't agree with some conclusions, most especially borne from my reluctance to compare players from different eras. But great debate.

Thought provoking stuff Shelsey.
I'd just like to point out that Ranji didn't lack in terms of test figures in comparison with his contempraries but, other than that a lot of good stuff there

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Thought provoking stuff Shelsey.
I'd just like to point out that Ranji didn't lack in terms of test figures in comparison with his contempraries but, other than that a lot of good stuff there

An oversight on my part which makes him a prime candidate for inclusion, or at least debate, when it comes to our own nominations

Shelsey93 wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Thought provoking stuff Shelsey.
I'd just like to point out that Ranji didn't lack in terms of test figures in comparison with his contempraries but, other than that a lot of good stuff there

An oversight on my part which makes him a prime candidate for inclusion, or at least debate, when it comes to our own nominations

Yep.
Ranji's one of quite a few players I'd like to see discussed as candidates.

Gordon Greenidge

Gordon Greenidge will again be considered for our Hall of Fame later this year.

With that in mind, just to flag that there's a very fine article by Rohan (son of Alvin) Kallicharan concerning Greenidge on this week's All Out Cricket thread.

Courtney Walsh

Walsh is ranked No. 92 on CMJ's list of 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "the Duracell of world cricket. Immensely strong and tall, with a back as straight as the trunk of a mahogany, he bowled more than 30,000 balls for the West Indies in 132 Tests, retiring with a record number of 519 wickets, over 100 more than any previous bowler from the Caribbean"
- "He got a wicket in one-day cricket every forty balls on average and conceded fewer than four runs per over"
- "He arrived [at Gloucestershire] after they had finished bottom in the Championship. In his first two seasons they came third and second and he took 203 wickets, changing his pace cleverly but never stinting himself nor bowling with anything less than sustained hostility"
- "In 1986 he took 118 Championship wickets for Gloucestershire at 18.17, taking five or more wickets in an innings eleven times, and nine for 72 against Somerset"
- "he had a long run. His action was open-chested but high. It stood up to the demands of a total of 85,443 balls in first-class cricket alone. Most of his wickets were the result of extra bounce, or hitting the seam with the ball angled in to the right-handed batsman only for it to straighten and take an outside edge"
- "Often the journeyman in his early days in the West Indies side, and overshadowed to an extent by the likes of Roberts, Holding and Marshall, he became the mainspring, sharing a formidable new-ball attack with Curtly Ambrose"
"took seven for 37 and six for eighteen on a juicy pitch at Wellington, where his side beat New Zealand by and innings and 332 runs"

I have to say I'm a little underwhelmed and disappointed by this assessment of Walsh from CMJ. I think his feats are pretty incredible and shouldn't be overshadowed by the other West Indian greats as they seem to be, perhaps because they were collectively involved in such a ferocious attack, whereas when Courtney was at his best it was really just him and Curtly. If anything, this is a credit to Courtney as he didn't have a team of others to fall back on if he wasn't having a good day.

Probably the most enduring moments of his career are his relentless chase for records towards the end of his career where he actually bowled even better than he had done at a conventional bowler's prime (quite unusual for a pace bowler). Him and Ambrose tortured England in a way that their illustrious predecessors had done in 2000 and it is testament to Walsh that, as the last of the great WI quicks, it was when he finally stepped aside that the team went into a form of (hopefully not but unfortunately seeming that way) terminal decline. This is reflected statistically - he took 66 wkts @ 18 in 2000 and averaged below his overall career average in each of his final four years. A summary of Walsh's career, and particularly the record breaking, is shown in this YouTube video:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Shelsey - some very thought provoking posts on Woolley and Walsh. Still very much at formative stage in my thinking on Walsh, but most likely a yes.

Think Walsh is a definite yes myself. 17 year test career, 519 wickets, average under 25, part of one of the great fast bowling partnerships, pretty good FC record as well, a guy (like Statham) willing to do the hard yards and who (again like Statham) probably made his bowling partner look even better in the process.

Shelsey93 wrote:Courtney Walsh

Walsh is ranked No. 92 on CMJ's list of 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time':

- "the Duracell of world cricket....

I have to say I'm a little underwhelmed and disappointed by this assessment of Walsh from CMJ. I think his feats are pretty incredible and shouldn't be overshadowed by the other West Indian greats as they seem to be, perhaps because they were collectively involved in such a ferocious attack, whereas when Courtney was at his best it was really just him and Curtly....

Probably the most enduring moments of his career are his relentless chase for records towards the end of his career where he actually bowled even better than he had done at a conventional bowler's prime (quite unusual for a pace bowler)....

Interesting contrast between the assessment of Woolley by the writers of his age and those of Walsh today(ish) by CMJ. Even more so when you look closely at their achievements.

As I said in an earlier post, it does depend so much with Walsh the basis upon which he is judged and the measures used. I think that's why I can understand CMJ's assessment of Walsh but also appreciate Shelsey's disappointment.

In terms of stats (length of Test career, wickets, average), Walsh is a leading front runner and gets a YES from me for that. However, it is a long way from being an easy YES vote.

Despite his overall effectiveness, Walsh was not a particularly exciting or frightening bowler. Generally he did not quicken the pulse of spectators. Cricket now celebrates him and his achievements. However, in stark contrast to that famous West Indian quartet, he did not particularly cause cricket to be watched and celebrated at the time of his playing (cf again Woolley).

Without even the back of an envelope to work with, I would say that CMJ is right to put Walsh in the Top 100 Cricketers. However, I also consider he's right to put him towards the end of that list.

I'll post a bit later today some comments from Arlott concerning Woolley.

Guildford
Understand what you're saying about Walsh not being a particularly exciting bowler, especially in comparison with his WIndies team-mates, but could not a similar accusation be levelled at Statham, in comparison with Tyson or Trueman, or even Lindwall, in comparison to Miller?
In all these cases the bowlers probably didn't get the average cricket watcher as excited as their bowling partners, but connoisseurs of the game (and other players) understood and respected their skills.

Hoggy - your analogy with Statham is a good one.

In fact, I don't see how anyone who voted YES to 'George' (and I believe everyone did apart from Mike) could turn down Walsh who has more than double the amount of Test wickets and a better average.

Whilst, as previously posted, I believe CMJ was right to put Walsh at the bottom end of his Top 100 Cricketers, I do find it odd that Statham is 3 places higher.

I do not claim to be a connoisseur of the game but like to think I have some understanding and certainly respect for a bowler's skills. Without wishing to denigrate Walsh, the aspect that stands out most for me is his 'Duracell' nature, to use CMJ's term. Let me emphasise that there is nothing wrong with that - consistency and dependability have a lot going for them in team sports.

If asked to pick a list of the Top Ten pacemen over the best ten consecutive years of their Test career, Walsh would almost certainly be in it. However, if asked to produce the same list for only the best two consecutive years, Walsh would be a fair way from it. In my view, whilst Courtney Walsh certainly did it for much longer, someone like Andy Roberts at his shorter peak did it better.

As an aside, I'm inclined to think the players who did attract 'the average cricket watcher' to grounds should get some credit for it. Even if many of those spectators lacked a full appreciation, they and the players they specifically came to see helped the game to survive and/or flourish. For some reason, I'm starting to think of Woolley again ....

I think Walsh has to be a yes if Statham was - in both cases they may not have been the number 1 bowler of their era, or indeed for large parts of their careers of their particular Test side, but both were blessed with longevity and the ability to perform to a very high level throughout their career.

Any seam bowler of the 'modern' era with an average below 25 is a very fine bowler. To maintain that over a career spanning 15 years and 132 matches is a remarkable achievement and deserves recognition in the HoF.

I'm still undecided on Woolley and hadn't until now looked in much detail at Weekes.

Woolley's reputation appears to be based on a remarkably long career, hence cumulative records, and being a great stylist. However, there appears to me to be a question of whether he really had the achievements during his prime to back up the style - his ESPN profile suggests he was a wonderful attacking player but that he could be careless, hence in addition to being the second highest runs scorer in FC cricket and amongst the highest century makers, he also was dismissed for 89 ducks and 35 times in the 90s. An interesting comment embedded in the ESPN article does though sum up Woolley's batting hence:
'The feelings of an opposing captain on such occasions were succinctly expressed by Woodfull: "He made the game look so untidy. It appeared as if the wrong bowlers were on and the fieldsmen all in the wrong places."

For Weekes, the career statistics suggest he was plenty good enough for the HoF, but a question was raised earlier about his ability against the best teams of the time (Australia and England - he didn't play against SA). The problem with looking at these stats is that he had a relatively short career and only played in 4 series against England (2 home and 2 away), and 2 (home and away) against Australia.
In the 4 England series, his averages were 48.8 (good for a debut series), 56.3, 69.6 and 19.5 in a series where he had health problems. In the Aussie series he averaged 24.5 in 5 Tests in Aus and 58.6 in 5 Test in WI. As such, any criticism can only be based on one series when he was ill in England and one where he underperformed in Aus. It seems harsh to omit him based on one series when he probably should have performed better (having had a more detailed look, he actually got in several times but failed to convert half a dozen starts into a decent score).

Arlott on Woolley

I asked a few days ago if John Arlott had ever seen Frank Woolley play. I already had a suspicion that writers of Woolley's era might have over praised him and this had just been increased by a post from Hoggy on a similar theme (subsequently re-enforced by Shelsey's post above). I was keen to read any conclusions drawn by the wise and trusted Arlott.

I am pleased to report that Arlott did indeed see Woolley play. I found confirmation of this and several other interesting aspects in The Essential Arlott on Cricket, a collection of his writings from the late 1940s to the late 1980s.

Arlott, in fact, saw Wooley play in the first Test match he watched at the age of twelve. This was the Ashes Test at the Oval in August 1926. Writing in 1988 and looking back in One Day of Enlightenment that Shaped a Lifetime, Arlott refers to the fall of England's first wicket and then continues:

''The tall Frank Woolley came next, a left -hand batsman of immense style. In his early days a considerable all-rounder (slow left-arm), he once took over in an emergency as England's wicket-keeper which,for a man of his height, was a considerable physicall test. He did not in this innings last long.''

In an article from 1949 Arlott comments upon the factors that were making Test matches last longer and comments interestingly upon Woolley in the first of these:

''The first factor is the vastly improved technique of defensive play - a technique enforced by the development of the late swing. The pace ball which moves in the air late in its flight places back-play at a premium and makes it virtually certain that the player who throws his bat at the ball outside the off stump in the old manner will be out very cheaply. Indeed, the only modern attacking batman to make consistently good scores by the attacking method is Frank Woolley - it would be stupid to say that Woolley could not play the new ball , but it is significant that he usually went in at number four where he was not likely to find the ball absolutely new nor the pace bowlers absolutely fresh while he was getting his eye in. The attacking batmen who went in first, Denis Smith, Charlie Barnett and Harold Gimblett, had steep ups and downs when they attacked early, and they were all capable of leaving the off-ball alone - as indeed the opening batsman must do today. This technique is the batsman's defence against early dismissal.''

Following up on the points made by Hoggy and Shelsey concerning the possible overegging of Woolley by writers of his era, some interesting observations from Arlott in his Centenary Tribute to Neville Cardus written in April 1988:

''There is no cricket writer in the world since his day who does not owe something, if not almost everything, to the work of Neville Cardus ...
It is easy to see that, in a way, he created a mythology of cricket. The clearest example of that lies in his series of pieces on the clash between the fast bowler Ted McDonald, of Lancashire, and the graceful, tall, left-hand batsman Frank Woolley, of Kent. There were, though, many cricketers whom he elevated to considerable heights in the minds of those who followed the game ...
Neville Cardus was a character deeply to be appreciated as both man and writer. Perhaps ... many of his characters - cricketers and others - appear of greater stature than they actually were. From the start to finish, however, he was an enthusiast, not simply for ... cricket, but for life and people. It was, and for his readers remains, a matter of zest. There is no more vivid example of that fact than the manner in which his cricketers still become alive to readers too young ever to have watched them. He will be read with relish so long as people read.''

Whilst Cardus seems to have generally over enthused concerning the positives in cricket and life itself, that of couse doesn't disqualify Woolley from being a great. What was Arlott's final view?

In line with many of his comments above, Arlott rather leaves his readers hanging as to his ultimate judgment upon Woolley. I do think though that it is worth noting that Arlott doesn't shy away from referring to Woolley when writing of certain greats:

''The inter-war period, of course, saw the high points of the careers of three of the greatest of all batsmen, Jack Hobbs, Don Bradman and Walter Hammond (W.G. Grace must have been the other) as well as Patsy Hendren, Philip Mead, Frank Woolley and Herbert Sutcliffe, all of whom made over 140 centuries.''

The above may not change views on Frank Woolley's place or not in our Hall of Fame but, as always with Arlott, delightful food for thought.

For reasons that I won't go into now, I am going to vote early - suffice to say I will struggle to find time over the next few days.

So, as always, from easy to difficult decisions:

Steve Waugh - YES. As a batsman, he was one of the best of the modern era in both Test and ODI formats. Add in his captaincy of the great Australian side of the 90s and that in his earlier career he was a more than useful bowler, particularly as a death bowler in ODI cricket, and you have a very easy selection.

Everton Weekes - YES. As with the other two Ws, a very fine batsman even if in an inconsistent team. Concerns about his lack of performance against England and Australia appear to be overblown. The first batsman to score Test centuries in 5 consecutive matches.

Courtney Walsh - YES. The modern day Statham in some ways, in being a consistently very good performer across a long career. In Walshes case, this led to him being the first bowler to 500 test wickets, and only one seam bowler has taken more is McGrath. A truly hopeless batsman though - holding the record for the most ducks in Test cricket (also has the most not outs, and still only averaged 7).

Frank Woolley - NO. I know it was a different era and the stats may not be comparable to the modern day, but his Test record (as almost a pure batsman) does not stand up to comparison with contemporaries such as Hobbs, who scored 2000 more runs and averaged 20 runs more per innings in a similar length career. Outstanding longevity at FC level means he has enormous cumulative numbers in terms of runs and centuries, and he was also obviously a very successful bowler for Kent. However, I think the comparisons with both Gower (in being a great stylist but not necessarily a great defender) and Ramprakash or Hick (in being an outstanding County player but perhaps falling short of the highest levels of performance at International level) are valid criticisms and for me mean he falls a little short of this HoF. I think also his career was talked up by contemporary writers because it was the amateur era, and winning was less important that being a 'good chap' and playing with style and panache - someone performing similarly in today's far more professional era where winning and performance are more important would be under pressure to retain his place (again, back to the antipathy between Gower the artist and Gooch the workman).

Some suggestions for future consideration:
Sanath Jayasuriya - more for his ODI exploits and for changing the way that game is played
Aravinda Da Silva - simply for being very good
Abdul Qadir - for keeping the art of leg spin alive during the 80s
Mark Taylor - Similar reasons to Steve Waugh

Well this is going to sound like a repetition of dummy's post above

1 . Have to vote early as will be away for a few days and unlikely to be online.

2. YES to S Waugh - couldn't do otherwise. Living in Australia saw probably more of him than most of you and although he wasn't as pretty to watch as his brother there was no-one I'd have trusted more to bat for my life. Archetypal modern hard Aussie cricketer, never knew when he was beaten. Not as good as Taylor tactically for mine, but he rarely needed to be ...

3. YES to Weekes - I never really considered leaving any W's out ; West Indies icons all , and his figures alone make him a sure selection. I never saw him play , but plenty who did have vouched for him, and I'm not arguing.

4. YES to Walsh - Saw plenty of him , and although I would actually rate him seventh at best of the great WI fast bowlers I watched - behind Marshall, Holding, Roberts,Ambrose, Garner and Hall - his sheer perseverance and determination eventually gathered him 500 wickets , far more than any of them. (Can't really say "Tortoise and Hare " when speaking of these chaps can we? But you know what I mean) Extra marks for going on alone after Ambrose finished up to try and allow his team time to bed in a new group of bowlers. Great team man and an honourable HOF member.

5. But alas I must offer another NO to Woolley , and for reasons almost identical to dummy's. Remember reading an assessment from twenty or thirty years ago which I cannot now locate (or even be certain who wrote it) which seemed to sum him up in those sort of terms , as a rather "second rank" player after the Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe standards...this may not disqualify him from the HOF , perhaps he might be one to be reconsidered in the reviews? Though that will depend on how many yes votes he attracts , and regretfully mine won't be one of them ...Perhaps if I had seen him play I'd have fallen under his spell Sort of hope he ends up with 50%

dummy_half wrote:For reasons that I won't go into now, I am going to vote early - suffice to say I will struggle to find time over the next few days.

So, as always, from easy to difficult decisions:

Steve Waugh - YES. As a batsman, he was one of the best of the modern era in both Test and ODI formats. Add in his captaincy of the great Australian side of the 90s and that in his earlier career he was a more than useful bowler, particularly as a death bowler in ODI cricket, and you have a very easy selection.

Everton Weekes - YES. As with the other two Ws, a very fine batsman even if in an inconsistent team. Concerns about his lack of performance against England and Australia appear to be overblown. The first batsman to score Test centuries in 5 consecutive matches.

Courtney Walsh - YES. The modern day Statham in some ways, in being a consistently very good performer across a long career. In Walshes case, this led to him being the first bowler to 500 test wickets, and only one seam bowler has taken more is McGrath. A truly hopeless batsman though - holding the record for the most ducks in Test cricket (also has the most not outs, and still only averaged 7).

Frank Woolley - NO. I know it was a different era and the stats may not be comparable to the modern day, but his Test record (as almost a pure batsman) does not stand up to comparison with contemporaries such as Hobbs, who scored 2000 more runs and averaged 20 runs more per innings in a similar length career. Outstanding longevity at FC level means he has enormous cumulative numbers in terms of runs and centuries, and he was also obviously a very successful bowler for Kent. However, I think the comparisons with both Gower (in being a great stylist but not necessarily a great defender) and Ramprakash or Hick (in being an outstanding County player but perhaps falling short of the highest levels of performance at International level) are valid criticisms and for me mean he falls a little short of this HoF. I think also his career was talked up by contemporary writers because it was the amateur era, and winning was less important that being a 'good chap' and playing with style and panache - someone performing similarly in today's far more professional era where winning and performance are more important would be under pressure to retain his place (again, back to the antipathy between Gower the artist and Gooch the workman).

Some suggestions for future consideration:
Sanath Jayasuriya - more for his ODI exploits and for changing the way that game is played
Aravinda Da Silva - simply for being very good
Abdul Qadir - for keeping the art of leg spin alive during the 80s
Mark Taylor - Similar reasons to Steve Waugh

Spot on - Already have the other 3 yes and nothing ive read upto now has convinced me to say yes to woolley. Voting now just in case am unable to come on tommorow or friday.

My votes.

Waugh - fine case made by Mike and well summed up by Dummy when voting above. Straightforward decision for me. YES.

Weekes - agree with Dummy about any concerns being overblown. As Alfie asserts, a West Indian icon. As flagged in our consideration of Walcott, the three Ws transformed the Windies. No way any of them could be left out in my view. YES.

Walsh - like CMJ and Alfie, I place Walsh amongst the best pacemen, albeit not the very best. Alfie placed Walsh ''seventh at best'' in his list of great West Indian fast bowlers. I pretty much go along with that - for me, he's certainly behind Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Garner and Hall and probably also Ambrose (doubts as to the legitimacy of Griffith's quicker ball rule him out of my contention). However, the length of Walsh's Test career and stats - particularly being the first to the 500 milestone - cannot be overlooked and deserve much praise. As others have said, a more modern and effective Statham which is certainly good enough. YES.

Woolley - the most difficult of decisions. A stalwart for many years of Kent and the English county game. Much admired by the cricket writers of his age. Even if they were iclined to over enthuse, Arlott confirmed his ''immense talent'' in later years.

All the above goes into the mix but did he do enough at the top level? Dummy say not and contrasts his Test record with that of Hobbs. I think that's setting the bar very high given Hobbs was a clear all time great. However, even if we bring the bar down to the level achieved by others who are mentioned by Arlott as excelling during the inter war years, Woolley still falls some way short. Whilst Woolley's Test average was just over 36, Patsy Hendren and Phil Mead (neither of whom are in the ICC Hall of Fame) averaged over 47 and 49 respectively.

I fully accept that you need to consider more than stats but I do believe they have to come into the equation. For all his clear talent and the pleasure he gave to prestigious writers and 'ordinary' spectators, Woolley falls short for me at delivering the goods in Tests. Even though he didn't perform consistently well at Test level, I might be prepared to turn a blind eye if there were a few meaningful 'stand out' performances which clearly demonstrated the worth of the man. I have looked but just can't find them.

It is therefore with no little reluctance that I turn Woolley down. Although it is now not looking likely, I will have no problem if he does end up being admitted to our Hall of Fame. He clearly gave a lot of enjoyment to many and that should never be overlooked. If I have overlooked or given insufficient weight to some positives, I apologise to those urging a 'Yes' vote and, most of all, to 'an immensely talented' batsman. With regret. NO.

I realise I haven't had time in a busy week to discuss Weekes in any depth but I think most of the main points have been covered by other posters and by the Walcott discussion. Anyway, voting time.

Walsh - His achievement (along with McGrath) in taking 500 wickets as a quick is stunning and must not be under-estimated. I would dispute that he is that far off the best of the West Indies quicks, though he obviously can't match Holding, Marshall and Garner for 'excitement factor'. His record-breaking end to his career was great theatre and probably, unusually, the defining part of his career. A very solid YES.

Waugh - As a batsman, perhaps a marginal case (though Alfie may dispute that). As a captain, regarded extremely highly and a strong case as leader of such a strong group of players. His attitude to the game seals the deal for me - a YES.

Weekes - The Three Ws transformed West Indian cricket and, for me, come as a package - one in which all are just about as important as each other. Some great personal achievements in amongst it all for Weekes too. YES

Woolley - A NO for reasons outlined previously.

I will register YES votes for all candidates. For me Waugh was fairly clear cut. as was Weekes. Walsh, I thought about a bit but, again, no real doubt.

Woolley is clearly not going to get elected and to be fair some telling arguments were mounted by the no camp. I am not, tho, particularly convinced by arguments based on comparisons with Hick & Ramprakash and the like as we are talking about a completely different era. Fundamentally I think I am voting on a different basis.

I do think some of the stats could have been given greater weight - second highest number of first class centuries and highest ever number of outfield catches. But ultimately I am not voting for Woolley for a place in a best ever test team. I am voting for him for a place in a Hall of Fame. For me he is the ultimate cavalier in cricketing circles.

I play some chess when not on patrol and I could draw a comparison between Woolley and some of the 19th century romantic attacking chess players. They were never good enough, and in particular never consistent enough, to become world champions. They barely knew the meaning of the word defence. They went into the game for one purpose, to attack, with extravagant play. But they left a wonderful legacy of cut and thrust combinative games, fortunately often recorded for posterity. I vote YES to Woolley as a representive of this genre of player who left an outstanding legacy to the history of the game.

Corporal - I hope I don't too often have cause to point out to you this coming season that the dismissal of Le Roi for 10 off 3 balls was due to an attempt to emulate the ultimate cavalier.

Votes:
Waugh: A very good/great batsman. Great skipper. Decent bowler (especially in ODIs). YES

Walsh: 17 year test career, 519 wickets, average under 25, first bowler to 500 wickets: YES

Weekes: On of the three Ws, possibly my concerns about his record against England and Australia were over the top. YES

Woolley: The difficult one of the week. Lauded by fellow players and contemporary writers, superb FC record, BUT is his test record good enough, even taking into account his style? For me the answer, unfortunately, is NO

So, not to be totally perverse, but:

My votes are:

Woolley emphatically YES!

Weekes: Yes, but less emphatically; however v2 has voted Walcott in, so Yes for Weekes.

v2 correspondents who have chosen Courtney Walsh as the 7th best West Indies fast bowler of all time, have also chosen not to induct the man with second-most first class runs of all time (who missed four prime years in his first class career, seven of his Test career).

Following this bizarre chain of logic(?), I shall deem Courtney Walsh to be a NO!

I also hope that the panel will indulge me in my requested absention for Steve Waugh (who all testimony points to being a valued v2 HOF member).

Kwini - also with no desire to be perverse, I'm actually quite pleased you've voted the opposite way to me on both Woolley and Walsh.

Although I don't suggest things should be done differently, our current method of voting fails to distinguish between a clear cut individual vote and a narrow one.

My votes for Woolley and Walsh were both fairly tight.

Whilst I couldn't give Woolley a 'Yes', he certainly deserves better than 0%. I'm glad you and the Corporal have seen to that at least.

As for Walsh, I do consider he belongs in our Hall but feel that a 100% vote would be overpraising him. Your vote also covers that.

As I've mentioned before, I'm neither willing nor clever enough to try and vote tactically. However, I am pleased when occasionally things work out [I won't be so so presumptious as to say 'right' but will say ....] matching my perception.

Time for my votes:

S. Waugh: some have said he wasn't a great batsman but I strongly disagree: he was ranked the top batsman in the world for most of the 90s, had a stellar record against bowling attacks such as the West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa. In particular, he was the Aussie who really stood up to Ambrose and co, and made beating the West Indies seem possible again. That Australia eventually did was in no small part due to his partnership with brother Mark, and his eventual score of 200, which sealed an unassailable lead of 2-0 with one game to go.

Waugh may no have been the prettiest player to watch, but his best knocks often came when most needed. For example, with Australia 1-0 down in 1997 and 3 down for not very many (35 or something?) on a green top at Old Trafford, Waugh gutsed his way to one of the toughest 100s you will see. Australia made 235, then Warne got to work: England would never recover and ended up 3-1 down with 1 to play moments later it seemed.

Finally no tribute to S Waugh would be complete without the story of his Sydney hundred in the 02/03 ashes. To truly appreciate the moment I think you really had to be in Australia and I was lucky enough to be so. Waugh's career was on its last legs: dropped from the one-day side, and struggling with the bat hopelessly in the 1st two tests (including a horrific innings of 7 off 42 balls) Waugh made a nice 50 in Perth, but Australia had basically won the game by the time he came in. The pressure was mounting, and at the MCG Waugh batted like a man posessed, reaching his 50 at more than a run-a-ball; it all had the hint of desperation though, a man trying to hit his way back into form: on at least two occasions Waugh actually stepped away to leg to hit over point, this from a man who after being dropped in the early 90s had methodically cut out all risk from his game.

Then came the 2nd innings, and Waugh looked totally out of sorts: reprieved as England failed to appeal for a blatant caught behind, then caught off a no-ball, before finally walking (also unheard of) after gloving one to slip. Hussain at one point even dropped the field back with Waugh on strike for the last ball of the over, in the hope that he would get a single and retain the strike. Waugh duly played and missed, seemingly bothered by being treated as a tail-ender.

Onto Sydney then, and what a lot of people were predicting would be Waugh's final test. England batted first and Butcher made 100, Stewart a brisk 69 or so and the total was 350odd. Australia started badly: Hayden missed a full-toss, Langer was out hooking, Waugh was soon in. From the moment he strode to the crease, it seemed destiny was on his side. Hitting the ball as crisply as he ever had done, but without any of the desperation seen at Melbourne, Waugh moved along quickly past 50, then past 59 which took him past Border as the leading run scorer for Australia at the time. He found a willing ally in Gilchirst, and together the pair put on a good stand. The match, though, seemed irrelevant.

At the start of the final over to be bowled by Richard Dawson, Waugh was on strike and on 95. He blocked the first 3 balls, then hit the next for 3. Drama! Gilchrist did precisely the right thing and nudged a single wide of mid-on. One ball to go, Waugh on 98. After a lengthy manifactured (perfectly reasonably by Hussain) pause, Dawson bowled it flat and full but outside off. To this day I remember Jonathan Agnew's commentary (although in Australia, play had overrrun so the game was no longer on TV): "here it comes, Dawson bowls to Waugh who ... Drives through the covers for his 100". The crowd errupted, the world seemingly ok again. If there's one thing the Aussies do do well, it's back their champions when they're down.

That Australia became no1 in the world (at the expense of the previously unchallenged West Indies side) was testimony to Waugh the batsman.

That Australia then became one of the greatest ever sides will forever remain Waugh's legacy (much as I hate the word I seem to be using it a fair amount at the moment) as a captain, on which I have expanded in previous posts.

Pleased to see also that his death bowling has been taken into account.

And also his charity work in India.

Apologies for the long post, but wanted to share my true admiration for the player and man. A true great of the game, who IMO should have been in the inaugural 30. An easy YES from me.

Now onto the other votes, and nothing as long-winded this time:

Weekes: I accept the reticence about his overall record, but must play the team card once again. His name will always be synonymous with the "3 Ws". Can't leave one out. Hence YES.

Woolley: Good arguments made from both sides. A long time before my time, but I can't look past the fact that he just didn't measure highly enough against his contempories in international cricket. Is his batting style pironeering enough to get him included on that basis alone? I can't say I'm convinced, so it's a reluctant NO from me.

Walsh: undoubtedly an excellent player, but equally undoubtedly not amongst the top 5 West Indian bowlers of all-time, and would struggle to make a top 20 from around the world. Thus, one has to ask was his impact great enough to get him into the HoF? Well, Walsh and Ambrose was certainly a great partnership, but on the whole I think history will remember more clearly Warne and McGrath, and Waqar and Wasim from their era. Walsh's achievment of being the first to 500 wickets is laudable, but for me doesn't quite carry the sense of achievement of Truemann reaching 300: for me there was a sense of inevatibility that someone would reach 500 soon, whereas the impression I get was that Truemann's achievement was really viewed as ground-breaking, in the same way as the 4-minute mile.

Then there is the fact that Walsh was a fairly poor captain, and failed to move with the professional era in the other aspects of his game in the same way that someone like McGrath did manage (both started out similar fielders, but whereas by the end of his career, McGrath was average or better, Walsh never really improved).

For me, there are just too many negative points. I hence vote NO.

kwinigolfer wrote: My votes are:

Woolley emphatically YES!

More important to be right than in the majority...

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

More important to be right than in the majority...

I've said the same to Cowdrey, Gibbs, Greenidge, Kanhai and Larwood.

Mike Selig wrote:

Walsh: undoubtedly an excellent player, but equally undoubtedly not amongst the top 5 West Indian bowlers of all-time, and would struggle to make a top 20 from around the world. Thus, one has to ask was his impact great enough to get him into the HoF? Well, Walsh and Ambrose was certainly a great partnership, but on the whole I think history will remember more clearly Warne and McGrath, and Waqar and Wasim from their era. Walsh's achievment of being the first to 500 wickets is laudable, but for me doesn't quite carry the sense of achievement of Truemann reaching 300: for me there was a sense of inevatibility that someone would reach 500 soon, whereas the impression I get was that Truemann's achievement was really viewed as ground-breaking, in the same way as the 4-minute mile.

Then there is the fact that Walsh was a fairly poor captain, and failed to move with the professional era in the other aspects of his game in the same way that someone like McGrath did manage (both started out similar fielders, but whereas by the end of his career, McGrath was average or better, Walsh never really improved).

For me, there are just too many negative points. I hence vote NO.

I'll stick with my Yes vote for the largely statistical reasons given earlier. However, an excellent counter argument from Mike.

HI all, back from my European adventures, so apologies for my lack of input of late!

Waugh, Weekes and Walsh make it in, Woolley falls well short.

Looking forward to further suggestions of those we should now look to vote on. Rahul Dravid, anyone?

fists, when are you going to get around to a few South Africans, they are totally absent from these pages?

Some guys I want to see debated:

Dravid, obviously.
Jayasuriya for revolutionising the way the game's played.
Jonty Rhodes for his fielding exploits.
Michael Bevan for being arguably the finest ever one-day player.
Bob Woolmer for what he did with coaching (about which I could write endlessly).

Barry richards.
Eddie Barlow
Graeme Pollock
Alan donald
Mike Procter
Jaques Kallis, underreate? overlooked? boring? etc.
Shaun Pollock, one of the most underreated all rounders ever.

Players from long ago.

Bruce Mitchell
Dudley Nourse
alan Melville

Richards is already in, Biltong.

Kallis is still playing, so is therefore ineligible.

Our list, the inaugural 30 aside, covers the ICC hall of fame. It is only now that we have worked our way through that that we will include those that we feel have perhaps been overlooked by the ICC.

No Graeme Pollock?

As a lot of people are (quite rightly) suggesting a number of recently retired cricketers for discussion, I'd like to adress a couple of imbalances I believe can be seen in the ICC HoF selections.
The first of these (as I believe was noted by Guildford right at the start of this process), is the relative lack of HoF members from before WWII. Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more post-war players as, obviously, there are more players around these days, but I do think there are a number of candidates from before (or slightly after) the war who should be considered.
The second imbalance I noted in the ICCs HoF was the preponderence of Englishmen and the relative lack of, in particular, Australians. My list, therefore, contains more Ozzies than Poms, a couple of South Africans and a West Indian.
Finally, I don't know whether Fists wants to place a limit on the number of names each person puts forward, so if he wants me to shorten list I will. (I could probably add a few more names as well if he wants )
Anyway, my suggestions are:

Kumar Shri Ranjitsinhji
Clem Hill
Warwick Armstrong
Aubrey Faulkner
Charlie Macartney
'Tich' Freeman
Bill Ponsford
Maurice Tate
Learie Constantine
Les Ames
Stan McCabe
Bill Johnston
Athol Rowan

Biltong, yes Pollock (G) is also in.

cheers thanks fists, now for the next one .......

Andre Nel?

haha, you just made me spill my coffee.

good to see there is nothing wrong with your sense of humour.

Some good names there Hoggy. Might I also suggest adding Larwood and Woolley, two surefire HOF'ers?

Seriously though chaps, how's about each poster nominating three players for inclusion and have Fists adjudicate which among them should be up for debate?

Do we have any rules regarding time elapsed following retirement before a player can be considered for HOF induction. The Major American Sports H'sOF typically require a player be retired for five full seasons before considering him/her for induction, (a couple of notable NHL exceptions). That seems more than fair in the interests of perspective.

Would still be nice to know when the ICC goes in to session with their cardinals; we could wait while their virtual cyber smoke signalled which five candidates they will elect next. (Would also be nice to know the candidates of course!)

Kwini, good idea. 3 names each would save us getting too out of control.

Remember, we will get to name another 3 after the voting process for those has been completed.

As it stands, Kwini, we have allowed for induction immediately upon retirement. I think that is fair, given that a 5 year waiting game may prove a little tedious in the interests of a forum.

Well, five years will give me enough time to research every innings Kallis played to justify his inclusion once he retires.

Is this only people who arent in second ballot?

Yes. Second ballot candidates will be discussed once more after this lot has been exhausted.

Fists of Fury wrote:Kwini, good idea. 3 names each would save us getting too out of control.

Just 3?
Oh well, I'll just have to live with it.

May I, therefore, propose Ranjitsinhji, Stan McCabe and Les Ames. I know it doesn't meet my criteria of getting more Ozzies in, but these are 3 players I really feel deserve consideration for the HoF.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
.... My list, therefore, contains more Ozzies than Poms, a couple of South Africans and a West Indian ....

.... Learie Constantine ....

Oh Hoggy, that wasn't nice. Getting my hopes up that you were about to nominate a certain immensely valuable West Indian batsman and then to cruelly dash them!