The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3

First topic message reminder :

Well obviously, while Headley's achievements statistically outweighed those of Constantine, I do think that Constantine, from what I have read, had a massive impact, especially in England. His whole philosophy was to entertain because, by playing entertaining cricket, the WIndies were more likely to draw crowds and guarantee that they would be invited back. Again, according to Swanton "he indeed personified West Indian cricket from the first faltering entry in the Test arena in 1928 until the post-war emergence of the trinity of Worrell, Weekes and Walcott."

Decent players as they were none of those you've named came close to having a strike rate of a run a ball (as Jayasuriya and then Gibbs, Gilchrist and co had during their best years). As I said in my earlier post I was surprised to find that even players like Greenidge and Gooch who would have been considered to be more aggressive than defensive had SRs below 70.

That may have been somewhat due to the powerplays being introduced, and you could even argue that rather than inventing the idea SL were the first to pull it off successfully.

Case isn't closed on Jayasuriya for me yet but there is certainly compelling evidence that he was the first to successfully take on the first 15 overs of ODIs. I'd argue that this primitive form of aggressive opener laid the platform for the better aggressive openers like Gayle, Sehwag and Watson that have emerged in the last decade.

Shelsey93 wrote:Decent players as they were none of those you've named came close to having a strike rate of a run a ball (as Jayasuriya and then Gibbs, Gilchrist and co had during their best years). As I said in my earlier post I was surprised to find that even players like Greenidge and Gooch who would have been considered to be more aggressive than defensive had SRs below 60.

That may have been somewhat due to the powerplays being introduced, and you could even argue that rather than inventing the idea SL were the first to pull it off successfully.

Case isn't closed on Jayasuriya for me yet but there is certainly compelling evidence that he was the first to successfully take on the first 15 overs of ODIs. I'd argue that this primitive form of aggressive opener laid the platform for the better aggressive openers like Gayle, Sehwag and Watson that have emerged in the last decade.

Cricinfo won't let me look up Greatbach's strike rate solely as an opener (he was in the middle order from 1988 until the 91 world cup), but he finished with an overall career strike rate of 70. At the 1991 world cup he averaged 45, on NZ pitches, at better than a run a ball. And at the time no-one else was walking down the pitch to hit Curtly Ambrose for six over extra cover. So I can't accept the "Jayasuriya was 1st" argument. Greatbach ultimately got "worked out" with his struggles against the short ball at test level affecting his ODI form, but for a couple of years in the early 90s he was keeping opposition opening bowlers on their toes.


Note, I think Jayasuriya was a great player for Sri Lanka, and arguably (with his bowling added) an all time ODI great. But not a Hall of Famer.

According to cricinfo Greatbatch averaged 30.5 at a s/r of 72 as an opener.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:According to cricinfo Greatbatch averaged 30.5 at a s/r of 72 as an opener.

Cheers. Now why couldn't I find the strike rate? I found the average

From memory Greatbach did tend to slow down once the field got pushed out after the 1st 15 overs. And his last couple of seasons he went into a rapid decline.

Greatbach will never get close to a Hall of Fame berth, and his role as an opener started by accident. But Martin Crowe's 91 team pioneered a few things we take for granted nowadays - a spinner opening the bowling outside the sub-continent, attacking in the 1st 15 overs, etc.

Shelsey93 wrote:Decent players as they were none of those you've named came close to having a strike rate of a run a ball (as Jayasuriya and then Gibbs, Gilchrist and co had during their best years). As I said in my earlier post I was surprised to find that even players like Greenidge and Gooch who would have been considered to be more aggressive than defensive had SRs below 70 ....

Shelsey - one factor to be kept in mind is that some of the ODIs played by Greenidge and Gooch would have been of 60 overs per side duration for which I would expect a lower SR. That by itself certainly doesn't fully explain the contrasts in SRs you've flagged but it does have a bearing.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Stan McCabe

A perusal of Stan McCabe’s stats would show anyone that he was a very fine player. Averaging 48 in tests puts him up there, in statistical terms, with the likes of Harvey, Kanhai, May and Mohammad but, as he batted in a period dominated by batting giants such as Bradman, Hammond and Headley, it might be argued that his figures were not quite up to scratch. Like a number of other players already included in our HoF, however, with Stan McCabe stats are not everything.
Len Hutton said of him that he “Had qualities that Bradman hadn’t got” and that “It would be harder to think of a greater Australian batsman". According to John Arlott, McCabe “Had nearly all the virtues that could reasonably be asked of a batsman. … he was technically sound, brave, enterprising, entertaining, brilliant in stroke play, yet a shrewd judge of batting risks; a splendid team man, who rose to the major challenge; a pleasing personality; a capable all-round field and, to cap it all, was good enough to open the bowling for his country.” ....

Hoggy - just refreshing my memory on Stan McCabe. I have to say I'm pretty sold on him. A player who could be pretty much relied upon to deliver his best when it was most needed rather than a bully who pummelled the opposition when his side was already on top. I like that, as you probably know I would.

Arlott's comments above certainly support your nomination. I'm just a little puzzled by his use of the word ''nearly''. Do you know or have any thoughts as to why it is used? Does it relate to McCabe not scoring quite so many runs as might have been expected for someone with all his talent?

Guildford
I think the thing with McCabe was that, unlike others of his period like Bradman, Ponsford or Hammond, he wasn't someone who was particularly bothered about filling his boots, often falling to audacious shots whatever the circumstances.
For example McCabe was once batting with Don Bradman on the fourth afternoon of an Adelaide Test against England. Australia were behind in the series and trailing on first innings. As the partnership swelled, England's grip on the Ashes loosened. McCabe freewheeled to 55. Bowler Robins had a plan. The bait was set: a man on the leg-side fence, a ball pitched short. McCabe, aptly, got hooked. The catch was juggled, then held, and off he skipped.
Afterwards Bradman gave him a talking-to. Son, what the blazes were you thinking?
"Well, Braddles," replied Stan, "if I get that sort of a ball again, I'll play the same shot."
Was this sort of attitude wrong, and a weakness in his batting? Probably yes. But this attitude reaped dividends often enough to suggest it wasn't a major drawback. However, it may explain Arlott's use of the word 'nearly'.

Thanks very much, Hoggy.

I'm inclined to give McCabe the benefit of any doubt there. Whether an attitude is right or wrong will depend to some extent upon the circumstances of the match and the calibre of fellow team mates.

As for the views and votes of other posters, it'll be interesting to see what is said and decided. It seems clear that McCabe was a great of his time. However, so were Harvey, Kanhai and Greenidge (the first two likened statistically to McCabe in your opening post) but that wasn't enough to (initially at least) get them beyond our play off places.

I would say that McCabe, like a certain Mr Pietersen now, wouldn't have been as good a player if he had refused the hook shot which led to his dismissal as described by Hoggy. He wouldn't have taken on the bouncers thrown at him by Larwood and co in such thrilling style, he wouldn't have been able to bat in such a way which led the Don to say "I wish I could bat like that". The point is, his cavalier style both made him the player he was and made him occasionally frustrating. But you can't remove the latter without affecting the former, and to what extent is not something I'd want to find out.

Of course there is a fine line between cavalier and reckless, and McCabe (like others since and no doubt before) will occasionally have crossed it.

Regarding Jayasuriya.
With all the respect I have for Mark Greatbach, my memory is that he was essentially used as a glorified pinch-hitter - of course he was a better player than that, but that's really the way he batted. What was unheard of at the time of the 96 WC was to base an entire strategy around having your (arguably) best player bat at the top of the order and smash the ball all around the park from the word go.
Shelsey says that Jayasuriya wasn't altogether successful and that's correct. But the fact remains that he changed the way teams saw the 1st 15 overs. Even allowing for Greatbach and NZ doing it first, it was only after the 96 WC that it became the usual tactic, rather than a quirky innovation. So much so that by the 99 WC practically every team opened with a genuine batsman who was expected to score at just under a run-a-ball.
Before, teams had opened with arguably their best batsman (Mark waugh, Tendulkar) and some had opened with pinch-hitters (England even tried Neil Smith!). But the concept of "batsman/pinch-hitter" really only got going thanks to Jayasuriya's tournament in 96.

I believe the case for Jayasuriya's impact on the game is unanswerable. Whether you decide his admittedly fairly ordinary record means he should fall short of HoF status is of course entirely up to you to balance.

I'll write more on this later.

Mike Selig wrote:

Regarding Jayasuriya.
With all the respect I have for Mark Greatbach, my memory is that he was essentially used as a glorified pinch-hitter - of course he was a better player than that, but that's really the way he batted. What was unheard of at the time of the 96 WC was to base an entire strategy around having your (arguably) best player bat at the top of the order and smash the ball all around the park from the word go.
Shelsey says that Jayasuriya wasn't altogether successful and that's correct. But the fact remains that he changed the way teams saw the 1st 15 overs. Even allowing for Greatbach and NZ doing it first, it was only after the 96 WC that it became the usual tactic, rather than a quirky innovation. So much so that by the 99 WC practically every team opened with a genuine batsman who was expected to score at just under a run-a-ball.
Before, teams had opened with arguably their best batsman (Mark waugh, Tendulkar) and some had opened with pinch-hitters (England even tried Neil Smith!). But the concept of "batsman/pinch-hitter" really only got going thanks to Jayasuriya's tournament in 96.

I believe the case for Jayasuriya's impact on the game is unanswerable. Whether you decide his admittedly fairly ordinary record means he should fall short of HoF status is of course entirely up to you to balance.

I'll write more on this later.

I'll dare to question the ''unanswerable'' and query a few matters. I make no claim to know the answers but readily admit to having some concerns.

In particular, did Jayasuriya really change the way teams saw the first 15 overs or was he just a catalyst for a change that was inevitable and coming anyway?

Allied to the above, did an increasing awareness and concentration upon Strike Rates have just as much impact as Jayasuriya? Shelsey has commented upon the lowish Strike Rates of Greenidge and Gooch. That's obviously correct but they started their ODI careers in a very different era. As well as often playing a longer format of ODI (as I mentioned earlier), the term 'Strike Rate' was altogether (or pretty much) unknown at that time. You were unlikely to find any reference to the number of balls faced by a batsman in even the best of contemporary cricket reports. Remember as well that it wasn't until the mid 1980s ('84?) that the season's fastest County Championship century in England was determined by balls faced rather than minutes at the crease.

As the term 'Strike Rates' came into common cricket useage and their value more fully appreciated, wasn't it always going to happen that the early batting overs would come under the microscope with resultant changes in approach? Particularly with the introduction of Power Plays (something else missing from the Greenidge and Gooch eras)? It is not in doubt that Jayusuriya was clearly a far better player and an evolutionary improvement on the Neil Smith type pinch hitter. I do wonder though if the wheels of change weren't already well in motion.

Mad for Chelsea posted: ''Without Jayusuriya, there may have been no Gilchrist, no Sehwag, no Gayle, etc. The game might well have been very different today.'' I'm not so sure. Weren't / aren't these players so naturally destructive that they would have played the way they did? Also, have any of these players given Jayusuriya the credit that Mad and others here award him?

some excellent points being made here, by both sides. how nice to have this thread up and running again

I'll try to answer some of the points a little later, though as I'm a bit busy at the moment with work (my students have their first test tomorrow ) and singing (away for the week-end) I can't guarantee it.

A couple of rapid points:

- Mike makes the excellent point that Jayasuriya was the first to come in at the top of the order as a side's leading batsman (arguably). Pinch hitters had been tried before, with varying degrees of success, but the idea of a "proper" batsman going out to score as many as possible early on was a novel one.

- which brings me to answer guildford's point: I don't dispute that guys like Gayle, Sehwag etc. would have played the same way, they may well have. However I think it's likely they wouldn't have been opening the batting had Jayasuriya not been there first (Sehwag started out as a middle-order player IIRC, Gilchrist only opened the batting in his 18th ODI, crucially after the Jayasuriya role had been developed).

- another point by guildford: "In particular, did Jayasuriya really change the way teams saw the first 15 overs or was he just a catalyst for a change that was inevitable and coming anyway?". I suspect this is pretty much impossible to answer unfortunately (I seem to recall we had a similar debate with Rhodes on fielding)...

Is changing the way ODIs were played enough to justify Sanath's inclusion in the Hall of Fame?

With regard to Jayasuriya, does anyone know if he came up with the tactic himself, or was it devised by others?

I think MfC answers guildford's question as well as I could. It is possible that Jayasuriya was simply the right person at the right time, or it is possible he was more. We did induct Basil D'Oliveira for his impact not only on the game of cricket but also ultimately on world events, and I think the same question was raised then. Similarly I expect it to be raised when we debate Rhodes and the impact he had on fielding. Ultimately I'm not sure you can answer such a question satisfactorily.

I would just however mention Michael Slater briefly. Slater had a very ordinary one-day record (IIRC an average of 23 or so at a SR of around 60) despite playing when PPs were in place (debut in 93) and playing most of his innings at the top of the order (I think he batted a few times down at 6). Everyone who saw Slater bat in tests should be astonished by this poor record. It is a point which may be worth debating that had Slater debuted after the 96 WC he would have been more successful. Why? Simply because Jayasuriya's success would have shown that his natural approach was possible and could work. I suspect part of his poor record was being caught in several minds: should he go all out aggression, or reign himself in or just play naturally? Post Jayasuriya that hasn't been an issue, and indeed most naturally aggressive top-order players have had success in ODIs by doing just that (e.g. Trescothick).

As to Shanky's question, that's really up to everyone here to decide.

Have to admit when I mentioned Slater I didn't check what his ODI record was. I just remembered a batsman who opened very aggressively in Test matches, playing in a manner that would have been frowned upon only a few years earlier.

It's curious how some batsmen (I'm thinking of Matt Prior here as well as Slats) play in Tests as though they should be world class ODI players, yet somehow are unable to translate that form and style into the ODI game. Perhaps it's a tendency to try too hard?

dummy_half wrote:
It's curious how some batsmen (I'm thinking of Matt Prior here as well as Slats) play in Tests as though they should be world class ODI players, yet somehow are unable to translate that form and style into the ODI game. Perhaps it's a tendency to try too hard?

With Prior the issue is he is ill-suited to the middle-order (his boundary options are blocked off and he doesn't really rotate the strike enough) and his tendancy to stay inside the line leaves him vulnerable to the new ball. I also think his scoring areas are somewhat limited so the comparison to Slater is not really valid. Vaughan to Slater would be a better comparison (albeit very different styles), and I think the "tried too hard" argument plays a part there. I think Prior could just about open successfully in ODIs, but the only time he was tried there he was in two minds as to whether he should pinch-hit or just bat.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

- another point by guildford: "In particular, did Jayasuriya really change the way teams saw the first 15 overs or was he just a catalyst for a change that was inevitable and coming anyway?". I suspect this is pretty much impossible to answer unfortunately (I seem to recall we had a similar debate with Rhodes on fielding)...

Mad - my question wasn't intended to be unanswerable but I appreciate from your comment - as subsequently reinforced by Mike - that it may have to be. The analogy with Rhodes and his fielding appears highly appropriate.

guildfordbat wrote:
... Also, have any of these players given Jayusuriya the credit that Mad and others here award him?

In doing a bit of reading around, I came across these comments from Glenn McGrath which support Mike's and Mad's view together with the case for Jayusuriya:

''Others may have had better records but few were more dangerous. It is always a massive compliment to someone to say they changed the game, and his storming innings in the 1996 World Cup changed everyone's thinking about how to start one-day innings. Great natural flair.''

At the risk of harming my own case, but in the interests of fairness I believe Jayasuriya has so far gotten a free ride over the end of his career and his numerous retirements and comebacks (the last few of which were decidedly unsuccessful), and more seriously perhaps the political interference which accompanied them.

Whilst none of this changes the "fact" that Jayasuriya made/enabled to make the game different, for me it somewhat diminished the respect I had for him both at least as a person.

Thoughts?

The political situation is interesting. The last comeback was roundly criticised in the British media for the fact that not only was it (as is common in SL) on the demand of the government, but influenced Jayasuriya's position as an MP for the ruling party.

For those that don't know the Sri Lankan ruling party are quite politically controversial. They, and most Sri Lankans (and Tony Greig) will give themselves/them credit for ending the civil war and restoring peace and relative prosperity to the island, but a Channel 4 documentary highlighted that this was done with considerable loss of Tamil lives, and has led to them being described as a terror regime in some quarters.

My personal view is that given that (as far as I'm aware) Jayasuriya had no direct role in ordering events in SL, he is entitled to his political leaning and so this shouldn't be counted against him - after all, we're not inducting Rajapaksa to the HoF and I'd say that Sanath is entitled to accept any decision to call him up.

He did, however, tarnish his reputation at the 2010 World T20 and some other later series when he looked well past his best. Difficult to count that against him too much though when players who retired in their early 30s (e.g. PBH May) have been inducted.

Although I have been around here almost from the beginning, I haven't really posted on this thread as yet. This is my first time here.
Now as far as the 3 Australians are concerned, my early research suggests that Stan McCabe has a very strong case, his performances in that one series is almost enough to get him through for me. A player with that X factor about him.
On the other 2, Hill's someone I haven't come across that much, his record is good, but I can't see that something extra.
On Ponsford, I have a feeling he was a much better FC player than he was at test level.
So on McCabe almost Yes, would try and read up a bit more on the other 2 before making a call.

On Sanath Jayasuriya, I think I have already made my mind up, it has to be a certain Yes.
Jayasuriya has been the most important factor in the kind of change that ODI cricket saw after 1996. Whether he came up with the strategy is not that important for me. He did it successfully, forced other teams to take a relook at the way they played ODI cricket.
Winning that 1996 world cup was huge for Sri Lanka cricket. It even provided their test side with confidence and they became a real force in cricket since then. In getting Lanka to that turningpoint, Sanath Jayasuriya played the most defining role.
His longevity is another factor we have to consider. Jayasuriya bounced back from setbacks, scored an ODI ton after passing 38. More than 20 years of international cricket with the growing fitness demands is a huge challenge. He was good enough in all formats.
He was more than a parttime bowler. He offered great control in ODIS, getting more than 300 ODI wickets besides all the runs he scored has to count for something. And don't forget nearly hundred test wickets as well.

Mike

While agreeing with your observation that Jayasuriya became a bit of a joke towards the end of his career*, I feel in his case it makes less difference than for some of our HoF members - he's not really being nominated on the strength of his career, but on being a good to very good player who at his peak was heavily involved in the development of tactics that changed how the game is played. There are other HoF members (Botham for one) whose end of career decline markedly affected their statistics but haven't seriously undermined the regard in which they are held.

* I'd also make the argument that SL probably have a smaller pool of players to pick from, and although there may have been a few players that would have produced more in the T20 world cup, there is always a strong opinion towards picking an aged superstar who has been the talisman of the team, so picking Jayasuriya was not an absolutely stupid decision.

Msp raises a very good point that Jayasuriya's performances at the 96 WC not only changed ODI cricket but also were arguably the starting point of Sri Lanka becoming a world force in test cricket.

In fact, the first time I really started taking Sri Lanka seriously as a test nation was probably after their win in 98 at the Oval. Of course Muralitharan took 16 wickets in that game, but a certain Jayasuriya also scored a breathtaking 213 opening the batting in his usual aggressive style. England IIRC scored a decent 450 or so in the first innings (Hick made a century, and Crawley a big one, including a big partnership with Gus Fraser for the last wicket) and most people assumed that would be enough. Jayasuriya then scored his quick-fire 213 and thanks to an equally brilliant 150 from Aravinda Sri Lanka got near enough 600. England duly collapsed.

Of course Muralitharan deserves most of the credit for turning (sorry!) Sri Lanka into a force, but Jayasuriya's role, both in that game and more generally as a knock-on effect from the 96 WC deserves to be mentioned.

dummy_half wrote:Mike

While agreeing with your observation that Jayasuriya became a bit of a joke towards the end of his career*, I feel in his case it makes less difference than for some of our HoF members - he's not really being nominated on the strength of his career, but on being a good to very good player who at his peak was heavily involved in the development of tactics that changed how the game is played. There are other HoF members (Botham for one) whose end of career decline markedly affected their statistics but haven't seriously undermined the regard in which they are held.

That seems fair enough, although with Jayasuriya as with everybody we have to balance his credentials for HoF inclusion against any negatives out there, so hanging on for too long has to be considered.

On the other hand, the "overstaying his welcome" is less of a problem for me than the politics behind it. Shelsey says that political interference in selection in SL is not uncommon, but something being common doesn't make it right or any more excusable. IMO.

To be fair though Mike, how much was the decision to recall Jayasuriya down to the man himself?
While it may be regarded as slightly selfish, accepting the invitation to play for your country should hardly be held against you too much IMO.
We also don't know whether Jayasuriya was put under any pressure to play.

Mike

You forgot to credit the Oval groundstaff in your post above about SL becoming a force in Test cricket - the English sense of fair play seemed to go a bit overboard for that match in preparing a wicket that was not particularly the usual fast and bouncy pitch or a slow and low seamer that would have suited England's strength, but instead they prepped a pitch that turned square for the last day (at least while Murali bowled).

The political interference in player selection is something that has been and is a big feature of the selections policies for a number of countries, in particular India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the West Indies (and South Africa, for rather different reasons), so it is perhaps unfair to single out Jayasuriya, although he is clearly one of the prime examples fo why it is not a good thing. As I said though, his selection for the 2010 T20 WC was not entirely absurd in context - OK, it didn't pay off, but was it really any more silly than picking Ryan Giggs to be the captain of the GB Olympic team or (even more so) the argument for picking Beckham for that squad?

Voting:
Hill: No

Ponsford: Yes

McCabe: Yes

Jayasuriya: No

dummy_half wrote:Mike

You forgot to credit the Oval groundstaff in your post above about SL becoming a force in Test cricket - the English sense of fair play seemed to go a bit overboard for that match in preparing a wicket that was not particularly the usual fast and bouncy pitch or a slow and low seamer that would have suited England's strength, but instead they prepped a pitch that turned square for the last day (at least while Murali bowled).

The Oval groundstaff have had trouble for the best part of the last ten years in preparing a suitable wicket for the home side!

kwinigolfer wrote:Voting:
Hill: No

Ponsford: Yes

McCabe: Yes

Jayasuriya: No

Hi Kwini - it would be appreciated and helpful if you could give a reason for your votes, thanks.

dummy_half wrote:Mike

While agreeing with your observation that Jayasuriya became a bit of a joke towards the end of his career*, I feel in his case it makes less difference than for some of our HoF members - he's not really being nominated on the strength of his career, but on being a good to very good player who at his peak was heavily involved in the development of tactics that changed how the game is played. There are other HoF members (Botham for one) whose end of career decline markedly affected their statistics but haven't seriously undermined the regard in which they are held.

The longevity of players' careers is an interesting one.

Botham's impact was so massive that I wouldn't expect it to seriously undermine his HoF credentials. However, others perhaps weren't so lucky. Particularly thinking of the more marginal candidates. It certainly counted against Cowdrey's career average - and possibly his HoF votes - that he agreed to fly out to Australia as an emergency replacement in Christmas 1974 when he was 40 plus and clearly past his best. Similarly, Greenidge who was picked for his experience and as a role model in the later of his seventeen years of Test cricket. Conversely, as touched on by Shelsey, May opted out at a fairly young age for reasons that have never been entirely clear and preserved impressive career stats which probably smoothed his path into the HoF.

As I've mentioned before, I don't regard longevity as an overwhelming factor but generally it's something I view very positively. Such players have served our game and therefore us very well for many years - that at least deserves to go into the mix. In Jayasuriya's case, I'm more impressed by his ODI career stretching to twenty-two years than the number of appearances he made. In my view, there are too many meaningless ODI matches and series which is why I don't go overboard about the appearances. However, as msp suggests, to keep fit and good enough to be selected (I don't know either way about political skullduggery) for over two decades is no mean achievement.

When are the votes due in for these candidates?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:When are the votes due in for these candidates?

Sunday 9am, I believe.

Righty ho.
I'll have to make sure I vote before that, 'cause there's no way I'm getting up before 9 on a Sunday

A bit of a (non) summary of Jayasuriya then.

1) The record.

Over an international career spanning 16 years in tests and 22 in ODIs, Jayasuriya played 110 tests and 445 ODIs, as well as 31 T20Is. He averaged just over 40 in tests with the bat with a highest score of 340, and 32 in ODIs. More importantly his career SR in ODIs stands at 91.21. His average and SR are both (fractionally) higher as an opener where he played the vast majority of his matches. A Statsguru check reveals that of those with an average of over 25 and more than 30 games under their belts, only Shewag, John Davison, Pollard, Gilchrist, Stirling, Raina and AB have higher SRs. Notably all of these started their international careers after the 96 WC.

To add to his batting record, he was a more than useful bowler, particularly in ODIs where his accurate and quick left-arm spin yielded more than 300 wickets (90odd in tests).

Some statistical records: Jayasuriya still holds the record for fastest ODI half-century (17 balls). His top score of 189 is not to be scoffed at either. I think he also is still the only player to make consecutive ODI scores of over 150.

However his record in itself is fairly un-extraordinary. Why then should we consider him for our HoF?

2) The impact of the 96 WC on world cricket.

It was this tournament that gave Jayasuriya a lot of his fame. Shelsey has given the stats - 231 runs at a SR of over 130.

People have rightly pointed out that the idea of batting aggressively in the 1st 15 overs wasn't new - teams had employed pinch-hitters in the past and New-Zealand had used Greatbach to very good effect in the previous WC. Perhaps so, but what was new was using arguably your best batsman at the top of the order with the instruction to score as quickly as possible.

Of course Sri Lanka won. And the tactic caught on. Gilchrist was eventually promoted to open, Shewag moved from the middle to the top of the order, as was Gibbs (who started his test career in the middle). Teams recognised that having an aggressive player at the top of the order was the way to go, in all conditions in all ODIs.

You could argue Greatbach got there first although I would argue Greatbach batted as a pinch-hitter whereas Jayasuriya and his modern analogues batted like batsmen. But that is perhaps besides the point. Australia's response to Greatbach being used as an opener was to promote Shane Warne up to number 3 or 4. Australia's response to Jayasuriya's success at the top of the order was to move Gilchrist there.

Certainly the 96 quarter-final was a watershed moment: England opened with Atherton and Robin Smith - both fine players who struggled to score at anything resembling 5 an over. Phil De Freitas smacked a few, and Dermot Reeve played a handy knock as England finished on 220odd. Jayasuriya responded by making a mockery of the chase, scoring 82 off 44 balls. Rarely if ever had such brutal hitting been seen at the top of the order on an international stage. Michael Atherton commented "I don't think it was one of the great innings" - most of us begged to differ.

People have questioned whether Jayasuriya was really a revolution, or simply an inevitability and Jayasuriya was just the right person at the right time. Ultimately I think that's a question you can make about any revolutionary tactical change, and I'm not sure it's something you can answer. What I do know for sure is that the way ODI cricket was played changed after the 96 WC. Whether it would have changed anyway... meh.

3) Beyond ODIs - the effect of the 96 WC on the hierarchy of test cricket.

As I raised in one of my previous posts, with thanks to msp for pointing it out.

Winning the 96 WC established Sri Lanka as a major force in world cricket - prior to that they were very much still the minnows, in a similar way to Bangladesh now.

Beyond that though, it was their win at the Oval (admitedly on a helpful wicket) in 98 over England which really confirmed to me that they were to be taken seriously. And whilst Murali deservedly gets most of the plaudits for that win, let's not forget that Sri Lanka were faced with a possibly daunting 445 when they first went in to bat, on a pitch which was expected to deteriorate. Anything short of a first innings lead and they'd be in trouble. Jayasuriya scored 213 up front, Aravinda made a fantastic hundred and the rest is history, as they say. Murali finished the job off, but Jayasuriya and SL's batsmen made it possible.

4) Did he go on too long?

Jayasuriya's longetivity is a matter of both admiration and concern. Certainly at the 2007 WC he was still performing (at all of 38 years old) and taking his team to the final (where he scored a very good 50 to keep SL in the hunt for a while). Certainly he managed to keep up good levels of fitness to mean he was rarely if ever cumbersome in the field (although he did spend a lot of time in T20s at short fine-leg).

But doubts remain. Equally certainly by the 2010 T20 WC he was but a shadow of his former self, and it was quite sad to see such a destructive batsman struggling so badly. Can we hold agreeing to return against him? That's up to everyone to decide, but personally I think knowing when to leave is an important aspect, so I would tend to, although not very much.

More worrying are the politics behind his final fling, with Jayasuriya by that stage an MP, and mutterings of political influence being used. Whilst it may be common practice, that doesn't make it right, and the player(s) who missed out on international caps because of it have a right to feel aggrieved. Again, whilst Jayasuriya may have been more of a passenger than a driver, he could have surely put his foot down, for the better of the game.

5) Conclusion:

Obviously if you're looking in this HoF to only induct the best of the best cricketers, then Jayasuriya falls short. But as a group we certainly have precedent that this is not the case (D'Olivera, Arlott, etc.). With that in mind you have to decide whether Jayasuriya's impact on the way ODI cricket is played around the world outweighs his (by HoF standards) rather ordinary career.

If I've left anything out, please say.

Mike - that strikes me as a commendably thorough and transparent post, thanks.
I would find it hugely disappointing if the HoF was the preserve only of the best of the best cricketers. If it was, pretty much all could be determined by career stats alone. For me, trying to identify and then judge an X factor is when our HoF best comes into its own.

Msp - meant to say earlier, a warm welcome to this thread. Valuable input already supplied - hope you'll stick around.

Jayasuriya may have averaged only around 40 in test cricket. But he has constructed some real massive knocks in both tests as well as ODIs. His 340 setup the highest test innings score by a team (953), His 254 against Pakistan is my personal favorite from Sanath, the already mentioned 213 that along with performances from Murali and Aravinda setup that massive win against England his 199 that immediately followed that 340.......
Jayasuriya has scored 180 + twice in ODIs and his 28 ODI hundreds include a few other big tons.
Before Jayasuriya, Sri Lanka never had a test opener who could make such an impact. Not many have scored consistent big runs at the top for them since then either.

guildfordbat wrote:Mike - that strikes me as a commendably thorough and transparent post, thanks.
I would find it hugely disappointing if the HoF was the preserve only of the best of the best cricketers. If it was, pretty much all could be determined by career stats alone. For me, trying to identify and then judge an X factor is when our HoF best comes into its own.

Msp - meant to say earlier, a warm welcome to this thread. Valuable input already supplied - hope you'll stick around.

Thanks Guildford.
Yes I agree, stats alone would take us nowhere.
How about this, "Andrew Flintoff was an England all-rounder who averaged 32 with the ball and 31 with the bat"?

Flintoff for me is not a HoF candidate, but what I am trying to say is that with players like Jayasuriya, the impact that the player had on his side, on cricket at large, all that are beyond stats. And his stats aren't bad by any means, particularly when you look at his bowling that was more than parttime.
Jayasuriya also played a constructive role as captain after the end of the Ranathunka days, often mentoring players like Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara.

msp83 wrote:Flintoff for me is not a HoF candidate, but what I am trying to say is that with players like Jayasuriya, the impact that the player had on his side, on cricket at large, all that are beyond stats. And his stats aren't bad by any means, particularly when you look at his bowling that was more than parttime.
Jayasuriya also played a constructive role as captain after the end of the Ranathunka days, often mentoring players like Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara.

MSP

Good to have another well-informed contributor on this thread. Hopefully we can recover the momentum to the discussions that there was last year.

I agree with you about Flintoff - he wasn't quite HoF material, but he was far more than the bare statistics show. For a spell of about 3 years he was close to being the world best all-rounder (probably never quite reached Kallis's level, because JK was as effective a bowler and a superior batsman), and he was a talismanic figure in the England team (and up the Aussies noses...). The numbers don't reflect it, and even his best match figures don't really reflect his influence on the games in his best period (as an aside, I always thought Flintoff the bowler was the opposite of Botham - IB had the knack of taking wickets with absolute tat, while Freddy probably bowled more great spells for no reward than anyone else in modern cricket). Oh, and Freddy probably did more to re-vitalise cricket's popularity in England than anyone since Botham.

I'm also with you that Jayasuriya's stats are good enough to not count against his inclusion in the HoF- yes, players with better careers have been proposed and rejected, but none of them did as much to change the manner in which one format of the game is played (and indeed there is a strong argument to say that Jayasuriya's success in ODIs had a knock-on effect into the tactics of Test cricket). Not sure he was a great captain, but then being captain of Sri Lanka during the period of the civil war can't have been easy.

Jayasuriya wasn't a great captain, but he was a good one. He took over when the likes of Arjuna and Aravinda were about to leave the seen, and Sri Lanka, having become a real cricketing force under Arjuna needed a calm hand to go on.

You could make an argument for the 2005 Ashes heroes - and Strauss, Vaughan and Flintoff in particular - being Hall of Fame candidates.

Freddie on grounds of his talismanic qualities, and Vaughan and Strauss for their fine captaincy records supplemented by some key batting efforts.

A debate for another day perhaps, and the starting position for me would be firmly no on all three, but I can see how it could be argued.

Mike Selig wrote:

People have rightly pointed out that the idea of batting aggressively in the 1st 15 overs wasn't new - teams had employed pinch-hitters in the past and New-Zealand had used Greatbach to very good effect in the previous WC. Perhaps so, but what was new was using arguably your best batsman at the top of the order with the instruction to score as quickly as possible.

Was Jayasuriya really Sri Lanka's best batsman?
Before the start of the WC in 1996 he'd played 99 matches and averaged 19.7 with a strike rate of 74 although, to be fair, his record opening was better (though still not great)

On Stan McCabe, another aspect we have to consider is his bowling. 36 wickets from 39 matches, and over 150 wickets in First Class cricket. Not bad to have as a 2nd string for a batsman who averaged 48 with the bat and scored his runs with a flourish.

is it too late for me to post why i want Jayasuria inducted in the HOF?

CF wrote:is it too late for me to post why i want Jayasuria inducted in the HOF?

No, not at all. Voting closes on Sunday morning.

my reasoning will be up shortly then

(also i thought fists was running this?)

Shelsey has kindly resurrected it, CF.

My votes:

McCabe - YES - The Don wanted to bat like him. Need we say more?
Ponsford - YES
Jayasuriya - NO
Hill - YES

Hoping to post further reasoning later.

Edit: Changed Hill to a yes.

ok cool was just wondering

and like i said my reasoning will go up later

I think Mike has expertly summarised the Jayasuriya case: I'd forgotten about the political interference which clouded the very end of his career, but still leaning very much towards a YES vote here. As msp (and Glenn McGrath) said, he changed the way ODIs are played, for me that's enough to get him into the HOF.

msp, I think the reason McCabe's bowling has received little mention is that his batting seems to be at the moment more than sufficient for most members here to grant him HOF status. Hoggy did mention it though, as you say a more than useful bowler, though probably not something I'd take into account much when deciding HOF status. Still, McCabe for me ticks all the boxes, so he'll get a YES vote as well.

I'm less clear on Ponsford and Hill at the moment, so would be keen to have some debate on those two