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."

On Hill, 'Plum' warner selected him as part of his 'all-time XI to play Mars' in 1925, if that helps.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/66976750?searchTerm=clem hill all-time great&searchLimits=

Hmm, praise indeed. I feel bad about the no vote as it is. Let me re-consider, no promises though.

Oh go on Fists, you know it make sense.
More runs at a higher average than Trumper.
Respected captain.
Widely regarded as the greatest left-hander ever up until WWII at least.
Once had a stand-up fist fight with a fellow selector, almost throwing him out of a third floor window.
How can you not say yes?

Mad for Chelsea wrote: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.

I managed to dig up this quote from Kumar Sangakkara which immediately followed Jayusuriya's retirement from Test cricket. It's a bit gushing for my liking but the main thrust shouldn't be dismissed on account of that:
''The World Cup win probably inspired not just me, but a whole generation of cricketers to try and play for Sri Lanka. He changed the face of world cricket, especially in the one-day arena. He's a wonderful cricketer, a wonderful man and he's had a wonderful career.''

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
Once had a stand-up fist fight with a fellow selector, almost throwing him out of a third floor window.

I knew Hill had a fight with a selector but hadn't twigged he almost threw him out of a third floor window. That's much better!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

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.

There are similarities with the bowling of McCabe and D'Oliveira. Both medium right armers. Both took about one wicket per Test for an average around 40. Whilst not to be totally disregarded, their bowling has to be seen as a pretty small supporting factor in their HoF nominations.

Just found another interesting piece on Hill. I think it may just have been his propensity for the big score on the big occasion that tipped the balance. That, along with your skills of persuasion, have seen me change my vote to a yes, Hoggy.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

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

Briefly on to these two as Mad understandably requests. I have some awareness of the leading names of pre WWII Test cricket but very little knowledge of their individual achievements and so no obvious feel as to whether they belong in the HoF or not. All very difficult. I suspect Mad is in a similar boat.

I've been doing a bit of reading around. Not just of the current nominees but others as well so as to try and get some form of context. I'm not sure if this will help at all but it might just add to the debate.

One player I've recently read a bit about is Arthur Morris. Australian opening bat and member of the Invincibles who played 46 Tests between 1946 and 1955. He finished with a Test average just over 46 and twelve centuries (top score 206 against England). We haven't considered him so far but I'm sure he's been mentioned as a possibility for the HoF (by Hoggy and/or Mike??). Anyway, he's described in the ''A to Z of Australian Test Cricketers'' (published in 1997) thus:
''Morris was seen as an elegant and aggressive player, and is regarded alongside [important bit coming up - at last!!] Clem Hill, Neil Harvey and Allan Border as one of Australia's greatest left-handed batsmen.''

It's the comparisons I found of interest. Hill is being placed on a par with an inaugural member of the HoF (Border), a play off contender (Harvey) and someone not yet nominated (Morris). Make of that what you can! I think a particular difficulty is caused by Harvey failing to get enough 'YES' votes first time round. I don't consider that a reason to turn down McCabe but those who voted against Harvey might want to be sure that McCabe has something extra.

A brief comment on Ponsford to follow.

Interesting. Will look at Hill in more detail later, but I was endeared to vote 'Yes' for Harvey because of some of the fighting innings he played against the odds, particularly on Pakistani matting wickets, which Richie Benaud praises highly in his book. Indeed, Benaud's high regard for Harvey was probably the final tipping factor when I made that decision.

Apologies for the miserable old git in me coming out but, unless there are very good individual reasons, I don't think it's fair on the nominees and fellow posters to be voting whilst debates are still ongoing.

Mini moan over.

interesting guildford, thanks for that.

My problem with Hill is much as you underline. Having played so long ago, we have little to go on. He's described in glowing terms by his contemporaries certainly, but while valuable I find contemporaries sometimes can be biased what seems indisputable is that he and Trumper were the two leading batsmen of that generation, and while Hill's legacy may not be the same as Trumper's, this is surely a major point in Hill's favour. Ultimately, of course, ignorance is not an excuse, so I shall have to do a bit more reading before casting a final verdict. This will probably have to wait until Saturday though as I'm really very busy at the moment.

Quick word on Morris: I more or less always have him in an Australian all-time XI, so would find it hard to exclude him from our HOF. Certainly one we'll have to discuss...

It's always interesting trying to weigh the evidence for the pre-WW1 players in particular, as the bald statistics can look rather mediocre but playing conditions were clearly entirely different to those of the modern era or even of the era between the wars (where clearly batting became much easier).

Looking at Hill, he is notable for a number of 'firsts' - first player to score 1000 test runs in a year, first Aussie to score 1000 runs in an Australian summer, first Test batsman to get out on 99. He retired as the highest run scorer in Test matches.

Interestingly, his Wikipedia bio includes a significant section on his brawl with a fellow selector, but also states that he was a popular figure with both teammates and opponents, and anecdotes heavily in favour of his on-field sportsmanship.

Overall, I'm warming to the guy as an HoF member.

guildfordbat wrote:Apologies for the miserable old git in me coming out but, unless there are very good individual reasons, I don't think it's fair on the nominees and fellow posters to be voting whilst debates are still ongoing.

Mini moan over.

Guilford, I quite agree, and mine may yet change, but I was doing it rather as a measure to ensure that I didn't forget and thus miss out on the round of votes entirely.

I'm quite open to persuasion.

In his 1988 article One Day Of Enlightenment that Shaped a Lifetime, John Arlott - a very recent HoF inductee - looked back to the first match he ever watched, the Ashes Test at the Oval in 1926.

Bill Ponsford played in that match and is referred to fleetingly as ''the mighty record-breaker and foreunner of Bradman''. All too brief a description but still of some value to me given the author.

Fists of Fury wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Apologies for the miserable old git in me coming out but, unless there are very good individual reasons, I don't think it's fair on the nominees and fellow posters to be voting whilst debates are still ongoing.

Mini moan over.

Guilford, I quite agree, and mine may yet change, but I was doing it rather as a measure to ensure that I didn't forget and thus miss out on the round of votes entirely.

I'm quite open to persuasion.

I assume you're quite agreeing that I'm a miserable old git! Probaly true.

More seriously, comments appreciated. Not a problem, mate.

Another little anecdote about Hill from F.R. Foster who recalled in his memoirs, regarding the argument that Warren Bardsley was a rival to Hill as the leading left-hander of the age, that 'Both Barnes and I regarded Bardsley as a rabbit compared to Hill'.

guildfordbat wrote:In his 1988 article One Day Of Enlightenment that Shaped a Lifetime, John Arlott - a very recent HoF inductee - looked back to the first match he ever watched, the Ashes Test at the Oval in 1926.

Bill Ponsford played in that match and is referred to fleetingly as ''the mighty record-breaker and foreunner of Bradman''. All too brief a description but still of some value to me given the author.

It highlights both the strength and weakness of Ponsford as an HoF nominee - his Shield performances were exceptionally good both on average and his extreme best performances. The question is at least in part whether he really lived up to that at Test level where he was clearly a very good player, but for much of his career perhaps fell below the expectations raised by his FC performance. Not exactly the Graeme Hick of his generation, and perhaps less of an issue because he was playing alongside Bradman for some of his Test career, but maybe struggled to live up to his reputation.

It's interesting that his best Test innings was in his last match.

I still think he did enough to be in our HoF, but was just thinking aloud.

dummy_half wrote:

The question is at least in part whether he really lived up to that at Test level where he was clearly a very good player, but for much of his career perhaps fell below the expectations raised by his FC performance. Not exactly the Graeme Hick of his generation, and perhaps less of an issue because he was playing alongside Bradman for some of his Test career, but maybe struggled to live up to his reputation.

Yep, this is what's bothering me about Ponsford.
Hill was up there, statistically, with the best of his generation, even though he might not have been as brilliant as some.
McCabe was not up there statistically with the best of his generation (although he had a good record), but performed acts of brilliance that surpassed virtually anything produced in his time.
Ponsford (in tests) was not up there, statistically, with the best of his generation, but neither did he perform acts of outstanding brilliance.
That, for me, is a problem.

Indeed.

Without having yet performed any detailed analysis of him, it appears to me that Ponsford was solid but far from the spectacular performer that, in my opinion, would be needed for Hall of Fame residence.

His raw statistics aren't bad, and his FC record is superb. But he played in an era with plenty of good players with better records, and does not appear to have been a pioneer for anything.

He also seems to have had a mixed record v England (which, after all, was all that really mattered in his era international-wise)

You could argue that we are showing a form of Anglo-Australian bias here: would an Englishman with Ponsford's FC record and a solid Test average of 48 have more chance of getting in?

I think I would need far more convincing on Ponsford and Hill. As has been already pointed out, Ponsford didn't live up to his potential as suggested by the difference between his FC and test record. He was a solid batsman, not much more than that as far as my reading and the discussions here tell me.
On Hill, yes he had top stats during his time, but that extra something is not quite there for me.
Jayasuriya and McCabe are yes for me already.

I know it doesn't really mean much, but was just looking at the ICC best ever batting rankings and Hill comes in at 33rd at his peak in 1902. Ahead of Javed Miandad (35th), Greg Chappell (36th), Allan Border (40th), Rohan Khanhai (44th), Stan McCabe (57th), Hanif Mohammad (78th) and Victor Trumper (91st), among others.

Food for thought?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:I know it doesn't really mean much, but was just looking at the ICC best ever batting rankings and Hill comes in at 33rd at his peak in 1902. Ahead of Javed Miandad (35th), Greg Chappell (36th), Allan Border (40th), Rohan Khanhai (44th), Stan McCabe (57th), Hanif Mohammad (78th) and Victor Trumper (91st), among others.

Food for thought?

Hoggy - not sure I really understand those rankings but I also noticed that our play off candidate Harvey came in 17th.

Didn't notice that Guildford, although it does support my decision to vote yes, (IIRC), for Harvey.
Seriously though, as I said I don't think these rankings are particularly meaningful of themselves, as they only show peak performance, but it's still a little bit of support for Hill's (and Harvey's) case.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

The question is at least in part whether he really lived up to that at Test level where he was clearly a very good player, but for much of his career perhaps fell below the expectations raised by his FC performance. Not exactly the Graeme Hick of his generation, and perhaps less of an issue because he was playing alongside Bradman for some of his Test career, but maybe struggled to live up to his reputation.

Yep, this is what's bothering me about Ponsford.
Hill was up there, statistically, with the best of his generation, even though he might not have been as brilliant as some.
McCabe was not up there statistically with the best of his generation (although he had a good record), but performed acts of brilliance that surpassed virtually anything produced in his time.
Ponsford (in tests) was not up there, statistically, with the best of his generation, but neither did he perform acts of outstanding brilliance.
That, for me, is a problem.

Not sure if we're edging towards being a bit harsh on Ponsford and a touch soft on McCabe. The latter probably had the most natural talent (ie excluding concentration and determination - you know what I mean, Mike, so don't start! ) but didn't fully deliver (against his potential anyway) in either first class or Test cricket.

Whilst Ponsford's first class average was 17 higher than his Test average (65 to 48), he certainly cannot be regarded as a forerunner for Hick. A Test average of 48 from any era is highly commendable and the same as McCabe's. [Wisden in their obituary of Ponsford as shown on Cricifo partly attribute Ponsford's lower Test average to illness (tonsillitis) and injury (broken bone in his hand) affecting his form and confidence in several tests against England.]

Shelsey questions whether Ponsford was ''a pioneer for anything''. In his 2009 book And God Created Cricket, Simon Hughes suggests - as Arlott did more than twenty years earlier - that Ponsford was the pioneer for or, at least, the forerunner of Bradman. Having detailed many of Bradman's accomplishments in his second full season of 1928-29, Hughes continues, ''There followed a 340 for New South Wales and, a few weeks later, an innings of 452 not out against Queensland at the SCG, trumping the quadruple centuries of the contemporary Victorian Bill Ponsford who, in effect, had laid down the standard which Bradman sought to emulate.''

Even if Ponsford was only the warm up man, he still deserves respect given the main act he was heralding.

As Hoggy has earlier set out, Ponsford featured in more than one massive Test partnership with Bradman and earned much praise from contemporaries.

Even if we ignore Ponsford's Test record - and it's certainly not so modest as to automatically exclude him from the HoF unlike Frank Woolley who had an illustrious style and first class record but little in the way of Test pedigree - his first class record alone surely merits serious consideration as to whether to grant him a place in our esteemed Hall.

Of all batsmen from the very beginning of our game who have at least 50 completed innings, only four others have a higher first class average - Bradman, Vijay Merchant (who seems so far to have slipped under our radar), George Headley ''the black Bradman'' and the shamed Ajay Sharma. Probably worth touching on here the concern that Ponsford was merely ''solid''; another term for that is perhaps ''consistently reliable'' as his first class career average placing demonstrates.

Add to that, Ponsford is one of only two batsmen to ever reach 400 twice; the other being Brian Lara, not bad company and not a bad shout by itself for Ponsford getting into the HoF.

There have been suggestions that Ponsford's 400 came against a pretty average bowling attack. To score 400+ takes some doing, to do it twice is more special. But from what I have read, I think he wasn't as consistent as his average might suggest. Had some monster series and some pretty average ones as well. Seems to have struggled against pacy attack during that 1932 series.
A fine player, we have had many of those. Matthew Hayden is one case, has a mighty fine record in all formats, was involved in some big partnership particularly with his opening partner Justin Langer, took a number of catches and played spin better than most Australian batsmen during his time. And of course his highest score in tests is 380.
Is Hayden a HoF material? I think I would need more convincing on that front. Perhaps Hayden would come in for discussion at some stage, but what I am suggesting is that Ponsford's fine record hasn't made a convincing case for me to get him into the HoF as yet.

AAARGH!!!

On Ponsford, I feel like that guy in the sketch from the 'Fast Show' who used to change his mind every time someone put a new point.
I mean, I can certainly see where guidford is coming from. After all, I proposed Ponsford and I appreciate the argument that he was a consistent performer at Test level, and the man who paved the way for the 'total batting' of Bradman through his performances in the Shield.
However, I can also see the comparison with Hayden proposed by msp. A solid, high scoring opener but perhaps lacking that certain je ne sais quoi to lift him, unquestionably, into the top rank.

Decisions, decisions.

msp83 wrote:There have been suggestions that Ponsford's 400 came against a pretty average bowling attack. To score 400+ takes some doing, to do it twice is more special.

A couple of seasons ago at the Oval when Surrey's now captain was far less popular than he is today, I heard it suggested that Lara's 400 for the West Indies should be scrubbed from the record books as it was achieved against the bowling of Gareth Batty.

I'm curious

We've had nominees in the past who would perhaps fall short of the HoF level based solely on international cricket, but who have had their standing enhanced by exceptional FC records (Woolley being the biggest example, but it also weighed on discussion of the likes of Statham and even Wilfred Rhodes). Yet here we have Ponsford, with an extraordinary FC record being either disregarded or even held against him when considered with a borderline Test record.

Also, as others have commented, McCabe seems to be getting an easy ride and Ponsford a very tough one despite Ponsford being the one who appears to be held in higher regard by his countrymen (and the two having very similar Test records).
McCabe had one great innings in the first match of the Bodyline series, but it was in a match that was lost by 10 wickets, and he was unable to replicate the success - his next best innings was 73 and otherwise didn't reach 50, finishing the 5 test series with an average of 42.8. It seems to me that this one innings has taken on rather more significance than it meritted.

some interesting points.

I think comparing Ponsford to a Graeme Hick is very unfair: Hick had an ordinary test record, Ponsford had a very fine one, it's just that his FC record is extraordinary (Hick's is merely excellent). This should in no way be held against him, but I don't see it as a determining factor. Basically the reason I may seem to be giving McCabe a bit of a free ride is because McCabe had the ability to play innings very few others could do. Add that to a very fine record and he ticks all my boxes (In the HOF I'm looking for "special" players, something not easy to define).

The problem is we're dealing with fine margins here: I suspect each of this set of nominees will be borderline for at least some posters, which means that though two players on paper say have similar records we ultimately need to make a choice. When yoou see the level of player we've left out of the HOF (with second ballots to come of course - I suspect quite a few will make it then), it's a tough tough choice to make.

dummy_half's point about McCabe is an interesting one. but as MFC said, McCabe seems like the player with that something extra and he has a fine record in test cricket. As I said he was more than useful with the ball as well.
So as of now I remain fully convinced about Jayasuriya, is getting closer to yes for McCabe and very close to no for the other 2.
Now as far as the voting time goes, what is the standard time? GMT?

The voting time is UK time (so currently BST). I've set it for 9am on Sunday but obviously if anybody votes after then but before anyone counts the votes up that would still be acceptable.

Shelsey93 wrote:The voting time is UK time (so currently BST). I've set it for 9am on Sunday but obviously if anybody votes after then but before anyone counts the votes up that would still be acceptable.

Thanks Shelsey for the clarification.

MfC

I'm not swayed by the argument that McCabe had any more ability than Ponsford to play the 'special' innings attributed to him. As I've said, their Test records (as partial contemporaries) are similar (indeed, Ponsford's is arguably better as although their averages were identical, Ponsford scored 7 centuries to McCabe's 6 in 10 fewer matches [29 v 39], converted 50s to hundreds better and had a higher best score), however Ponsford had by far the better FC record, is one of only 2 players to have passed 400 in a FC innings twice and was involved in some epic stands in particular with Bradman (in Ponsford's final test series).

McCabe's 'superior' reputation on here does seem to come down to the one innings in the Bodyline series, which appears to have taken on special qualities that even McCabe didn't think it had (he said that he was lucky and that it was a very high risk strategy that just paid off on that one day).

I will make clear that I am not trying to play down McCabe's abilities or credentials as an HoF nominee, but he just doesn't seem to be subject to the same scrutiny as Ponsford is, and this free pass seems to relate to ONE innings and a few comments from Bradman about how talented McCabe was.

As an aside, how many other Test batsmen made their highest score in the last match before retirement?

msp83 wrote:dummy_half's point about McCabe is an interesting one. but as MFC said, McCabe seems like the player with that something extra and he has a fine record in test cricket. As I said he was more than useful with the ball as well.

The cynics might say that McCabe's something extra was an inability to deliver day in day out.

They would probably also say it's over stretching it to claim McCabe was ''more than useful with the ball'' - an average of almost 43 and less than one wicket per test.

Despite the above, I actually see a lot of positives about McCabe as I do about all the current nominees. An intriguing foursome. All have valuable claims although questions can be raised about each one ....

I'd argue that is more than just the one innings though dummy, hoggy mentioned three in his initial post. That Ponsford had more ability to play the long innings than McCabe isn't in doubt. In fact, Ponsford may well have been the first great accumulator though, and that is very much a point in his favour.

as guildford says, an intriguing foursome.

McCabe may not have delivered "day in day out" as guildford puts it, but when he did deliver it was in spectacular fashion and in a way which very few other players could have emulated. That's what I see as special in him. Others (like guildford undoubtedly ) will point out that they prefer an ability to deliver consistently in an understated manner. To me both are important, and while I attach a slight personal preference to the "flair" players (I believe they leave a greater legacy) that doesn't make me right.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

McCabe may not have delivered "day in day out" as guildford puts it, but when he did deliver it was in spectacular fashion and in a way which very few other players could have emulated. That's what I see as special in him. Others (like guildford undoubtedly ) will point out that they prefer an ability to deliver consistently in an understated manner ...

I was really trying to put the other side of the argument rather than state a personal preference. I do suspect though that we tend to under rate those who ''deliver consistently in an understated manner'' and so feel they deserve their case to be firmly put.

Like Dummy, I'm not opposed to McCabe but find the apparently greater support for him than Ponsford curious.

Think I had better start my votes and explanations soon to beat the Sunday morning deadline.

Some interesting quotes about McCabe (pinched from his Wisden obituary):

Sir Len Hutton: "I knew him well. It would be hard to think of a greater Australian batsman. He had qualities that even Bradman hadn't got. I always liked to watch him bat and he was a most likeable fellow."

In many ways this almost seals the deal for me - England's leading batsman saying that McCabe was in the same league (or even better than Bradman).

Bradman's (reported) words after McCabe scored 232* v England in 1938: "If I could play an innings like that, I'd be a proud man, Stan"

Less significant to me but nonetheless, any praise from Bradman is worthy of comment.

The major counter-argument to his inclusion is that he scored only six Test 100s and 13 50s, despite playing a fair number of Tests (39) and playing in an era where others did score really heavily. Nevertheless, 2 of those Test 100s appear to have been truly special - the 232* and the 187* at Sydney during Bodyline. It must be said that the double-ton came after 4 England batsmen had already scored centuries of their own (and before two more Aussies ,including Bradman, did so in the follow-on), but that shouldn't take much away from the knock.

Overall, I pretty much think he's worthy.


Meanwhile, I still can't countenance a yes vote for Ponsford. He just doesn't excite me. His domestic exploits are worthy but difficult to contextualise - here I think some comparison to Hick/ Ramps is actually appropriate: whilst neither was as good a Test player as Ponsford, both performed some stunning exploits in domestic cricket. But I wouldn't think either would be remotely considered for the Hall of Fame. Was he the first great accumulator? He was certainly amongst the first, but in his era he also had Bradman, Hammond and Woodfull amongst others. And Jack Hobbs had arguably taken the title 20 years earlier.

In terms of an explanation for his relative failure at the highest level the Wisden obituary comments that "Against high pace he was less secure, and when facing left-armers like Voce and Quinn, the South African, he at times showed a tendency to move too far across his wicket". One must assume that this standard of bowling was broadly absent from Aussie domestic cricket. He also seems to have had particular issues with Larwood, although it is pointed out that he came through to make 85 in the 3rd Test of the Bodyline series.

I'm going to try and flesh out my votes over the weekend if I get time (sorry, on a rugby watching trip to Devon)

-Jayasuriya - no for me
Very good player, but I'm still not convinced by his credit for the quick scoring opener innovation - firstly there was the Greatbach example (admittedly pinch-hitting), secondly prior to the 95 world cup Sri Lanka had already moved Kaluwitharana (spelling?) up to open in Australia with some success (ultimately he'd been largely "worked out" by the end of that series), before opting to move Jayasuriya up as well - before that they were both batting in the lower middle order. Both were almost "throwaways" with the likes of Aravinda following in the order. And his overall record doesn't quite get him there.

Ponsford - My view of him his coloured by the '80s Australian "Bodyline" miniseries where he was portrayed as the calm collected captain in the face of adversity, and I'm not sure I have a grasp of the real man yet. But the "good but not great" overall stats plus the lack of a some "brilliant" test innings makes him a No for me

McCabe - a good record, and several great innings. And there's Bradman's "I wish I could have batted like that" quote. A yes for me

Clem Hill - Undecided, will think some more on him.

Apologies (to guildford especially) for posting Green Mountain votes early - wasn't sure I'd get the chance to post full reasoning before Sunday.
But here goes:

Jayasuriya:
Reservation here is perspective.
I also never saw him play (OK, no snarky comments, never saw the others either -obviously, I hope) or followed his career, but nothing I've subsequently read suggests that he stands at HOF level if his ODI exploits are not considered.
As time passes, his contribution to the one day game can be better placed in context, as can his overall contribution to Sri Lankan cricket on the world stage. Don't see any of other Sri Lankan pioneers considered yet, although we'll surely soon be considering someone whose career is transcendant.
In the Test arena, I don't consider his record stands alongside some others who have not been elected.


For the Aussie batsmen, much has already been written on this thread, so trust this is recognising credentials testified to so far:

Hill:
For all the credentials that Hill has, leading scorer in Test cricket when he retired for instance, it seems some are damned with faint praise.
The normally exuberant Benaud cites his record for most nineties in Test cricket (at the time) yet his praise never rises above the "dependable" level.
The Aussies failed to include him in their original Hall Of Fame class and, in fact, waited six years and eleven further inductees before including him, many of those eleven not considered in the 606v2 Hall. This may be due to his "colorful" history but, regardless, I place importance to how cricketers of the past were viewed by his peers, or at least those steeped in cricket's institutional history.


Ponsford:
An original member of the inaugural Aussie HOF class.
Member of Aussie Team of the Century.
One of only three batman (with Hammond and Bradman) with three triple-centuries.
Benaud calls him "the first great run-getter of the Australian cricket world", (even though Clem Hill preceded him).
Curiosity: He was color blind - apparently couldn't distinguish any color characteristics of the ball, whether shiny red or worn a dull dirty almost-brown.


McCabe:
A little biased here; when I was growing up my father's generation spoke of McCabe in reverential tones, anecdotedly a powerful stroke-player who could grab a bowling attack by the scruff of the neck. The image has remained, fortified by commentators and obsevers:
~Cardus bracketed "Bradman, Hammond, Compton and McCabe" as "stroke players".
~He also describes McCabe, somewhat colourfully as "never the labourer. His defences have been strengthened more by experience than by application of principles. He is a natural batsman, with strokes which he makes as instinctively as he walks or breathes. The hook is most times a dynamic hit and, as its name denotes, a little awkward. McCabe can hook lissomely; he gives to the stroke a curve - rounds off the angles."
~Clearly Benaud loved stories of McCabe: His 187 n.o. in the First Test of the Bodyline Series "was said to be the greatest exhibition of hooking ever seen on the ground".
~Benaud also records Bradman as describing his 232, scored out of 277, at Trent Bridge as being "one of the greatest innings ever played by an Australian cricketer." 'You will never see the like of this again."

It's not clear exactly whether his career was essentially finished by the time WWII hostilities had begun - his health wasn't great but we can't ever know if he might have returned to fitness and form.
Elected to the Aussie HOF in 2002, not a founder member, but three years before Hill. Style over substance? We'll never know.


And that lot amplifies reasons for my votes!

Kwini - no need to apologise but appreciated and helpful, thanks.

To add to the Curiosity about Ponsford. My dad was also colour blind. This was only discovered in the early days of WWII when he kept joining up the wrong wires for the bombs he was making!

Voting time:

Clem Hill - Hasn't produced a huge amount of discussion, but I think I see enough for his inclusion: Test cricket's leading runscorer pre-WWI, and with an average the same as Trumper. Played almost all his Test cricket v England, who had some prolific bowlers, too. A YES from me.

Sanath Jayasuriya - Undoubtedly changed the way ODIs were played for a time, but the fact that more technically correct batsmen have returned to the fore in recent years suggests to me that this was little more than a passing fad. His performance in '96 falls a little way below tournament-changing, and as a Test player he's only OK. Would certainly be in an ODI Hall of Fame, but I can't quite get him into this exclusive company - NO.

Stan McCabe - The regard in which he's held by his peers is enough to tip a close call in his favour for me. YES.

Bill Ponsford - Good but unexciting, and flaws at the highest level have been highlighted. Whilst McCabe is widely praised, Ponsford gets only a passing mention in Richie Benaud's book. A NO.

All very tough calls this week, and I think results could be interesting - a few more play-off candidates perhaps?

Shelsey,
Even less on Hill in Benaud's book - I thought Richie's description of Ponsford as the "first great run-getter of the Australian cricket world" was instructive; also the Aussie's failure to elect Hill to their HOF until 2005 whereas Ponsford was a member of the small inaugural class.

Agree about the "tough calls", but I'm a little surprised that Ponsford hasn't yet been inducted into the ICC HOF.

My votes.

As Shelsey says, ''all very tough calls''. I've had to rely on stats more than I would normally like for the three Aussies as I didn't have an instinctive feel. However, I've still tried to take account of contemporary and later opinions.

In my order of merit.

Bill Ponsford - a stunning fist class record with two scores in excess of 400 and fifth in the all time batting averages. A commendable Test average with centuries in both of his first two and last two Tests. Some would say that what went in between Test wise was not good enough. I would say that I understand the argument although they take it too far. Not only did Ponsford have a good conversion rate of fifties to centuries but of his seven Test fifties only one was below 80. As for the criticism that he was lacking flair and unexciting, I think that is overly harsh and ignores necessary team dynamics. For all his merits which I will come onto later, you would not want six Stan McCabes in your side. I think instead we should praise - as Wisden did in his obituary - Ponsford's ''phenomenal powers of concentration'' and ''insatiable appetite for runs''. Interestingly with regard to the latter point, there seems none of the innate selfishness with Ponsford that we immediately associate with a run obsessive like Boycott. Instead, I recall Arlott calling him ''the forerunner of Bradman'' and Hughes (a fine writer and judge in spite of or, perhaps, because of being a fairly ordinary player) referring to him as ''laying down the standard which Bradman sought to emulate''.

Clearly his Test record did not match his first class record. However, that should not be used as a stick to beat him. His first class record deserves to be widely celebrated and his Test record applauded along with the legacy he set down for Bradman. In my view, the Aussies got it right in choosing him as one of their first Hall of Fame members. YES.

Clem Hill - a Test batting average of 39 does not immediately set my - nor, I would guess, many others' - world on fire. However, context is key; in particular, playing conditions and match circumstances. Batting conditions in Hill's era were patently far worse than today and, as Shelsey astutely points out, England had several bowlers more than capable of taking advantage of them. Any concern over Hill's average falls away when compared with such luminaries as Grace (7 lower than Hill), Trumper (the same) and, in more recent times, Gomes (the same).

For me, two career achievements and their length before being equalled stand out. Upon his retirement, Hill had scored more Test runs than anyone else; a record held for twelve years until surpassed by the mighty Hobbs. He was also the first player to score a thousand Test runs in a calendar year; an achievement which took forty-five years to be accomplished by another, Dennis Compton.

In view of this, it seems strange he is not more widely known. As Hoggy suggested early on in our debate, his comparative lack of flair to Trumper is probably the reason. I'm in no position to judge his flair nor do I feel that I have any right to say that those in an earlier era were wrong to place so much emphasis on it. I do though believe that Hill's achievements merit serious recognition and respect, however the runs were made. For these reasons, I would welcome him into our Hall and hope to learn more about him and his time. YES

Two more votes this evening. Off to Woking now and the FA Cup.

So voting time approaches ...

I have to decline Jayasuriya - some eloquent arguments on his behalf from Mike and MFC haven't quite won me over : I would pick him in a One Day HOF like a shot , but his ODI exploits don't quite convince me alongside his handy rather than stellar Test career. I should say I don't have any issue with some ordinary form at the "postscript" part of his career. I feel if a player answers the call of his country , even when he arguably shouldn't for his own record's sake , it should stand to his credit - even if it doesn't do much for his average. But he still just misses , for me.

Clem Hill is a Yes. The average doesn't look much in modern terms , but he played in another era when massive scores were a lot less common , and his figures stand out rather well against his contemporaries. As a holder of the most runs record for more than a decade he is a natural inclusion for our HOF , and I suspect if he were not so remote from us in time he would probably be a great deal better known. In truth there are probably very few cricketers from his time whose names evoke the instant recognition common to the heroes of the post war game , and even those between the wars.

Also voting Yes for McCabe. Too much emphasis on one innings ? Perhaps . I wasn't there to see it , which may surprise some of the irreverent youngsters I play with today , but reading contemporary accounts and considering Bradman's lavish praise , I certainly wish I had been !
It wasn't just one innings though. He played astonishing innings in Johannesburg , and Sydney in the body line series as well , and despite his dashing methods his average is well up there at 48.21 , and in fact is only a little lower than his first class figure. His Test career was actually shorter than it might have been, the war coming at just the wrong time for him ,as at 29 he was in his prime as a batsman when it broke out. Perhaps his record would have been better again were it not for that unfortunate piece of timing? Never mind , he is a Yes for me anyway.

Lastly Ponsford and the one that has given me the most headaches...I have wavered this way and that reading arguments on preceding pages...Does he suffer from comparison with the more exciting McCabe and the even heavier scoring Bradman to the extent that we downgrade his own extremely good record as a big scorer ? Is it fair to hold his amazing first class figures against him , just because his Test efforts didn't quite reach the levels they might have suggested were within his grasp ? Does he somehow come across as rather colourless because , unlike Hill , he never indulged in a punch up with a national selector ?
The big weakness in my mind is that Larwood seems to have sorted him out rather thoroughly when they met, and over three different series. Without exactly saying "flat track bully" I am left with that slight doubt as to whether his large run record owed much to the benign nature of many pitches at the time and some possibly less than dangerous attacks ...
I know he is highly regarded in Australian cricket circles , and perhaps I am being a bit unfair , but we have left some good players on the shelf already and I am going to give this one a No , even at the risk of feeling a bit bad about it.

Jayasuriya making another comeback today, this time as captain of an XI of mostly B-list ageing T20 players against a Pakistani team in Karachi.

His first over went for 23...

Shelsey93 wrote:
Sanath Jayasuriya [...] but the fact that more technically correct batsmen have returned to the fore in recent years

I think this is a bit unfair. The "fad" lasted the best part of 15 years, which is more than a third in the history of ODI cricket.

Moreover the reason teams may well be returning to technically correct batsmen rather than dashers is a lot down to recent changes in law (1st PP only being 10 overs and with 2 new balls), rather than any failings of the previous status.

A few people wondering if we're being too easy on McCabe and too harsh on Ponsford in light of their similar records. This to me illustrates the problems with judging players against each-other rather than purely on their own merits. Of course in this case it is probably more justified by the fact that their careers overlapped for a large part, but in general I'm not sure it is good practice.

For me McCabe is a fairly obvious but marginal YES in the sense that his record is good, and he has a few outstanding innings which make his impact on the game secure. If I were to compare him to someone it wouldn't be Ponsford (despite the similar records) but someone like Gooch - very good overall record with a few outstanding innings which set him apart (that I voted NO for Gooch in the strongest possible terms was down to his off-field contributions towards coaching and practice methods which set England back several years).

Ponsford is borderline, and I'm still undecided.

It is interesting how statistics aren't everything. I think Morris averages less than Ponsford, but I'm willing to bet that most would have Morris ahead of Ponsford in their all-time Aus XIs...

It seems Jayasuriya is going to fail to make the cut. As the person who put him forward surprisingly I'm not that bothered - he is also for me fairly borderline, and I'm just happy we've been able to discuss him and give him the credit he deserves.

Evening all; just returned after extended patrol. Most gratified to see the HoF thread well and truly sprung back to life.

I would certainly be up for re-making the case for Patsy Hendren in a forthcoming round....

Haven't had time to read all the contributions by any stretch. (Tho' I did note the point that any landmark / career defining innings made against the bowling of Gareth Batty ought to be ignored! )

Probably won't have time to consider the case properly and vote in the current round - but does anyone know whether any of the candidates is on a knife edge?

So Woking will concentrate on the League and I'll give my last two votes.

Again, in my order of merit and a couple of exceptionally close calls.

Stan McCabe - scintillating though it clearly was, too much is probably made of McCabe's unbeaten 187 in the first innings of the Bodyline series. As Dummy has pointed out, it did not prevent a ten wicket defeat. Furthermore, in the rest of that series McCabe managed less than 200 runs from nine completed innings for an average of just 22. That said - and I'll soon start to morph into that guy Hoggy mentioned from the Fast Show - McCabe more than once repeated the brilliance of that innings in other series against England again and also South Africa. His Test career ended with a commendable average of 48, equalling that of Ponsford. When it came off, the attacking and entertaining nature of his play resulted in high praise from from team mates, opponents and at least one umpire (the respected George Hele who stood in all five Bodyline series and whom I quoted months ago in support of Larwood) plus a range of writers. Whilst his approach did not always work and therefore came with a greater risk than some, he was always a huge pull for spectators and the significance of that should not be underestimated. That together with his clear triumphs get him in even though I still feel I would have liked a little more from his undoubted talent. YES

Jayusuriya to follow.

My votes.
Sanath Jayasuriya. Think I have made my views clear over the course of the debate. Jayasuriya has been an impact player in all formats of the game that he played. I think when we think of the HoF, we have to give due importance to all farmats the player has played and not just tests. Jayasuriya's impact has been larger than the stats suggests. I don't think many people have given enough importance to the impact test knocks of Jayasuriya here. Another factor that I feel hasn't been taken into serious account is his bowling, more than 400 international wickets have to count for something? Jayasuriya's role in transforming a side that was considered not much of a match to others till 1996 turned itself around even in test matches, and a man who is 3rd on the list of run getters and 6th on the list of wicket takers surely have played a huge role? Not to forget his quick scoring style often gave Murili and co more time to run through their opposition. His extended career and ability to bounce back from setbacks are added reasons forme. A sure yes, and I hope he would generate enough support to make and some would make a last minute reconsideration.
Stan McCabe. Unlike Jayasuriya, all that I know about the other 3 under consideration is material available mostly on the web. McCabe looks to me a massive impact player who was pretty good against pace with a pretty good test batting record and a handy option with the ball. Yes for me.
Hill had the stats that are impressive in context, but I couldn't find that extra something. By this I don't mean I was looking for him scoring hundred in 50 minutes, but a few special innings in dificult circumstances....... Tough call, but it has to stay no for me.
Bill Ponsford. Like I said earlier, a comparison with Matthew Hayden could be instructive. A very fine player who did some very interesting things in FC cricket, but for me his inconsistencies and what seems like a bit of an issue against pace are concerns, and it would stay no.