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."

My last vote.

Sanath Jayusuriya - very decent supporting factors. A twenty-two year intenational career; a Test average above (albeit fractionally) 40 with a top score of 340 and 14 centuries; almost a hundred Test wickets; in ODIs, 28 hundreds and over 300 wickets. Even together these don't get him a place in our Hall but they're mighty useful to hang on to a main case.

Is the main case of his innovative and game changing role in the 1996 World Cup as initially proposed by Mike sufficiently proven? I have to say - not for me. The argument certainly has strength but, as Pete particularly sets out, doubts remain even with the supportive comments of McGrath and Sangakkara going into the mix. I'll therefore add Jayusuriya's contribution in '96 to the pot but can't vote for him yet.

Is there anything else? I think there is although we need to look wider. Recent and more distant history has shown how extremely difficult it is for a nation granted Test status to establish itself as a genuine rival to other Test playing countries. I am particularly thinking here of Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and going back much further New Zealand. The one exception has been Sri Lanka who were only awarded Test status as comparatively recently as the early 1980s. They are now firmly entrenched as a strong and respected Test and one day competitor. Regardless of tactics adopted in the '96 World Cup, a lot of that stems from their WC success and the contribution made then and since by Jayusuriya. Whilst Muralitharan has unquestionably been their principal match winner, Sri Lanka's foundations in all formats of the game have been built upon their batting and underpinned by one man, Jayusuriya.

Of all countries, Sri Lanka have the highest innings scores in each of Test, ODI and T20 cricket. In each of those three innings, Jayusuriya was their highest scorer. That is a tremendous accomplishment for one country - particularly newish to international competition - and one player. Even with uncertainties about the reason for his initial nomination, that together with the many supporting factors gets him my vote. YES.

So that is 4 out of 4 YES votes from me. More than I expected a few days ago but what I consider right when judging each nominee on his own merits.

time for the votes then:

McCabe: YES

As I've said on a couple of occasions, he ticks all my boxes: a very fine cricketer with that ability to play some truly special innings (Hoggy highlighted three of them). Having read a fair bit about the Bodyline series makes me a little biased (and indeed maybe guilty of overstating that 187 not out), but I believe anyone who can receive such praise from Bradman and Barnes is a worthy HoF member.

Jayasuriya: YES

I feel sometimes we are guilty of attaching too much importance to Test cricket (this is borne out by a couple of posters stating he would be nailed on for an ODI HoF). Jayasuriya for me re-defined the role of an opener (not pinch-hitter) in ODIs (this is borne out by McGrath's comments), and was man of the tournament in the 96 WC which put SL on the map as a leading cricketer nation. While question marks surround the very end of his career, I believe his contribution to cricket on the whole makes him a worthy addition to our HoF.

Ponsford: YES

A difficult choice, but I have decided that Ponsford is worthy of HoF status. A very fine cricketer, and one of (if not the) first great accumulators. Being one of only two to hold two scores of 400+ is some feat, and in a sense he was the precursor to Bradman's run-getting exploits.

Hill: NO

A very reluctant NO vote here. Basically at the end of the day I wasn't quite sure that Hill warranted HoF status. A mighty fine cricketer, one of the leading batsmen of his generation, but ultimately feel he hasn't quite left enough of a legacy to be included. A really tough choice, but considering some of the fine names left out of our HoF, I asked myself "did Hill do more?" and had to concede he didn't.

Chelsea,
Surely there needs to be something of a level playing field here?
It's only cricketers of the past fifty years who could possibly have played (first-class equivalent) one day cricket.

Given the number of careers that were truncated by wars and other such trivia, I will find it difficult to advocate candidates for the HOF primarily due to their one day exploits. I further would imagine batsmen would be favoured over bowlers also.

I'd think it's fine for the one day game to be the icing on the cake of a wonderful Test career, but hardly the other way round.

Feel free to call me an out of date old fart . . . . . . .

you're an out of date old fart

on a more serious note, Mike does these lectures far better than I do, but one day cricket is
- the format the WC is played in
- the only format played in most cricket-playing nations (such as France )

I suspect we'd happily include a player into our HoF if he has a fine test record but an average ODI one, but we'd be much more reticent doing it the other way around. I'm just not sure this is right. However I think this debate will be much more worth having when (if?) we discuss the case of Michael Bevan, who's clearly in the very elite of ODI batsmen but had a poor test record. In Jayasuriya's case, his ODI record isn't that extraordinary, nor his test record so poor. His case for HoF inclusion is based purely on the revolutionary aspect he brought to cricket.

kwinigolfer wrote:
Feel free to call me an out of date old fart . . . . . . .

I'm not MfC but I will certainly call you an old-fashioned so and so.

I agree with MfC's point that occasionally people can be what I call "test cricket snobs" meaning they see it as the ONLY worthwhile form of the game.

Each format of the game in itself has its own challenges, and unlike some I don't think test cricket is the hardest form of the game, just different from the others. This is borne out by many expert commentators including Shane Warne BTW.

Whilst I agree that test cricket is the prestige format, I sometimes feel cricket fans over-egg this particular pudding, at the expense of the other formats.

You argue that players in years gone by didn't play ODIs. True. Also they played 3, 4 day or sometimes timeless tests, with different number of overs per day (ranging from 75 to well over 100), uncovered pitches, sometimes artificial pitches; probably slower bowlers. Non-neutral umpires; no 3rd umpire for stumpings etc. Different rules for what was a no-ball and so on...

The players around in the pre-first world war years who played "test cricket" also were helped by the fact that the strongest two sides around at that time - the USA and Argentina - were excluded for political reasons.

Similarly they didn't face as much international cricket as the players playing today, or as many teams. This comes with advantages and disadvantages.

What is my point? My point is simply that cricket is an ever-changing game, and test cricket an ever changing formula.

It is a myth to suggest that test cricket is "traditional" - firstly because the first international match (USA vs Canada in fact in 1845) arrived so long after cricket started that if we're talking traditional to mean "first played" we should all be playing in top hats, coloured clothing, bowling underarm and batting with hockey sticks and with stumps resembling croquet hoops; secondly because even if you say "OK, but more traditional than ODI cricket" it is clear that the way cricket in played nowadays in tests far more resembles current ODI cricket than test cricket in the 1800s.

To exclude great ODI players because previous players never had the chance to play them seems ill-conceived; different eras threw up different challenges and games - judge each person based on how they performed in their time, not based on how they would have performed in a different one.

Anyway, time for some votes:

McCabe:
A fairly clear if marginal (if you know what I mean) YES. Excellent record, and that "bit extra" with his style and a few great innings.

Jayasuriya:
This was actually a tough one for me (I know I proposed him to start with, but this was partly to generate debate - pleased to see I've succeeded). A lot of good counterclaims were made, and guildfor asked the very pertinent question "he had that bit extra, but was he excellent?" (I paraphrase somewhat). I'm not so sure the answer is yes, but this is my vote and so I reserve the right to shift goalposts when needed .
With that in mind, and purely for his extraordinary impact on the way cricket was played not only in ODIs but also in tests, and also his impact on making SL into an international force in all formats (a point well made by msp and well picked up on by guildford) I give Jayasuriya a YES.

Still undecided on the other two - this is tough. I'll sleep on it.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
In Jayasuriya's case, his ... case for HoF inclusion is based purely on the revolutionary aspect he brought to cricket.

Mad - not in my view. Explained in the comments where I vote for him (and earlier by msp).

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
In Jayasuriya's case, his ... case for HoF inclusion is based purely on the revolutionary aspect he brought to cricket.

Mad - not in my view. Explained in the comments where I vote for him (and earlier by msp).

I phrased that badly. I meant "what he brought to cricket" in the sense of
- helping put SL on the world map
- the new opener's role in ODIs (and indeed in Tests)
rather than his record per se.

Mike and Chelsea,
I agree with you to a point, but it's not a question of being Test Cricket "snobs", it's surely an issue of everyone being considered to similar criteria.

If we were to vote, as I think I suggested many moons ago, on players achievements by era, rather than out of order (as it were), I think there might be the opportunity for more consistency.

In the absence of that, my votes will be for those who excelled in the most traditional form of the game, simply because comparing Hill, for instance, with Jayasuriya's one-day prowess is impossible, or at best unfair.

It is ironic that one of the most outstanding one day batting performances, certainly of the one day game thru the eighties, was by none other than the GLY from Fitzwilliam who has been somewhat boycotted from the v2 Hall.

No argument with your point of view, just a godamnit contrarian perspective.

kwinigolfer wrote:Mike and Chelsea,
If we were to vote, as I think I suggested many moons ago, on players achievements by era, rather than out of order (as it were), I think there might be the opportunity for more consistency.

In the absence of that, my votes will be for those who excelled in the most traditional form of the game, simply because comparing Hill, for instance, with Jayasuriya's one-day prowess is impossible, or at best unfair.

Which is why I advocate not getting too hung up over consistency (it is impossible) and judging people against a fixed set of criteria rather than comparing them.

kwinigolfer wrote:No argument with your point of view, just a godamnit contrarian perspective.

Much necessary. Life would be dull if we (sensible people) always agreed all the time. I have a long and (not?) illustrious history in occasionally playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Although not in this case.

Really tough round of candidates this one, that McCabe has been the most clear-cut for me shows this.

Ponsford:
Points in favour are an exceptional (but by no means unique) first class record, laying some of the foundations for Bradman, 2 scores of 400+ (which only Lara has equalled) - no matter what the quality of bowling to do that once is exceptional, how many of us could expect to score 400 runs in a season, let along in one match?
The negatives are... well actually there aren't many negatives. Struggled during the bodyline series but so did everyone (the much praised McCabe included, if you remove that one extraordinary innings). Failed to quite match his supreme first class stats at the highest level.
The problem for me is that completely unmeasurable point of "impact". When you think of great players from the 1930s you think (of course) Bradman, Hammond, O'Reilly, start of Hutton, Grimmett, McCabe. Do you necessarily think of Ponsford? If you don't, is that a failing of his or is that a failing of yours and your forbearers for not holding such a good player in such illustrious company?
Guildford has argued and will do so in the future that great teams need balance, and having a quieter man maybe in the shadows contributing makes this possible. Could McCabe have been as good without Ponsford's reliable solidity? Could Bradman? This type of argument swayed me in the past when considering Andy Roberts as part of a great quartet, and probably others which I can't quite recall now.
At the risk of being somewhat inconsistent, I will say now that it doesn't sway me in this case. Bradman was so single-minded that I have no doubt he would have scored runs whatever happened before him; McCabe's style was surely to bat as he did in all circumstances (whether this should be considered a weakness or a strength is another debate, but doesn't concern Ponsford).
I therefore vote NO to Ponsford, but after much hesitation.

Mike Selig wrote:

Guildford has argued and will do so in the future that great teams need balance, and having a quieter man maybe in the shadows contributing makes this possible. Could McCabe have been as good without Ponsford's reliable solidity? Could Bradman? This type of argument swayed me in the past when considering Andy Roberts as part of a great quartet, and probably others which I can't quite recall now.

Mike - a similar type of argument came up when we considered Brian Statham. Adapting your words now, he was the quiet man to the noise and aggro that was Fred Trueman. To be fair, you are being more consistent than you give yourself credit for as I'm pretty sure you voted NO to Statham and were possibly the only poster who did.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Guildford has argued and will do so in the future that great teams need balance, and having a quieter man maybe in the shadows contributing makes this possible. Could McCabe have been as good without Ponsford's reliable solidity? Could Bradman? This type of argument swayed me in the past when considering Andy Roberts as part of a great quartet, and probably others which I can't quite recall now.

Mike - a similar type of argument came up when we considered Brian Statham. Adapting your words now, he was the quiet man to the noise and aggro that was Fred Trueman. To be fair, you are being more consistent than you give yourself credit for as I'm pretty sure you voted NO to Statham and were possibly the only poster who did.

Quite right. I did vote NO for Statham - if I recall because of "impact"!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
In Jayasuriya's case, his ... case for HoF inclusion is based purely on the revolutionary aspect he brought to cricket.

Mad - not in my view. Explained in the comments where I vote for him (and earlier by msp).

I phrased that badly. I meant "what he brought to cricket" in the sense of
- helping put SL on the world map
- the new opener's role in ODIs (and indeed in Tests)
rather than his record per se.

Mad - ok, understood. His role in putting SL on the world map was the main deal for me.

Sorry I'm a bit late, but here's my votes:

Hill - Yes
Statistics showed him to be probablly a better performer than his mor famous contemporary Trumper, and his acievement of being the first batsman to score 1000 Test runs in a calendar year (Compton was the next)

Jayasuriya - Yes
I thnk the arguments for and against have been solidly aired, but I think his reptation in ODI cricket has to be sufficient to put him o ver the line.

Ponsford - Yes
I suspect we've undervalued his reputation a bit, considering how he seems to be respected in Australia. Regardless of how good the attacks he faced in Shield cricket may have been, scoring 400 in first class cricket is extraordinary enough for me to edge his borderline candidacy from Test level up to HoF

McCabe - Yes
Arguaably didn't deliver as much as his talent merited, but still had a fine record and a legacy based on the most extraordinary innings of the Bodyline series.

kwinigolfer wrote:

... comparing Hill, for instance, with Jayasuriya's one-day prowess is impossible, or at best unfair.

It is ironic that one of the most outstanding one day batting performances, certainly of the one day game thru the eighties, was by none other than the GLY from Fitzwilliam who has been somewhat boycotted from the v2 Hall.

Kwini - to be fair, I feel you rather bring the comparisons on yourself by imposing a personal limit on the number of YES votes you are prepared to give each time. I gave 4 out of 4 YES votes yesterday which you probably regard as too high. However, my take when voting is to judge each nominee on an individual basis and determine whether he belongs in the Hall - if that results in 100% of the nominees from a particular round getting in, so be it.

When nominees played in the same era and sometimes the same matches, it's almost inevitable and often helpful that comparisons are made, at least during the debate. I think this should come into play less when actually voting although it still can; for example, Weekes couldn't be voted on by me without reference to Walcott.

In theory, all nominees should be subject to a similar level of probing. That's the point I was really trying to make about McCabe getting an easier ride than Ponsford. However, we all have varying criteria for making our assessments and so in reality some will be under the spotlight more than others. I'm just as guilty as anyone here. I've gone to town for (or even against) some (G Chapple, Cowdrey, Greenidge, Larwood, B Richards, etc) so as to try and address matters raised. However, if the specifics hadn't been asked, I would have been content to say little more and just cast my vote on the due date.

All in all, it's great to have this show back on the road. Whilst it probably has imperfections, I suspect they actually add to the fun and its success.

Finally, Kwini, can you please elaborate on the cryptic reference about ''one of the most outstanding one day batting performances''. I suspect I know the hero/villain you're referring to but am struggling to identify the match. Thanks.

OK. Voting is closed and the results are in, although if Mike or kiwi want to vote on Hill today (I don't think either have yet) then that will still count, as they said they would vote.

Clem Hill - 5 YES; 3 NO = 62.5% (with Mike and kiwi still to vote if they can)
Bill Ponsford - 5 YES; 5 NO = 50%
Stan McCabe - 10 YES; 0 NO = 100%
Sanath Jayauriya - 5 YES; 5 NO = 50%

Whichever way Mike and kiwi vote it can't effect the actual result, so:

- Clem Hill, Bill Ponsford and Sanath Jayasuriya will return for another round at a later date
- Stan McCabe is inducted to the Hall of Fame

The next set of candidates are:

Enid Bakewell
KS Ranjitsinhji
Jonty Rhodes
Shaun Pollock
Maurice Tate

Bakewell's inclusion here is for good housekeeping, as she was inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame (of which we have considered every other member) recently.

NB: Nice to have you back on board corporal. Patsy Hendren will be up in the next set after this

Has Hoggy missed the bus?

guildfordbat wrote:Has Hoggy missed the bus?

Quite possibly

Bad day on the Playing Fields of Woking, guildford?

My choice of Hill vs Jayasuriya was poor, could just as easily have chosen Hendren, Harvey or any one of a dozen stalwarts of earlier days. Plus, I think I've rather abandoned the "limit" on choices per offering!


This was John Woodcock's review:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketer/content/story/140933.html

I only mentioned it for the (perceived by moi!) irony.
PS: I see the late RT top-scored for Surrey!! Not bad for a converted full-back.

First take on the two South Africans -

Rhodes: Clearly was not a good enough batsman to be even close to the HoF, although he did have a tendency to score runs when needed. As for fielding, the question is really whether he was a revolutionary or just happened to be the leader at the time when increased professionalism was being introduced to fielding.

Shaun Pollock - A very high class bowling all-rounder, but my recollection is of a guy who was the 2nd or 3rd best seamer on the team and someone who could chip in with some handy runs in the lower middle order, but more in the mould of Hadlee oor even Stuart Broad than as a Botham/Khan type. Now it could be that my perception is biased by having only really seen him play in England (where conditions should have suited him), and that his career stats may show more excellence than I recall.

The others I need to read up about - at the moment Ranji and Tate are little more than names, and I thought Enid Bakewell wrote the Famous Five books

kwinigolfer wrote:Bad day on the Playing Fields of Woking, guildford?

My choice of Hill vs Jayasuriya was poor, could just as easily have chosen Hendren, Harvey or any one of a dozen stalwarts of earlier days. Plus, I think I've rather abandoned the "limit" on choices per offering!


This was John Woodcock's review:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketer/content/story/140933.html

I only mentioned it for the (perceived by moi!) irony.
PS: I see the late RT top-scored for Surrey!! Not bad for a converted full-back.

Thanks for that, Kwini.

Yes, a bad day on the Playing Fields of Woking. Crashing out of the FA Cup at home to a late goal from no better opponents was hugely disappointing and removes for at least another year hopes of revisiting the likes of the Hawthorns and Goodison Park (as we did in the early '90s).

I should have twigged the innings you were referring to even though it was a bit before my (cricket watching) time.

Pleased in a way to see that there is no reference in the match report from the respected John Woodcock or even in the official scorecard to the number of balls faced by Boycs or any of the batsmen. This backs up what I've been saying for a while - particularly to younger posters - that Strike Rate is a comparatively new concept and was not something considered in the early years of the one day game.

PS As well as Tindall top scoring for Surrey, I noticed Don Wilson featured for Yorks (albeit without great success). He passed away recently - mentioned by me on a separate thread and acknowledged (only) by the Corporal. I thought he would be better remembered but that again probably just goes to prove my age.

guildford

Yup, I DID see Don Wilson's passing and read several appreciations - I remember him also as a brilliant close catcher.
(Difficult to know where to look for rip's - was shocked to find John Bond remembered (sort of) on the Norwich thread, but not the WHU, especially as Jimmy Andrews had died a few days before. Was wondering if any of the cafe crew from outside Upton Park are left - not sure whether Ken Brown counts?)
(But I digress . . . . . )


Will be very interested to read the advocacies for Jonty Rhodes, comparisons needed I would think between the very good (Bland, Randall, even Ross Edwards) and the outrageously great. (Fielding didn't count for much when Neil Harvey was up for consideration . . . . . but I'd say that Rhodes was very special.)

To start the next round of debates from my end, I would start with Shaun Polock.
Polock was a superb bowler and a good lower order batsman. He was very economical and let the likes of Donald and Ntini to flourish in his company. Another factor that needs to be considered is that it was Pollock who had to take up the responsibility of seeing South Africa through the trauma of the Cronje deception.
Although his stats are terrific with the ball and decent with the bat, I think I would need greater conviction to vote yes for him.

Kwini - to digress further, 'Arry Redknapp was on Match of the Day as a pundit last night. In touching on racial abuse within the game, he referred to his 'old mate at West Ham', Clyde Best, and what he had to put up with every week all those years ago. I remember the Bermudan striker quite well and always felt he was under rated.

Back to topic. Another interesting bunch of nominees. I'm sure many positives will come out although I can't immediately identify who I'll be riding into battle on behalf of ....

guildford,
Spent many happy Saturday afternoons in the Chicken Run listening to the colourful commentary on Clyde Best - almost all of it, it has to be said, in good humour and accepted (sort of) as such. Very skilful, but a big man and could look clumsy at times.

Those were the days when the pre-match and half-time entertainment was provided by the Salvation Army band. And I DO use the word entertainment advisedly!

Good to see this threat dipping in briefly to West Ham matters. I do recall Clyde Best hitting the bar once for the Hammers, but on the whole I don't think he is a strong candidate for the Hammers HoF!

Instinctive reaction is unlikely to vote yes for Pollock. But maybe I (and others?) too heavily influenced by the latter stages of his career when I imagine the stats would show him gradually tailing off into a tight, economical, but not massively threatening bowler....

Starting position on Rhodes is a probable no. Maybe I am still smarting from the rejection of Frank Woolley who took more outfield catches than any other player in history of first class cricket. . Rhodes can only be a candidate for his fielding. But I would tend to the view that, good though Rhodes was, probably another SA cricketer, Colin Bland, has greater historical significance as an outstanding fielder.

Took me a while to get bearings on Enid Bakewell - I was getting her momentarily confused with Joan Blyton . Quick scrutiny of Wiki reminds me of her very fine credentials as an all rounder.

Enid Bakewell is the one among the list of candidates under consideration I am close to a yes vote right away. Her stats are terrific with both bat and ball, and she seems like a big match player.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Good to see this threat dipping in briefly to West Ham matters. I do recall Clyde Best hitting the bar once for the Hammers, but on the whole I don't think he is a strong candidate for the Hammers HoF!

... Took me a while to get bearings on Enid Bakewell - I was getting her momentarily confused with Joan Blyton .

Corporal - Geoff Hurst of West Ham and England was of course also a first class cricketer for CF's Essex. Mind you, given he scored 0 and 0 not out and didn't bowl in his only match, I doubt we'll be considering him for this HoF for a while yet.

Who on earth is Joan Blyton? Are you thinking of broadcaster and journalist Joan Bakewell - dubbed in the 1960s ''the thinking man's crumpet''?

I think it was a play on Joan Bakewell - Enyd Blyton

Now on Ranjitsinhji. Initial impressions close to a yes.
Ranji is listed by many as one of the foremost cricketing artists. He is regarded as the master of rist work and is credited with opening up vast areas of the leg side for runmaking. It was Ranji who invented the leg glance and the late cut. Cricinfo credits him with giving a new dimension to backfoot defense. He was the first major cricket star of coloured origin, and although he never really projected himself on those lines, his success was a powerful message that this game could reach a world beyond England and Australia. And his record, second to none of his contemporaries. A superb test record, a great FC record, an inventor, a respected author on the game and a man of symbolic significance. A very strong case for a positive vote.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think it was a play on Joan Bakewell - Enyd Blyton

Too subtle for me and, I would have thought, the Corporal!

On initial reflections, Maurice Tate also deservs a serious consideration. His contemporaries rated his bowling very high and his record is impressive. a decent option with the bat as well.

No issues at all with initial thoughts and comments being posted about this latest batch of nominees. Already instructive. Keep 'em coming.

As a next step, I assume the idea is that the original proposer will make the case for his nominee(s), as the missing Hoggy did for the three Aussies and Mike did for Jayusuriya.

Shelsey - is that correct? If so, might be useful to confirm proposers and nominees, thanks.

I assume enough equality type posters will want to fight the fight for Ms Bakewell who (rightly) is nominated as a consequence of being inducted into the ICC HoF.

Well, if the poster is around then that will happen.

Obviously Bakewell is from the ICC HoF, and Ranji didn't have a particular proposer that I can remember (though his case is incredibly strong - first notable Indian batsman, innovator, one of the best records of his generation).

I think Rhodes and Pollock were from Mike, and can't quite remember who proposed Tate - just that a fair few were keen!

Sorry, Shelsey - I thought you had found and dug up these names from specific posters' nominations when you commendably set this ball rolling again.

I have certain 'gut feel' doubts concerning the nominees and just felt it would be fairer and possibly more helpful to hold fire until fuller cases in support have been made which might show such concerns to be ill founded.

some initial thoughts:

Ranji: very strong case. Excellent record, and credited with opening up new areas for scoring runs.

Pollock: a good case also, based purely on his excellent record: over 100 tests and 420+ wickets at 23. Similarly strong record in ODIs (and an eco rate of 3.7). Useful batsman as well.

Enid Bakewell: excellent record, but if you delve a bit deeper it's significantly weaker against Australia (the only really good side around at the time). Still a good record, but for me didn't have the impact of a Belinda Clark. Will need convincing here.

Maurice Tate: another I'll need convincing on. A good Test record, and an excellent first class one, but not sure there's quite enough there for HoF status.

Jonty Rhodes: Going to be honest, not a huge fan. Brilliant fielder, yes. However he wasn't the first (Colin Bland stands out before). It may be argued that Rhodes influenced fielding in a way his predecessors didn't, but I think with increased professionalism that change was coming anyway.

All in all, feel this is a weaker batch than the last set of nominees...

First of all, I'm sorry to have missed the vote on Clem Hill. I have a small excuse, my gran decided to throw a party for about 50 people in a house which could barely fit them in, and due to geographical proximity (at least as opposed to my brothers) I got roped in - quite willingly - to help. Have just got home.

I would have voted YES for Hill, but again very marginally, on the basis of his record comparing favourably with all of his contempories - which I believe is the only way to judge anyone.

I admit to nominating Rhodes, and I admit now I don't expect anyone to vote for him, but feel his impact on modern fielding (which I think is THE technical inovation of the last 15 years or so) deserves expanding on. I make advance apologies for overly technical points being made during this exposé.

I'm not so sure I nominated Pollock though, but I may have. In any case I will be pleased to see him debated - a great supporting act for guildford to get his teeth into :-)

Of the other nominees, Ranji seems to have a particularly strong case, whilst the others are all conceivably borderline...

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think it was a play on Joan Bakewell - Enyd Blyton

Too subtle for me and, I would have thought, the Corporal!

Mad for Chelsea is spot on! Perhaps an attack of flippancy brought on by three weeks away from the barracks.

Skyeman no doubt is gearing up to making the case for Enid Bakewell....

I thank Mike for my Defender of the Supporting Act tag but probably won't be pushing too much for Pollock. I need to do some research over the next couple of days but at the moment have doubts which I'll look to expand if they still stand.

I also initially feel that the case for Ranji is being overstated and plan to return to that.

PS Mike - Hoggy wasn't at your Gran's party, was he?

The Bakewell case obviously gets us back into the tricky question of what to with women's cricketers.

The rejection of Rachel Heyhoe-Flint was probably the rejection I was most annoyed about of all rejections last year, and now means that if women are to be included the person I would see as the best inaugural inductee will be missing.

Not that that should stop me voting Yes for Bakewell or Clark if I so wish, but it certainly is an annoying consequence of democracy nonetheless...

Both have fine records. The question is of what the women's game was like during their careers and what whether they had any direct impact on the improvement of the women's game once their playing days were over.

guildfordbat wrote:
PS Mike - Hoggy wasn't at your Gran's party, was he?

Quite possibly - it felt at times like the entire (elderly) London population was there...

When looking at case for Ranji we need to bear in mind his contribution - albeit possibly as victim rather than instigator - to the art of coaching. According to Wiki.... [my bold and smiley added]:

"Around this time, Ranjitsinhji began to work with Daniel Hayward, the father of future Surrey and England batsman Tom Hayward, on his batting technique. His main fault was a tendency to back away from the ball when facing a fast bowler, making it more likely he would be dismissed. Possibly prompted by the suggestion of a professional cricketer who was bowling at him the cricket nets at Cambridge, he and Hayward began to practise with Ranjitsinhji's right leg tied to the ground. This affected his future batting technique and contributed to his creation of the leg glance, a shot with which he afterwards became associated.[37] While practising, he continued to move his left leg, which was not tied, away from the ball; in this case, it moved to his right, towards point. He found he could then flick the ball behind his legs, a highly unorthodox shot and likely for most players to result in their dismissal.[38] Although other players had probably played this shot before, Ranjitsinhji was able to play it with unprecedented effectiveness."

It should also be noted that Ranji's FC average of 56 (and a stellar almost 45 in the small number of Tests he played) over the period from 1893 to 1920 is nothing short of stunning. His figures would surely also have been even greater had he not stopped his FC career at the age of 32 (save for aborted comebacks in 1908 and 1912) in order to focus on domestic responsibilities back in India.

I found this quote in his Wisden Five Cricketers of the Year essay from 1897:

"As a batsman Ranjitsinhji is himself alone, being quite individual and distinctive in his style of play. He can scarcely be pointed to as a safe model for young and aspiring batsmen, his peculiar and almost unique skill depending in large measure on extreme keenness of eye, combined with great power and flexibility of wrist. For any ordinary player to attempt to turn good length balls off the middle stump as he does, would be futile and disastrous. To Ranjitsinhji on a fast wicket, however, everything seems possible, and if the somewhat too-freely-used word genius can with any propriety be employed in connection with cricket, it surely applies to the young Indian's batting."

Shows that he was seen even at the time as being an innovator.

This article from Cricinfo highlights his role as a trailblazer for the dozens of other foreign-born players who have donned England colours, whilst pointing out the scepticism with which the idea of an Asian representing England was treated.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/316136.html

Overall, I think that Ranji is a ridiculous omission from the ICC Hall of Fame and should be a very easy YES for all of us. Hopefully more to follow, not because I think people need convincing, but because this is a great opportunity to enhance our knowledge of a great of the game.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Overall, I think that Ranji is a ridiculous omission from the ICC Hall of Fame and should be a very easy YES for all of us.

Far from convinced, particularly if you take into account the man himself. Not for nothing is he known in some quarters as the Dark Prince. I'll try to expand tomorrow night.

Looking at Pollock's career statistics a bit more, they suggest he was a more effective player than perhaps I thought, but also highight a bit of a weakness in his HoF candidacy.

Career bowling average of 23.1 and taking over 400 wickets is very high class
Batting average of 32.3 is more than handy as a no 7 or 8.

The weakness - he was rarely a match-winner, you can't point to many performances where he stands out. In a career of 108 Tests, he took 16 5 wicket hauls and once took 10 wickets in a match. By comparison, Botham played 102 matches and while his average was markedly poorer, took 27 5 wicket hauls and 4 10 wicket matches. On average, Pollock took just less than 4 wickets per Test played, which is better than Botham (noting that Beefy's bowling in the second half of his Test career was far less effective than earlier), but does not put him up there with the first rank of bowlers (Hadlee for one exceeded 5 wickets per match).

Similarly, while his batting average of 32 is fine for a lower middle order guy, he only scored 2 centuries and 16 50s - again, Botham as the comparison scored 14 centuries and 22 50s in slightly fewer matches and for only a slightly better average (about 33.5). Hadlee had a somewhat lower average (27.5) but had a very similar number of 100s and 50s. - I'm wondering if Pollock's average benefits from a relatively high number of not outs? Will have to take a look on Cricinfo.

The conclusion from that is that Pollock was an extremely reliable and consistent player, and the sort that you would definitely want in your team in support of a few more mercurial types, but while I don't dispute the excellence, I just don't see the 'something extra' that Mike (for one) wants to see in an HoF candidate.

As an aside, I think that any consideration of Jonty Rhodes career has to acknowledge the importance of Kallis, Pollock and Boucher in the SA side for much of his career, allowing SA to 'carry' a batsman who was not really international class but who compensated for that with his fielding brilliance.

Quickish post (as I'm meant to be working). Very good post from Dummy.

I had already spotted the 'rarely match winning' stats of Pollock although hadn't done any comparisons. Even in first class cricket this seems to apply to him; 22 fivefers but only twice taking 10 wickets in a match.

Extremely good Test wicket haul and average. However, 400 odd wickets doesn't impress me quite as much in the modern age as it should - I think back to Mike (I hope this is right) referring to the 'inevitability' of 500 being achieved by someone who happened to be Walsh.

A tremendous support act which I understand Mike expecting me to buy into. However, there were dips in form which undermine his dependability.

It is suggested on Pollock's Cricinfo profile that he 'complemented and challenged' Allan Donald which inspired Donald 'to greater heights'. I certainly like that and makes me wonder about my YES vote for Brian Statham if I am to decline Pollock. There again, Trueman was probably a much more difficult partner in every sense.

Also, and this may be unfair, I have the suspicion that Pollock didn't give full value for money when on the English county circuit. To compare him with his fellow countryman Andre Nel - Nel at times was as mad as the proverbial box of frogs but would hop on one leg through a brick wall for Surrey. I just didn't sense that committment from Pollock towards Warks (maybe Hoggy, Fists, even Grandad Fists have views here?).

Difficult.

Following up Dummy's aside about Rhodes, I feel we should take Rhodes's batting into account just as we might the fielding of a batting nominee. I'll wait to see Mike's case before considering how much.

Guildford, look forward to hearing your thoughts on Ranji

I always saw Pollock as more of a bowler with some batting ability, and to be honest (as with Jayasuriya), having picked up his career a little after his prime my impression was generally that he wasn't quite in the first class.

But his record defies that and those who played against him and Donald in the 90s think they were a formidable partnership.

Even allowing for the predictable and sexist schoolboy japes from some of us, Enid Bakewell seems little remembered or known.

I am not surprised by the lack of memory at least. As one who lived during the time and followed the game, I feel I can accurately state that it was always Rachael Heyhoe-Flint who was regarded as the face and voice of womens' cricket throughout the 1970s in this country.

Just as Heyhoe-Flint compared poorly to Clarke when we considered the former's nomination, I would expect Bakewell to lag some way behind Heyhoe-Flint.

Impressive though Bakewell's average stats are, I would emphasise that she played a mere dozen Tests in an era when womens' international cricket was massively weaker than today. Furthermore, as Mad pointed out yesterday, her figures were boosted by cashing in against the weaker countries whilst she had a harder time against Australia, a far more meaningful opponent.

I am assuming that there's nothing overly significant that Bakewell has contributed to the game since her playing retirement. If there is, it's passed me by. Subject to that assumption, she's an absolute non-starter for me.

Shelsey93 wrote:Guildford, look forward to hearing your thoughts on Ranji

I always saw Pollock as more of a bowler with some batting ability, and to be honest (as with Jayasuriya), having picked up his career a little after his prime my impression was generally that he wasn't quite in the first class.

But his record defies that and those who played against him and Donald in the 90s think they were a formidable partnership.

There have been one or two books on Ranji, effectively saying what a nasty piece of work he was.

Two difficulties here for me.

Firstly, I don't have and haven't even read the books. [Give me a mark for honesty if nothing else! ]. However, the reviews in decent cricket magazines and newspapers made quite an impression - I'm probably going back circa 2005 - and certainly suggested the author's concerns had a strong basis. I need to try and find a review at least. As well as that, there already seems a heavy selfishness about him which comes through from a quick scan of his wiki biography.

Secondly, we are not a Court of Morals. However, I do believe character is all part of a player's make up and should have some bearing on whether a nominee goes into our Hall. Two examples. I'm sure attitude will come into play in future years when Pietersen's name is put forward [ALL - PLEASE, PLEASE note that we are not debating Pietersen's case now! ] Even if Cronje had a better playing record, I'm sure very few would want him inducted.

Like you and Dummy, I'm surprised how good Pollock's record is. Tricky.