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."

guildford, since retiring Bakewell hasn't really done much. She's coached England U21s but that's about it...

Thanks for that post BTW, certainly in this day and age Bakewell isn't remembered as being in the same league as Heyhoe-Flint, Clark and Taylor (Clare, though from a personal viewpoint I wouldn't mind seeing Sarah inducted into the HoF sometime after her retirement ). It's always useful to have the contemporary view of course, and this backs up my impression that I'll need a lot of convincing to induct Bakewell into the HoF.

Looking forward to your post about Ranji, on purely cricketing terms he seems to have a strong case, and I confess I don't know about his character flaws, so will be interesting to find out. Also, I think we need to take character into account. Had John Howard been any good at cricket, I would in no way have considered him for a HoF...

Pollock is going to be a tricky one. You get the feeling he didn't (or rarely) do anything extraordinary, there are very few match-winning performances, very few spells (or innings) which made you sit up and go "wow!". But then there's his record, which, let's face it, is pretty spectacular.

guildfordbat wrote:

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.

People like Neville Cardus and CB Fry have very interesting things about Ranji to say and I haven't seen anything in there that would suggest he had serious character issues.
Cronje would belong as a reference point when and if we discuss the likes of Azharuddin, Mohammed Amir, Mohammed Asif.......
Guys like Shane Warne and Ian Botham had a bit of a colourful past, but their cricketing achievements were far more important. Warne's 2003 issues are on the border of bringing disrepute to the game still not on the lines of what the likes of Cronje did. So unless there is a Cronje like case against Ranji, I don't see this affecting his HoF status, particularly looking at his record, his status as an innovator and the symbolic importance of who he was. Credit is also due for overcoming serious issues of acceptance.

Thanks, Mad.

On Ranji, I'm a little concerned I'm getting close to condemning someone without sufficient evidence. There again, we are talking about admittance to a theoretical Hall of Fame rather than an actual death sentence!

I'm sure it's reasonable that no one should expect a YES vote from me if I have doubts and concerns. I just need to show what caused them! Hopefully, this evening.

On stats alone, I would though also question the length of Ranji's Test career and related availability (I'll return to that). He played only fifteen Tests in total; twelve in the three years between 1896 and 1899 when generally excelling; and then just three more in 1902 when he scored 19 runs from his four completed innings.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

...while valuable I find contemporaries sometimes can be biased

...

Msp's comments about the support from Fry and Cardus for Ranji made me think of this delightful snippet from Mad.

I tend to feel that we can excuse lack of Tests (and give greater value to FC runs) more before about 1920. After all there were only 3 teams and so the total number of Tests would have been much lower in any case. That he was able to deliver when he did play is good enough for me to prove that he was more than a Woolley or Constantine whose reputations aren't backed up by Test Match performance.

guildfordbat wrote: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, I'll give the old boy a call at some point this week. For my own part, I don't feel it's something I can really comment on as my ventures down to Edgbaston were few and far between in that period.

Shelsey - More of a possible issue to me than the number of Tests is that he only played Test cricket in four particular years (and palpably failed to deliver in the last of those). That doesn't seem very many and is one of the things I want to try and probe.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Guildford, I'll give the old boy a call at some point this week. For my own part, I don't feel it's something I can really comment on as my ventures down to Edgbaston were few and far between in that period.

Thanks, Fists.

Make sure you tell Grandad Fists that the person asking is the guy who supported Kanhai so he had better agree!

Ha, I'll be sure to.

Just visited the little slice of heaven that the late John Arlott has made his home, somewhere above Alderney, celestial Beaujolais available in vast quantities.

Sergeant Arlott has asked me to review a couple of lengthy essays he wrote in the fifties about Maurice Tate, both of them effusive in his appreciation of the Sussex man, possibly enhanced by memories of several visits to Tate's Greyhound pub, "certain that, as (he) walked into the bar Maurice's face - behind his huge, smoky briar - would break into the widest, friendliest grin one man could wish of another."

As you would expect, and I won't bore you with it, Arlott is as fulsome in his praise of Tate the cricketer as he is of Tate the man, but I love the final words of one of the pieces:

"Dear Maurice; fit as a fiddle all his days, he was impatient of illness. He was never ill: he simply walked indoors and died; that was how he would have wished it. (Ed: Sounds like a John Prine song . . . . !)
There will be other great bowlers but, in his way and in his kind, Maurice Tate must remain unique. The earth is generous and, for all he bruised it so often with his bowling, we may trust that it lies lightly upon him after his labours."


PS: I see that cricinfo has accorded Arlot a somewhat unusual, possibly inadvertent, title:
He "had Honorary Lift Membership of MCC bestowed upon him when he retired".
Not sure we took that into consideration when assessing his HOF credentials, but that certainly suggests a versatility previously thought limited to cricket, football, wine and poetry.



PPS: Have read a few pieces on Ranji but nothing alleging anything too serious about any "dark side"; certainly no Dick Cheney then. But there are plenty of references to his place in a Golden Age of cricket, epitomising the amateur, although in Ranji's case it rather seems he was generous to a fault. A big fault really as he did so much of it on borrowed money and ran up debts indiscriminately around the world.

Kwini - I can remember former policeman Arlott waxing lyrical about ''poor Fred Tate'' (Maurice's dad) dropping a steepler which lost England the game against the Aussies in his only Test match.

Btw, thanks a bunch for your PPS - I'm getting anxious I've imagined this!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:some initial thoughts:

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.

Even with the mighty Arlott's support of Tate, I'm finding it difficult to move out of the early camp set up by Mad. A stalwart of the English county game with a good to very good Test record and spoken of highly by his contemporaries. However, just like Mad, I'm struggling to see ''quite enough'' for our esteemed Hall. Am I being mean or not looking closely enough?

guildford,
re: Maurice Tate
Did you mean "giant" of the English county game and very good Test record?
Among other things, the only Englishman other than Wilfred Rhodes to achieve the Test double before Trevor Bailey. Certainly a very good batsman in his early years, but his batting declined towards the end of his career.
But to this day he's one of only 9 to have the first class career double of 20,000 runs and 2,000 wickets. And the only man ever to achieve a thousand runs / 100 wickets double outside England, in India in 1926/27.
11th in the all-time wicket-taking ranks.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
re: Maurice Tate

... But to this day he's one of only 9 to have the first class career double of 20,000 runs and 2,000 wickets.

You're nudging me, Kwini. You're nudging me.

The extract I've produced above is of course important - well, it definitely will be in a fortnight ....

msp83 wrote: Credit is also due for overcoming serious issues of acceptance.

A very apposite quote for Ranji given the prolonged issues he appears to have had with his financial management!

An example of Pollock's sustained excellence is that in not one of the first 19 test series in which he played (covering about 60 matches) did his bowling average for the series exceed 30. While that particular stat may not be one to set the pulse racing I think it represents a pretty formidable record of excellence.

Morning guys, thought I would give a shot at Pollock's inclusion into the hall of fame.

Pollock's value as a cricketer cannot be overvalued. Firstly when you consider the fact that he was never a fast bowler, I can't remember that he ever bolwed faster than 140 km/h, in fact his average speed over his career was likely in the region of 132 km/h or near enough there.

He didn't rely on pace to take his wickets, but rather guile and accuracy. He was the ultimate patient bowler, he often said when the wicket and conditions wasn't assisting he would simply attempt to bore a player into making mistakes.

There are two examples that attest to that fact, his percentage caughts are high, and his run rate of 2.35 (by memory) is one of the lowest by any seam bowler.

He was the perfect foil for players such as Alan Donald and Dale Steyn (in his latter career) where he would keep things tight and the release would not be there as you often find with pace bowlers who can go for quick runs at times.

The other factor to consider is South Africa has always had specialist fast bowlers bowling from the other end, and perhpas a reason why Pollock may not have taken as many 10 and 5 wicket hauls.

however in combination he was an economic bowler who kept his bowling partner in the hunt at all times.

Then onto his consistency as a performer during more than a decade in international cricket, in only one season did his average go above thirty, and that was his penultimate season, after that one season of 28 average, and the rest under 25 average.

That is a mark of a bowler who were always in the hunt.

Where most bowlers with that bowling average would be relatively poor batsmen, he was a class act.

Batting for South Africa anywhere from 4 to 9 showed his ability and versatility as a batsman.

When you consider a batting average of over 32 and the fact that he was a batsman with real technique and a good eye, you have to concede he was a complete cricketer.

His bowling record alone attests to the fact that he is one of the top bowlers of the modern era, but when you add his batting to the mix and the role he has played for south Africa over more than a decade, he certainly belongs up there with the best in history.

thanks.

That's a brilliant debut from Biltong on this thread and an incredibly helpful post.

I'm coming to the view that not only was Pollock under rated as a bowler but being under rated and almost slipping under the radar of many cricket watchers and perhaps some batsmen (as they concentrated primarily on the guy at the other end, often Donald) was actually one of his key strengths.

Some posters like to identify '' impact'' in a stand out game. You may be able to find that with Pollock although, based on Biltong's post and other readings, I feel his true impact has to be found and measured over years.

Agree with most of what biltong and guildford have said. I am not fully convinced yet, but when I had a relook at his stats the enormity of his ODI bowling record struck me. 393 wickets from 303 ODIs is pretty sharp, but the more important thing is, in this age of short boundaries, massive bats and 20 over power plays and free hits, Pollock's economy rate is just 3.67.

And oh yes, I like him on commentary!. These days it take some doing to make some sense in there, the commentary box!.

Thanks guildfordbat.

The problem with finding or remembering the "big" moments in a cricketers career is that we tend to remember only our own players as they are closer to our hearts.

Here are some series where Pollock made a big impact on the results.

1998/1999 west Indies
5 tests, 29 wickets, average 16.65

1999/2000 India in India
2 test, 9 wickets, average 14.47

200/2001 Sri Lanka
3 tests, 13 wickets, average 14.76

2001/2002 India
2 tests, 16 wickets, average 14.12

2000/2001 West Indies.
5 test series, 9 innings
302 runs in the series at an average of 75.5

2002/2003 Sri Lanka
2 test series, 3 innings
143 runs at an average of 143

2003 England in england
4 test series, 6 innings
205 runs at an average of 68.33

2005/2006 Australia in australia
3 test series, 5 innings
182 runs at an average of 60.66

There are a number of other series where Pollock has shone. but as I said before his value was what he brought over his career and in tets series. Not only in the glory moments.

My last statment to make a case for Pollock is this, there after I leave it up to the experts to decide.

Of all the modern day bowlers (those who bowled in the new era of smaller boundaries, fast hitting batsmen and those who play in the 2000's) Pollock has the best economy of all, you have to go back to Curtly Ambrose who retired in 2000 to find a better economy rate. there after go to 1976, LR gibbs to beat that.

Imagine you have Donald, McGrath etc bowl with that kind of back up to opposition, and then add to the fact that Pollock has the 5th best average under the bowlers who has taken more than 400 wickets.

Biltong
Thanks for the input - would be interesting to get your take on Rhodes as well, although we haven't yet really focussed on him.

I don't think anyone disputes that Shaun Pollock was a very fine cricketer, and certainly his career averages put him well into the first rank of bowling all rounders. The 'problem', if it is such in consideration of his HoF candidacy, is that he was the sort of player who just got on with doing a very consistent job in support of more mercurial players (noting that Donald in particular was more consistent than most contemporary fast bowlers himself - definitely not of the Devon Malcolm / Steve Harmison school of unplayable one day, unbowlable the next). Somehow, this just leaves less impression than someone like Botham, who coud win you a game in an hour but also had far more 'nothing' performances.

I'm usually one of the guys here more influenced by career stats, but somehow in Pollock's case there is something in my recollection that puts him a bit below our HoF level. Maybe it's just he was a player that never either excited or worried me as an opponent of England.

Then again, if a player being exciting and/or worrying as an opponent, that makes Rhodes an absolute certainty for the HoF, as the sight of him swooping in on a ball pushed towards point was always something to behold. I wonder if there has ever been a finer athlete to play the game (given he was an international class hockey player as well). Maybe it's a bit of a double standard, but I'm not convinced that that in itself is enough in Jonty's case.

Am looking forward to Mike's technical breakdown on Rhodes fielding and for the evidence that he was more a revolution than evolution in the art of fielding.

dummy half, to be honest I have a problem with that perspective of great players.

In my view Jonty Rhodes may be special in our hearts, and perhaps because of one dive in our inaugaral ODI world cup that lasting memory made him famous.

Is that one dive enough to become a hall of famer. No, not in my view.

He struggled with technique throughout his career, his batting average suggests as a batcmsan we was average. He may have been one of the first, but fielding ability alone does not make a hall of famer.

In contrast you have a players such as Pollock who are in the top echelon of bolwing averages, wickets, economy rate and yet has a batting average near enough to Jonty rhodes, yet perception carries favour to those who "excites".

Not every star shines bright now and then, there are those who consistently lights your path on a dark and dingy night, without making a fuss.

Yet without that star cricket would have been much, much poorer.

Excellent stuff from Biltong re Pollock. Strengthens my initial leanings toward a yes vote ... to be honest I was a little surprised at what I took to be a generally negative initial attitude towards his candidacy over these couple of pages. His figures certainly stack up , and I don't see any real negative factor.
Some people mention a lack of a "wow" factor. To me this is not a big consideration - indeed I think we are in danger of putting a little too much emphasis on the high points of a candidate's career at the expense of the overall quality of the bread and butter work...
Don't get me wrong : I think both aspects are valid parts of an assessment , but it does seem to me that this "impact" term is being tossed around as if it is a compulsory condition for membership. And here Biltong has made the excellent point that one tends to be more familiar with the players from one's own team - and , I would add , one's own era - so some match winning and match saving efforts may not receive the general attention they are due.
Pollock's total career figures are enough for me to incline strongly towards a yes , though I won't be voting until all the arguments have been put. Got too much research on the others due yet...

Biltong wrote:My last statment to make a case for Pollock is this, there after I leave it up to the experts to decide.

Biltong - none of us are experts. We are all learning. Stick around and cast your own votes at the end of the fortnight. It'll be good to hear your responses about some of the non Saffer nominees.

There is something amiss with most SA sportsmen, they aren't flamboyant.

I can list a whole host of top cricketers and rugby players from SA who are as good if not better than most of their peers.

But one things that never stands out about SA sportsmen and women, they don't really like to hog the limelight, call it lack of personality if you will, look at Amala as an example, a brilliant batsman in the form of his life, and yet, when recieving an accollade he is humble and steers the attention to the rest of his team.

Something to consider.

[quote="dummy_half]

Pollock

... Maybe it's just he was a player that never either excited or worried me as an opponent of England.

[/quote]

Dummy - that was pretty much my starting point and why I was initially inclined towards a NO. However, I'm now coming to the view that we should have worried about him more ....

guildfordbat wrote:

Biltong wrote:My last statment to make a case for Pollock is this, there after I leave it up to the experts to decide.

Biltong - none of us are experts. We are all learning. Stick around and cast your own votes at the end of the fortnight. It'll be good to hear your responses about some of the non Saffer nominees.

Guildforbat, mate my knowledge on cricket lacks, I can tell you about my perception of modern day SA cricketers, that is as far as my knowledge goes.
I do hae favourite players from various nations, but once again, my favourites are usually a far cry from other's favourite players.

My favourite non SA batsmaen for example is Dravid, most respect his ability but thinks he lacks charisma and flamboyancy. Now for me, his humble approach to cricket is what I like about him.

Biltong wrote:There is something amiss with most SA sportsmen, they aren't flamboyant.

I can list a whole host of top cricketers and rugby players from SA who are as good if not better than most of their peers.

But one things that never stands out about SA sportsmen and women, they don't really like to hog the limelight, call it lack of personality if you will, look at Amala as an example, a brilliant batsman in the form of his life, and yet, when recieving an accollade he is humble and steers the attention to the rest of his team.

Something to consider.

Biltong - I follow that very much. The regulars here know and are probably bored rigid by my extolling the virtues of the quiet man amongst the noise makers.

Don't suppose you ever saw Larry Gomes? to all Off now for a shift down the salt mines of Egham. Back tonight.

guildfordbat wrote:[quote="dummy_half]

Pollock

... Maybe it's just he was a player that never either excited or worried me as an opponent of England.

Dummy - that was pretty much my starting point and why I was initially inclined towards a NO. However, I'm now coming to the view that we should have worried about him more ....[/quote]

GB
I think I may be in a very similar position to you - first thoughts were that he was a bit short of the absolute top HoF level, but looking at his career in a bit more detail and with Biltong's excellent comment above, I think he could be one of those players who we somewhat under-rated as a player during his career.
As a quick comparison of career Test performances against HoF bowling all-rounders:
Pollock - 108 Tests. 3781 runs @ 32.1, 421 wickets @ 23.1
Hadlee - 86 Tests, 3124 runs @ 27.2, 431 wickets @ 22.3
Khan - 88 Tests, 3807 runs @ 37.7, 362 wickets @ 22.8
Dev - 131 Tests, 5248 runs @ 31.05, 434 wickets @ 29.64
Botham - 102 Tests, 5200 runs @ 33.5, 383 wickets @ 28.4 (note - Botham's first 202 wickets came at 21.2, and his batting average over the first half of his career was 38, and almost 50 if you exclude his spell as captain)

Overall therefore, Pollock's record stands up to scrutiny - not as good as Imran, but arguably better as an all-rounder than Hadlee and clearly better than Dev and Botham.

Clearly better than Botham?

Botham was a far better bat and in his early days, a better bowler. Pollock was better for longer with the ball but I wouldn't rate Pollock as a better allrounder than Beefy.

Stella
I was just comparing numbers for complete careers - I know Botham's stats do the first half of his career a serious injustice, and that had he retired after 50 tests he'd have the best stats of any of the bowling all-rounders (slightly ahead of Imran in both batting and bowling). Also of course Botham was an outstanding slip catcher, so had another string to his bow that Pollock didn't.

My point overall though was that Pollock's bowling alone would make him a borderline HoF contender (not far behind Hadlee or Imran), and when you add his batting in, on pure numbers he probably should make it.

Not debating if he should make it but that batting average of 32 does Pollock some serious favours. He like Hadlee were imo not allrounders (that's a different debate) and again imo Botham was the better allround Cricketer.

As for Pollock's bowling. I would compare it to Kallis' batting. The stats are there but I never felt he would rip our batting line up apart like a Hadlee, Imran, Akram.

A very good player though and a top bloke.

Pollock was also a very good slip catcher.

I think Pollock actually has a very strong case. People seemingly remember the last few years of his career where he became a rather stock-bowler. However early on in his career he was actually quick (never as quick as Donald, but just a notch below - about an early career Jason Gillespie's pace maybe). Later on, he managed to adapt to his lack of pace by bowling a more consistent corridor line and length.

If anything, I think people are a bit influenced by the final couple years of his career, where to me he became a bit of a defensive bowler (a bit like Kallis is now) bowling 5th stump and just back of a length. Of course this wasn't really his fault - by that stage he'd lost even more pace and was bowling mid-120s (Glenn McGrath, even at the end of his career, was still bowling high-120s to low 130s so could be more attacking). But he still took the new ball when possibly he would have been better employed as a first change bowler.

Whatever. I certainly think Pollock has had a raw deal of things so far, particularly when we consider how we treated Walsh, who got in by acclamation almost (I voted NO) - Walsh only had 22 5-wicket hauls and 3 10 match hauls; not that many more than Pollock (and in more matches). Walsh also had the "advantage" of finishing his career as the only good West Indian bowler, so would have had more chances of picking up big hauls. And of course Walsh's batting and fielding fall significantly below Pollock's. In fact, it is testimony to Pollock's attitude that as his bowling got less incisive his batting improved in application as did his fielding. At least subconsciously he knew that with his bowling contributing less he needed to contribute more in other areas and did so.

I actually think technically Pollock could have been a top-order batsman - he had all the shots and a solid technique. Perhaps the bowling took a lot out of it, or perhaps it was a mental thing, but I actually thought he got himself out when well set far too often, which is borne out by his smallish number of centuries. But he did improve on this as his career went on.

As for outstanding contributions, how about his performance in one of the greatest ODIs of all time? I am referring to the 99 WC semi-final, which of course ended in a tie. Pollock took 5-36, including both Waugh brothers and Bevan. And was actually the first South African to accelerate after Rhodes and Kallis had consolidated, and before Klusener came in. Pollock hit Warne for 4 and 6 in his final over to launch the attack which ultimately fell just short.

Enough on Pollock, and moving onto Rhodes.

I think people are a bit harsh on Rhodes's batting - he played most of his career in a South African side where the only two real class batsmen were Kirsten and Cullinan (Kallis only really became a force once Rhodes had gone for me) and his record without looking it up probably compares reasonably with the likes of Cronje. Similarly Boucher only arrived at the end of Rhodes's career - much of which was played alongside Dave Richardson.

In the epic 98 series against England Rhodes was arguably South Africa's best batsman. I wouldn't argue he was a very good batsman, but an average of 35 in tests back in the 90s wasn't poor either (Atherton - who most would say was a good to very good player averaged 37) whilst 35 in ODIs in those days was good. A first class average of 41 is also reasonable.

My recollection is also that Rhodes often got runs under pressure.

Certainly I would argue strongly that he would have gotten in to the SA side just on his batting, although it would have been a close run thing.

In any case, at the risk of being a bit disingenuous, why should we worry about Rhodes's batting? When CF held Knott's batting against him there was an outcry: first of all, because of course Knott's batting was very good for a keeper, but hoggy for one argued that it didn't matter, because Knott was (perhaps) the greatest keeper who had ever lived, and therefore should be inducted as such.

Of course this is disingenuous on two points: Rhodes is only the greatest fielder who ever lived if you take as a measure comparison with his peers (the much-maligned Steve Smith is probably the greatest of all time measured absolutely); and "fielder" is not a respected cricket position like wicket-keeper. Everybody fields.

Or did they? Well, no. People stood on the field and occasionally picked up the ball and threw it in, but the concept of fielding has changed so much in the last 10-15 years, that it would be unfair to call what people (in the whole) used to do "fielding". Or perhaps we need a new word for what people do now.

Take a couple of examples (things now get a bit technical):
- the diving stop. Rhodes was the first to dive "goalkeeper style" (that is, with the opposite hand bringing your wrong side around to avoid landing on your hip and elbow and instead land on your "shock absorbers" - thighs, chest, forarms). In fact, Rhodes would always talk about fielding as similar to goalkeeping - you set up your "goal" and defend it.
- Getting in close to narrow the angles, and using the power position. Again, Rhodes was the first that I saw do this. Most people just walk in because that's what you do. Rhodes always said the act of walking in was in itself unnecessary, except for the psychological effect of suffocating the batsman: what was key was getting into a power position (knees bent, on toes, hands ready so you can move in any direction) and as close as possible so that you still had time to react, but the angle was as small as possible (again, using the goalkeeper analogy).

Of course, everybody just does these things as a matter of course. We have the science to determine the best possible techniques for everything, and teach them. Rhodes didn't have that science though, he just did what felt right, and in most cases (not all) got it right.

All this technical focus on fielding is really what has changed the most in the last 10 or even 5 years. Even now, new techniques are being tried, and taught at all levels more and more. In 10 years time I expect every international wicket-keeper to take the ball in front of the stumps for example. The long-barrier is becoming more and more obsolete. Fielding in pairs, throwing technique, boundary catches via throwing the ball back int, etc. All these were unheard of not so long ago, but are now being taught consistently accross the world (even in France!).

The technical advances made in fielding, and the result it's having on the game are nothing short of remarkable.

So what does this have to do with Rhodes? Would it still have happened anyway? Possibly. But surely a lot slower. People would have tried a lot more things before finding the right technique. Rhodes's technique was so good, and the results so obvious, that people
a) took notice
b) had a blueprint

And a word on impact: Rhodes's impact on these changes is still there. Talk to any youngster about fielding and mention Bland, or Randall, you get a blank look. Mention Rhodes, and talk about how he practiced throwing at the stumps for half an hour extra at every training session, and how the results were there to see - almost everyone I've coached know who Rhodes was. And how good he was.

He even has a fielding drill named after him. How many people can say that?

Stella wrote:Not debating if he should make it but that batting average of 32 does Pollock some serious favours. He like Hadlee were imo not allrounders (that's a different debate) and again imo Botham was the better allround Cricketer.

As for Pollock's bowling. I would compare it to Kallis' batting. The stats are there but I never felt he would rip our batting line up apart like a Hadlee, Imran, Akram.

A very good player though and a top bloke.

Stella, the perception of whether he would rip a batting order apart or not, the statistics are there, when you go further into his stats it was only australia where he had a poor bowling record. the rest are all top class, so those stats alone tells you whether you feel he could't he did.

But Mike
Remember Jonty's fielding reputation was built on him running out Inzamam, and everyone including Boycott's mother has done that

Rhodes should be subject to some serious debate, because he is perhaps our first player nominee for whom there is very little objective data to go on (his batting average of 35 was decent to good, but nowhere close to HoF material - I did though note a comment that for the last 3 seasons of his Test career he averaged 50+ after straightening out his backlift). Now, clearly many of us saw him play and be the outstanding fielder of the 90s, and the fore-runner for modern fielding techniques and quality - would Collingwood have been as good a point fielder if he wasn't largely replicating Rhodes technique?

Perhaps the best case to put for Rhodes significance in the game is that before him you could count the really great fielders on the fingers of one hand (Bland, Harvey, Viv, Randall, perhaps Gower and Clive Lloyd), and they were all fundamentally natural athletes. Since Jonty, almost everyone works hard at it and is at least a very good fielder with some outstanding ones - heck, just watching the T20 champs on in SA at the moment and some of the running catches taken in the outfield. The level is absolutely fantastic.

I find myself agreeing with almost all the points Mike made above.

The only counterpoint I would offer is that a large part of the reason Rhodes is so well known and brought up whenever fielding is discussed while other great fielders of the past are relatively neglected , is the issue of his time , and the fact that it coincided with the start of the world wide saturation coverage of cricket...pay TV and now the internet have ensured everyone sees pretty well anyone who plays the game , provided they have a healthy interest. By contrast , a much smaller number of people outside South Africa probably ever saw Bland play...and those of us who did are getting on a bit Yet both are in a rare category of Test players in that they are (very well) remembered for their fielding despite relatively ordinary batting statistics.
I did like Rhodes even as a batsman , though I'd suggest he would not have held down a regular spot in the SA team had it not been for his exceptional fielding. I would concur with Mike's feeling that he often got runs under pressure : perhaps not big runs , but handy. Trouble I have with that is , admirable as it is to see a player of obvious character , who got arguably the best of a limited talent ; but is it enough to warrant HoF status ? Don't think so , so it comes back to the fielding...

A tough one. Will think on it.

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:Not debating if he should make it but that batting average of 32 does Pollock some serious favours. He like Hadlee were imo not allrounders (that's a different debate) and again imo Botham was the better allround Cricketer.

As for Pollock's bowling. I would compare it to Kallis' batting. The stats are there but I never felt he would rip our batting line up apart like a Hadlee, Imran, Akram.

A very good player though and a top bloke.

Stella, the perception of whether he would rip a batting order apart or not, the statistics are there, when you go further into his stats it was only australia where he had a poor bowling record. the rest are all top class, so those stats alone tells you whether you feel he could't he did.

Yeah, it was just a feeling of what I saw of Pollock.

Alfie

While I wouldn't in the slightest go against Bland's reputation as an extraordinary fielder, the one difference between him and Rhodes is that afterwards no-one else tried to emulate Bland as a fielder. As such, Bland was clearly well ahead of his time (I seem to recall similar comments about Godfrey Evans as a batting keeper, given that it was another 30-40 years before keepers were regularly being picked with batting as much of a consideration), whereas Jonty was clearly at the forefront of the changes in fielding standards over the last 15 to 20 years.

There is clearly a discussion to be had as to whether Rhodes was the instigator of very much that was truly new thinking or whether it was largely a case of being the right player at the right time (particularly with the increased emphasis on ground fielding that was coming with ever more competetive ODI cricket). I think Mike's post above suggests that really Jonty was making it up as he went along and that the coaching of fielding techniques almost followed him rather than led him.

I'd be interested to read any interviews with Rhodes where he discusses any influences from goal keeping (football or hockey) or baseball (where outfielding has long been a major part of the game - I know Viv Richard throwing technique owed something to baseball, as did much of the fielding work that Australia did in the late 90s).

In some ways the discussion of Rhodes is similar to the discussions on Jayasuriya, in that neither were HoF candidates based on overall statistical records, but that their candidacy is heavily weighted by how they changed a certain aspect of the game. On this score, for me Rhodes actually has a stronger case because:
1 - It is more obvious that he was the leader, whereas there was some evidence to suggest Jayasuriya was more the first to be somewhat successful with the aggressive opening policy, rather than the instigator of it.
2 - In terms of longer term influence, there is no doubt that a professional approach to fielding is here to stay, and that everyone is now expected to at least show some level of competence (*Monty Panesar perhaps excepted), whereas the importance of a big hitting opener in ODI cricket has perhaps receded slightly both with the changes to the power play regulations and the reconsidation of keeping wickets in hand for the final 15 overs or so based on how T20 cricket has moved the goal posts (and perhaps the use of two new balls).

dummy_half wrote:
While I wouldn't in the slightest go against Bland's reputation as an extraordinary fielder, the one difference between him and Rhodes is that afterwards no-one else tried to emulate Bland as a fielder. As such, Bland was clearly well ahead of his time (I seem to recall similar comments about Godfrey Evans as a batting keeper, given that it was another 30-40 years before keepers were regularly being picked with batting as much of a consideration), whereas Jonty was clearly at the forefront of the changes in fielding standards over the last 15 to 20 years.

A very good point, except you surely don't mean Godfrey Evans (who averaged about 20) but Les Ames (who averaged 40+).

dummy_half wrote:There is clearly a discussion to be had as to whether Rhodes was the instigator of very much that was truly new thinking or whether it was largely a case of being the right player at the right time (particularly with the increased emphasis on ground fielding that was coming with ever more competetive ODI cricket). I think Mike's post above suggests that really Jonty was making it up as he went along and that the coaching of fielding techniques almost followed him rather than led him.

More or less, except I think "making it up as he went along" doesn't do justice to the hours and hours which he put in practising to make sure his techniques worked. But from speaking to him, he said he really just did what felt right and built on it. Certainly teams didn't have a fielding coach back then.

Of course to some extent he was the right person at the right time. The right time is really increased professionalism (and hence athleticism), and more limitted overs cricket which has brought a greater emphasis on ground fielding as a run-saver (and wicket taker). Bland, Randall et al may have led to similar revolutions had they been in Jonty's place and had Jonty been in their place I don't think we'd have seen the effects immediately. But my impression is genuinely a lot of coaches looked at Jonty and went "wow, how does he do that? Hang on, if I answer that question instead of just admiring we could learn something here..."

dummy_half wrote:I'd be interested to read any interviews with Rhodes where he discusses any influences from goal keeping (football or hockey) or baseball (where outfielding has long been a major part of the game - I know Viv Richard throwing technique owed something to baseball, as did much of the fielding work that Australia did in the late 90s).

A lot of the goalkeeper stuff comes from a workshop I attended, but I seem to remember a demo-interview with Mike Atherton where Rhodes illustrated a few of these things; this ended with Rhodes throwing down stumps and hitting - I don't exaggerate - 8 out of 10 from virtually side-on. Sorry, can't help much more.

Mike
It's interesting stuff none the less. As an aside, my recollection is that at least early in his career Rhodes wasn't particularly great at either catching or at throwing down the stumps, so that for all his excellence at stopping the ball there actually wasn't that much end-product (other than run-outs caused by confusion when he stopped a ball that he had no right to reach). His hard work obviously bore fruit in this regard though.

My saying 'making it up as he went along' was really meant as a complement, and obviously included his approach to fielding practice as well as how he performed in match situations.

I'm pretty much sold on Jonty as an HoF member based on his impact on the modern game - I think your comments make it clear that he was a genuine innovator, which was the key issue I wanted to clarify.

For me, Jonty no, Pollock yes.

Don't think a player can enter the HOF because he was a top fielder. If so, Randall and Harper, who was a better all round fielder than Rhodes, should get in.

Stella wrote:Don't think a player can enter the HOF because he was a top fielder. If so, Randall and Harper, who was a better all round fielder than Rhodes, should get in.

Why not though? The HoF was not intended to just be a list of the statistically finest batsmen and bowlers, but to be inclusive of others who have made an outstanding contribution to the game. John Arlott was voted in (almost unanimously) because of his writing and broadcasting, while D'Oliveira and Jayasuriya have both been considered despite having less than brilliant international career statistics because of the influence they had.

The case against Randall (and Bland before him) was that while an outstanding fielder relative to his contemporaries, no-one seriously attempted to emulate him, so there was little contribution to the development of the game, whereas clearly Rhodes fielding and the techniques he developed have led to a very major improvement in the overall fielding standard - at the extreme, you could argue that Rhodes has done for fielding what Grace did for batting or Spofforth for bowling, fundamentally change the way players approach the discipline.

dummy_half wrote:

Stella wrote:Don't think a player can enter the HOF because he was a top fielder. If so, Randall and Harper, who was a better all round fielder than Rhodes, should get in.

Why not though? The HoF was not intended to just be a list of the statistically finest batsmen and bowlers, but to be inclusive of others who have made an outstanding contribution to the game. John Arlott was voted in (almost unanimously) because of his writing and broadcasting, while D'Oliveira and Jayasuriya have both been considered despite having less than brilliant international career statistics because of the influence they had.

The case against Randall (and Bland before him) was that while an outstanding fielder relative to his contemporaries, no-one seriously attempted to emulate him, so there was little contribution to the development of the game, whereas clearly Rhodes fielding and the techniques he developed have led to a very major improvement in the overall fielding standard - at the extreme, you could argue that Rhodes has done for fielding what Grace did for batting or Spofforth for bowling, fundamentally change the way players approach the discipline.

But how did Rhodes change fielding methods? I can still recall Richards and Randall swooping in from cover and throwing down the stumps. All Rhodes did was dive at them.

Stella wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

Stella wrote:Don't think a player can enter the HOF because he was a top fielder. If so, Randall and Harper, who was a better all round fielder than Rhodes, should get in.

Why not though? The HoF was not intended to just be a list of the statistically finest batsmen and bowlers, but to be inclusive of others who have made an outstanding contribution to the game. John Arlott was voted in (almost unanimously) because of his writing and broadcasting, while D'Oliveira and Jayasuriya have both been considered despite having less than brilliant international career statistics because of the influence they had.

The case against Randall (and Bland before him) was that while an outstanding fielder relative to his contemporaries, no-one seriously attempted to emulate him, so there was little contribution to the development of the game, whereas clearly Rhodes fielding and the techniques he developed have led to a very major improvement in the overall fielding standard - at the extreme, you could argue that Rhodes has done for fielding what Grace did for batting or Spofforth for bowling, fundamentally change the way players approach the discipline.

But how did Rhodes change fielding methods? I can still recall Richards and Randall swooping in from cover and throwing down the stumps. All Rhodes did was dive at them.

As per my earlier post:
- diving technique
- power position
- in close to narrow the angles

to name but three.

The point is more than that though: I think we all accept that fielding has become an essential component of the game, and coaches spend (almost?) as much time on fielding as the other disciplines. In teaching "correct" technique, the blueprint we all base ourselves on for a lot of the stuff is what Jonty did.

The first clip of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLXoUPZ9o3A
illustrates the technique of bringing your opposite side around when diving: notice how Rhodes lands on his front rather than his side.

Stella mentioned Harper, so here is Harper taking a catch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5rKnW-ytJM
Note how he lands essentially on his left-hand side (although tucks the elbow in so hits his wrist first).

Learning a lot here!

Regarding Rhodes, or more accurately fielding, I would say Colin Bland elevated outfielding to a new level which was swiftly followed by very specialist fielders, especially square of the wicket. Most English counties developed specialist fielders, for the one-day game at least, cricketers whose primary role was run prevention, bowling and batting added extras.

Obviously Randall added the acrobatic to Bland's excellence and elevated his game to Test level - Ross Edwards was another in the Bland mould, for Australia.

And the great West Indian teams, even before Richards, had great outfielders, the great Seymour Nurse among them.

But I wouldn't place any of these in the HOF for fielding alone and am very interested in Mike's views on Rhodes, and what he did to separate himself.

Bearing in mind that we excluded Neil Harvey from the HOF despite the fact that he was regarded as the best cover fielder of his day along with his decade of batting excellence.

(Would say that the only wickie consistently picked for England as much for his batting as his keeping between the Les Ames era and at least the 80's was Jim Parks, himself a very fine fielder. Sure John Murray would add his name, but would argue that, like Knott, his batting was a bonus.)

Kwini

The main point was that following Bland or even Randall, it was not expected that everyone would be a great fielder - indeed, the fact that you can name specific players kind of proves the point Mike and I have been making, that prior to the early 90s being a good fielder was a bonus, and a team was lucky if they had more than one or two good fielders (plus a couple of good slip catchers). How many fast bowlers prior to about 1995 were considered good outfielders? Most of them were in the Bob Willis mould, of being hidden down at fine leg or thrid man because they were rather lumbering but had a good throwing arm.

Now that level of fielding just doesn't cut it. Everyone practices hard and the average standard has improved immeasurably. Mike highlights the point about fielding in pairs now, particularly on the boundary, so the ball can be relayed back to the keeper much more efficiently - it may only very rarely save runs and even more rarely cause a dismissal (although there have been a few recently where the first fielder has tipped a ball back as it has cleared the boundary and the second player taken the catch).

Inspired by biltong's points and my own reresearch into Pollock's record, I am getting closer to a yes vote for him. As I said, his ODI bowling stats are seriously impressive, and we certainly have to take that into consideration.
Now on Rhodes, for the modern generation, he was the man who was the last word on fielding, but the world had other great fielder/catchers. Anybody remember Eknath Solkar? Haven't read about anyone of his quality as a close catcher before or after him. Made the great Indian spinners a great deal more effective.