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."

dummy,
Thanks.
I would say, though, that fielding in pairs, especially on the boundary, had been around at least since the 70's - the more athletic amongst us (perhaps I should say them) used to do that in minor-level club cricket in Surrey at least as far back as the seventies.
Greater athleticism has transformed all sports and I don't doubt Rhodes's contribution to fast-forwarding this in cricket; just trying to make the point that the one-day game also had a huge impact, (though the notion of the fast bowler disappearing to fine leg for a rest and a beer and a drag still prevailed!).

Pollock - yes

Excellent bowler and a good lower order batsman in both forms of the game. Would bore you out rather than smash you out but McGrath apart, there was nobody better in his era.

Rhodes - no

Great fielder, average-good bat. I would argue that he was picked at times for his fielding and therefore actually weakened the SA batting line up.

Stella wrote:Pollock - yes

Excellent bowler and a good lower order batsman in both forms of the game. Would bore you out rather than smash you out but McGrath apart, there was nobody better in his era.

Rhodes - no

Great fielder, average-good bat. I would argue that he was picked at times for his fielding and therefore actually weakened the SA batting line up.

Excellent summary, my votes would go exactly like that.

kwinigolfer wrote:dummy,
Thanks.
I would say, though, that fielding in pairs, especially on the boundary, had been around at least since the 70's - the more athletic amongst us (perhaps I should say them) used to do that in minor-level club cricket in Surrey at least as far back as the seventies.
Greater athleticism has transformed all sports and I don't doubt Rhodes's contribution to fast-forwarding this in cricket; just trying to make the point that the one-day game also had a huge impact, (though the notion of the fast bowler disappearing to fine leg for a rest and a beer and a drag still prevailed!).

Kwini
There's no doubt that one day cricket played a big role in increasing the emphasis placed on fielding, and it played a big part in bringing Rhodes to the fore-front of awareness, as it was his outstanding fielding in the 92 World Cup (in particular the diving run out of Inzamam) that brought him to prominence.

It should also be commented that one of the great strengths of the dominant Aussie side of the late 90s and early 00s was the amount of emphasis they placed on fielding in all forms of the game. Until 2005, they as a team probably set the standard (I'd argue that England maybe surpassed them in the 05 Ashes), but many of their ideas were really developments of what Rhodes had worked out 5 years previously.

Of course Rhodes, like most of his predecessors as great fielders, was a very talented athlete and indeed was an international level field hockey player (he was selected for the SA Olympic hockey team in 96, but was unavailable for the tournament). However, as well as having great inherent gifts (speed and agility), he worked hard at improving what he had, and it was this work as much as his athleticism that made him the leader of the pack at that time.

The point I am trying to make is that beyond being a great fielder, it was the effect that Rhodes had on fielding standards in general which is the reason behind his nomination.

Simply saying "but there were great fielders before Rhodes" does nothing to counter that point (I would in any case argue strongly that Rhodes was when he played comfortably the best fielder the world had ever seen, but it is in any case moot).

Dummy's comparisons with Grace "inventing" modern batting techniques and Spofforth swing bowling are the relevant ones.

Stella, I counter the argument that Rhodes wasn't worth his place for his batting in my original post in his defence. For most of Rhodes's career (during the 90s), the South African batting line-up included other players of a similar standard or worse. It was only afterwards with Kallis becoming world class and the arrivals of Gibbs and co that changed that.

Jonty Rhodes is a very interesting case.

I'll start with an admission: I don't have a particular love of fielding. Just about any coach will spout things like "every cricketer should enjoy fielding - its the only discipline where your always in the game" or "fielding is the only discipline which anyone can be good at". Well, I don't particularly enjoy fielding and I'd say that even with a huge amount of effort I'd never be that good at it.

Jonty Rhodes comes at the other end of the spectrum, obviously. I'm sure he was naturally gifted at diving about and this helped him become a fine fielder.

I would, however, question whether his name is used lazily. People remember that run out and that he was a good fielder, and because it was often said that he was 'in the side for his fielding' whether that was true or not, his name just seems to have gradually become associated with athletic fielding.

How good he actually was I can't really judge - I never saw him live (and the best way to judge a fielder is to actually observe them at the ground), and I probably didn't even see him live on TV.

My instinct is that we come back to the strong possibility that there has been someone who was diving about like Rhodes, but not at international level or simply isn't remembered. In that sense I'd probably rather see fielding considered only as a supporting act to batting - as it was with Hammond (not that his batting was being questioned) and some others.

Shelsey93 wrote:
I'll start with an admission: I don't have a particular love of fielding. Just about any coach will spout things like "every cricketer should enjoy fielding - its the only discipline where your always in the game" or "fielding is the only discipline which anyone can be good at". Well, I don't particularly enjoy fielding and I'd say that even with a huge amount of effort I'd never be that good at it.

That's lazy coaching - anyone can be a reasonable fielder given enough practice but the same goes for batting and bowling. What is true though is that the large majority of the time you spend on a cricket pitch you're fielding. So you may as well enjoy it to an extent.

Shelsey93 wrote:I would, however, question whether his name is used lazily.

I don't think so at all. I use his name and kids recognise it. Whilst his reputation started with that run-out, what he achieved subsequently in his career was far greater. He was an awesome fielder, certainly comfortably ahead (IMO) of his peers. Of course there are better fielders around nowadays, but that has as much to do with Rhodes as anything else.

Shelsey93 wrote:My instinct is that we come back to the strong possibility that there has been someone who was diving about like Rhodes, but not at international level or simply isn't remembered.

Diving around - yes. Diving forwards rather than sideways? Not so sure. Certainly Roger Harper didn't, and he was an excellent fielder.

Anyway, my case for Jonty is not based only on his fielding ability: it is based on the impact his ability had on the way fielding is now perceived.

Hi all
Afraid I've been having a bit of computer trouble, which is why I missed the vote on Saturday. Glad to see McCabe got in at least.
As for the current crop of candidates, I reckon Ranji, Pollock and Tate are very strong candidates. as for Tate not being good enough, I'll just give you a quote from Bill Ponsford about the first over Ponsford faced from him. the first ans second ball of the over, said Ponsford, 'swung a bit then fizzed off the pitch like a flat stone skimmimh off a millpond', while the third 'came off the pitch like a Larwood bouncer'.
I'll elaborate more on Tate and the others tommorow, but I'm using my sons xbox to do this, and he wants to kill some aliens.

Mike Selig wrote:

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 ...

With half a smiley if I could produce one:
Talk to any old fogey about fielding and mention Rhodes, you get a ''did you see Bland or Randall?''. Their impact lives on; albeit only in the memories of a few of us and not in practice routines of the young which admittedly is more important

I'll come back to that in a moment.

Excellent ongoing debate about both Pollock and Rhodes. Losing Biltong from this thread now after such a start would almost be on a par with Barry Richards' tragic withdrawal from Test cricket.

A few thoughts on Rhodes and fielding, some building on Mike's posts although not always fully in support and some ... well, just random thoughts :

* Mike's main thrust is not to do with Rhodes being the world's greatest fielder but the impact he made as a fielder. Whilst acknowledging it is a 'moot point', Mike believes Rhodes was the best. Before going on to impact, I'll consider this view - I find it interesting and it seems others do too. There have certainly been great fielders in the past. Not nearly as many as today but more than a handful. A few have been listed already and yes, msp, I remember Eknath Solkar.

* I'll name a few more - please sit down when you don't recognise a name. West Indies' Gary Sobers; Australia's Paul Sheehan; Australia's Ross Edwards; Zimbabwe's Trevor Penney; England's Graham Roope; Kent's Alan Ealham; Gloucs' Jim Foat. I guess by now not many are still standing apart from the Corporal and possibly Kwini. Before anyone says the last two names are unfair, let me emphasise that they're not. We're talking about the world's best fielders - there's no requirement for them to have played international cricket and, indeed, why should they have done? Ealham and Foat were ordinary batsmen but outstanding fielders for their counties throughout the 1970s.

* Ok, so what is my point? Simply that there is a good chance that the best fielder of all time never played international cricket and so may never even come into consideration let alone be judged number one. Such a fielder would never have recieved much public attention unless he had also been a good to very good batsman or bowler and played internationally. This doesn't detract at all from Rhodes' impact but it makes me urge caution when making a call on the fielding best from this or any era.

* Excellent fielder that Rhodes was and worked hard to be, he was fortunate that his time corresponded with the television age and, in particular, televised saturation. [ I heard Surrey's CEO, Richard Gould - smart cookie likely to go further in the England game - explain last week that the county one day game going from a 40 over to a 50 over tournament in 2014 is nothing to do with a level playing field for the national team but all to do with the demands of SKY who ''would have preferred 60 overs if they could have got it''.] This provided Rhodes with an immediate world wide audience and the launch of what some regard as his brand. I don't suggest he didn't deserve it but how different would things have been for the game as well as Bland and co if such exposure had arrived years earlier. It now seems unreal that just a few years ago the only way the average cricket follower in this country could follow an Ashes Test 'down under' was with a transistor radio.

* (Apologies if this is wrong but) I think Mike questioned whether Rhodes' batting should come into consideration in determining his HoF nomination. I believe it should, if only to conclude (or otherwise) that it's not a weakness to be held against him. After all, Mike (understandably) held Walsh's fielding against him when considering his nomination which was based almost solely on bowling achievements.

* Despite my singing the praises of some fielders from years gone by, Mike is undoubtedly right that generally far less attention was paid to this aspect of the game in all its formats in the past. I can remember England twelfth men acting as substitute fielders for opposition teams in Test matches during the 1970s - I don't visualise that happening again in a hurry.

Just as Rhodes' timing in the field was spot on, so I feel was his timing as to when he came to the fore.

Can't stand it when your lists don't get down as far as Andy Murtagh . . . .

Yup, forgot Sheehan, good call.

(Your boys saved you a trip to Carlisle, guildford )


Not much chat on Enid Bakewll yet - I remember her, but had completely forgotten her until seeing her ICC HOF inclusion. Impressive CV but can't help but wonder, unfairly?, that there might be some sort of pc initiative to include more women in their HOF now the door's been nudged open. Certainly Heyhoe-Flint was almost a celebrity in her day, Bakewell just an outastanding lady cricketer - and nothing wrong with that.

Not much more to add, guildfordbat.

Rhodes for me is the epitome of "flash" moments that are so heavily weighted when it comes to decide who should be a hall of famer.

As much as I like Jonty (i have been priviledged to listen to him speak abouthis cricket days) and respect his fielding ability, he is not a hall of famer.

As guildfordbat says, he came onto the scene when SA were welcomed back and the excitement of having another team compete in the small group of countries that really embraced cricket as a sport, he made an impact, I still hear how he is a big hero amongsr kids in India for THAT dive which kicked it all off.

It will be a travesty if a guys like Pollock and Kallis is measured not flash enough or have made a big enough impact on world cricket, but a likeable person who was nowhere near as good a cricketer as them are considered more suitable.

Since our re admission into world cricket, we have had but a few world class players, Donald, Pollock and Kallis tops that list for me.

We currently have a few potential hall of famers are not yet ready to lay down their pads, Smith, Amla, de Villiers and Steyn are amongst the few that in the last 22 years have made the step up to being cricketing legends in SA.

Jonty will forever be a favourite amongst South Africans, Mkaya Ntini will always be our first ever true international class non white cricketer to represent SA, both these guys are inspirations to young kids all over SA for different reasons, but as Jonty had his weaknesses in technique, Mkaya never learnt to bowl a slower ball, and hence relied on the wicket, pace and bounce to collect his nearly 400 wickets.

For me the case is a simple one. A hall of famer must first and foremost have the records to justify consideration. Pollock, Donald and Kallis have those in spades.

Sadly Jonty and Mkaya to a lesser extent do not.

Superb post Guildford.

Some great posts all round. I am pretty much decided now on a yes for Pollock for the reasons well set out by Biltong and others, which follow through the theme of his excellence.

Interesting that before Kallis cropped up several times in recent contributions I was already making the comparison with Pollock: there comes a point when the sheer weight / extent of excellence should be more than enough to outweigh any limitations in wow factor.

When it comes to the list of superb fielders I am left standing, as Guildford predicts. Spot on with references to Jim Foat, Alan Ealham, Graham Roope, Sheehan et al.... Excellent case has been mounted for Jonty which probably makes the very best of available material - but I am not presently convinced of the candidacy.

At risk of digression, I'd argue against the opinion offered by Fists in an article some time ago now, that Kallis simply isn't as exciting as many of his contemporaries and so is in some way a lesser (or at least less recognised player).

I'd simply say that he's a fantastic batsman with many add-ons: a modern-day Wally Hammond.

Pollock isn't that clear cut for me. I'd like to delve deeper into how often he made the difference for his team.

Also, does not understanding the Duckworth-Lewis at the '03 World Cup go against him

hi all, just catching up on some great debate

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare Kallis and Pollock. They both may have an "unflashy" quality about them, but Kallis were he to retire tomorrow would IMO walk into the HoF: I doubt anyone has him outside the top 5 all-rounders of all time (Sobers, Khan and Miller probably the only three you can make a case for ahead of him), and probably in the top 20 or 30 so middle-order batsmen (despite some mighty fine competition). I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have Pollock in the top 20 or so fast bowlers for instance.

Having said that, I think on excellence of record alone (and Biltong makes some good points) and sheer regularity of fine performances (even if little outstanding ones) he has a very strong case. Someone said we're maybe overstating the "impact" factor of the HoF, and he's probably right.

Mike made a great post on Rhodes: we're not debating the fact there were fine fielders before him (though in absolute terms Rhodes was a fair way ahead of guys like Randall and Bland), but more a case of impact and new ideas brought to fielding. Particularly interesting about how coaches sat up and noticed. Was he a beneficiary of his era? Start of world wide televised cricket, increased professionalism, etc. Undoubtedly, but the impact of the man himself cannot be questioned.

Also his batting is somewhat under-rated IMO, he played in an era where an average of 35 wasn't bad at all, and I too recall that he often made runs when his side (SA's strength was in their bowling for most of Rhodes's career) most needed them.

Actually thinking about it Mike's come quite close to convincing me Rhodes has a strong case...

Guildford, that is a particularly outstanding post. I address a few issues.

guildfordbat wrote:

* Mike's main thrust is not to do with Rhodes being the world's greatest fielder but the impact he made as a fielder. Whilst acknowledging it is a 'moot point', Mike believes Rhodes was the best. Before going on to impact, I'll consider this view - I find it interesting and it seems others do too. There have certainly been great fielders in the past. Not nearly as many as today but more than a handful. A few have been listed already and yes, msp, I remember Eknath Solkar.

* I'll name a few more - please sit down when you don't recognise a name. West Indies' Gary Sobers; Australia's Paul Sheehan; Australia's Ross Edwards; Zimbabwe's Trevor Penney; England's Graham Roope; Kent's Alan Ealham; Gloucs' Jim Foat. I guess by now not many are still standing apart from the Corporal and possibly Kwini. Before anyone says the last two names are unfair, let me emphasise that they're not. We're talking about the world's best fielders - there's no requirement for them to have played international cricket and, indeed, why should they have done? Ealham and Foat were ordinary batsmen but outstanding fielders for their counties throughout the 1970s.

* Ok, so what is my point? Simply that there is a good chance that the best fielder of all time never played international cricket and so may never even come into consideration let alone be judged number one. Such a fielder would never have recieved much public attention unless he had also been a good to very good batsman or bowler and played internationally. This doesn't detract at all from Rhodes' impact but it makes me urge caution when making a call on the fielding best from this or any era.

I'm not sure I ever claimed Rhodes is the best ever fielder. Certainly Steve Smith is a better fielder (in absolute terms). What I would say is that of the fielders I've seen, Rhodes was further ahead than anyone who had gone before him than anyone else has ever been, i.e. Rhodes made the biggest "jump" in terms of standard of fielding. Or to simplify Rhodes was "more better" than say Randall, than Smith is better than Rhodes. If any of this makes sense.

Great list of names. Trevor Penney was a brilliant fielder, but technically not as good as Rhodes. More accurate arm though (if that's possible).

As both yourself and Shelsey have said, it's possible the greatest ever fielder is someone no one's heard of because his batting never made it past village cricket. Although I doubt it. Someone with the sheer athletic qualities required to be that good at fielding (not to mention natural ability like hand-eye) would surely have been able to work enough at his batting to become county standard.

guildfordbat wrote:* Excellent fielder that Rhodes was and worked hard to be, he was fortunate that his time corresponded with the television age and, in particular, televised saturation. This provided Rhodes with an immediate world wide audience and the launch of what some regard as his brand. I don't suggest he didn't deserve it but how different would things have been for the game as well as Bland and co if such exposure had arrived years earlier. It now seems unreal that just a few years ago the only way the average cricket follower in this country could follow an Ashes Test 'down under' was with a transistor radio.

Absolutely. I've already acknowledged that Rhodes was fortunate in his timing, and that had he arrived 10 years earlier we wouldn't be having this debate (which would be a shame).

guildfordbat wrote:* (Apologies if this is wrong but) I think Mike questioned whether Rhodes' batting should come into consideration in determining his HoF nomination. I believe it should, if only to conclude (or otherwise) that it's not a weakness to be held against him. After all, Mike (understandably) held Walsh's fielding against him when considering his nomination which was based almost solely on bowling achievements.

I did admit I was being disingenuous though... I would say his batting was reasonable to good - certainly above average, and shouldn't exclude him from the off. He was for example a significantly better batsman than Brearley - would people find it acceptable to debate Brearley for his captaincy? I expect a few people to exclude him on the basis of it not being strong enough, and that is perfectly reasonable.

Biltong, I have a major issue with people saying Rhodes epitomises "flash" moments - he does far more than that, his "legacy" should be one of sustained brilliance in a particular area of the game.

Secondly, I remind people that I am not interested in drawing up a list of the best ever cricketers - so subjectivity, style and impact do matter. For me at least.

Chelsea,
I may have been one of the first to seek to look at Rhodes in comparison to other fielders; my reference to Bland and Randall (plus other names) was merely intended to attempt a guage at the level to which Rhodes raised the bar - as both Bland and Randall effectively did in their eras.

Mike's addressed that in a way that is very helpful .

Mike Selig wrote:Biltong, I have a major issue with people saying Rhodes epitomises "flash" moments - he does far more than that, his "legacy" should be one of sustained brilliance in a particular area of the game.

Secondly, I remind people that I am not interested in drawing up a list of the best ever cricketers - so subjectivity, style and impact do matter. For me at least.

Got it, it is really a list of favourites.

Biltong wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Biltong, I have a major issue with people saying Rhodes epitomises "flash" moments - he does far more than that, his "legacy" should be one of sustained brilliance in a particular area of the game.

Secondly, I remind people that I am not interested in drawing up a list of the best ever cricketers - so subjectivity, style and impact do matter. For me at least.

Got it, it is really a list of favourites.

Bilt

In my mind, the HoF is somewhere in between a list of excellence and a list of favourites, with the additional inclusion of nominees based on more subjective considerations like 'impact' or importance around / outside the game. For example the last set of nominees included Jayasuriya, who as a batsman was clearly good but not HoF level, but when adding in his impact for how he changed the approach to opening in ODI cricket certainly a worthy nominee and someone who stimulated discussion - Rhodes is a similar type of nominee, although I think has a stronger case in termos of lasting impact.

You mentioned Ntini as the first black South African Test player of note, and that could certainly be used as strong consideration of his HoF credentials, under the 'importance to the game'. Maybe we'll get round to him in a while. As for Kallis, he'll be another like Dravid who is 'inducted' as soon as he calls it a day - can't argue with his all round excellence.

dummy_half wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Biltong, I have a major issue with people saying Rhodes epitomises "flash" moments - he does far more than that, his "legacy" should be one of sustained brilliance in a particular area of the game.

Secondly, I remind people that I am not interested in drawing up a list of the best ever cricketers - so subjectivity, style and impact do matter. For me at least.

Got it, it is really a list of favourites.

Bilt

In my mind, the HoF is somewhere in between a list of excellence and a list of favourites, with the additional inclusion of nominees based on more subjective considerations like 'impact' or importance around / outside the game. For example the last set of nominees included Jayasuriya, who as a batsman was clearly good but not HoF level, but when adding in his impact for how he changed the approach to opening in ODI cricket certainly a worthy nominee and someone who stimulated discussion - Rhodes is a similar type of nominee, although I think has a stronger case in termos of lasting impact.

You mentioned Ntini as the first black South African Test player of note, and that could certainly be used as strong consideration of his HoF credentials, under the 'importance to the game'. Maybe we'll get round to him in a while. As for Kallis, he'll be another like Dravid who is 'inducted' as soon as he calls it a day - can't argue with his all round excellence.

Got it. This then makes a case for having two categories of Hall of Famers.

Those deserved due to a record of excellence and then those who made a specific impact of note on the game itself. Those categories will make sense to me. Jonty doesn't have the record, so he cannot qualify under the "record of excellence" however he did make an impact on the game, hence category two.

Having your favourites is a bit iffy. Graeme Hick was a hero of mine but he would be nowhere near the list.

Mike Selig wrote:

I'm not sure I ever claimed Rhodes is the best ever fielder. Certainly Steve Smith is a better fielder (in absolute terms). What I would say is that of the fielders I've seen, Rhodes was further ahead than anyone who had gone before him than anyone else has ever been, i.e. Rhodes made the biggest "jump" in terms of standard of fielding. Or to simplify Rhodes was "more better" than say Randall, than Smith is better than Rhodes. If any of this makes sense ....

As both yourself and Shelsey have said, it's possible the greatest ever fielder is someone no one's heard of because his batting never made it past village cricket. Although I doubt it. Someone with the sheer athletic qualities required to be that good at fielding (not to mention natural ability like hand-eye) would surely have been able to work enough at his batting to become county standard.

Mike - the feedback from yourself and others is much appreciated, thanks.

Yes, you're right about not claiming Rhodes to be the best ever fielder - apologies for any misrepresentation although, as you show, it doesn't impact my (and Shelsey's) point that the greatest ever could be some relative unknown from the past in this country or overseas. Even allowing for such a fielder having reached the equivalent of county standard, there is still no guarantee that either of us will have heard of him.

I was really emphasising the very general point that lists of ''the greatest ever fielders'' need to be clearly defined and explained if they are to have true meaning. For every Test playing fielding great, there were probably in every country better fielders playing (just) domestically at that same time; examples being Ealham, Foat and Murtagh (ok, Kwini ) in England in the 1970s. I appreciate that has little to do with your case for Rhodes, just one of my random thoughts as I mentioned when starting my previous post.

On the Rhodes question. I'm not surebthat Rhodes was 'more better' (as Mike put it), than all the best fielders who had gone before. Was he, for example, further ahead of his contemporaries than, say, Learie Constantine, or even Colin Bland?

And a few words in support of Maurice Tate.
This was a man who fundamentally changed his whole approach to bowling at the age of 27, turning from off-spin to fast-medium bowling, becoming, in the process, the pre-eminant pace bowler of his age. Only Clarrie Grimmett took more wickets than Tate during the period in which Tate bowled, and only spinners took their wickets at a lower average among those bowlers who took 50+ wickets during the period. Add to this that Tate was not only England's biggest wicket taking threat during his career, but also one of her most important stock bowlers, and that he often bowled with little in the way oif class support at the other end, and the scale of his achievements begins to become apparent.
For example, in his greatest test series, that of 1924-5, Tate took more wickets in a test series in Australia than any other England bowler before or since, 38. This was in a team beaten 4-1 and with bowling support consisting of George Geary, who had neveer recovered from a blow over the heart the previous season, 'Tich' Freeman, who didn't fulfill his potential for various reasons, Woolley and Kilner. Such was the reliance on Tate during that series that Tate bowled more deliveries than any other bowler in any test series before WWII, despite missing much of one of the tests after his big toenail had been ripped out by the constant pressure of bowling on hard Australian pitches.
Still, Tate was used to bowling a great deal. In the 6 years before the 1928-9 tour of Australia, for both county and country, Tate average over 1700 overs a year. And he wasn't simply a medium pacer. as i've already alluded to in an earlier post, Bill Ponsford recalls his deliveries 'coming off the pitch like a Larwood bouncer', while Ian Peebles said that, in Australiia, 'his slips stood considerably deeper than they did to the accredited fast bowlers'.
So, in tate, we have a man who was the pre-eminent pace bowler of his time, despite not having taken up pace bowling until he was 27, a man who Bradman called a magnificent bowler, and who both Hobbs and Ponsford rated very highly (there's a nice quote in a centenery of the Ashes I have by Ray Illingworth and Kenneth Gregory which says that when, at the end of the 1946-7 Ashes, Bradman rated Bedser above Tate the verdict 'caused Ponsford-who recalled the Tate of 1924-5-to raise all available eyebrows')
Yet not only was Tate a great bowler, he was also a useful bat, good enough to open the batting for his county, make over 20000 FC runs and average 25 for England.
So there we have it. Maurice Tate. Indomitable, magnificent, the greatest pace bowler of his era. In all probability the greatest pace bowler between the wars. IMO worthy of entry to our HoF

Biltong wrote:Not much more to add, guildfordbat.

Rhodes for me is the epitome of "flash" moments that are so heavily weighted when it comes to decide who should be a hall of famer.

As much as I like Jonty (i have been priviledged to listen to him speak abouthis cricket days) and respect his fielding ability, he is not a hall of famer.

As guildfordbat says, he came onto the scene when SA were welcomed back and the excitement of having another team compete in the small group of countries that really embraced cricket as a sport, he made an impact, I still hear how he is a big hero amongsr kids in India for THAT dive which kicked it all off.

It will be a travesty if a guys like Pollock and Kallis is measured not flash enough or have made a big enough impact on world cricket, but a likeable person who was nowhere near as good a cricketer as them are considered more suitable.

Since our re admission into world cricket, we have had but a few world class players, Donald, Pollock and Kallis tops that list for me.

We currently have a few potential hall of famers are not yet ready to lay down their pads, Smith, Amla, de Villiers and Steyn are amongst the few that in the last 22 years have made the step up to being cricketing legends in SA.

Jonty will forever be a favourite amongst South Africans, Mkaya Ntini will always be our first ever true international class non white cricketer to represent SA, both these guys are inspirations to young kids all over SA for different reasons, but as Jonty had his weaknesses in technique, Mkaya never learnt to bowl a slower ball, and hence relied on the wicket, pace and bounce to collect his nearly 400 wickets.

For me the case is a simple one. A hall of famer must first and foremost have the records to justify consideration. Pollock, Donald and Kallis have those in spades.

Sadly Jonty and Mkaya to a lesser extent do not.

Agree with a lot of it, Rhodes is one of the very best fieldrs in the world and there are those massive flash moments that people would remember, but as biltong said, I doubt whether he has enough credit to be considered above the likes of Pollock and Kallis.
But Ntini? I don't think his case could be very similar to that of Rhodes. But that could be a discussion for another day.

Thanks, Hoggy.

I guess your computer is now fixed or your boy has been killed by aliens and you now have his xbox.

That's a good starting (or start again) point for considering Tate.

Can I ask how much of an automatic selection he was for England. I'm sure I've read of him missing out to Larwood whom you don't rate fantastically highly. Assuming that's right at all, was that just during Bodyline or was it more common?

My immediate thinking - which may be entirely wrong - which lies behind my questions is that he was a very decent bloke and bowler who would come in for a while and do a very decent job but was never totally part of the fixtures and fittings of the Test side. In modern terms, a very good and more regularly appearing Onions but still not quite an Anderson.

Feel free to rubbish the above. I acknowledge it's a rather lazy post without the benefit of research but you'll know things here immediately. Thanks.

Guildford
The son's at school, leaving the dad, who works from home but can't do much because he hasn't got a computer at the moment, to the xbox (so please excuse the odd typo).
As for Tate, as far as I'm aware he was pretty much an automatic selection for England up until the Bodyline series, when he was left out, partly because he wasn't quite quick enough, but mainly because he vehemently opposed the tactic, to the point where, it is rumoured, he and Jardine almost came to blows over the issue.

Thanks, Hoggy.

I was sure I had read of Tate being left out but couldn't recall the circumstances. Seems I was overplaying the frequency.

Can I just say that Tate was nine years older than Larwood?
At the time of the Bodyline Tour he was 37 and a different type of bowler, very close to the end of his Test career and no longer a significant presence with the bat - effectively, his Test career ended in 1931, at the age of 36.

cricinfo's Wisden obit includes effusive tributes from Hobbs, Hendren, Strudwick, Fry and Billy Griffith, and mentions that he played 20 of his 39 Tests consecutively against Australia.

I know guildford knows his onions, but would say that Maurice Tate was at least as good as any bowler of the 1920's, behind only SF Barnes in Test wickets when he retired.

More on Tate later . . . .

Hoggy - meant to ask and hope you don't mind the question. How would you have voted on Ponsford? After your nomination, I found your doubts interesting.

kwinigolfer wrote:

I know guildford knows his onions ...

... and I did try to butter you up earlier, Kwini, with a reference to Murtagh in my respose to Mike!

Don't mind you asking at all Guidford.
I think that, despite my doubts, I'd probably have voted yes for Ponsford in the end. He may not have had quite the sparkle or statistical excellence of McCabe or Hill, but he was still a great player, highly regarded both by his contemporaries and cricket history, who paved the way for the likes of Bradman and, it might be suggested, made batting a more professional pastime after the 'amateurism' of the pre-WWI 'golden age'.

Thanks, Hoggy. As you probably saw, I agreed with your vote and had pretty similar reasoning. Interesting point about him making batting 'more professional'.

Re: Maurice Tate:

Am having a tough time with the implied assertion that Tate was discarded for the Bodyline Tests (1932/33): Effectively, Tate's Test career ended in 1931, at the age of 36.
Although he subsequently appeared a couple of times, including vs New Zealand in March 1933 at the age of almost 38, he was a spent force by then.

We should be examining Tate's records of the 1920's, when he was in his prime.
Shaun Pollock was a fine cricketer but, if we judged him on his Test record at the age of 36 or later, we would find the scorebook empty and the same would go for most of the fast bowling candidates for the HOF.

Apples and apples s'il vous plait.

Kwini - apologies if I've pointed the Tate charabanc in the wrong direction. I did try and emphasise that my earlier comments were mere thoughts and questions, formed without research. I promise I'll do some.

At risk of dwelling on my initial perception of Tate probably being a touch below HoF standard, I'll flag something that probably influenced it and explains at least in part why I haven't been shouting Tate's name from the rooftops (even though perhaps we should all be doing that).

Hoggy wrote this morning of Ponsford being ''highly regarded both by his contemporaries and cricket history''. That's certainly right. So how does Tate measure up to that?

Tate was clearly highly regarded by his contemporaries as the many glowing tributes in his Wisden obituary demonstrate. However, I'm not so sure that (published) cricket history affords him such coverage and respect. That view may be wrong and based upon ignorance on my part. Even if my view is correct, it could still be that cricket history has in the main done him a disservice and we now have the opportunity to redress that.

At the moment, I just don't know what judgment to deliver on Tate but do feel that cricket history hasn't helped me nearly as much as it did with others such as Larwood and W Rhodes.

Guildford
CMJ ranks Tate at 77 in his book of greatest cricketers, while John Arlott was a big fan, writing a biography of Tate in 1951 and including him in his book of favourite cricketers in 1979. Describing Tate's bowling action Arlott said 'no one has ever achieved so perfectly a co-ordination and exploitation of wrist, shoulders, waist, legs and feet as Maurice Tate did. It was as if bowling had been implanted in him at birth, and came out -as the great arts come out- after due digestion, at that peak of greatness which is not created -but only confirmed- by instruction'

Guildford

I'd written quite a long comment about Tate, then lost it when the web crashed. He was certainly an interesting cricketer, and certainly good enough to be being discussed in HoF terms, although I am having some difficulty placing him in the hierarchy of his contemporaries, perhaps because we haven't had many nominees whose prime was the 1920s (Hobbs, although noting that he also played significantly pre-war, and Sutcliffe - both though were specialist batsmen. Can't think of any bowlers).

The interesting things with Tate:
FC debut in 1912, but his career didn't really start until 1920 because of the war.
Initially a good (though not great) opening batsman who bowled some spin.
Only discovered his knack for seam bowling at age 27 in 1922.
Subsequently was the mainstay of England's bowling until being dropped for the Bodyline tour in 1932.
Continued to perform as a decent to good batsman through until about 1930, and maintained good county form as a bowler until 1936 (age 41).

A Test career of 39 matches, taking 155 wickets at 26 and averaging 25 with the bat certainly indicate a very good Test level bowling all-rounder. One difficulty I have is in considering what those averages mean in context of the time he played - judging from the records compiled by the top batsmen of the time, it seems to me that the 20s and 30s represent a period where playing conditions maybe favoured batting, so a bowling average of 26 then may be more like 23 more recently. However of course set against that has to be that his all-rounder credentials are weakened as a batting average of 25 then probably should be considered like 20 now.

One quote I noted in the Wikipedia biog that I felt needs examination and consideration was the description of Tate as 'the founder of modern seam bowling'. I'm curious to know in what way this is the case, and so whether Tate's HoF credentials should be upped by considering his lasting impact on the game.

dummy
I've seen a couple of quotes stating that Tate was the first man to purposely try to use the seam when bowling. Don't know how true that is but it would seem (pardon the pun) to indicate that he was, at least, an important bowler in the development of seam, rather than swing, bowling.

Guildford
Further to my last post, it is interesting that in an obituary of Alec Bedser in the Telegraph it was suggested that bedser vied with barnes and tate for the title of the greatest fast-medium bowler of all time. Now. personally, I don't think there's any doubt that Barnes holds that title, but it's interesting that Tate's name is still being mentioned in that context.

guildford

Wasn't necessarily trying to advocate for Tate, merely trying to ensure that we judge candidates on the proverbial level playing field.

Having been a strong advocate of (failed) candidates such as Woolley and Larwood, I'm not sure that Maurice Tate's body of work at the highest level matches theirs. But to disparage his career achievements because he was thought to be not quite up to snuff at age 37 seems a touch disingenuous.

I'm thinking that Tate was England's finest bowler of the Twenties without the sort of landmark achievements that mark him as an all-time Test great - I would certainly place Woolley's overall achiements at a higher level.

Hoggy's (Edit: dummy's. Sorry!) comment about the Twenties and Thirties being an era of batting supremacy is also apropos - is that what really led to "Bodyline"? Not sure! And I'm struggling with the objectivity of "founder of modern seam bowling" status. Alec Bedser's view on that might be instructive for instance, and I can't find an appropriate reference.

But we have selected FIVE West Indian fast bowlers from a (roughly) twenty year period - surely there needs to be some balance to reflect the relative achievements of the best of their era?

Hoggy,
I have that Arlott favourite cricketer book, plus some other Arlott-isms, but have tried not to use in testimony (except of character) because he obviously thought so highly of Tate!!

kwinigolfer wrote:
I'm thinking that Tate was England's finest bowler of the Twenties without the sort of landmark achievements that mark him as an all-time Test great - I would certainly place Woolley's overall achiements at a higher level.

Surely being ranked as the greatest pace bowler in the world for most , if not all of your career and being seen as one of the greatest bowlers of your type of all-time would rank as landmark achievements?

Guys - got to go out now but will definitely review further. Thanks for your comments.

Certainly no issue with Tate being nominated. The problem is largely my own ignorance.

The support from Arlott is certainly a positive for me.

I wonder if CMJ says anthing particularly interesting. I know Shelsey used to very kindly give us potted summaries from his book ( - not enough time to be subtle! )

Hoggy,
Agreed!
Perhaps that was poorly worded.
My point was intended to be that Tate is not remembered for a catalogue of match-winning performances at Test level, but rather for an extraordinary body of work and consistency, probably the pre-eminent fast or medium fast bowler of the twenties; and, in addition, one of the first great all-rounders.

guildfordbat wrote:


I wonder if CMJ says anthing particularly interesting. I know Shelsey used to very kindly give us potted summaries from his book ( - not enough time to be subtle! )

Nothing particularly that hasn't already been said Guildford, though he does mention that between 1922 1nd 1925 Tate took 848 wickets!

One thing my earlier post didn't touch on but which has been implied elsewhere is just how good Tate's record as a county player was:
Nearly 2800 wickets at an average of 18 in a career that wasn't all that long compared to his near-contemporaries (back to the fact that his seam bowling didn't develop until he was 27, so his 'prime years' were really the following decade) is a phenomenal record, and certainly should push his credentials forwards rather.

Add to that over 20000 runs, and that he scored 1000 per season for 11 consecutive seasons from 1920 to 1930 and you have a fine first class career.

Now, whether all that adds up to an HoF member or not I'm still unsure. I'd certainly be interested in following up the comments about his development of seam (as opposed to swing) bowling techniques, as something of that level would definintely push him 'over the top'.

Sorry, can't copy and paste on this xbox, but google 'No batsman his master' by John Arlott for a good description of Tate.
As for his role in the development of seam bowling, it's mentioned in his Wisden obit that he was probably the first player to deliberatly use the seam, so that's a quite authratitive source.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:On the Rhodes question. I'm not surebthat Rhodes was 'more better' (as Mike put it), than all the best fielders who had gone before. Was he, for example, further ahead of his contemporaries than, say, Learie Constantine, or even Colin Bland?

You misundertand me: not "more better" than his contempories, but "more better" than all the best fielders previously. That is, the difference between Rhodes and Randall was bigger than the difference between Smith (Steve - who I would say is the best fielder around nowadays and probably of all time that I've seen) and Rhodes.

Excellent discussion on Tate so far BTW, need to read through it more carefully to start forming an opinion...

So far, Ranji with a very strong case, his cricketing record and role as a significant innovator being very strong points. He did run up a huge amount of financial problems, and besides being related to some colourful political involvements that have to be put in context of larger issues of colonialism and its practices, there are no real massive character issues that could undermine his case that has come up during the debate's course.
Tate is someone who I initially thought had the stats, and the debate has convinced me that his role in the emergence of modern seam bowling and his position as the dominant fast bowler of his time are strong factors in favor of his case.
Shaun Pollock's case has become stronger in the course of the debate in my view, and at the moment I am close to a positive call in this regard as well.
Enid Bakewell was someone who I thought had a strong case with the stats, but the course of the debate has convinced me that there has to be more convincing. The debate on Rhoeds has been an interesting one and I agree with Mike that his batting hasn't been as bad as it seems at times and in fact his ODI numbers are pretty decent. But his role as the predominant fielder of his time who influenced the course of fielding is his main case, and I would like the debate to go ahead further on that front before taking a call either way.

On face value Bakewell comes close to a YES for me. She was an excellent women's cricketer, and its not her fault that she played in an era where women's cricket was poorly funded and probably played at little better than village standard. She scored a century in a WC final and has an all-round record which is probably better than any other international cricketer, male or female.

My concern is that, for me, Heyhoe-Flint is the one female player that I would most like to see in the Hall of Fame (because of not only being a good player but having done a lot for the development of the women's game) - and obviously that now isn't possible. After that I'm then probably looking at Belinda Clark (an exellent player whose also done a lot for development), Clare Taylor (for leading the recent boom in the women's game and pioneering a more powerful style), Jan Brittin (another with a fine record)and finally Bakewell.