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."

msp83 wrote:...
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.

...
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.

I'm still to be convinced on Tate - the bald stats for me fall just short, but if he really was an innovator in seam bowling technique then I think he's in.

Pollock - the more he gets discussed, the better he appears. I wonder if I under-rated him a bit during his playing career (as I said, my perception was of a very solid pro but not one that worried or excited me). One thing that hasn't been commented on is that he did reach the #1 spot in the bowling ratings - I know these are rather subjective, but it does suggest that for at least a portion of his career he was absolutely world class rather than an excellent support bowler. Started as a no, but I'm being persuaded.

Rhodes - I think the discussions have convinced me that his case is very strong as an innovator of modern fielding techniques. Also, while he was never a great batsman (Test and ODI averages in the mid 30s and only 3 Test hundreds in 52 Tests), looking again at his career he became more than useful in the last 2 or 3 years of his career, so perhaps my earlier comments that SA 'carried' him as a batsman are a little harsh (although I still hold that his inclusion in the side was only allowed by the quality all-rounders in Kallis and Pollock). Really, the question with Jonty's HoF credentials comes down to whether you consider fielding sufficient of a core skill in the game to merit his inclusion.

dummy
While I would agree that Tates stats don't instantly leap out at you, you have to put that in the context of when he was bowling. The 1920s and 30s were a time of the bat dominating the ball in a way that has probably never been repeated, and pitches that, if the favoured anything, usually suited spin rather than pace. Compare Tate's stats against any pace bowler who took more than 50 wickets between 1924 and 1934, and his are superior, I believe. More wickets at a better average.

Shelsey93 wrote: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.

Shelsey - Bakewell is an ''absolute non starter'' for me and I explained why earlier in the week.

However, that's not the point here. Heyhoe-Flint being in your estimation top of the girly pecking order [stirs and stands back ] and failing to get into the Hall of Fame should not impose an obligation on you to vote NO to Bakewell. Overall votes last time determined the fate of Heyhoe-Flint but they don't set a precedent for how you must vote for someone else now.

I voted NO to Heyhoe-Flint and still believe that was right. I also believe Bakewell is a lesser candidate. Therefore, there's no way that Bakewell would get a YES from me. However, you are in a very different camp. You voted YES to Heyhoe-Flint and in effect believe we got it wrong. I think the question for you is simply - does Bakewell deserve a YES vote on her own merits? I know some people are wary of comparisons but I think in this instance it's reasonable to compare Bakewell to Heyhoe-Flint (and Clark) in assessing her merits. If you feel Bakewell measures up or is sufficiently close to someone (Heyhoe-Flint) you gave a YES vote to, then I see no reason why you shouldn't vote YES again.

It's not the best of examples but I campaigned long and hard for Cowdrey with an almost total lack of success. If (big IF admittedly) someone comparable but slightly inferior were to be nominated, I would probably vote YES regardless of what had gone before.

A bit more on Tate.

He has the most fantastic county record.
Most wickets for Sussex in a season: 198 (average 13.47).
Most career wickets for Sussex:2,211 (average 17.41).
He was also one of the batting partners for Sussex's highest second wicket (385) and sixth wicket (255) partnerships - records which still stand today after more than ninety and eighty years respectively.

In 2004 he was chosen on a public vote - presumably of club supporters - as Sussex's Greatest All Time Player. What surprises and impresses me here is that he not only did he beat the likes of Imran Khan, Ted Dexter and Tony Greig but also Mushtaq Ahmed who had finally delivered the Holy Grail of the County Championship to Sussex only the season before. I know cricket supporters are not nearly so fickle and rooted in the present as those in football but I would still have expected Mushy's accomplishment to have been burning brighter when votes were cast.

At county and Test level an incredibly willing workhorse but with something of a thoroughbred about him. Tremendous praise from greats of the game; Bradman and Hobbs in particular plus recent HoF inductee Arlott. An unsurpassed 38 wickets in an Ashes series down under.

An incredible start to his Test career. Not only 4 - 12 against South Africa but a wicket with his first ball in Test cricket. One of only about a dozen to do this and in marked contrast to the the rest who had short and undistinguished international careers (eg, Richard Illingworth).

That good Test form continued ... but this where I have to add ... up to a point ... and question whether it lasted long enough.

In Tate's first 20 Tests - effectively only 19 as one was devastated by rain without him bowling or batting - he took exactly 100 wickets. In his remaining 19 Tests, he took 55 wickets - not a bad figure but a long way off the heights of his first half success.

I haven't considered here any innovative aspect. I'm not pouring cold water on that but just find it difficult to believe no one thought of bowling seam up almost as soon as they were handed a cricket ball. Perhaps he was the first to do it with success? (shades of Jayusuriya! )

I had hoped CMJ would help me a bit with Tate. If anything, CMJ compounds my difficulties - placing him at number 77 in his top 100 cricketers. That's pretty much my view and pretty much says it all. Which side of a Hall of Fame line is that number? Who knows and who can tell? As a commentator is reputed to have said of a New Zealand Test player called Cunis, ''neither one thing nor the other!''. Sorry for that!

Anyway as regards Tate - HELP!

Hoggy_Bear wrote:dummy
While I would agree that Tates stats don't instantly leap out at you, you have to put that in the context of when he was bowling. The 1920s and 30s were a time of the bat dominating the ball in a way that has probably never been repeated, and pitches that, if the favoured anything, usually suited spin rather than pace. Compare Tate's stats against any pace bowler who took more than 50 wickets between 1924 and 1934, and his are superior, I believe. More wickets at a better average.

Hoggy
I think most of that goes back to points I raised a couple of days ago - I'm not particulaly familiar with Tate's contemporaries (Larwood probably being the only pace bowler we've considered whose career overlapped Tate's, and who was a bit of a one-series wonder, so his career stats are inferior), so it is hard to get a comparison. I'm inclined to agree than a Test bowling average of 26 in the conditions present in the 1920s is probably better than it looks, but it is very difficult to assess what this really equates to in terms of the modern game. Maybe looking at a few of the Aussie bowlers of the era might be in order, but I have to say I honestly don't know who I should start with (and the extra issue is that the Aussies didn't have to bowl to Bradman for a couple of series towards the end of their career).

Well, 26 is better average than most contemporary bowlers, and most of those in the 30s.

That is something to consider with both Tate and to some extent Pollock - neither played in an era where seam bowling was as dominant as it was in the 70s and 80s or the pre-WWI era

Just to complicate matters still further regarding Maurice Tate:

~He was born in May 1895, played sparingly for Sussex 1912-1914, completed "war service" (which I am unable to find better definition of), and resumed his batting and off-spin career in 1919, already a 24-year-old man.

~His breakthrough bowling moment, according to Arlott in 1922 against the immortal Philip Mead, occurred at the age of 27, and there were no Tests in 1923. So the beginning of his Test career, on the back of his new bowling style, wasn't until the age of 29, in 1924. This goes a long way to explaining that his Test career was relatively (compared to other HOFers) short - more happenstance really that it started late, and may not have (in guildford's words) "lasted long enough".

Arlott describes Tate's breakthrough moment thus:

"Then one day, in 1922 at Eastbourne, Philip Mead was batting with that characteristic air of impregnability which Maurice Tate's off-spinners did nothing to disturb. It was a sudden impulse that prompted a faster ball; from his normal short run, he flung down a ball which pitched on Mead's off stump and, at great speed, knocked the leg stump out of the ground. To the end of his life, Philip Mead recalled that single delivery which marked the birth of one of the sharpest attacking weapons cricket has ever known."

Arlott recalls the first match of the 1924/25 Ashes series, in Sydney.
Tate bowled 89 x 8-ball overs. (Taking 11 for 228.)
During the series:
"He bowled more overs than any other two English bowlers and took as many wickets as any other three."

Later, at the age of 37:
" . . . . although he joined the 1932-3 party in Australia, he had no place in Douglas Jardine's plans. Once on that tour . . . against New South Wales at Sydney, not with the new ball - Larwood and Voce had that - he took the wickets of Bill, Bradman, McCabe and Kippax in a single spell."
He clearly wasn't of Bodyline, but still posaed a threat to the best.

I still can't find a better definition of Tate's innovative impact, but his body of work (quite apart from his batting record) surely makes him a worthy Hall Of Fame candidate.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford

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.

... 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.

Hi Kwini - meant to say that I don't believe anyone is trying to disparage Tate's achievements because he wasn't up to the mark at age 37. I think there's been a misunderstanding caused by my earlier mistaken belief that Tate and Larwood were more contemporaries than they actually were. I hope my recent post shows Tate more fairly and accurately.

Your comment about the FIVE West Indian fast bowlers is interesting. To be as clear as I can (which probably isn't very! ), I'm not judging by era but simply trying to identify those who are the best and/or most appropriate to enter the Hall of Fame (whatever that quite means and whatever criteria I might use). That said, five similar types from a similar era seems very high. There are two reasons for this: one good, one bad - all my opinion.

Firstly, in my view and several others (albeit not all), the quartet of Holding, Marshall, Roberts and Garner stood or fell together. They hunted as a pack and belonged to be together whether that was inside or outside our Hall.

Secondly, in the case of Walsh, I have increasingly come to the conclusion that we (and I certainly include myself here) made a mistake.

guildford
Now you've made me realise I should have said SIX instead of five!

Must admit, I started out straddling the fence on Maurice Tate, but am now convinced he belongs. Am leaning strongly towards two out of five this time around.


(I see another of the 1966 World Cup 22 went to join Siralf in a heavenly(?) match against Uruguay . . . . . )

kwinigolfer wrote:

Arlott re ... the 1924/25 Ashes series:
"He bowled more overs than any other two English bowlers and took as many wickets as any other three."

Hi again Kwini - the above clearly reflects very well on Tate.

However, as Hoggy touched on, it probably doesn't say too much good for his bowling colleagues on the tour. Logically (and, yes, I've been around long to know that cricket isn't always logical! ) if they had performed better, Tate would have bowled less and had less success. There again, that's not what happened!

You probably think I have a downer on Tate - I genuinely haven't. I just know very little of his era which makes a lot of probing and checking necessary for me to be sure a YES vote is the right vote.

kwinigolfer wrote:

(I see another of the 1966 World Cup 22 went to join Siralf in a heavenly(?) match against Uruguay . . . . . )

I haven't heard this. Will look up now. I hope it's not who I fear it is ... back to you in 5.

Yes, I know it's off topic but it's of extreme importance.

John Connelly, formerly of Burnley, Man United and Blackburn and then ''Connelly's Plaice'' fish and chip shop.

I don't imagine too many World Cup winners from more recent years are running a chippy today.

Very sad although a hint of relief it wasn't the always dignified Jimmy Armfield who has not been in good health in recent times. Armfield was chosen to look after the other England squad members in '66 and referred to by Sir Alf as ''the captain of his reserve team''.

Shelsey93 wrote:Well, 26 is better average than most contemporary bowlers, and most of those in the 30s.

That is something to consider with both Tate and to some extent Pollock - neither played in an era where seam bowling was as dominant as it was in the 70s and 80s or the pre-WWI era

Shelsey - grateful if you could spell out your point about the eras in which Tate and Pollock played, thanks.

I think John Connelly would be one of the "22" most likely to have been forgotten - fine player. Yup, always had the deepest respect for Jimmy Armfield, as a player, commentator and very fine gentleman.



Back to subject, Ranji's wiki chapter is huge! Hadn't read some of the non-cricket facets of his life, but definitely worth a butcher's. Certainly not always the gentlemanly Prince his contemporaries would paint him as, though the veracity of some of wiki's content is obviously sometimes in question.

Am currently sceptical of his candidature . . . . . need some convincing that he's much more than a romantic figure whose colourful cv obscures a relatively slim portfolio of cricketing achievement.

kwinigolfer wrote:I think John Connelly would be one of the "22" most likely to have been forgotten - fine player. Yup, always had the deepest respect for Jimmy Armfield, as a player, commentator and very fine gentleman.



Back to subject, Ranji's wiki chapter is huge! Hadn't read some of the non-cricket facets of his life, but definitely worth a butcher's. Certainly not always the gentlemanly Prince his contemporaries would paint him as, though the veracity of some of wiki's content is obviously sometimes in question.

Am currently sceptical of his candidature . . . . . need some convincing that he's much more than a romantic figure whose colourful cv obscures a relatively slim portfolio of cricketing achievement.

Kwini - yes, John Connelly is probably the Brad Dexter equivalent from The Magnificent Seven!

Back to task - I'm not happy about Ranji. Plan to post further and explain - at last! - tonight.

Will post more when I have more time, but as you asked...

Tate played Tests between 1924 and 1935; Pollock between 1995 and 2008.

Between 1924 and 1935 96 Tests were played, and the batsmen scored their runs at a healthy (considering tail-enders and no-hopers are included) 32.73.

Between 1995 and 2008 623 Tests were played, and the batsmen scored their runs at an almost identical average of 32.91.

In the period from 1950 to 1990 840 Tests were played this overall average is lower, at 31.78. This may seem insignificant, but when you aggregate 1 less run per batsman per innings over a long period that amounts to quite a significant difference.

The point I'm making is that Tate and Pollock both played in a 'batsman's era' (albeit Pollock straddled the end of a good bowling era)

Hope that is clearer. Anyway, got to get back to some reading on liberalism...

Another interesting observation by Arlott about Maurice Tate that I found in a cricketing lives article that he wrote in 1951:

"Maurice Tate had no-one of comparable stature to share with him the task of bowling out England's opponents. He achieved his place in cricket history without real support."

Arlott rabbits on about what we would nowadays perhaps call successful bowlers hunting in pairs and suggests that "Tate, for many years, gave many wickets to his fellow bowlers by driving the batsmen to them in a state of partly-relaxed relief while, against him, resistance was the normal course of strategic batting."

This sounds very much like circumstantial evidence but perhaps is well illustrated by the enormous workload he often undertook, and supports guildford's and, perhaps, Hoggy's conclusion that the overs bowled in 1924/5, for instance, might very well be a sad commentary of the quality of his "bowling colleagues on the tour".

Tate's performances look better every time I look at them, certainly feel he's a much stronger candidate than when I first looked at him.

Thanks, Shelsey. I couldn't have given you all those figures off the top of my head.

More seriously, I do wonder if one or both of the following two possible conclusions might be drawn - they don't oppose each other but their emphasis is clearly different:

1. During the 'batsman's eras' batting was particularly strong and so you would expect the bowling figures of Tate and Pollock to be adversely impacted; and / or -

2. During the 'batsman's eras' bowling was particularly weak and so you would expect Tate and Pollock to have more bowling opportunities.

NB: 2. above appears to tie in with Kwini's very recent post.

kwinigolfer wrote:

Tate ... certainly feel he's a much stronger candidate than when I first looked at him.

I'm still looking but definitely identify with Kwin's comment.

dummy_half wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:dummy
While I would agree that Tates stats don't instantly leap out at you, you have to put that in the context of when he was bowling. The 1920s and 30s were a time of the bat dominating the ball in a way that has probably never been repeated, and pitches that, if the favoured anything, usually suited spin rather than pace. Compare Tate's stats against any pace bowler who took more than 50 wickets between 1924 and 1934, and his are superior, I believe. More wickets at a better average.

Hoggy
I think most of that goes back to points I raised a couple of days ago - I'm not particulaly familiar with Tate's contemporaries (Larwood probably being the only pace bowler we've considered whose career overlapped Tate's, and who was a bit of a one-series wonder, so his career stats are inferior), so it is hard to get a comparison. I'm inclined to agree than a Test bowling average of 26 in the conditions present in the 1920s is probably better than it looks, but it is very difficult to assess what this really equates to in terms of the modern game. Maybe looking at a few of the Aussie bowlers of the era might be in order, but I have to say I honestly don't know who I should start with .

Well Jack Gregory was probably Austarlia's main pace-man during the 1920s, although he was even more of an all-rounder than Tate, and he averaged around 31 with the ball, I believe.

guildfordbat wrote:
Arlott re ... the 1924/25 Ashes series:
"He bowled more overs than any other two English bowlers and took as many wickets as any other three."

Hi again Kwini - the above clearly reflects very well on Tate.

However, as Hoggy touched on, it probably doesn't say too much good for his bowling colleagues on the tour. Logically (and, yes, I've been around long to know that cricket isn't always logical! ) if they had performed better, Tate would have bowled less and had less success. [/quote]

Or, the batsmen might not have been quite so watchful against Tate, as they would have been, knowing that he was the main threat, and he might have had even more success

Has anyone else while looking online into Maurice Tate found the two articles by Stephen Bates of the Guardian, dating from 2010?

"Maurice Tate was a true Ashes hero but now weeds claim his grave"
"Maurice Tate: An extraordinary response for an extraordinary man"

The articles are really good, and there also some excellent on line comments by various posters - many of whom would be an asset to 606v2. They tell heart warming story of how Tate's grave in the churchyard in Wadhurst (not so very far from my barracks!) came to be restored. Guildford would be pleased to know that the follow up to these articles led to the Vicar of Wadhurst (a lifelong Surrey supporter ) doing his bit to help preserve the dignity of Tate's resting place.

I mentioned earlier in the week that I recalled from a few years ago reviews of books about Ranji which cast serious doubt on his character and conduct. Although I've never seen the books (let alone read them), the reviews made a distinct impression of a slippery and untrustworthy individual who had little regard for others. The reviews were in prominent publications; The Cricketer magazine and the Sunday Times if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate those reviews but have dug up some material which you might consider relevant.

As I mentioned the other day, I recognise we are not a Court of Morals and nor should we be. However, I do believe character - strong or weak, good or bad - is part of a player's make up and deserves to go into the mix. We have precedents for votes both ways.

Statham - prepared to run in and bowl uphill against the wind all day. Inducted.
Boycott - innate selfishness. Declined.

I also think a player's attitude towards his team mates and cricket supporters in general (ie us) is particularly important.

From my looking around this week, I think there are two main books. The first of these is 'Batting for the Empire' by Mario Rodrigues, published in 2003. A book review (not one I was first thinking of) is attached, obtained from Ranji's Cricinfo profile.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/128787.html

A noticeable bit here is ''even ... hard core cricket fans with their respect for Ranji the player ... will find disillusionment in the image of their hero - as despot, buffoon, schemer, spendthrift, unreliable borrower, and despicable toady of the British empire - that emerges from Rodrigues's hard-hitting biography''.

Hardly a glowing testimonial but maybe one that the Hall of Fame can live with.

I actually suspect the more damning material is contained in Simon Wilde's biography of Ranji, published in 2004. Extracts and references crop up regularly in Ranji's wikipedia profile. As Kwini alluded to earler, this is an especially lengthy profile with a cast of characters and a variety of places unknown to me. It is not an easy or clear read. However, some aspects emerge and stick out.

A particular picture that emerges is of man too regularly having to leave his colleagues in this country so as to scurry off to India to obtain - often on false assurances - finances to fund his lifestyle and then having to stay there for months or even years to fight court cases legitimately brought against him.

I do not claim that any editor of Newsnight has enough evidence to commission a feature on them but even more serious offences are alleged:
''Despite the discovery of an assassination plot on his life in which Ranji was implicated, Jassaji took over the administration of Nawanagar from the British in March 1903''; and
''Although he had been in good health, Jassaji died on 14 August 1906 after developing a fever two weeks previously. Although no surviving papers suggest foul play, according to Simon Wilde there is circumstantial evidence that Jassaji may have been poisoned; at least one later ruler of Nawanagar believed Ranji had plotted Jassaji's murder.''

Serious stuff but does this relate to his cricketing case - you may say and ask. Well, I'm not going to suggest he ever tried to poison the Surrey skipper during the tea interval but I still think it - his whole attitude and approach - does.

Based on parts of Wilde's book, wikipedia refer to Ranji's ''irregular appearances'' and ''reduced committment'' in the later stages of his career. By way of another example, there is also reference to him prolonging one Sussex innings until he had completed his own double century despite it reducing his team's chances of victory.

As a spectator, when I can, of the county game, I was appalled by one specific wikipedia extract:
''In one match, Ranji was responsible for the Sussex team failing to appear during a match risking the forfeiture of the game, when he encouraged the team to remain at his residence in unsettled weather, conditions at the ground, and the opposition, were ready for play while the Sussex team remained 22 miles away.''

That is probably the nub of my concern. In my book, being an extremely fine cricketer and even an initiator counts for very little if he cannot be relied to turn up when I have travelled to see him and his team. Just as we respect the skills of cricketers, they have an obligation to respect our committment and support. I don't believe Ranji showed that respect sufficiently to spectators or fellow players.

As a separate matter, I am also aware that Ranji has been heavily criticised for doing little - or, indeed, nothing - for the development of cricket in India. Furthermore, it has been suggested that he persuaded - or even forbade - his highly talented nephew Duleep from playing for India. Like so much about Ranji, I can't be categoric but it doesn't sound good.

In purely cricketing terms, I would finally question whether he did it long enough. A mere three years (1899 to 1901) of playing Test cricket successfully makes a mockery of questions about Maurice Tate's length of international career. Furthermore, Ranji's final year (1903) of Test cricket was absymal - three matches, four completed innings, nineteen runs, an average of 4.75.

When he did still appear for Sussex in later years after this, too often he was a shadow of his former self. Again from wikipedia:
''his abject performance was in marked contrast to his former days of splendour.''

I mentioned in an earlier post that Sussex supporters demonstrated a commendable knowledge of their club's history when in 2004 they voted Maurice Tate as their Greatest All Time Player. I don't know where Ranji came but he wasn't in the top three. Perhaps they know more than us.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Has anyone else while looking online into Maurice Tate found the two articles by Stephen Bates of the Guardian, dating from 2010?

"Maurice Tate was a true Ashes hero but now weeds claim his grave"
"Maurice Tate: An extraordinary response for an extraordinary man"

The articles are really good, and there also some excellent on line comments by various posters - many of whom would be an asset to 606v2. They tell heart warming story of how Tate's grave in the churchyard in Wadhurst (not so very far from my barracks!) came to be restored. Guildford would be pleased to know that the follow up to these articles led to the Vicar of Wadhurst (a lifelong Surrey supporter ) doing his bit to help preserve the dignity of Tate's resting place.

Corporal - I saw both articles earlier today and found them both interesting and moving. I missed the online comments - I'll look again, thanks.

Guildford
On Ranji, one thing we need to consider is that he was a different kind of a public figure to our usual cricketer. Being actively involved in the politics of colonial India where the relationship between the national movement, the royals and the British were far too complicated for us to make simplistic generalizations. After Lord Dalhousie made some significant changes to the right of Indian princes to adopt a successer if there is no legitimate son who could take over, royal intrigues became rather common and unless a serious historical and archival study is undertaken, it is very dificult to pin responsibilities or even deduce moralistic generalizations based on our present context. A lot of Ranji's issues could be understood in that context.
On Ranji's lack of a long cricketing career, I would say nevertheless his record is terrific in the 15 games he played and his record was standout among his contemporaries. Of far greater importance is the way he successfully challenged conventions, and opened up the leg side as a legitimate area of scoring. As far as cricketing impact goes, this has to be right up there.

msp83 wrote:Guildford
On Ranji, one thing we need to consider is that he was a different kind of a public figure to our usual cricketer ....

Msp - I fully accept that. I also fully accept that we are looking back to a very different era and political situation. I acknowledged that my previous post was based a lot on Ranji's wikipedia profile which ''is not an easy or clear read''. However, enough concerns still arise for me to question his right to a place in the Hall of Fame even with his strengths of being a cricket initiator and a very splendid batsman for a time.

I also still have concerns that ''his days of splendour'' (to quote the wikipedia profile) were not long enough. I set no specific time limit or number of appearances here. I believe it all depends on circumstances. I therefore see nothing disengenuous in treating Barry Richards, a victim undoubtedly of foreign political circumstances, differently from Ranji, a victim perhaps of his own actions.

I did mention Ranji in my Phd, but it was no more than a passing reference to the idea that class, especially when combined with skill at sport could overcome, to a certain extent, the inherent racism of British Victorian and Edwardian society. I certainly didn't look into his career in any great depth, even though he had an estate not far from where I'm now living.
On the character side of things, I'm not particularly bothered if there were deficiencies but if, as Guildford suggests, thes character flaws impacted in a detrimental manner on both his own career and on the teams for which he played, then that might be a different matter.
I do know that Ranji consistently portrayed himself as an 'English' rather than Indian cricketer and that he was, at times, either dismissive or patronizing of Indian cricket. He also refused to tour England as part of an Indian team in 1911 and refused to contribute anything to the expenses of that tour.
Having said all that, however, I don't think that there can be much doubt as to either his skill with the bat, or his impact in Britain.
An unnamed professional cricketer, known only as 'Rover', for example, wrote of Ranji, 'It was not only that Ranjitsinjhi made runs, it was the style in which he made them. The craft of a Bismark or a Chamberlain, the dexterity of a Cinquevali, the strength of a swordsman -so well directed was it- were all incorporated in his batting. He was a wizard of the bat, an artist in run-getting, a general in resource.'
Meanwhile A.E.Knight noted that 'His innate natural quickness is such that when apparently caught in two minds, his subsequent stroke is still a perfect one, he can play the ball, as it were 'the other way'. Something of the languidity of the Orient and a playfulness akin to jugglery tincture his batting, at times somewhat unpleasantly conveying the impression that he merely toys with, rather than attempts to master the bowling.' and he recalled 'the professional bowler Woodcock, a few years ago the fastest in England, telling me that he had been bowling at Ranjitsinjhi, and had tried and failed to hit the back of the net, much less was the wicket possible for him to find. The same bowler told me how in a scratch game at Bexhill, on a positively dangerous wicket, Ranjitsinjhi had repeatedly put to the leg boundary rearing balls which would have smashed his eye but for the intervening bat.'
As for ranji's impact in Britain the Scottish scientist and polymath, Patrick Geddes, in the only reference to cricket in his copius writings, said that 'Prince Ranjitsinjhi is most welcome: he has done us no end of good: he has raised the popular esteem and respect for India in the man in the street more than a new Bhudda would have done. We admire him like the Saxon Ivanhoe overthrowing the Norman champions at their own tournaments.'
So there can be little doubt as to either Ranji's skill, the respect with which his cricket was viewed, or the impact that he had. Set against this, however, as Guildford has pointed out, is the relative brevity of his test career and the character flaws which impacted upon his cricket.
For me, personally, I think the pluses outweigh the minuses, but both must be weighed before making a decision.[i]

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

So there can be little doubt as to either Ranji's skill, the respect with which his cricket was viewed, or the impact that he had. Set against this, however, as Guildford has pointed out, is the relative brevity of his test career and the character flaws which impacted upon his cricket.
For me, personally, I think the pluses outweigh the minuses, but both must be weighed before making a decision.[i]

Thanks, Hoggy. The key thing for me was to get into the mix that there are minuses to be considered. I did get the feeling before that we were in danger of just waving Ranji straight into the HoF without any checks.

Hoggy - I know you're a Warks supporter but don't know how often you're able to get to see them. With that in mind, I wonder if you saw Pollock at all in his Edgbaston days. Something I mentioned earlier in the week - probably when your computer was down and the boy was fighting aliens on the xbox - is that I have the impression that (despite a great start, IIRC) he didn't give great value for money there. I contrasted that with Andre Nel's whole hearted (if bordering lunacy at times) committment at Surrey. Any thoughts? As I say, it's only an impression and I may be on the wrong track.

Thanks guildford for opening up the debate on Ranji the way you have done.
I would certainly agree there are a few issues of concern when we take up the debate, but I think his record and more importantly his status as a cricketing pioneer would turn the odds in his favor. Despite him not taking any serious interest in Indian cricket, as I tried to say earlier, the symbolic significance is very important, and his success has played a major role in the spread of the game.
When we consider someone like Shane Warne, to be tainted by association with the most dangerous enimies of the game, the 2003 steroid controversy that created serious uncertainties for the Australian team was about to play its first match in defense of their previous title, the many other rather colourful controversies didn't prevent him getting in and I think rightly so.
In comparison, and considering the political context, some of Ranji's transgressions could be comprehended.

Guildford
Must admit i didn't see much of Pollock when he was at Warks. though i never got the impression that he dissappointed. Maybe he wasn't a spectacular success, but you'd probably have to speak to a few other Warks. fans to really assess that.
i do remember talking to Allan Donald in a bar during the 1995(?) England tour of SA, shortly before Pollock replaced Donald at Warks., and he reckoned that Pollock would prove to be an all-time great for the county. Whether that actually came to pass is, as you say, debatable.

Hoggy - thanks for that. I always like to do a bit of namedropping, as the Corporal is particularly aware. I'll try to introduce sometime, ''When my cyber mate Hoggy was chatting to Allan Donald ...''.

As for Pollock, I would say that he didn't prove to be an all-time great for Warks. Probably simply ''not a spectacular success'' seems a fair assessment. Anyway, I'll drop that issue (unless Grandad Fists comes up with anything?) and leave it there.

Msp - you raise real issues about Warne. I don't trivialise them but nor do I seek to place them in any ranking order. For me, the concerns about Ranji remain and so therefore do doubts over a YES vote. I appreciate you and at least some others assess matters differently.

Btw, msp, thanks also for your opening sentence.

Maybe I should mention the time I went to the pictures with the entire England team, during the same tour then Guildford.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Maybe I should mention the time I went to the pictures with the entire England team, during the same tour then Guildford.

The Corporal must already have his fingers in his ears for when we next meet!

The more I look into Ranji, the more I think it is less a case of him needing some more debate on his minuses as a case of him being a quite obvious NO for this particular HoF.

I'll happily expand on this a lot more in the morning, but essentially I have 2 major problems with Ranji:

1) his record simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. At least his test record doesn't. Guildfor raised the point that it was achieved on what was essentially a short "hot" streak with virtually nothing else. Can being (arguably) the best over a couple of years warrant HoF status? Surely not, or there would be a clamour for Michael Vaughan to achieve it. Yet Ranji's test record, away from his hot streak was not merely average, it was appalling.

When debating Barry Richards, we collectively noted (some disagreed) that we couldn't count his shortened test career against him, because it wasn't his fault. Was Ranji's short test career his fault? Documentation would suggest he was dropped because he wasn't good enough, rather than for external reasons.

Also, Ranji was favoured by not playing against the strongest two sides around at the time (namely the USA and Argentina) for political reasons. This can't really be held against him, but should be noted - his record was achieved against a very small pool of oppositions which didn't include the stronger sides around at that time.

2) the Personality factor:

Ranji had the chance to be a tailblazer for Indian cricket. He not only failed to be so, but by all accounts actually wasn't bothered by this. Political circumstances or not, I expect better from HoF candidates. As Guildford has noted we (and I in particular) held Boycott's caracter flaws against him. Perhaps more relevantly, I held Gooch's ways against him, as I believe that they set back coaching and talent spotting in England for a long time. I think in some sense Ranji's flaws are similar - he was not so much neutral as actually a hindrance to development of the game in India.

What remains then, is someone whose international record IMO doesn't add up to much, and with major negatives against his character. He was the best player of the leg-glance? Well, whoopiedo.

People who are considering voting yes to Ranji and who voted no to Belinda Clark need to take a long hard look at themselves. Both have extraordinary records when considered against their peers, and to both you could say that the standard of their peers was far from stellar. But where Clark did truckloads to expand and improve the women's game, Ranji was conspicuous in his lack of efforts to do the same for the game in India.

CMJ on this week's candidates

Given the difficulty of judging so many of this week's candidates, I thought I'd dig out CMJ's 'Top 100 Cricketers of All Time' and see what he has to say.

He limits himself to men's cricket and so obviously Bakewell isn't included. Rhodes is also nowhere to be seen, and also doesn't make his list of those that didn't make the cut. But we do have Pollock (No. 97), Tate (No. 77) and Ranji (No. 35).

----

Interestingly CMJ says that Pollock 'eventually surpassed the achievements of his fast bowling father Pater and his legendary uncle Graeme'. Sorry, I can't agree with that - Graeme was a level above Shaun and that is actually reflected in CMJ's ranking of Graeme at 37.

He goes on to talk about Shaun's 'mean bouncer' and his ability 'to control and cut the ball', apparently learned under the guidance of Malcolm Marshall, and helping him to continue to achieve success later in his career.

Now, for the interesting bit:

"All he lacked compared to other great all-rounders was the explosiveness of the likes of Keith Miller, Imran Khan and Ian Botham; or, among his contemporaries, Wasim Akram. His superb control and accuracy made him even more of a match-winner in one-dayers than Tests".

The subtle implication of this statement is that he wasn't an exciting, match-winning Test bowler that often. CMJ does nevertheless make the point that he "sometimes should have got the credit for many of the wickets earned through the hostility of his two main partners, Allan Donald and Makhaya Ntini".

There are some match-winning efforts listed:

- 5-32 v England at Newlands, 1995, in England's 2nd innings of the decisive final Test
- 5-37 v Pakistan in Faisalabad, 1997, bowling Pakistan out for 92 in pursuit of 146
- 7-87 v Australia, 1997, in hot weather at Adelaide
- 10 wickets in the match as captain v India at Bloemfontein, 2001-02

However, the context of these isn't as vividly expressed as it is for a lot of earlier cricketers. In part that is probably down to the fact that this develops over time. But it might also be simply that Pollock's performances were mostly unexciting.

To conclude, I have nothing against the less exciting cricketer - I championed Walsh's cause and was strongly in support of Statham. But when reading and thinking about Pollock he still just doesn't jump out as a 'Hall of Famer' for some reason.

----

Tate is described by CMJ as a 'fast-medium bowler without equal in his era'. He is described as having been, during his pomp, 'a waspish new-ball bowler who swerved and bounced it off the seam more venomously than many a bowler who ran in faster or was faster through the air'.

It seems that, rather like Vernon Philander right now, he came from nowhere to be almost unplayable. According to CMJ it was after bowling Phil Mead at Eastbourne in 1922 with a cutter and then showing it was no fluke in the nets that his captain, Arthur Gilligan, told him to bowl like that all the time. He took 50 wickets in the last two months of the season, and 219 (!) the next season, at an average of under 14.

As has been pointed out the lack of Tests in 1923 meant that he didn't get to play until 1924. However, when he started he didn't do badly, taking 38 wickets - an Ashes record lasting until Jim Laker.

----

Ranji is seen by CMJ as 'the most brilliant batsman of his time, a champion of back-foot play and the inventor of the leg-glance'.

It is pointed out that not only was he the first non-white England cricketer but that he was also the first 'famous international sportsman of dark skin'.

In his short Test career there are plenty of big achievements:

- 62 and 154 out of 305 v Australia on debut at Old Trafford
- 175 v Australia at Sydney whilst feeling unwell
- Saved England from defeat at Trent Bridge in 1899

His financial problems are mentioned but, to be honest, my impression from not only CMJ but most things I've read about them, is that they weren't so significant as to count against his nomination.

----

So, where am I at?

I'm pretty certain of a Yes for Ranji, and probably in the Yes camp for Tate. I'm in the No camp on Rhodes and not yet convinced by Pollock.

Then we have Enid Bakewell, who I don't have a clue what to do with...

Mike Selig wrote:2 major problems with Ranji:

1) his record simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. At least his test record doesn't. Guildfor raised the point that it was achieved on what was essentially a short "hot" streak with virtually nothing else. Can being (arguably) the best over a couple of years warrant HoF status? Surely not, or there would be a clamour for Michael Vaughan to achieve it. Yet Ranji's test record, away from his hot streak was not merely average, it was appalling.

I don't know about that. He scored 1000 runs in every season in which he played a full part. He also played in only 4 Test series - his averages in those were 78, 50, 46 and 5. Yes, he had a shocker in 1902 but I'm pretty certain he wouldn't have had a shocker if he played more Tests.

Was Ranji's short test career his fault? Documentation would suggest he was dropped because he wasn't good enough, rather than for external reasons.

This is difficult to quantify. Part of the shortness of his career was his fault - his intermittent availability, but the lack of matches and opposition is also a factor.

---

Do you not think that, for Indians, hearing about an Indian playing cricket at highest level and being so highly regarded was enough to have an impact on the development of the sport over there.

George Headley had a very strong case, but some argued that he was a trailblazer for black cricketers. However, I can't recall (and please correct me if I'm wrong) evidence of him actually working explicitly to develop cricket in the black community.

I would add that we all have different parameters and 'personality' isn't a major one for me - had I been around here at the time I'd have voted YES for Boycott and Greg Chappell. Of course, unsporting behaviour is a different matter - a reason for my opposition to Larwood. But I don't see any evidence that Ranji was unsporting.

Shelsey93 wrote:

I would add that we all have different parameters and 'personality' isn't a major one for me - had I been around here at the time I'd have voted YES for Boycott and Greg Chappell. Of course, unsporting behaviour is a different matter - a reason for my opposition to Larwood. But I don't see any evidence that Ranji was unsporting.

Shelsey - I agree with you about unsporting behaviour. For me, that includes behaviour towards and treatment of a crowd, the paying spectators at a game.

I know how I would feel if I had taken a day off work, travelled to a county ground and paid to get in only to find play couldn't start because one of the teams had not bothered to turn up due to persuasion from one of their players. Just one example.

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

I would add that we all have different parameters and 'personality' isn't a major one for me - had I been around here at the time I'd have voted YES for Boycott and Greg Chappell. Of course, unsporting behaviour is a different matter - a reason for my opposition to Larwood. But I don't see any evidence that Ranji was unsporting.

Shelsey - I agree with you about unsporting behaviour. For me, that includes behaviour towards and treatment of a crowd, the paying spectators at a game.

I know how I would feel if I had taken a day off work, travelled to a county ground and paid to get in only to find play couldn't start because one of the teams had not bothered to turn up due to persuasion from one of their players. Just one example.

When you add that Ranji Allegedly made his side stay at his place as it was raining heavily, I think the context changes a bit. It was another matter that ground, some 20 miles away had good weather. I don't think there is enough of a case to suggest that this was Ranji's own call and that only he should be taken to task for that. Again, the importance of context.
I would agree with shelsey, Ranji didn't do much for the development of Indian cricket in a direct way, but his symbolic significance was an important factor.

My point still stands. Ranji's test record is surely too short and too inconsistent to be considered enough for HoF status on its own. He may well have become a great test player had it lasted longer, but he didn't, and that he didn't is at least partly (if not wholly) his fault. Again, a few people held Clark's and Richards's short careers against them - so it should also be with Ranji.

Of course his first class record is extraordinary. But there are so many case precedents for extroardinary first class records not being considered enough: Ponsford being the latest one of course.

So it comes down to (arguably) inventing the leg glance (in which case Rhodes must be a shoe-in, he "invented" far more) and

Shelsey93 wrote:
for Indians, hearing about an Indian playing cricket at highest level and being so highly regarded was enough to have an impact on the development of the sport over there.

I am not so sure. Given Ranji's status and open derision for his roots, it may have even had a negative effect on the more humble Indians, i.e. "to succeed you need to be an aristocrat and join the system rather than fight it".

Shelsey93 wrote:

George Headley had a very strong case, but some argued that he was a trailblazer for black cricketers. However, I can't recall (and please correct me if I'm wrong) evidence of him actually working explicitly to develop cricket in the black community.

Headley played cricket for the West Indies. Ranji played for England and refused to play for India. Quite a difference.

Mike Selig wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:
for Indians, hearing about an Indian playing cricket at highest level and being so highly regarded was enough to have an impact on the development of the sport over there.

I am not so sure. Given Ranji's status and open derision for his roots, it may have even had a negative effect on the more humble Indians, i.e. "to succeed you need to be an aristocrat and join the system rather than fight it".

Agree with this Mike. People like the Palwankar brothers, for example, were probably far more inspirantional and influential for normal, everyday Indians than Ranji ever was.

msp83 wrote:

When you add that Ranji Allegedly made his side stay at his place as it was raining heavily, I think the context changes a bit. It was another matter that ground, some 20 miles away had good weather. I don't think there is enough of a case to suggest that this was Ranji's own call and that only he should be taken to task for that. Again, the importance of context.
I would agree with shelsey, Ranji didn't do much for the development of Indian cricket in a direct way, but his symbolic significance was an important factor.

Msp - I did give the context in my main post. To me, it is still unacceptable.

You say you don't think ''that only he should be taken to task''. Possibly that's correct but he's the only one involved who is up for a HoF nomination.

In any case and as I said earlier, this is just one example. It is his continuing indifference to so many others in the game that I find so distasteful.

With regard to the development of Indian cricket, from my readings I side with Mike in that he appears to have had a directly negative effect. In particular, I have read of him of persuading or even forbidding his highly talented nephew Duleep from playing for India.

Ranji couldn't have played test cricket for India, India gained test status much after Ranji's playing days.
Ranji's range of innovations are not limited to the leg glance. By consistently playing the ball on to the leg side, Ranji challenged conventional notions where it used to be the practice that the batsman wouldn't run if he somehow played the ball there and the bowling captain would set not many fielders there. The success of his backfoot defense is something else that needs to be considered. So trivialize him as the inventor of something called leg glance is a disservice in my view.

Think of the VVS Laxmans, the Hashim Amlas cutting out their rist play and playing only cover drives?

Shelsey93 wrote:

He scored 1000 runs in every season in which he played a full part. He also played in only 4 Test series - his averages in those were 78, 50, 46 and 5. Yes, he had a shocker in 1902 but I'm pretty certain he wouldn't have had a shocker if he played more Tests.

.

From that and in statistical terms, Ranji's Test career went downhill from the start and kept heading in that direction until quickly burning out.

It seems a massive leap of faith to be ''pretty certain'' that with more Tests he would have been more successful. If you take out his first season, I doubt we would even be discussing him today.

Two comments on his county career.

1. Too often he didn't play a full part.

2. To bring it much into consideration for Ranji seems questionable given how little credit the majority of us gave to Frank Woolley's stylish and considerable county career.

We could certainly not have expected that Ranji would have maintained an average of 78 in all the series that he played.
When we talk about Wolley, I wasn't around when the debate took place, but I would have started from a favorable position there. Interesting to note that Ranji's international and FC batting records are superior to that of Woolley.

msp83 wrote:
Ranji's range of innovations are not limited to the leg glance. By consistently playing the ball on to the leg side, Ranji challenged conventional notions where it used to be the practice that the batsman wouldn't run if he somehow played the ball there and the bowling captain would set not many fielders there ...

Now this is interesting and something I was going to raise a little later (I was sure I had read this when searching for those book reviews about Ranji but wanted to double-check - thanks, msp, for confirming and saving me the trouble).

It seems to me now - as I would think it does to most of us - that it was naive and unnecessarily restrictive for batsmen not to play leg side shots or run on them.

Msp refers to Ranji being a challenger of conventional notions in this regard. However, I did read that some at the time regarded his leg side batting as being ''unsporting''.

It was clearly within the rules but not apparently the norms of that era. Does that put him on a pedestal for a game changing approach or move him into Greg Chapple (instruction to bowl under arm) or Harold Larwood (bodyline) territory?

As I have tried to emphasise in previous posts, I know little about Ranji (although I have discovered enough to have doubts and concerns) and even less about the era in which he played. As always, views of all appreciated and, perhaps especially, those (Hoggy? Mike?) who are familiar with the game's full history.

guildfordbat wrote:

msp83 wrote:
Ranji's range of innovations are not limited to the leg glance. By consistently playing the ball on to the leg side, Ranji challenged conventional notions where it used to be the practice that the batsman wouldn't run if he somehow played the ball there and the bowling captain would set not many fielders there ...

Now this is interesting and something I was going to raise a little later (I was sure I had read this when searching for those book reviews about Ranji but wanted to double-check - thanks, msp, for confirming and saving me the trouble).

It seems to me now - as I would think it does to most of us - that it was naive and unnecessarily restrictive for batsmen not to play leg side shots or run on them.

Msp refers to Ranji being a challenger of conventional notions in this regard. However, I did read that some at the time regarded his leg side batting as being ''unsporting''.

It was clearly within the rules but not apparently the norms of that era. Does that put him on a pedestal for a game changing approach or move him into Greg Chapple (instruction to bowl under arm) or Harold Larwood (bodyline) territory?

As I have tried to emphasise in previous posts, I know little about Ranji (although I have discovered enough to have doubts and concerns) and even less about the era in which he played. As always, views of all appreciated and, perhaps especially, those (Hoggy? Mike?) who are familiar with the game's full history.

They don't bowl under arm any more, its been taken out of the roles itself. There are restrictions on bouncers and number of fielders for a body line style attack.
But what Ranji had started, has really developed into an art form.
So most certainly a game changing approach in my book.

msp83 wrote:We could certainly not have expected that Ranji would have maintained an average of 78 in all the series that he played.

Msp - no, we wouldn't. Agreed.

However, if you take that first season out of the equation, the rest of his Test career amounts to very little - in HoF terms.

Shelsey93 wrote:
I would add that we all have different parameters and 'personality' isn't a major one for me - had I been around here at the time I'd have voted YES for Boycott and Greg Chappell. Of course, unsporting behaviour is a different matter - a reason for my opposition to Larwood. But I don't see any evidence that Ranji was unsporting.

At the risk of reopening old wounds there was extensive argument on this thread many months ago about Greg Chappell's unsporting behaviour in the underarm bowling incident. I recall different views were taken - not least as to the distinction between heat of the moment / premeditated - but for me the incident was a significant factor in my decision to vote no to Chappell. But where to draw the boundary will no doubt be matter of ongoing debate.