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."

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Guildford - I was not particularly intending to suggest that Bakewell's playing club cricket at 70+ should help gain her entry to the HoF. But I was intrigued by the practicalities of it. To quote from "The Guide to Real Village Cricket":

"When I passed forty I began to wonder why drives which I would normally intercept with ease were beginning to streak past me. I tried a few experimental exercises, and discovered that my lowest reach petered out some six inches from the ground....

When I reached fifty I used to field at mid off, considered a safe hiding place for the unfleet of foot. Once a batsman drove the ball past me and I turned and trundled after it. But when I was a couple of yards from where it had come to rest the lithe form of a sixth form sibling sprinted past me, and plucked it from my grasp. He had come from somewhere in the region of the third man boundary......"

Not entirely sure where that leave the 70 year old! But maybe Bakewell keeps herself fitter than the average village cricketer who, according to the above tome, has spent multitudinous hours down the White Hart...

msp83 wrote:That no no ball stat about Tate is certainly very impressive.
Guildford, forget Lewis, the Indian leg spinner Amit Mishra bowled 15 no balls in a single innings in a recent Duleep trophy match and he in fact manages at least 1 in every 3 overs pretty regularly.

Msp - that is utterly dreadful anyway but for a slow bowler ....

Mike, Ranji's testt record is pretty good for me. Averaging in the mid 40s in the late 19th century and early 20th century, how many cricketers have managed it?

Msp - I wouldn't dream of answering for Mike. For one thing, I'm too old and set in my ways to speak for a young rebel. So just a few quick words of my own.

Despite my earlier ''hatchet job'' (thanks, Alfie ), I do feel that Ranji's nomination has certain strengths. I believe that Mike has certainly indicated this as well.

More than any Test record which for my liking is too short with insufficient reason, the aspect that particularly catches my eye is Ranji's shot selections. Some were undoubtedly innovative and a real boost for the game.

However, there are undoubtedly minuses also about Ranji, as previously detailed. For me, it's not actually a case of balancing those minuses out against the positives. It's a case of looking at the size of the minuses. For me again, they are just too large.

That might seem harsh but entry to our Hall of Fame should not be easy.

I don't think the character argument on Ranji has made much of an impression with me, as I wrote people like Shane Warne with a seriously colourful past and issues that are damaging to the game in a much larger and significant way have been considered.
The one argument against Ranji's inclusion that has made me think is the relative lack of tests he has played and his rather short test career. But as shelsey's earlier post suggests, the blame can rest with Ranji only partly.
His status as an innovator has left a very strong legacy, and his challenging stupid conventions have made our game a great deal richer, and that is good enough for me to give him a yes vote.

Msp - just as Gavaskar did not back away from Snow, I expected you to maintain your position.

guildfordbat wrote:Msp - just as Gavaskar did not back away from Snow, I expected you to maintain your position.

Perhaps its time we introduce like buttons of the facebook kind!.

By the way when is the last date for voting?

msp83 wrote:By the way when is the last date for voting?

Two minutes before I vote on Ranji if you and Shelsey get your way!

Just joking. Shelsey - like Fists before him - appears to be the most honourable of officials.

In keeping with last time, I would guess it's 9:00 am UK time this Sunday.

If I may,could I turn the discussion toward Shaun Pollock, as I've pretty much made my mind up on the other candidates (although I'm still open to particularly effective persuasion).
I must admit that I'm slightly surprised by the somewhat lukewarm reception of his candidature. Of course, I can appreciated the argument that he was a consistent, rather than an outstandingly match-winning performer, but we've rewarded consistency before, notably in the cases of Walsh and Statham. After all, here is a player who took 400+ test wickets at an average few fast bowlers in history have bettered, AND scored 3500+ runs at an average equal to that of Freddie Flintoff or Ian Botham (and i'm not suggesting he was as good a batsman as Botham). Add to that his highly effective one-day career (he retired top of both the ODI bowling and allrounder rankings. Top by quite some distance as well),and his pretty succesful stint as captain, and the fact that he is regarded as one of the most professional players of recent years, and I'd have thought he would have a very strong case.
True the fact that he only took one 10 wicket haul in his career perhaps suggests that he didn't dominate matches with the ball, but it should be remebered that he was part of a highly effective bowling attack, so wickets would have been spread around, and it's not like he didn't turn in a number of match altering bowling performances.
So all-in-all a strong case, but is there something I'm missing?

The fact that he's a bible-punching tee-totaller is a definite minus in my mind.

Pollock's credentials look pretty good to me, but I won't be debating further as I know relatively (bad choice of word in his case, I suppose) little about him.

kwinigolfer wrote:The fact that he's a bible-punching tee-totaller is a definite minus in my mind.

Yep. Certainly doesn't help his case.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:If I may,could I turn the discussion toward Shaun Pollock, as I've pretty much made my mind up on the other candidates (although I'm still open to particularly effective persuasion).
I must admit that I'm slightly surprised by the somewhat lukewarm reception of his candidature. Of course, I can appreciated the argument that he was a consistent, rather than an outstandingly match-winning performer, but we've rewarded consistency before, notably in the cases of Walsh and Statham. After all, here is a player who took 400+ test wickets at an average few fast bowlers in history have bettered, AND scored 3500+ runs at an average equal to that of Freddie Flintoff or Ian Botham (and i'm not suggesting he was as good a batsman as Botham). Add to that his highly effective one-day career (he retired top of both the ODI bowling and allrounder rankings. Top by quite some distance as well),and his pretty succesful stint as captain, and the fact that he is regarded as one of the most professional players of recent years, and I'd have thought he would have a very strong case.
True the fact that he only took one 10 wicket haul in his career perhaps suggests that he didn't dominate matches with the ball, but it should be remebered that he was part of a highly effective bowling attack, so wickets would have been spread around, and it's not like he didn't turn in a number of match altering bowling performances.
So all-in-all a strong case, but is there something I'm missing?

Hoggy - I very much agree with you and can add very little.

I thank what was missed by a lot of the cricket interested public - certainly by me (and IIRC Dummy said similar) - was quite how good his career was whilst it was ongoing.

When his name first came up, my initial thoughts were on the lines of ''very solid international cricketer but a little short of the best and the HoF''. That view now appears to seriously under rate his career and claims to a HoF place.

I suspect one (the major?) thing counting against him with some posters is the apparent lack of excitement factor. I got the impression Shelsey was hinting at this the other day. Given Pollock's record, I wouldn't exclude him for that but can understand others feeling something more spectacular was needed to carry him over the line.

As you suggest, a lack of sparkle didn't stop Statham - a good comparison and a lesser cricketer in my view - getting in. In Walsh's case, I was particularly influenced (over influenced possibly) by him being the first to 500 Test wickets so feel that is slightly different.

However, with a lack of logic and opening myself up to charges of hypocrisy, another South African, Kallis, suffers in my eyes as a result of the almost instant match changing magic that could be brought to a game by Sobers, Miller, Imran Khan, Botham and Procter. Even though Kallis keeps on flowing like Ole Man River, I don't enjoy watching him nearly as much as I should. I would give - and feel obliged to give - a YES vote to Kallis but it would probably be with a tiny grimace. These are all very different cricketers to Pollock - I'm not making direct comparisons with him, just trying to show that the ''wow'' factor is not to be under estimated.

I suppose that's the beauty and complexity of the game and opinions. On the latter, it might help Pollock's cause if you have any quotes about him from contemporaries.

All I would say about Walsh compared to Pollock is that:

- Walsh played for a longer period
- Walsh was still viewed as a major threat right up to the end of his career
- Walsh remains amongst a very exclusive group of fast bowlers (him and McGrath) to have 500 Test wickets, despite having shared his wickets with perhaps more illustrious (or at least more experienced) colleagues early on.

Of course, that may be counter-balanced by Pollock's batting (although personally I see his batting as a useful extra, but not good enough to do much to enhance his Hall of Fame claims)

I'm still undecided then.

I'm going for a drink with Grandad Fists on Wednesday, so I'll report back with his thoughts on Pollock at Warks then.

Shelsy
Walsh may well have been around longer and have taken more wickets, but I do think that Pollock's batting, the fact that he took his test wickets at a better average and the fact that he has a superior ODI career would more than compensate for that difference in any comparison between the two. Certainly I think that, if you asked which of the two, in their prime, would add more to a team, most people would say Pollock.
That's not to denigrate Walsh, who I voted for myself. I just think that Pollock has an even stronger case for inclusion than he did.

msp83 wrote:Mike, Ranji's testt record is pretty good for me. Averaging in the mid 40s in the late 19th century and early 20th century, how many cricketers have managed it?

His record is excellent. But his career short. Had he played 30 or 40 tests with the same (or even 5 runs fewer per innings) record, it would be enough for HoF status on his own (although then balanced against the negatives). As it is, I'm not sure how much of a point in favour I can consider it. Kiwi was particularly scathing of Bakewell having only played a dozen or so tests...

As it is, his main point in favour is his great status as an innovator (like Rhodes ). I have to counterbalance that against some very real negatives, and in particular what he did (or rather failed to do) for Indian cricket.

I cannot really see how Pollocks Batting can only be seen as an extra.

During the time he played for SA, we had very few batting stars. Pollocks runs were vital for SA, it was by no means a nice to have.

When you consider batsmen like Kirsten, Hudson, Cullinan etc. None were near the 50 run average that is deemed world class.

also consider the fact that he bowled with Alan Donald, one of the premier bowlers of his era, Pollock had to share wickets with The White Lightning.

I voted NO to Walsh, but am considering Pollock more borderline. Why is this?

I mentioned for my no vote to Walsh that IMO when he took 500 wickets there was a hint of inevitability about it - as a barrier it certainly wasn't up there with Truemann's 300th, or the 100 international centuries, or...

Walsh's record was excellent over a long period, but like Pollock he was more often than not the supporting act to others. I didn't count this against him particularly, but looking at that "bit extra" there wasn't that much going for Walsh.

On the other hand, my negatives with him were his batting and fielding, or more precisely his attitude towards them. Throughout his whole career, Walsh treated batting like a bit of fun, and fielding like something you'd do because you had to, but if you could avoid it you would. I actually think this kind of attitude from a senior member of your side (and particularly during West Indies's much publicised and extremely rapid slide) would be quite damaging in its effect on young bowlers coming into the ranks. And it is perhaps not surprising that it's only since Walsh has retired that the West Indies have moved into the professional era, and we are now seeing better results (there are of course other factors, but the improvement in cricketing standards is certainly one of them).

The contrast to the likes of Pollock and McGrath is great - both started their careers at a time when it was acceptable for a fast bowler to bat from square-leg, and field with his boots. Yet Pollock's batting improved as his bowling lost some of its zip (whether this was conscious on his part or not) and his fielding improved to the extent that towards the end of his career he was quite a good slip fielder, and a useful outfielder. Of course Pollock had natural athletic abilities that Walsh didn't, but McGrath didn't, and his batting and fielding improved in a way which Walsh's should have. Of course part of this was down to environment, but Walsh, as a senior player, should have led the way in creating the environment where batting and fielding were viewed as essential components to a fast bowler's armoury.

Like Hoggy, I believe Pollock's outstanding ODI record and decent effort at captaincy (unlike Walsh, who was a fairly poor captain I thought) means that his playing career should be viewed at least on a par with Walsh's if not above it. The reasons I've given above explain why to me he has a stronger (if not necessarily overwhelming) case.

Guildford

You recollect accurately wrt my comments on Pollock - had someone asked, I'd have guessed a bowling average around 30 and batting about 25 rather than his much better figures.

I agree with Biltong, that you can't just treat Pollock's batting ability as a bonus, as while not up to the standard of a genuine front-line batsman, it wasn't far off, and so his team were counting on him contributing regularly.

I'm pretty sure now that he gets in to the HoF - if the worst things that can be said about him are that he wasn't the most exciting player ever and is a Bible-thumping tea-totaller, then it's not like we're discussing major character flaws as with Boycott* or Ranji.

* As an aside, I recently saw a quote from Dennis Lillee about Boycs saying something like ' Geoffrey fell in love with himself at a young age and has seen no reason to be unfaithful ever since'.

Interesting discussions on Ranji, and I'm still very much to make up my mind - clearly an innovative batsman of his time and with an undeniably excellent FC record but with some question marks over the lack of longevity of his Test career and over his personality. I do though wonder if we are struggling to understand him as a man - a high-born Indian who came to England to University in the late Victorian era and learnt most of his cricket here. Clearly because of his birth, and probably his race, he had to play cricket as a Gentleman rather than a Player, and I wonder how much of the difficulty he had financially came from trying to live the life of an English gent while not having the resources to back it up.

Rhodes and Tate I think have been discussed adequately for me to make a decision (I'm sure of my decision on Jonty, less so on Tate), and I need to look more at Enid Bakewell to see why she was even nominated (for me, RH-F is the mother of English women's cricket, and even she didn't make our HoF).

Fists of Fury wrote:I'm going for a drink with Grandad Fists on Wednesday, so I'll report back with his thoughts on Pollock at Warks then.

Fists - make sure to get the old chap a double and claim it on 606v2 expenses!

I'm not actually convinced we've fully and fairly considered Rhodes.

I and others have covered quite a bit about fielding in general and great fielders. However, that's not central to Mike's case which revolves around the impact of Rhodes (gosh, I hope that's right!).

Admittedly, we have covered the time period in which Rhodes rose to stardom which is certainly relevant.

However, I just get the impression that Rhodes' chances of entering the HoF are slipping away, largely in the mistaken belief that you have to be a great batsman or bowler (if not both!) to enter the HoF.

As I think Mike stated at outset, neither D'Oliveira or Arlott were outstanding players although both now enhance the HoF. I think we sometimes overplay impact but those two had it in spades and it was rightly taken into the mix when our votes for them were cast.

The Corporal referred to an ''excellently mounted case'' for Rhodes and then added that he wasn't ''sufficiently convinced of his candidacy at the present time''. Whilst that's military speak , the Corporal is clearly edging towards a NO vote and I suspect from other comments that he's not alone.

I'm not going to say a NO vote is definitely wrong but I would query the reason(s) for it.

Just as we have not ignored the impact of cricket writing and broadcasting (Arlott) or dignity in the face of political oppression (D'Oliveira), I do not see how we can ignore the impact of something much closer to the playing of the game itself - fielding.

It seems to me a serious omission for fielding not to be represented in some form in the HoF. Should the person or one of the people to do that be Rhodes? Key matters to be decided are probably -
* Did Rhodes make a significant impact?
* Was it more meaningful than others before or since?
* Did Rhodes have an unfair advantage?
* Are there any elements to be held against him?

I make no attempt here to answer these questions but think they need to be addressed - at least on a personal basis - before voting.

guildford,
Forgive me, why would Rhodes have enjoyed an unfair advantage? Just showing my outoftouchedness, that's all.

One issue I have is that, in the past, we have ignored candidates' fielding and catching credentials, however impeccable (though certainly not as impactful - Americanism I suppose).

To offer a specific, is Rhodes' batting better than Neil Harvey's fielding? (Appreciate that Harvey's batting was thought not strong enough for inclusion, but hope contributors see where I'm going with this.)

I'm pretty much on the fence with Rhodes; am concerned that top fielders of their respective days are too easily dismissed. On the other hand, Rhodes seems to have excited the imagination in a way his predecessors might have failed to do. To the extent that he elevated the quality of fielding and perhaps finally caused top class fielding to be an imperative of the modern game, then that is clearly an important impact.

How important, I guess, is the crux of the matter.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
Forgive me, why would Rhodes have enjoyed an unfair advantage? Just showing my outoftouchedness, that's all.

One issue I have is that, in the past, we have ignored candidates' fielding and catching credentials, however impeccable (though certainly not as impactful - Americanism I suppose).

To offer a specific, is Rhodes' batting better than Neil Harvey's fielding? (Appreciate that Harvey's batting was thought not strong enough for inclusion, but hope contributors see where I'm going with this.)

I'm pretty much on the fence with Rhodes; am concerned that top fielders of their respective days are too easily dismissed. On the other hand, Rhodes seems to have excited the imagination in a way his predecessors might have failed to do. To the extent that he elevated the quality of fielding and perhaps finally caused top class fielding to be an imperative of the modern game, then that is clearly an important impact.

How important, I guess, is the crux of the matter.

Hi Kwini,

Very vaild opening question from your goodself. I was keen not to try and lead people too much (either way) but realise I was too vague there.

Anyway, as you ask . I think an advantage Rhodes had (over, say, Bland) is that he (Rhodes) came to the fore not only at the time of tv coverage but almost near tv saturation. That enabled Rhodes' feats to be quickly spread across the world and capture a vast audience.

Ok, that's the advantage. Is it unfair he had that advantage and someone like Bland didn't? I'll leave that for you to ponder.

Very much understand and pretty much go along with your other comments. I would though point out fielding and catching have come into consideration before, although probably not that much. For example, Mike slated Walsh's fielding and I milked Cowdrey's catching record albeit to no practical effect.

kwinigolfer wrote:guildford,
...To offer a specific, is Rhodes' batting better than Neil Harvey's fielding? (Appreciate that Harvey's batting was thought not strong enough for inclusion, but hope contributors see where I'm going with this.)

... On the other hand, Rhodes seems to have excited the imagination in a way his predecessors might have failed to do. To the extent that he elevated the quality of fielding and perhaps finally caused top class fielding to be an imperative of the modern game, then that is clearly an important impact.

How important, I guess, is the crux of the matter.

Kwini

I get where you are coming from wrt Harvey's fielding - in his case the question for HoF inclusion should have been whether the combination of his batting (perhaps marginally not good enough for our HoF at the time he was nominated) and his undoubted fielding excellence should have been enough in total for his HoF credentials (not sure I was involved in the discussion, but I think the starting point for me would have been as a probable YES).
I'm not sure though that the question of Rhodes batting is quite the same - there is little dispute as to the excellence of Rhodes fielding or that he was both a technical innovator and a trendsetter (in terms of bringing 'professionalism' into fielding) within the area of his excellence. I think his batting can be largely ignored wrt his HoF candidacy - as a supposed front line batsman, he was at least 3 classes below HoF level, so for me was largely an irrelevance to the one area (fielding) where he was an outstanding player. In my opinion, the questions that are still relevant to considering his HoF nomination are:
1 - How great was his impact, and will it continue to be strong in years to come?
2 - Does even such excellence in fielding actually merit inclusion in the HoF?

For me, I think the answer to #1 is somewhat unknowable so far, in that we are only a decade after Rhodes retirement. It may be that in a few years someone else comes along and completely revolutionises fielding techniques (although I doubt this, as I think changes are more likely to be incremental now, as most techniques are getting close to 'best available').
As for #2, that's just personal opinion, and I can understand how people could fall either side of that line.

guildford, dummy,
Thanks - just searching for consistency. Hadn't considered, guildford, the saturation TV coverage and the possibility it might have enhanced visibility of Rhodes' excellence.


By the way, it occurred to me to compare Ranji's short career, and Bakewell's for that matter, with a fave from my teens and twenties. Test figures have similarities, plus the termination of a career due to unfortunate circumstances.
I think this will be treated as if I am trivialising Ranji's claims, but this hardy fellow's laurels are worth remembering:
Ranji: 15 Tests
A.N.Other: 9 Tests
Ranji: 989 Test runs with two centuries @ 44.95
A.N.Other: 654 with two tons @ 46.71

Besides, I enjoyed this Matthew Engel tribute:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/146414.html

and no, A.N.Other should not be in the HOF, except perhaps the one in Northampton.

Excellent post as usual guildford. To answer your querries IMO:

guildfordbat wrote:
* Did Rhodes make a significant impact?

I guess that depends what you mean by "impact". That the face of fielding changed significantly after Rhodes is indisputable. Whether Rhodes himself was responsible in any way for this and to what extent is I guess hard to measure. From my perspective, I simply outline a couple of things:
- blueprint: for things like diving technique and power position, I can tell you a lot of coaches use Rhodes as "best practice".
- impact on youngsters: the guys I coach now all know Rhodes's name.

guildfordbat wrote:* Was it more meaningful than others before or since?

Definitely. The likes of Bland and Randall didn't see a wholesale change in technique and fielding mentality (everyone has to field) which we've seen in the last 5-10 years. How much this was down to Rhodes is of course part of the debate, but fielding standards have been a major technical development (probably THE major one of the last 15-20 years).

guildfordbat wrote:* Did Rhodes have an unfair advantage?

Quite possibly. Define "unfair"... Certainly Rhodes had the advantage of TV exposure, more ODI cricket which brought groundfielding to the fore, and an increased professionalism in attitudes and coaching.

guildfordbat wrote:* Are there any elements to be held against him?

His batting wasn't world class, although I'm not sure it's as bad as some have suggested. I certainly think he gets into the SA team for his batting throughout most of his career (as Biltong pointed out when discussing Pollock, he didn't play in an SA team littered with world class players). I don't think there are any character flaws to mention here, but I would understand if people said that because - unlike Arlott and D'Oliveira to some extent - his impact was mainly achieved through his on-field exploits, that the rest of his on-field performances aren't good enough. Possibly.

On the basis of discussions so far this is where I stand at the moment.

Pollock - almost certainly yes
Tate - probably yes
Ranji - probably yes (mainly on account of the leg glance and late cut )
Bakewell - sadly probably no, notwithstanding several excellent records
Jonty - likely no, tho I have been given pause for thought by the excellent arguments mounted by the "yes" camp

Corporal - without dreaming of questioning your right to military discretion , I would be particularly interested in any reasons for your likely decision on Rhodes.

I have to admit that my starting point was, ''Nice try, Mike, but ...''. However, the more I tried to finish that sentence the harder I found it.

Whereas I am certain on Rhodes (well, I did propose him after all!) and Bakewell, I am firmly undecided on the other 3.

The more I think about Pollock the more I think we are underplaying his ODI record - an eco rate of 3.67 for someone who opened the bowling in the modern era? Pretty extraordinary I would say, particularly for someone who started as a big of a tear-away quick.

To again demonstrate how well he adapted: in his first 12 series his economy rate was over 4 in 8 of them, and under 3 in just one - against a West Indies side whose batting was Lara and...; by contrast, in his last 12 series his highest economy rate was 3.55, and he managed less than 3 in no fewer than 4 series, including against India. Moreover these series included one against Australia and a VB series against Australia and Sri Lanka.

On Tate: it has been well documented that he was the stand-out quick bowler of his time. My issue is that his time was a time of bat dominating ball, and why this was? Pitches, standard of batting, or standard of other bowlers or a mixture? Tate's first class record is outstanding. There is something which doesn't quite add up here for me.

With Ranji the question is to balance his role in challenging established views to make the game much more interesting versus his non-role in supporting cricket in India. I take the point that he was a product of his time, but you can rebel against your time (as Ranji did in other ways on the field): that he of all people didn't suggests to me that either he was genuinely happy with the status quo or he wasn't, but thought that rebelling would aleniate him entirely and he was more concerned about himself. Neither is a particularly palatable view.

Mike
On Tate.
I would argue that the relative poorness of the averages achieved by pace bowlers (and, perhaps, the relative greatness of batting averages) during the 1920s and 30s must be put down to a combination of superb batting and poor pitches, especially for such bowlers. I say that because what I've read leads me to conclude that test pitches during that time were particularly good for batting on and because no fast bowler during that period achieved any more than reasonable figures (in term of average), despite a number of them (Jack Gregory, Harold Larwood, Tate himself) being viewed as great bowlers, both by contemporaries and cricket history.

On Ranji.
While I agree that he didn't do much to encourage the growth of cricket in India, should we really punish him for the sin of ommision? While it may have helped his case if he had, I think it's a bit unfair to see it as a negative that he didn't. If, however, there is truth that Ranji acted in a way that might, in fact, have had a detrimental effect on Indian cricket, such as persuading Duleep to play for England rather than India, then that would be a different matter IMO. But even in that case it is difficult to know exactly how influential Ranji's opinion was in Duleep's decision.

Mike Selig wrote:

On Tate: it has been well documented that he was the stand-out quick bowler of his time. My issue is that his time was a time of bat dominating ball, and why this was? Pitches, standard of batting, or standard of other bowlers or a mixture? Tate's first class record is outstanding. There is something which doesn't quite add up here for me.

Mike - whilst I don't necessarily disagree, can you expand and clarify as far as possible please ...

If that seems particularly daft, I would add that I made a loud plea for HELP in respect of Tate a few days ago, thanks.

We have to consider when Ranji and even Duleep later chose England over India that India was not a test playing team. Players like Eoin Morgan have recently opted for England over Ireland despite international opportunities being available, because the chance to play test cricket wasn't available.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

On Tate: it has been well documented that he was the stand-out quick bowler of his time. My issue is that his time was a time of bat dominating ball, and why this was? Pitches, standard of batting, or standard of other bowlers or a mixture? Tate's first class record is outstanding. There is something which doesn't quite add up here for me.

Mike - whilst I don't necessarily disagree, can you expand and clarify as far as possible please ...

If that seems particularly daft, I would add that I made a loud plea for HELP in respect of Tate a few days ago, thanks.

I'm not sure I'm making any sense myself, but let me try to explain...

Tate played at a time when fast bowlers in general had (by modern standards) fairly average records. Hoggy points out Larwood and Jack Gregory, both of whoom had less good records than Tate. However, these 3 are undoubtedly the stand-out fast bowlers of their time, and their stats remain significantly better than their contempories. This suggests that the period in time was either:
- an era where pitches were unusually unhelpful to fast bowlers.
- a particularly strong era for batting.
- a particularly weak era for fast bowling.

Whilst it is unreasonable to hold the first two against any candidate, the 3rd is IMO a cause for concern. I am not sure being unquestionably the best in a weak era is enough for HoF status.

But strength of eras is something incredibly difficult to define. I therefore look at their first class records, and here we have some striking similarities. Tate averaged a whole 8 runs fewer in his first class career than his test career. This is a significant difference, but less than that for Larwood and Gregory (both more than 10).

So what is going on here? Were the pitches used for test cricket in both England and Australia far more batsman friendly than those for first class matches? I find that somewhat hard to believe (which is why I say "something doesn't quite add up")... Was it that the opposition they faced in tests was far superior? That seems more likely, but also seems to suggest that when faced with quality opposition these fantastic bowlers became mere mortals; again I'm not sure that's something we want in HoF candidates. Was it that, with so few decent fast bowlers around, the lesser batsmen on the county circuit were so unused to facing quality fast bowling that they crumbled regularly against it?

Tate's record at face value isn't enough to get him into the HoF. When measured against his peers it is. But then you wonder why was it so much better? Because he was very very good, or his peers were not very good? And then you look at his first class record which is outstanding and for me it asks more questions than it answers.

Basically, I'm a bit confused. i would be interested in documentation on pitches at that time, and also who exactly were these outstanding test batsmen who shattered these people's figures? Tate was mostly pre-Bradman right? He would have faced Ponsford a fair bit, Bradman a bit, who else?

I'm not at the moment leaning any which way on Tate. Like guildford, I'm trying to make sense of it all.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

On Ranji.
While I agree that he didn't do much to encourage the growth of cricket in India, should we really punish him for the sin of ommision?

IMO, yes. Sorry to sound cheesy, but: "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". IMO to not do the right thing is bad (although not as bad as doing the wrong thing).

In any case as I said, in view of Ranji's status as an inovator who challenged preconceptions, I would have expected him to challenge this one. That he didn't suggests to me that he is guilty of more than omission.

Mike - re Tate, thanks.

It helps and it doesn't - sure you follow.

I do remain impressed by his - still the most ever - 38 wickets in an Ashes series down under. Even if his bowling partners were poor(ish), he still had to come to the party and he did. But there again - and that sort of expression seems to be cropping up so much with Tate and other recent nominees - it didn't do that much good as we still got hammered in the series ...

His county record and reliability are very impressive ... but ,,, wouldn't get him in the HoF by themselves.

Of probably the most suitable comparisons, a fair bit behind Barnes ... but ... no shame in that. A little behind Bedser, I reckon, which means - I don't know!!

Maurice Tate's late entry in to Test Cricket doesn't enhance his HOF credentials, except that he definitively upgraded the England pace attack when he finally, aged 29, made the team.
He immediately took 27 wickets at home vs South Africa and then dominated in the 24/25 series in Australia with his landmark 38 victims.
Whatever the quality of what went before him, he came in and made an unprecedented impact.

The leading Aussies Tate bowled to for the first two Ashes series at the start of his career were Woodfull and Ponsford, while Bradman, McCabe and Kippax joined them for the third and fourth series Tate played in. Looks like he took Bradman's wicket six times in about 14 innings, but also looks like everyone got clobbered in two immense Bradman innings.

Would concur with guildford that Tate looks to be just behind Bedser in the England fast bowling ranks 1924-1954, but certainly a more significant batsman, though as with Rhodes we may feel that is less important.

I stand by, despite opposition, my view that neither Pollock or Tate's second strings are particularly significant for enhancing their HoF credentials.

Why?

We are not trying (at least I'm not) to create a token 'score' for a player, where their batting might take them above a threshold. We're looking for something special in them which makes them HoF, and if at all that will come from their bowling and not their batting in my opinion. If either of their bowling was not good enough to get them in, then their lesser suit shouldn't be able to change that...

Shelsey93 wrote:I stand by, despite opposition, my view that neither Pollock or Tate's second strings are particularly significant for enhancing their HoF credentials.

Why?

We are not trying (at least I'm not) to create a token 'score' for a player, where their batting might take them above a threshold. We're looking for something special in them which makes them HoF, and if at all that will come from their bowling and not their batting in my opinion. If either of their bowling was not good enough to get them in, then their lesser suit shouldn't be able to change that...

I'm not so much looking for ''something special'' but special people. What makes a person special can be one or, more usually, several factors. Where there are several factors involved, some will be secondary and still be considered albeit to a lesser extent. In any case, secondary aspects need to be checked to rule out any weaknesses (I think we're at one on that).

By your criteria, what is the ''something special'' we should be looking for in Bakewell? I realise you wouldn't mean just her gender although our old friend Skyeman might choose to interpret your post that way . Her batting alone? Should her bowling just be ignored as a possible plus point?

To be honest I'm wavering towards a No on Bakewell.

However, were she to go in she's a genuine all-rounder with a stunning record in both departments and that should be recognised (in her case everything she did combines to make a whole package). In the same way I am not denying that Dev, Botham, Imran Khan, Sobers get in as all-rounders, where both aspect of their game contribute to their HoF status.

I don't see Pollock and Tate in the same way - they are bowlers first and, for me, if their bowling is not good enough (and in both cases it might well be good enough) then they aren't Hall of Fame worthy.

Hope I'm clear.

What I mean to say is that if Walsh batted better it wouldn't have enhanced my YES for me, whilst if Pollock was less good at batting that does nothing to diminish his case for me. Whilst Pollock may have occasionally won matches with the bat, he doesn't come remotely close to having done anything Hall of Fame-worthy with willow in hand.

Mike Selig wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

On Ranji.
While I agree that he didn't do much to encourage the growth of cricket in India, should we really punish him for the sin of ommision?

IMO, yes. Sorry to sound cheesy, but: "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". IMO to not do the right thing is bad (although not as bad as doing the wrong thing).

Not being funny, but should we not then, have held against the likes of Barry Richards the fact that he didn't refuse to play in all white South African teams or, to a lesser extent, members of the 1932/3 England side who didn't refuse to participate in Bodyline?
In any case what was Ranji meant to do, at least initially, to help the development of Indian cricket?
At the beginning of his career in England he had no wealth or political influence. If he had simply returned to India and turned out for the Hindu's in the annual Quadrangular he would, in all likelihood, be little more than a footnote in the history of world cricket, just as the likes of Palwankar Baloo or C.K. Nayudu are today. Indeed it could be argued that by pursuing a career in England, and by suceeding both there and on the world stage, he did more to raise the profile of Indian cricket than he could ever have done had he returned home, whether that was his intention or not.

Shelsey93 wrote:
... Bakewell.

... in her case everything she did combines to make a whole package ...

Hoggy - that's where we seem to disagree, although I believe healthily. In my view, in every case everything he/she did combines to make a whole package. It's the whole package I want to consider although I'll clearly concentrate on certain parts more than others depending on the particular nominee.

If Onions were ever to be nominated following further bowling success, would you just ignore him batting out a draw against the Aussies?

A good question. The answer to which would be yes unless I thought that something somebody did in a lesser suit genuinely contributed to their legend (e.g. were Graham Dilley a good enough bowler to get close, his partnership with Beefy in '81 would certainly add to his legend). But in the cases of Pollock and Tate, were they really good enough with the bat that that should be enough to enhance their claims to being put in this extremely elite club?

In truth its a policy which is quite flexible, but one which I think I'm right in applying to Pollock and Tate. (waits for somebody to dig out my reasoning for YES to d'Oliveira, which probably included his bowling...)

Part of what I'm saying is that the Hall of Fame isn't simply a CMJ-style listing of best cricketers. In that type of list Pollock's batting would clearly make a big difference.

Mike Selig wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

On Ranji.
While I agree that he didn't do much to encourage the growth of cricket in India, should we really punish him for the sin of ommision?

I agree entirely with Hoggy's point. There will be countless cricketers who have faced dilemmas where they could take a courageous decision at high personal cost to devote themselves to a particular cause in relation to some institutional or societal situation. I applaud those who have taken such decisions. But I do think we have to be discriminating when excluding people from HoF on grounds such as failing to attempt to develop cricket in a particular country.

Shelsey93 wrote: Part of what I'm saying is that the Hall of Fame isn't simply a CMJ-style listing of best cricketers. In that type of list Pollock's batting would clearly make a big difference.

But IMO some cricketers should get in through sheer weight of sustained excellence as demonstrated by their figures. Alongside that others get in despite overall figures not looking quite so good because of other factors, eg particular historical contribution, impact etc. Hence some of the more interesting debates...

Shelsey93 wrote:

Part of what I'm saying is that the Hall of Fame isn't simply a CMJ-style listing of best cricketers.

I might quote you on that when I vote NO to Kallis!

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote: Part of what I'm saying is that the Hall of Fame isn't simply a CMJ-style listing of best cricketers. In that type of list Pollock's batting would clearly make a big difference.

But IMO some cricketers should get in through sheer weight of sustained excellence as demonstrated by their figures. Alongside that others get in despite overall figures not looking quite so good because of other factors, eg particular historical contribution, impact etc. Hence some of the more interesting debates...

And that is precisely the question with Pollock... was his career quite good enough to put him in that first category?

I must say I'm still some way from a decision on Tate and Pollock... if I have a moment in the next couple of days will try to dig out some articles on them...

Some comments on Maurice Tate from Bert Oldfield, the great Aussie 'keeper:

"Of all the bowlers I have faced in tests, slow, fast or medium, I regard Tate as the greatest"
"He has often been described as medium-paced, but he made so much pace off the wicket that it will not be romancing to classify him as fast"
"The natural cut which he imparted to the ball with his delivery made him positively hostile"
"He was able to swing the ball both ways at will."

Shelsey93 wrote:I stand by, despite opposition, my view that neither Pollock or Tate's second strings are particularly significant for enhancing their HoF credentials.

Why?

We are not trying (at least I'm not) to create a token 'score' for a player, where their batting might take them above a threshold. We're looking for something special in them which makes them HoF, and if at all that will come from their bowling and not their batting in my opinion. If either of their bowling was not good enough to get them in, then their lesser suit shouldn't be able to change that...

With all due respect mate, how does Pollock's bowling not stack up?

Hummm.

I did hold it against Larwood that he didn't refuse to bowl bodyline.

The point on Richards is well-made though, although I'm not sure the situations are entirely comparable.

Thing is, didn't Ranji refuse to play for an Indian side touring England (in 1911ish)? Or did I get that mixed up? If I'm not mistaken, then surely that goes a bit beyond sinning by omission?