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."

Biltong wrote:

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?

I'm not Shelsey, but I'm fairly sure he never said that. I think his point was that IF Pollock's bowling didn't stack up, THEN his batting would be irrelevant. I'm not sure I agree (I don't seem to be sure about anything this evening, but I'm a bit peeved TBH so maybe that's not surprising), but I can see where the logic is coming from.

And a few more comments on Tate.
According to Ray Robinson, in his book From the Boundary (1951) when asked to name the bowlers who gave them the most difficulty, Bill Ponsford answered "Grimmett, a googly bowler and Tate, fast-medium", while Don Bradman, in a farewell braodcast on his retirement from first-class cricket, said "Of all bowlers I rank O'Reilly first. Grimmett probably second. Of fast bowlers Larwood was the best I met and Tate the best medium pace bowler"

Also, in 1938, Clarrie Grimmett chose Tate in a world best from the previous two decades, calling him "An extraordinary, versatile bowler"

Mike Selig wrote:

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?

Not really.
While it's true that Ranji refused an invite to tour (as captain) in 1911, pleading the pressures of state, he wasn't standing idly by and allowing something bad to happen, he simply didn't contribute to something. Of course it can be said that he could have done more, but I find it difficult to see it as a negative that didn't.
For me, if he had gone out of his way to promote the development of cricket in India, it would have been a plus point for his candidature, just like a post playing career coaching or administering the game has been for others but, just as those who didn't go on to coach or into administration at the end of their careers, I don't think the fact that he didn't actively promote Indian cricket can be held against him.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

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.

Agree with Hoggy's point here.
Ranji's success at the highest level is what really made Ranji the cricketer. Don't think he could have made much of an impact playing for an Indian side without test status.
If Eoin Morgan somehow turns himself into a fine test cricketer and we consider him one day, will it count against him that he left Ireland to play test cricket for England?

msp83 wrote:
If Eoin Morgan somehow turns himself into a fine test cricketer and we consider him one day, will it count against him that he left Ireland to play test cricket for England?

For me, almost certainly. I think Morgan's decision to go and play for England rather than try and help Ireland get test status is entirely wrong. Ditto Rankin. Obviously I'm more sensitive than some, and this has to do with my background, but with the ICC set-up as it is (and things have obviously not changed that much in a century), yes I do think there's such a thing as being proud to play for your country, and doing everything you can to promote cricket there.

Mike Selig wrote:

msp83 wrote:
If Eoin Morgan somehow turns himself into a fine test cricketer and we consider him one day, will it count against him that he left Ireland to play test cricket for England?

For me, almost certainly. I think Morgan's decision to go and play for England rather than try and help Ireland get test status is entirely wrong. Ditto Rankin. Obviously I'm more sensitive than some, and this has to do with my background, but with the ICC set-up as it is (and things have obviously not changed that much in a century), yes I do think there's such a thing as being proud to play for your country, and doing everything you can to promote cricket there.

I like that sentiment very much.

Hoggy - I appreciate you only mentioned Barry Richards' name as an example and that he was not central to the point you were making.

However, I would point out that in 1971 Richards led a walk-off from the field of his fellow Natal team players in protest at the D'Oliveira situation and the isolation of South African cricket as a result of the policies of the South African government.

Not only is that fair to Richards but it goes some way to being helpful to Mike's argument - if Ranji had wanted to do more or, indeed, anything for Indian cricket, he certainly could have done. How much, if at all, he should be condemned for not doing so is probably an individual decision for each poster.

Had Ranji limited himself to playing for India that actually didn't exist as a significant political unit during his playing days, we wouldn't have even discussed him.
While I agree with a lot of what Mike said about Morgan case, the point I was trying to make was a bit different. My point was that if a player from an associate base emerges as a test great by playing for a test playing country and if his/her performances and achievements as a test player is the primary basis for our consideration of him or her for the HoF, what kind of call can we take. Had the player stuck to his associate country, he/she might never have got an opportunity to play test cricket.
I think it is a very dificult choice and we can't make easy judgements.

Guildford
I apprreciate what you're saying, but Richards was taking a stand against something that was happening (and, understandably perhaps, waited until he was directly effected before he did so), while Ranji is being criticised for not making something happen.
Mike has compared the cases of Ranji and Eoin Morgan, but the fact is that,where there IS a representative Irish team which Morgan could, if he chose, represent, there was no such thing in India during Ranji's career. Indeed, even the 1911 touring team was not a representative India team per se, but rather, was an 'Indian XI' is a similar vein to 'Aboriginal' cricket teamsor Maori rugby teams who also toured Britain around the same time.
Of course, you could argue that Ranji should have taken it upon himself to do something to alter that situation, but I would just point out that, firstly, if he had not had the career that he did for England, he would not have been in the situation to be able to do anything anyway and, secondly, that the very idea of 'Indian cricket' was rather nebulous at the time, with cricket in the country being dominated by matches between religious communities, the patronage of various Indian Princes and struggles between various castes.
In reality, it was probably not until India gained independance, that there was a truly representative 'Indian cricket', and one of the main causes of that was the success of an interprovincial program under the name of the Ranji Trophy.
And this is my point (sorry I'm rambling a bit). When we were discussing Learie Constantine, I suggested that he should be included in our Hof because he used his cricket career to fight racism. However, I also noted that George Headley, by being so successful, did much the same, even though he was not conciously aiming to do so to the same extent as Constantine. The same IMO, could be said of Ranji. He may not have actively sought to promote the development of Indian cricket and undermine stereotypes of Indian's in the minds of the British, but by going to England and successfully competing in the 'manly' sport of cricket, that's exactly what he did, possibly more effectively than he could have done otherwise, whether that was his intention or not.

Thanks, Hoggy. I was just keen to put the record straight - or, at least more fully - in respect of Richards.

I have to say that I find this particular argument very tricky, not least because of personal double standards. I would like to say that who Morgan played for didn't matter and that demonstrable success for Ireland should be worthy of a HoF place. However, I'm conscious that I belittled Heyhoe-Flint's achievements and claims on the basis of the poor quality of her opponents.

Your comparison between Ranji and Headley - particularly the not consciously aiming and not actively seeking elements - definitely has some merits.

Even though Ranji may have ended up a role model of some sort, I remain uncomfortable that such a person is so flawed (earlier posts refer). For me, there are just too many concerns and doubts when it comes to Ranji.

I'll bow (cop?) out of Ranji at this point but add, Hoggy, that your knowledge of cricket and social history continues to illuminate this thread for which many thanks.

Gee stop it guildford, you're making me blush
Seriously though, I agree with you that the debate has raised a number of serious concerns regarding Ranji's candidature for the HoF. Certainly more than I anticipated when his name was first put up for discussion. I just don't personally think that the idea that he didn't do enough to help develop Indian cricket is chief among them.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Gee stop it guildford, you're making me blush
Seriously though, I agree with you that the debate has raised a number of serious concerns regarding Ranji's candidature for the HoF. Certainly more than I anticipated when his name was first put up for discussion. I just don't personally think that the idea that he didn't do enough to help develop Indian cricket is chief among them.

Hoggy - personally I go along with your last sentence and, in particular, its emphasis. lt's clearly though a bigger issue for Mike at least.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
Mike has compared the cases of Ranji and Eoin Morgan

To be fair, msp raised that comparison, I agree it's not entirely valid.

If Morgan does go on to have an astonishingly successful test career which in turn led to him being considered for the HoF, I would still hold the decision to jump ship against him. Even granted that had he not done so, we wouldn't be discussing him in the first place. That's not to say it would be enough on its own to sink his claim, and similarly I don't view Ranji's non-promotion of Indian cricket as enough in its own right. It is all a matter of balance, and eventually just comes down to a judgement call. Which I haven't made yet.

Fair enoughMike,
Most of thisissimplya matter of personal judgement. It is interesting, however, how thisdebate throws up concernsabout figureswho, you would have initially thought, would have been virtually uncontested entrants to the Hof although, I suppose that that is its purpose.

Hoggy - any thoughts as to why Ranji isn't in the ICC Hall of Fame? Simply overlooked through the mists of time? Concerns similar to some of those voiced on this thread? Something else?

Generally we (606v2 posters) seem a harsher and more discriminating group of judges than the ICC. A straight NO from us to Boycott, Cowdrey, Gooch, Gower, Graveney, Heyhoe-Flint, Marsh, Woolley and others who all reached the ICC benchmark. Strange that Ranji hasn't.

Not expecting anything definitive but even a view would be of interest.

Did we determine the voting deadline?
Shelsey?

There was some angst last time about putting one's dibs in a little early . . . .

Well, I've finally got through Ranji's Wikipedia entry. Certainly had an interesting and rather controversial life.

My impression from that is that cricket was quite often a secondary interest of his, and as a result although his peak form was excellent it only lasted for a fairly short period even at county level.

I have to agree with the earlier-stated concerns that, while there is some excellence in his performances, judging a career on 15 Test matches (where the reason he didn't play more was largely self-imposed) does present an issue to me - I'm just not convinced there is enough depth to his career and that (as is the case with a few near-contemporaries such as C B Fry) maybe he is viewed in a rather 'romantic' light, which allows the glossing over of some serious weaknesses.

Guildford
Hadn'teven thought about Ranji's exclusion from the ICC HoF, but now you mention it, it does seem alittle odd given the normally positive press that Ranji usually recieves within cricketing historiography.Perhaps, as you say, they share similar concerns as those being expressed in this debate, particularly concerning the relative brevity of his test career.

Voting dealine will be 9am on Sunday... again, voting after that time but before I get round to putting the results up is also fine.

Leaving Ranji out of the ICC Hall of Fame is confusing - although they also left Lohmann out and I find that one even stranger.

I guess it probably comes down primarily to lack of Tests (although that wasn't a problem with Richards, and not doing well in Tests wasn't a problem with Woolley...)

Thanks Shelsey,

Catching up on today's debate. Good contributions all round, and really fascinating historical insights from Hoggy

Haven't finally decided on Ranji - but when I do I will disregard the issue of whether or not he might have done more to develop Indian cricket for the reasons well aired by Hoggy and those taking similar line.

Broadly on that theme of ethics I am struggling to remember whether participation in rebel tours was mentioned much during discussion of other earlier HoF candidates, eg Knott.

Evening Corporal - I'm pretty sure most of the Knott debate consisted of duffing up CF because he thought our favourite keeper couldn't bat for toffee!

More seriously, I seem to remember a rebel tour being flagged as a negative for Gooch.

Going back to Pollock, Grandad Fists understands your point about him not being the greatest of club men, perhaps. He made reference to Allan Donald as a real Bear through and through, really took to the club and in return the fans took to him. The same feeling was somewhat absent with Pollock, though it didn't diminish his returns on the field which were generally up to his usual high standards.

Of the South Africans Warwickshire have had Pollock has perhaps been the least memorable with the members. Makhaya Ntini was a fantastic addition, great with the fans, seemed to genuinely have the clubs interests at heart and of course performed well. Likewise Dale Steyn, not as jovial as Ntini but ran through brick walls to take wickets for the Bears. He earned his stripes in a different way.

Nevertheless, GF suggests that it is of course the performances that really matter, and it is simply an added bonus when an overseas player really takes to the club and becomes a true part of it. In that respect, Pollock was a fantastic addition, just not one that found its way in to the hearts and minds to the same extent as some.

Fist

Interesting post - sort of sums up my feeling on Pollock's career overall. Great player, excellent statistics, but there was just something about him that left me a bit cold compared to some other (perhaps less great) players.

No X factor?

Stella wrote:No X factor?

I thnk that's a fair comment. Compare with Flintoff, who was a markedly less effective player over his career, but had 'it' in spades.

Fists - echoing Dummy, many thanks. Both to you and Grandad Fists. We really need to get the old boy's consultancy contract for 2013 finalised and signed before some other sports forum swoops with a counter offer.

Re Pollock: Dummy's reference to being left ''a bit cold'' despite everything seems appropriate. That was sort of what prompted the query. There again, it's probably a bit unreasonable to expect a bunch of Bears' supporters to immediately identify with a bible reading tee-totaller, eh Fists and Hoggy?

Pollock is like Keith Richards compared to old bear, Nick Knight.

gb

Could have been worse - Pollock could have gone to Somerset and been surrounded by the scrumpy-drinking hordes (no, that says hordes, not whor...).

[quote="guildfordbat" There again, it's probably a bit unreasonable to expect a bunch of Bears' supporters to immediately identify with a bible reading tee-totaller, eh Fists and Hoggy? [/quote]

True enough.
There's not many people like that in Brum.

dummy_half wrote:

Stella wrote:No X factor?

I thnk that's a fair comment. Compare with Flintoff, who was a markedly less effective player over his career, but had 'it' in spades.

This may be over stretching the meaning and boundaries of ''X factor'' but I would say that if Pollock had it at all, it was in his ability to disguise what a very fine international cricketer he was. A sort of Superman when opponents and spectators only saw Clark Kent?!

Just been watching Alec Stewart describing Waqar Younis on cricinfo. He mentioned that all great fast bowlers have the ability to wreck a batting order.
I never saw Pollock do that, although he may have.

guildfordbat wrote:Fists - echoing Dummy, many thanks. Both to you and Grandad Fists. We really need to get the old boy's consultancy contract for 2013 finalised and signed before some other sports forum swoops with a counter offer.

Re Pollock: Dummy's reference to being left ''a bit cold'' despite everything seems appropriate. That was sort of what prompted the query. There again, it's probably a bit unreasonable to expect a bunch of Bears' supporters to immediately identify with a bible reading tee-totaller, eh Fists and Hoggy?

Ha! You could be on to something there, Guildford.

Anyway gents I'm afraid I'll be absent from proceedings for the next fortnight. I fly out to New Delhi tomorrow, so all the best with the HoF elections - hopefully I'll be in agreement upon my return!

Take it easy.

Fists,
Bon voyage, but afore ye go:
Can't you cast your votes for this famous (but HOF illustrious?) five?

Fists - definitely agree with Kwini.

You can't fly if you don't vote!

Stella wrote:Just been watching Alec Stewart describing Waqar Younis on cricinfo. He mentioned that all great fast bowlers have the ability to wreck a batting order.
I never saw Pollock do that, although he may have.

Depends what you mean by 'wreck' Stella. He certainly could destroy batting line-ups as his 16 sfer's indicates.
But that also indicates that he probably didn't do it as often as he, perhaps, should have. Indeed, of all bowlers to have taken 300+ test wickets only Willis, Vaas and Brett Lee have less 5fers.
However, among fast-bwlers with 300+ wickets only Marshall, Ambrose, Trueman, McGrath, Donald, Hadlee and Imran have better bowling averages, and only Imran and Botham better batting averages.

Oh, and as an aside, does anyone else think that Waqar Younis might be worthy of discussion on this thread?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Stella wrote:Just been watching Alec Stewart describing Waqar Younis on cricinfo. He mentioned that all great fast bowlers have the ability to wreck a batting order.
I never saw Pollock do that, although he may have.

Depends what you mean by 'wreck' Stella. He certainly could destroy batting line-ups as his 16 sfer's indicates.
But that also indicates that he probably didn't do it as often as he, perhaps, should have. Indeed, of all bowlers to have taken 300+ test wickets only Willis, Vaas and Brett Lee have less 5fers.
However, among fast-bwlers with 300+ wickets only Marshall, Ambrose, Trueman, McGrath, Donald, Hadlee and Imran have better bowling averages, and only Imran and Botham better batting averages.

That's the thing. I saw Pollock play a few times and have witnessed him blast out a middle order on not one occasion.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Oh, and as an aside, does anyone else think that Waqar Younis might be worthy of discussion on this thread?

Definitely - as regards discussion.

Stella wrote:

That's the thing. I saw Pollock play a few times and have witnessed him blast out a middle order on not one occasion.

Are we sure the records are right about Pollock? No one seems to have ever seen or remember him taking a single wicket!

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:

That's the thing. I saw Pollock play a few times and have witnessed him blast out a middle order on not one occasion.

Are we sure the records are right about Pollock? No one seems to have ever seen or remember him taking a single wicket!

We are talking Peter Pollock..............right?

As a bowler Pollock's stats are extremely comparable to Courtney Walsh's. Same strike rate, slightly better average, slightly better economy rate. Walsh took a 5fer every 6 matches, Pollock every 6.75
Walsh reached 500 wickets, Pollock averaged 32 with the bat and had a better ODI record (as both bowler and batsman). Pollock was a better fielder.
Walsh has been elected to our HoF (IIRC), Pollock???

Walsh like Pollock would be a debatable HOF for me.

Fair enough Stella.
Personally I voted yes to Walsh and probably will for Pollock, but it's certainly understandable that others might think differently.
I do believe though, that consistency is as important a characteristic for a great player as the ability to do something spectacular. The truly, truly great players have both characteristics in spades. The sort of players we're discussing now might only posses one of those traits in abundance. Thus, in the last round, Stan McCabe was inducted due mainly to his ability to play spectacular innings when the chips were down, while Walsh was inducted because of his monumental consistency. Pollock falls into this latter category for me. Someone who might not have been particularly spectacular, but who achieved pretty outstanding results in both tests and ODIs through great consistency.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:As a bowler Pollock's stats are extremely comparable to Courtney Walsh's. Same strike rate, slightly better average, slightly better economy rate. Walsh took a 5fer every 6 matches, Pollock every 6.75
Walsh reached 500 wickets, Pollock averaged 32 with the bat and had a better ODI record (as both bowler and batsman). Pollock was a better fielder.
Walsh has been elected to our HoF (IIRC), Pollock???

Yes, Walsh has been elected to our HoF.

I voted for him but now feel that was wrong. I was particularly influenced at the time by Walsh being the first to take 500 Test wickets. However, I now take the point made by Mike - the only one to vote NO (IIRC) to Walsh - that were was an ''inevitability'' of someone taking 500 whereas Trueman's 300 at the time was deemed an ''impossible pursuit'' and therefore far more significant. Mike also pointed out that Walsh was a poor batsman and fielder who made little effort to up his game in those areas plus a disappointing captain.

For me, Pollock is some way above Walsh. However, that doesn't mean I have to vote YES, particularly if I don't treat the Walsh decision as a precedent.

I think comparisons can also be made with another HoF inductee, Brian Statham. I'm particularly thinking of the supporting opening bowler role - Statham to Trueman, Pollock to Donald.

I do think Pollock's batting also belongs in the mix. If you regard number eight as a true position by itself in the game, Pollock is almost certainly one of the world's very best ever in that spot.

Ok then gents, here goes, however I'm sure you'll excuse me for omitting the reasoning given my last minute rush to get everything sorted at work before my departure in 20 mins time.

Pollock - YES
Tate - YES
Ranji - YES
Bakewell - NO
Rhodes - YES

Hoggy
With regard to the number of Michelles taken by Walsh and Pollock, it should perhaps be noted that for most (all?) of his career, Pollock was part of a 5 man attack: SP, Donald, Ntini, Kallis + usually some moderate spin bowler. As such, he would have less opportunity to take 5 in an innings than would Walsh as part of a 4 man attack (and late in his career as the spearhead bowler in that attack).

GB
Absolutely agree that Pollock has to be considered by comparison with the all rounders, not just the pure bowlers. As with his bowling, the batting figures don't blow you away in terms of match winning performances, but they show very good consistency. Perhaps his average of 32 is slightly flattering, as in 156 innings he was not out 39 times (so 1 in every 4 innings).

For comparison, Ian Botham was only not out 6 times in 161 innings (batting 1 or 2 spots higher in the order), while Hadlee was not out 19 times in 134 innings (so about 1 in 7 innings) batting at 7 or 8.

In fact, Pollock's batting record is remarkably similar to Hadlee's other than the NOs - 2 centuries each and respectively 16 and 15 50s, with their average runs per batting innings being 24.2 and 23.3.

Hadlee and Pollock were not all-rouunders..........imo

Remember to that Walsh spent his early days backing up not one but three great bowlers who for most part took wickets before Walsh got thrown the ball.
This would not help is fifer ratio.

Stella wrote:Hadlee and Pollock were not all-rouunders..........imo

Stella - you might consider that I'm narrowing things too much but I did deliberately refer to Pollock being a ''number 8'' and, in my view, one of the world's very best in that spot.

I wasn't part of the debats during the discussions on Walsh. In fact it was a mention of his name on another thread and a suggestion from guildford that got me interested in this particular thread. But without a bit of doubt I would have voted a yes for Walsh. Think I wrote something like Walsh bowled faster than most post the age of 35. He was a workhorse to start but then formed part of one of the most potent opening bowling attacks in the world and towards the end of career carried the West Indies bowling all by his own.
Anyways back to the topic, one player I really can't make my mind up is Enid Bakewell. She has the stats, and I think her record against Australia is not bad as its was seemingly suggested over here. But I have read that other arguably more prominent women cricketers have been rejected and it is also suggested Bakewell hasn't done much for the promotion of the game after her playing days. Would appreciate more discussion on her.