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."

I'll vote on the two I am qualified to do.

Pollock - Yes, for all the reasons I gave before
Jonty- No, would we all have wooned about him it it wasn't for "the dive"?

And I'm not sure that I'll be around to vote later so, just in case:

I think this is the weakest collection to have been considered for inclusion in the v2 HOF. None are slam dunkers for me, though I will say that I find Ranji undeserving and Enid Bakewell needs to wait her turn.

For the remainder, I vote for Maurice Tate and for Shaun Pollock, his abstemious behaviour notwithstanding. They each have an outstanding body of work, will go down among the best number eights of their respective eras, and their overall stat's and importance to their teams have been recorded.

And reluctantly no to Jonty Rhodes as I just don't feel we've yet got a handle on looking at fielding in the perspective of the total history of the modern(ish) game - I was reading through the testimony for others for some sort of guidance on this and I noted that Constantine was regarded (in Warner's words) as the finest fielder of the pre-WWII generation . . . . . .

Bakewell: No.
Pollock: Yes.
Ranji: No.
Rhodes: No.
Tate: Yes.

Msp - I'm very much in the NO camp on Bakewell and am influenced in part by our failing to induct a couple of more credible female nominees (in my view).

However, echoing what I suggested to Shelsey the other day, I see no reason why you have to be bound by earlier votes in respect of Clark and Heyhoe-Flint if you believe we got it wrong then and that Bakewell measures up somewhere near to them.

Guildford my other problem is that my understanding of the history of women's cricket, in fact women's cricket as such, is very very limited. I even am thinking of abstaining on that particular nominee, although her record, outstanding it is in terms of stats and she has done things that the likes of Sobers, Botham, Flintoff, Kallis, Imran........ haven't done!, keeps me thinking.

Biltong wrote:I'll vote on the two I am qualified to do.

Pollock - Yes, for all the reasons I gave before
Jonty- No, would we all have wooned about him it it wasn't for "the dive"?

Biltong - many thanks for your input on these two. Hope you will stick around on this thread. Please feel free to comment and vote on all nominees. Most of us are learning as we bumble along so no need to feel intimidated.

msp83 wrote:Guildford my other problem is that my understanding of the history of women's cricket, in fact women's cricket as such, is very very limited. I even am thinking of abstaining on that particular nominee, although her record, outstanding it is in terms of stats and she has done things that the likes of Sobers, Botham, Flintoff, Kallis, Imran........ haven't done!, keeps me thinking.

Msp - as a ''new boy'', you're probably not aware that an abstention is viewed as very poor form . I tried that originally in respect of Clark and was asked kindly but firmly by Fists to choose one side of the line.

I know Biltong has only voted for the two Saffers but I suspect he has a doctor's note and that it is a case of ''gently, gently catchee monkey'' before he fully signs up to this thread.

No worries mate, I just feel it is unfair of me to make a vote positive or negative on cricketers I know nothing about, so I will restrict my votes to those I feel I am qualified for and actually know about

I'll follow Biltongs lead and put in those I know a decent bit about

Tate - Yes
Rhodes - No
Pollock - YEEEEEEEEEES

I can now confirm a YES vote for Pollock. Like some others on this thread I was surprised to find his figures were quite as good as they were. To me his candidature has actually become the most clear cut of all this round. I simply cannot ignore the formidable consistency and extent of his achievements.

As Guildford will know I enjoy the odd Or two. But I would not for a moment mark down someone who chooses not to join us in the beer tent. Indeed as a Surrey supporter I might wish that our recently departed captain had spent a bit less time in night clubs and had exercised a tad more self discipline....

Biltong wrote:No worries mate, I just feel it is unfair of me to make a vote positive or negative on cricketers I know nothing about, so I will restrict my votes to those I feel I am qualified for and actually know about

I respect that - tho it is just as well that many 606v2 posters don't follow that line. A great many threads would die a quick death if people stuck to subjects they are qualified to talk about ....

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:

Biltong wrote:No worries mate, I just feel it is unfair of me to make a vote positive or negative on cricketers I know nothing about, so I will restrict my votes to those I feel I am qualified for and actually know about

I respect that - tho it is just as well that many 606v2 posters don't follow that line. A great many threads would die a quick death if people stuck to subjects they are qualified to talk about ....

Voting on some but not all candidates is acceptable, although it would be a little annoying if it became habitual. The debate should include enough substance to form an opinion in my view.

Anyway, got a minute so will post my votes.

Enid Bakewell - I will go with the concensus and vote NO. However, I do think that her case is stronger than some are suggesting. In the final analysis though I see the standard of cricket at the time as a weakness, and don't think she's done as much as Heyhoe-Flint to create the much better women's game we have today.

Shaun Pollock - A cricketer I started ambivalent to, and overall remain so. Nevertheless, his bowling record in a difficult era, particularly in ODIs but also in Tests, is too good to turn down - a YES but only narrowly!

KS Ranjitsinhji - The most interesting debate of the fortnight in the end. However, in my view his record in his era is more than good enough. When you add his innovations, and his position as the first international sportsman of Asian extraction its an easy YES for me. Thanks to Mike, guildford and others for making this an interesting discussion.

Jonty Rhodes - A very strong case presented by Mike but, alas, fielding doesn't resonate with me enough to put him close to the Hall of Fame. Issues on whether other fielders from earlier eras, or even from Rhodes's era have been overlooked because of lack of attention is also a concern. NO.

Maurice Tate - The most difficult candidate in a week of difficult decisions. His record as a bowler is great once he switched to seam. And he seems to have maintained that over a decent length of time. But, for me, he falls very marginally outside of the Hall of Fame placings... a NO.

As I think he deserves a boost and because it's one I've been decided upon for a few days, I'm going to vote -

YES now for Rhodes.

I set myself - or rather Rhodes - some questions that had to be answered successfully for him to get in the HoF.

* Did he have an impact?
Yes, his fielding had a very considerable impact. It thrilled crowds and probably added to attendances. It also helped South Africa win Tests and ODIs; hard to confirm more than anyone else ever but definitely more than almost all. It must have given confidence to his side's bowlers and put more pressure on opposition batsmen.

* Was his impact more meaningful than others before or since?
Probably yes. Fielding role models of the past tended to be associated with and known only in their own country; Solkar (India), Bland (South Africa), Sheehan (Australia), Murtagh (Hants - that's a joke for Kwini! ). Rhodes' impact has been truly international. As Mike has testified, youngsters everywhere know and recognise his name. This impact doesn't appear to show signs of abating. A practice drill is apparently named after him and continues to be used.
I'm not sufficiently qualified to comment on the technical nature of Rhodes' fielding but note the innovative aspects he brought to the game, as also testified to by Mike.
Due to Rhodes' rise to prominence coinciding with the start of near tv saturation, there will always be recorded and readily available film footage of his exploits to re-enforce his impact. (The continued showing of Botham's Ashes has preserved and probably increased his image.) Other fielders will almost certainly enjoy wide tv coverage but Rhodes will always be the first of that kind; if only for that, he will continue to be seen and known.

* Did he have an unfair advantage?
I've covered here and in other posts that Rhodes had the advantage of his time coinciding with near tv saturation. I accept that was and remains tough on someone like Sheehan who is now largely forgotten. However, I don't consider anything was unfair for Rhodes. He played the cards he was dealt at the time and played them damn well. As for selection by South Africa, he deserved to get and keep his place - nothing unfair in that.

* Did he have any significant weaknesses?
I don't think so. Mike made an interesting reference to the captaincy of Brearley (a personal favourite). Brearley had a Test average in the 20s; that for me would be a significant weakness and sadly deny him a YES vote from me. By contrast, Rhodes averaged just over 35 in Tests with 3 centuries and several (sorry, forget the exact number) fifties. Not brilliant certainly but not a significant weakness either. It should be noted as well that it's not as if three or four Amlas were being kept out of the side by Rhodes' selection.

It's also been asked - Should contribution to fielding and its impact play such a part in the HoF?
My answer is yes, definitely. It is a vital part of the game and should be recognised as such (even if Shelsey doesn't enjoy doing it! )

On another point made by Shelsey (although at the time with reference to Tate and Pollock), I would agree that being one of the 100 Greatest Cricketers of All Time should not automatically get you in our HoF. Equally, not being in the top 100 should not automatically keep someone out - that's the case with Rhodes for me and someone else I'll be nominating soon ....

Right, some voting then:

Rhodes: A resounding YES from me. I think a few people have been a bit quick to dismiss Rhodes as simply "flash". Let me just reiterate that he was far more than that: whilst the legend of Rhodes may have started with that dive to run-out Inzaman, it surely would not have survived without the continuously excellent performances he gave, and even improving (IMO) his catching (I remember him dropping a few "easy" (by his standards anyway) catches early on in his career).

In any case, I believe this is somewhat besides the point. Rhodes is not being nominated solely for his fielding, he is being nominated for the impact which his fielding had on the way cricket is played, and the techniques derived from it - I hope I and others (Dummy and Guildford chief amongst them) have made this clear enough, and expanded enough as to how Rhodes's fielding has changed the game. In that view, he should be viewed alongside Spofforth and Grace/Trumper.

If you want to argue that modern fielding was inevitable (as I did about 500 wickets for Walsh) then that is fair enough. If you want to argue (as Biltong has) that primarily you are reserving the HoF for the most fantastic cricketers, likewise. But don't dismiss him by saying "there are other excellent fielders" (besides the point) or "he was simply a few flash moments" (false).

Kwini raises the excellent question as to whether it may be too soon to judge on Rhodes's impact, with "modern fielding" so, well, modern. This is perfectly valid, and I raised the point with Dravid that I was worried people were caught up in the nostalgia of his retirement, and that maybe it was too soon to judge what imprint he'd left on the game.

However in this case, I do feel that modern fielding is here to stay, at least for a while. The techniques which Rhodes was a blueprint for are now being passed down to the next generations of players and coaches, and old-fashioned habits - which do die hard - gradually being challenged (although I know of many coaches who will still swear that taking the ball behind the stumps is the best way of effecting a run-out... ).

I will be very disappointed if Rhodes doesn't get in, but am happy with the debate generated. With apologies for the odd obscure technical post. As you can probably tell, fielding techniques is something I'm quite passionate about.

Bakewell: I'm sorry to say it's an easy NO - her record doesn't stand up all that well, the opposition... meh, and I don't see what she's contributed off the field which would redress this. Perhaps for the balance of the debate we could have had someone fighting her corner more strongly. Certainly I can't remember many who have had quite so little debate. That in itself probably tells its own story.

I am still somewhat undecided on the other 3. Leaning yes on Pollock (although I'm at a struggle to say why and worried I am doing the very thing I was concerned we were doing on Dravid, and being modern biased) and no on Ranji. In true electoral speak, far too close to call on Tate.

Actually, I'd like some more debate on Tate: in particular why the difference between his (and his other contemporary fast bowler's) test record and first class one. Is there any suggestion in contemporary accounts that test match pitches were much flatter in both England and Australia than those used for first class matches? Was it a particularly strong era for international batting, and if so who are the greats who made it so apart from Ponsford and early Bradman?

Shelsey93 wrote:Voting on some but not all candidates is acceptable, although it would be a little annoying if it became habitual. The debate should include enough substance to form an opinion in my view.

Jonty Rhodes - ... Issues on whether other fielders from earlier eras, or even from Rhodes's era have been overlooked because of lack of attention is also a concern.

Shelsey - totally agree with your opening general comments.

As for Rhodes, I would share your concern if Rhodes was being proposed as the greatest ever fielder; there is no way of making such a judgment with certainty. However, that wasn't the case. Rhodes was being proposed for his impact. If others are being overlooked, they clearly didn't have the impact.

Following the George W Bush election mantra of 'vote early and vote often'

Rhodes - Easiest YES for me. Mike made an excellent case to show that Jonty was much more important than just being the best fielder of his time, and that the techniques he developed are largely the ones being coached now, While I may appear to have been dismissive of his batting credentials, he was not such a bad batsman as to preclude his HoF entry (by contrast with Brierley - very good captain but not a good enough player).
I'm for the HoF being inclusive, not necessarily reserved for those who simply had outstanding careers but for innovation, excellence in a limited scope and perhaps even for moments of magic (could we nominate Roger Harper just for the run-out of Gooch , and Gary Pratt for getting Punter out in the Ashes )

Pollock - I thought on seeing him nominated 'no way, wasn't good enough', but looking at his career nuimbers he wasn't far off Hadlee's level, and Hadlee was an absolute shoo-in for the HoF. Now convinced he's a YES, and that he's someone who history will look back on as a very fine and consistent performer.

Bakewell - NO. Having said I want an inclusive HoF, I think the level of the women's game is such that only those who have clearly outstanding and long international careers should get in solely on playing merit - Bakewell falls quite well short of the mark here. Others maybe have their candidacy enhanced by involvement in the game after playing (I'd argue that Rachel Heyhoe-Flint should be in the HoF almost exclusively on the basis of being the first female member of MCC) - again, Bakewell misses out.

Tate - Closest to the borderline for me. The question is whether being the best seam bowler in an era that was slightly weak for seam bowlers is sufficient for the HoF. I'm going to come down (very marginally) as a YES for a few reasons:
1 - The suggestion that Tate was the first genuine modern-style seam bowler
2 - His County record being so outstanding. I do though take Mike's point about why the big difference between FC and Test records - was it the quality of the wickets, more poor batsmen at FC level at the time or that he was bowling at outstanding opponents at Test level
3 - That he contributed with the bat as well
4 - The back story of the late developer, only really hitting his stride as a bowler in his later 20s, yet still going on to have a great career.

Ranji - For all his stroke-playing genius, I'm going to say NO. His Test career was too short (largely of his own making), and there is a suggestion he was already declining after 2 Test series. Add to that the questions about his character and behaviour and I just see more negatives than positives.

Mike
I certainly think that test pitches, particularly in England, but also in Australia, were pretty flat throughout most of the 1920s and 30s. Add to this the batting of the likes of Bradman, Headley, McCartney (who averaged over 60 from 1920-26), Stewie Dempster (who averaged 88 against England in 8 matches 1930-33). Even Bruce Mitchell averaged over 50 against England.
But flat pitches and strong batting didn't just effect the pace-men. Both of England's main spinners of the period, 'Tich' Freeman and Hedley Verity had test averages much higher than their first class ones (Verity's was around 10 higher, Freeman's around 7.5) Nor was it only England's bowlers who suffered. Jack Gregory's FC average was around 10 lower than his test one, Arthur Mailey's around 9 lower. The two main SA bowlers of the period, Cyril Vincent (SLA) and 'Buster' Nupen (RFM) had FC averages respectively 7.5 and 17.5 less than their test ones.
Of course there were bowlers whose FC and test averages were closer, but the fact that so many bowlers, many of whom are regarded as being among the best ever, had test averages so much higher than their FC ones would suggest to me that test wickets were very good and that, in England at least, FC pitches of the time weren't (at least not for batsmen), an idea that is supported by looking at England batsmen from the period, many of whom have better test than FC averages.
So we have dodgy FC pitches in England and very good test match pitches everywhere, allied to a plethora of very good batsmen. That probably accounts for the difference between the FC aand test averages of a number of bowlers, and particularly English bowlers, of the period.

Just as a follow up to my last point, a bit of number crunching shows that around 80% of batsmen during the period had higher averages batting in England than their overall test averages. By contrast, for example, when playing in Australia against England, the majority of leading Australian batsmen had test averages lower than their overall one.

And finally, as a natural corollary to my last statement, a look of the various Ashes contests of the period shows that most of the leading bowlers, on both sides, had better averages when bowling in Australia than in England.

Mike, Jonty is a fantastic human being , a role model and all round nice guy.

He was an excellent fielder, but it pains me to say feor the most part of his career he was technically deficcient (if that is a word.)

His fielding stood out but I distinctly remember listening to statistics during a test match where Tony Greig were comparing his hit ratio at the stumps with a few Australian cricketers, and Ponting as an example hit the stumps more than Jonty did.

Jonty is a South African, and of course I would like as many South Africans in the HoF.

But in good conscience I can't vote yes for Jonty.

Have looked at details of Tate's career in a bid to account for the disparity between his Test and FC averages , and am inclined to agree with Hoggy that it is largely a matter of generally flat pitches and a generation of very good Test batsmen...the comparison with Jack Gregory , a very good Australian bowler with a much greater variation (20.99 to 31.15) seems apt.
I also note that Tate seems to have been used as a bit of a "workhorse" on some very flat Test pitches during the latter part of his career: in 1930 , when Australia twice scored 700 or near enough , at Lord's and the Oval , Tate bowled in excess of 60 overs on each occasion. Very economically , but understandably at some cost to his average ! Also on the 1928/9 tour of Australia , a very high scoring series , he bowled nearly as many overs as "Farmer" White , but for a much lower return , as was perhaps to be expected in a series where fast bowlers generally didn't thrive. The contrast with his figures from four years earlier is instructive :17 wickets at 40 as against 31 at 23.
It is hard to look back at this distance and assess differences between the international and county game : there were different rules at various times re covering of pitches and lbw laws , for example. I must admit I was not aware before reading up on this , that an experimental lbw law operated in the county game between 1929 and 1933 which allowed a batsman to be adjudged leg before wicket even if he had edged the delivery with his bat...that must have assisted the bowlers a bit ! And shortly after this law was dumped we saw the introduction of lbw for the first time in cases where the ball pitched outside off stump...up until 1934 it had to pitch in line. Variations like this underline the case for assessing players primarily against their contemporaries...

In any case Tate did enough for me : I have always viewed him as the middle pin of a progression from Barnes - Tate - Bedser , and nothing I have read here or in my research has changed that view.

YES for me.

Many thanks to Hoggy for his post (although I had picked up on Gregory also). In particular that the English batsmen (but in fact not only English, the aforementioned Stewie Dempster also, and I suspect many others) averaged more in tests than in first class cricket suggests that either:
- the standard of bowling in county matches was higher than it was in tests (possible although unlikely); but then Tate had an extraordinary county record, so...
- their was a marked difference in pitches between those used for first class matches and those used for tests.

All very helpful, I now probably have enough info to make up my mind.

Pollock was , for me , a fairly easy decision ; but then I place much emphasis on excellence of performance over a whole career , and his overall figures are quite sufficient to make him a virtually automatic choice. I can see how others , for whom particular high points or some "special" quality are more prized , might mark him down for a want of spectacular events - and fair enough as there is no "right" way to judge HoF worthiness. We all have our own bias and that is what makes these debates interesting...
One of the things I admire about Pollock is his habit of making useful runs when most needed. Along with Boucher his late order batting often made South Africa difficult to defeat at a time when the top six were perhaps not in the class of the current bunch. It speaks to his character , I feel. While I wouldn't call him a true all rounder (I like Guildford's characterization as a supreme number eight) his batting was significant enough to add the cream to his already impressive credentials as a very good bowler , albeit generally in a supporting role to a faster partner.

I am happy to vote YES and let him join uncle Graeme in the HoF.

Here are my votes.
Ranji Yes. First major coloured cricket star, pretty good test record, as good as, if not better, that of any of his contemporaries. Superb FC record. Among the game's foremost innovators, without him opening up the leg side as a legitimate area of scoring, challenging stupid but established conventions, the game would have been that much poorer. He was innovative enough to start stuff like fielding practice as captain, and those were pretty much unheard at that time. Think his relative short test career is only his responsibility in parts, the relative lack of test matches, the prejudice that he had to face and ill health all contributed to that.
Pollock Yes. Thanks largely to biltong who really got the debate on Pollock going. A terrific consistent bowler who made significant contributions with the bat as well, most of it at a time when SA's batting wasn't as classy as it as at the moment. A pretty good fielder as well. His ODI bowling record was outstanding. And the man is still very much involved with the game as coaching consultant and commentator.
Tate Yes. Seriously good test record, outstanding FC record, handy with the bat, and the inventor of seam bowling.
Rhodes No. Rhodes made some important contribution to the evolving and improving fielding component of the game. But I think fielding was enhanced by a number of other factors as well and contemporaries like Ponting have also made a significant contribution to the evolution process. Interesting point above again from biltong, on direct hits.
On Bakewell, think I would show respect to her overall record, I am not too sure about the quality, but if I really have to take a call, I think I would say Yes, not very convinced but nevertheless.......

Biltong wrote:Mike, Jonty is a fantastic human being , a role model and all round nice guy.

He was an excellent fielder, but it pains me to say feor the most part of his career he was technically deficcient (if that is a word.)

His fielding stood out but I distinctly remember listening to statistics during a test match where Tony Greig were comparing his hit ratio at the stumps with a few Australian cricketers, and Ponting as an example hit the stumps more than Jonty did.

Jonty is a South African, and of course I would like as many South Africans in the HoF.

But in good conscience I can't vote yes for Jonty.

If you mean batting-wise, then yes his technique was questionable (but then so was Lara's, so it is less a matter of technique than record surely). His fielding technique was virtually flawless.

Ponting probably hit the stumps more regularly (but then Ponting and Trevor Penney hit the stumps ridiculously often) but I'm not sure there are any coherent statistics on that. In any case as I said, I don't see how Ponting being a better fielder than Rhodes (which he probably was, ironically in no short part thanks to Rhodes) does anything to diminish Rhodes's impact.

Mike for me Ponting and Rhodes were equally good fielders, what was refreshing about Jonty from a South African perspective is the fact that he had personality.

His repore with kids, fans all over the world made him a darling in any country.

But when I compare the impact Ponting made in comparison to Jonty as a total cricketer, I know I feared every time Ponting came into bat, I doubt, any Australian supporter feared when Jonty came to bat.

For me Ponting will be a shoe in to the HoF, compared to him, Jonty's personality is what sticks in peoples memories.

Sorry I know I am batting against one of my own here. It is merely the way I see things.

Just to add to Tate:

I think the thing missing for me which has led to my NO, albeit marginally, is that he seems to have struggled to actually make a major impact against the best in the world, save for 1924/25, when he was an unknown and England lost 4-1 in any case.

Against Australia in the bland series of 1926 he took 13 wickets at 30, in 28/29 he took 17 at 41 against an early Bradman*, and then took 15 at 38 in 1930 (when Bradman was at his imperious best).

As I say the decision was always only a marginal call, and that shouldn't necessary preclude his entrty from the Hall of Fame. I just think that his case would, for me, have been made indisputable if the very best in the world found him as unplayable as county players and most mortals in Test cricket did!

* As a side-note Bradman's debut in the 1st Test saw England win by 675 runs. Sir Don batted seven and made 18 and 1. He was dropped for the 2nd Test but returned for the 3rd after an injury to Ponsford, making 79 and 112, then 40 and 58* in the 4th Test and 123 and 37* in the 5th.

An interesting story regarding the preparation of test pitches in England during the 1930s come from Bill O'Reilly, who recalls curators treating pitches with emulsified cow-dung in order to counteract his spin. Such was the stink from this treatment that, according to O'Reilly, it used to make your eyes water.
Now, whether this did actually stop the ball turning, I don't really know, but it doesn't sound like it'd helped pace bowling much either.

Ranji: NO. When his name first came up he seemed like an obvious yes, and probably the most obvious of all the candidates. However guildford first raised some concerns, and looking deeper into his record and personality brought up serious issues.

On the record front he simply didn't play enough tests for his record to merit inclusion on its own. Given that no one is suggesting those with outstanding first class records make it in (e.g. Woolley) then we need something more.

Which of course is there in his status as someone who challenged (stupid, ill-thought) conventions, with his leg-side play and late cuts. It's hard to imagine cricket nowadays where you "can't" score behind the wicket. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that his innovations haven't made cricket significantly better off.

Why then do I vote no? Well, you see, I'm afraid his failure to promote cricket in his place of birth strikes a particularly resonnant chord with someone like me. People have debated whether we can penalise someone for the sin of "omission". Well, I can and I will, but in any case I believe Ranji was "guilty" of more than that: particularly in view of his challenging conventions, I find it hard to believe that had he felt strongly about it, he wouldn't have made a stance in some way (in fact he did the opposite). So then the conclusion was that Ranji really was contemptuous towards his roots, and had absolutely no interest in promoting Indian cricket.

Comparisons with Morgan (and even more so) Rankin are perhaps not valid, but comparisons of attitude certainly are. Both the aforementioned Irishmen have stated that their ultimate aim is to play test cricket for another country: whilst I sympathise with their ambition to play the most prestigious form of the game, there are ways of expressing this which wouldn't show the contempt for their roots that they did. In contrast Paul Stirling said that his ultimate aim is to play test cricket for Ireland.

Ranji's attitude towards his home country, together with the other issues flagged by Guildford more than cancel his status as an innovator and challenger of pre-conceptions for me. What remains is at best a decent, but not extraordinary cricketer. That is not enough for HoF status in my book.

Shelsey93 wrote:Just to add to Tate:

I think the thing missing for me which has led to my NO, albeit marginally, is that he seems to have struggled to actually make a major impact against the best in the world, save for 1924/25, when he was an unknown and England lost 4-1 in any case.

Against Australia in the bland series of 1926 he took 13 wickets at 30, in 28/29 he took 17 at 41 against an early Bradman*, and then took 15 at 38 in 1930 (when Bradman was at his imperious best).

As I say the decision was always only a marginal call, and that shouldn't necessary preclude his entrty from the Hall of Fame. I just think that his case would, for me, have been made indisputable if the very best in the world found him as unplayable as county players and most mortals in Test cricket did!

* As a side-note Bradman's debut in the 1st Test saw England win by 675 runs. Sir Don batted seven and made 18 and 1. He was dropped for the 2nd Test but returned for the 3rd after an injury to Ponsford, making 79 and 112, then 40 and 58* in the 4th Test and 123 and 37* in the 5th.

Shelsey - I appreciate your comment about it being ''only a marginal call on Tate''. However, with regard to him failing to have any significant effect when he had the most impact ('24-'25 when England lost 4-1 down under despite his 38 wickets), it's only fair to point out that the same comment applies to recent inductee Stan McCabe. I don't think Australia won any match in which McCabe fully sparkled - they certainly lost by 10 wickets the time he shone most brightly.

Echoing your own comments, nothing above should preclude or compel entry to the HoF but perhaps worth considering. If Tate had had better bowlers around him, how would he have fared? Less overs to bowl with less wickets as a result? Less of a workhorse role to perform allowing the thoroughbred in him to be seen better? All very hard to call, I agree.

Incidentally, the first bowler to dismiss Bradman in a Test was Tate. When slow left armer Jack White got Bradman out in the second innings, Tate was overheard by Bradman saying, ''You've got my bunny, Jack!''. Bradman took those words to heart and did make Tate's figures suffer in later years (that certainly doesn't answer Mike's question about variations in bowling analyses but it probably goes in the mix with Hoggy's cow dung! )

I have already put up a bit in defence of Ranji against the accusations of unworthy character put forward by some posters ( yes. Guilford , looking at you ) , and I feel obliged to throw in another bit at the eleventh hour: the man's own words re Bodyline , from 1932 :" Although the batsman has a bat with which to defend himself I disapprove strongly of the concerted leg-side attack. I would rather lose the rubber than win over the bruised bodies of opponent's "
This should resonate with Mike , for instance , as he has often expressed his own displeasure at the tactics employed by England on that tour.
However , despite my belief that Ranji has been rather unfairly kicked around for rumored stains on his character , I find myself unable to give him a tick on purely cricketing grounds. Fifteen Test matches in a short space of time , with an impressive set of figures , make him a fine cricketer , but I am not sure it makes him a hall of fame member. More pertinent perhaps his status as the inventor of some behind the wicket shots , most commonly instances the leg glance. The question here is whether he actually invented the shot , or whether he was , as Grace seems to hint , just the best of his time at playing it. And I suppose how far inventing a technique takes you...I am not sure I would vote Bosanquet in on the strength of his invention alone , for example , though the impact of the delivery down the cricketing ages has been considerable...
So I am going to give Ranji a NO , though I confess on another day I might have gone the other way.

alfie wrote:I have already put up a bit in defence of Ranji against the accusations of unworthy character put forward by some posters ( yes. Guilford , looking at you ) ...

.

Alfie - I was about to say thank you for drawing attention to my comment about Pollock's number 8 role. Well, you can for that!

alfie wrote:I have already put up a bit in defence of Ranji against the accusations of unworthy character put forward by some posters ( yes. Guilford , looking at you ) , and I feel obliged to throw in another bit at the eleventh hour: the man's own words re Bodyline , from 1932 :" Although the batsman has a bat with which to defend himself I disapprove strongly of the concerted leg-side attack. I would rather lose the rubber than win over the bruised bodies of opponent's "
This should resonate with Mike

It does!

But unfortunately I'm not going to be rational on this. Associate and affiliate cricket rules! Ranji was evil! Hurrah!

(should I add a smiley here to let people know I'm not being entirely serious?)

In all seriousness, I'm afraid that I'm not being rational, but I can't change who I am or what I think.

but I can't change who I am or what I think

Rocky, believes if you can change, then anybody can change (unfortunately , you can't see me pull my face skew and screaming this)

Mike has put up a very well argued case for Rhodes , essentially based on his influence on the development of modern fielding techniques. In fact it has caused me to agonize over this choice far more than I expected , but in the end I find I am not quite persuaded ...
There is no doubt that Rhodes was an exceptional fieldsman , and it is undeniable that his influence is seen in much that is most admirable about fielding at the top level today. But I have to wonder if the evolution of fielding was not proceeding inevitably in this direction in any case , and that Rhodes has become the poster boy for the modern game as much for being at the right place at the right time (blanket TV coverage , modern professionalism and scientific approach, growth of the one day format with an obvious premium on work in the infield) as for his undoubted excellence and adoption of techniques which work to make fielding today the wonder it is ?
Seems to me fielding , like the other areas of the game , although perhaps more notably in comparatively recent years , has constantly moved with the times , so that Constantine, Harvey, Randall etc all contributed to making it what it is today. Mike claims , I think , that there is a qualitative difference between the advances Rhodes has pioneered and the earlier improvements , and that this is
enough to entitle him to a seat in the HoF.
As I said , it is a strong argument , but one I cannot totally agree with.
So it is a NO from me for Jonty , though if he makes the repachage rounds I might yet be convinced next time.

To add to the apparent lack of rationality, I would say that character is often an influencing factor for me when considering HoF nominees but that I don't view Bodyline as a negative! (I defended it when we discussed Lol Larwood so won't bore you again!)

Well I have now voted two yes and two no and now come to the really difficult one in Enid Bakewell...
First let me say that in my humble opinion we have done our HoF a disservice by the way in which we have dealt with the issue of Women's cricket and the assessment of prospective members - understandably I think in that we originally set out to follow the ICC lead and take everyone in alphabetical order , a reasonable approach. But in the case of the women , about whom I think it is fair to say , most of us know rather less than we do about the men, this has already raised problems. So far only two candidates have been considered and of those Heyhoe-Flint has been consigned to the bin and Belinda Clark allowed into the reconsider next year list . This presents some of us (certainly me) with a problem : I do not think it was an accident that Heyhoe-Flint was the first woman inducted into the ICC lists , as she was clearly seen to occupy a similar position in England to that of Clark , the first inducted Australian , in her native land. Looking at her record , I can see why. Now Clark may well gain entry to ours on second try , but this is then going to leave us with just one woman in the HoF , unless we vote in a player or players generally considered inferior...at least until certain current players retire. Which will look a bit "modernist" , in contrast with the men , who we have generally agreed should be compared with those of their own era.

All of which is a long winded way of saying I have a consistency problem with a yes vote for Bakewell , although on the face of it her figures are excellent. Certainly she can hardly be blamed for playing only a small number of Tests , and even one day games , by modern standards...the matches just weren't played often enough at the time.

Nevertheless I am going to give a tactical YES vote with a hope to see her candidature reassessed at a later date (she has no hope of getting a yes majority) so that we can perhaps reconsider what we ought to do about women candidates. my own preference would be that they should be assessed in separate groups rather than in with a bunch of men. After all , the women's game has a long enough tradition...the Duke of Dorset said in 1777:
"What is life but a game of cricket ? And if so , why should not the ladies play it as well as we ?..." He goes on to castigate "little macaroni youth" for exclaiming that the ladies should not hurt their delicate hands holding a nasty filthy bat and catching a dirty ball (pretty sure he is still talking about cricket ) and further urges ladies to "Go on and assert your right to every pursuit that does not debase the mind...attach yourselves to the athletic, and by that convince your neighbours the French that you despise their washes , their paint and their pomatons and are determined to convince all Europe how worthy you are of being considered the wives of ...native Englishmen!"

After that I expect Mike to give the views of modern French women on cricket and the Duke of Dorset ...but my point remains that women's cricket has been around nearly as long as men's , and perhaps we haven't up to now given its exponents quite enough fair consideration in this HoF debate.

I would like to revisit a thought I touched on briefly earlier in this very excellent debate.
And that is something that emanates from the Baseball Hall Of Fame which is long established, the inaugural "class" having been inducted in 1936. (Beautiful place, very interesting even to someone who is not a baseball afficionado, in gorgeous and very rural Cooperstown, NY, just south of the Mohawk Valley.)

With very few exceptions, inductees have been voted in on career accomplishments, their entire body of work, with scant regard to the proverbial "few, bright shining moments". Players whose career flourished for a relatively short period of time, say less than ten years, are likely to get short shrift in favour of candidates who piled up the sort of stat's that demonstrated excellence over a lengthy career.

I have chosen to regard the careers of Ranji (my reference to Colin Milburn's career in comparison was only partly facetious), and even Bakewell, in the shining moment category as I have done others before. Feel Rhodes crosses both categories which made his candidature so tricky for me to judge.

Of course, it is possible that a lengthy career chock-a-block with impressive stat's, might be dismissed as high level mediocrity - good enough to stick around but not to be consistently excellent; perhaps Ponsford was thought to come in to this category?

This is rambling a bit, but I DO think the candidates for future inclusion are becoming thinner on the ground. This may provoke stimulating debate, but may equally cause us to elect candidates not of the absolute top drawer. I had some difficulty with Tate and Pollock, for instance, but ultimately am comfortable with the Yes vote.

Not many left though without retreading previously rejected candidacies, and still feel as if Ranji, in particular, was a shining star whose flame burned out way too early for this illustrious company.

Does any of this make sense?

Kwini - yep, it does make sense.

My initial thoughts on the current 5 nominees was that they were a lot weaker than normal. However, some researching of my own and listening to other posters has shown that I was wrong in certain cases.

I will vote YES for some this time and believe that is deserved. However, I would emphasise that I wouldn't be pushing for any of my current YES votes to have a place at or even very near the top table. That for me has probably made the recent debate so fascinating - most of the calls being so close.

I don't think we've run out of suitable candidates yet nor will do so too soon, particularly if we treat this thread as a winter only one.

I really enjoyed your link to the Ollie Milburn article and meant to thank you for it at the time. For some, he would surely be a candidate here - a larger than life figure in every sense with oodles of talent and a committment to entertain whose career was tragically cut short in its prime (and probably with it, his life - Ollie lost not only an eye that night but his whole purpose).

Different views and values on what makes someone a suitable HoF inductee is part of the pleasure of this thread and why I'm so keen for it to continue. For me, it's far more about debating and learning than voting.

guildford,
Yup, agree with all that; I will be very interested to revisit some of the original candidacies for more insight as to why they failed. Interesting to read in review but wil be much more interesting in debate.

The two HOF's with which I'm most familiar ar:
The World Golf HOF, in danger of becoming a popularity contest, and,
The Baseball HOF, which to me is what an HOF should be all about, revering the history of the game, the legacies of its historical stars, and is refreshingly up-to-date. A great sculpture in one of the gardens there of a Dodgers pitcher pitching down a 20-yard path to his catcher - can imagine a similar one for cricket. 22 yards long of course!

I also visied the old football hall of fame, off Oxford Street somewhere if I remember. Terrible!

(Yes, certainly don't think Ollie was HOF calibre, but he undeniably ticked some of the boxes regarded as important in others and, in some cases, with better stat's.)

hi everyone

just a quick post to say sorry I haven't been around recently, but been very busy. I've been reading the thread but not contributing, so apologies for that. Currently where I'm standing is this:

Rhodes - YES
Pollock - not utterly sure but leaning YES
Tate - not sure, leaning a bit NO
Ranji - tough one, his role as an innovator would normally have me voting YES, but the flaws may be too large.
Bakewell - NO (not quite sure where I ended up voting on Heyhoe-Flint, but recall it was borderline. Bakewell is IMO - and in Guildford's recollection - someway below that)

Thanks, Kwini.

To my shame, I don't think I've been to any 'real' sporting HoF. I really should go to the football one some time - I think it's somewhere up north these days. With apologies to Hoggy and others for more name dropping , my great uncle was a professional during the 1920s and early '30s. He was only a journeyman footballer and so would be a long way off being featured but some he played with and against would undoubtedly be there. It would be interesting to find out more about them - I remember some of what he told me but you never realise the need to listen properly until it's too late.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Bakewell - NO (not quite sure where I ended up voting on Heyhoe-Flint, but recall it was borderline. Bakewell is IMO - and in Guildford's recollection - someway below that)

That's certainly the case as regards who was the face and voice of women's cricket in England during the 1970s. It was always Heyhoe-Flint. I'm sure the likes of Kwini and the Corporal would agree.

I can't truly say who was the better player. Heyhoe-Flint is about the only one from that era whom I remember. I don't recall Bakewell which says enough for me.

I certainly remember Bakewell, but was still surprised to read of her apparent "eminence" when her election to the ICC HOF was brought up.

Completely agree w/guildford, RHF certainly the face of the women's game, and quite a lot more, too. Truly a sporting icon of a certain period, a sports personality rather than just cricket.

Much disparity in the voting so far . . . . . . .

Following my YES vote for Rhodes yesterday, time now fow for the rest.

Bakewell As I probably conveyed, I just couldn't work up any excitement for this candidate. Nowhere near Clark and still lagging behind Heyhoe-Flint, neither of whom reached the HoF after initial votes. Disappointingly, her ICC case seemed to be built on political correctness rather than career or subsequent achievements. A very clear and loud NO.

Pollock Like others, I had previously underestimated this candidate's contribution to international cricket. I suspect history will judge him better. A very fine and reliable bowler who formed a near outstanding partnership with Donald. Whilst 'reliable' doesn't set the pulses racing, we should not ignore his continued effectiveness. His batting was also a valuable bridge between the middle order and tail. A worthy entrant to the HoF although, as I acknowledged earlier, he's some way off the top table. YES.

Ranji An innovative and hugely talented batsman with a record for a time to match. Unfortunately, too many doubts and concerns for me; not least that his time wasn't long enough and that was largely of his own making. Connected with this, there seems an ongoing lack of regard and respect for team mates and spectators - that grates. It has also been suggested that quite how innovative Ranji was may have been overegged and over romanticised in looking back at his era; like so much about Ranji, I just don't know.

I realise I may have seemed harsh on Ranji in bringing unproven suspicions to the table. In my defence, I knew vaguely of those suspicions and believed that is where they belonged. I would emphasise that rather than genuine suspicions having to be proven, it is the candidate's claims that need to be proven for admittance to the HoF. For me, they haven't been - not fully, anyway. NO.

Tate to follow.

Time for:

Tate Found this one difficult. Lovely quirky story of how he switched to fast-medium bowling and re-invented his career. Outstanding county career. Plenty of runs, tons of wickets and never a no ball. Fantastic start to his Test career - a wicket with his first ball as he helped blitz South Africa. A record breaking 38 wickets in a Test series down under. Unfortunately England were still well beaten in that series and Tate's subsequent Test career never sufficiently matched up. That causes doubts. However, after reading glowing testimonies from Bradman, Hobbs and Arlott, I'm more re-assured. Add to that, he certainly belongs in the distinguished company of Barnes and Bedser even if as the junior member. All that does enough to get him in the HoF but only just. YES.

To confirm my votes.

Pollock a clear YES, as per earlier posts
Tate - YES, (although agree with various other posters that he is close to the borderline)
Bakewell - NO. With some reluctance as she does have some fine achievements to her credit. Discussion has prompted the thought as to whether we should at some point have opportunity to resurrect any candidates previously rejected. I have a feeling that Rachel HF might do better on a re run of the voting on her (maybe if Shelsey were able to identify any technical irregularities with the voting.... ) As has been pointed out, for years she was THE face/voice of women's cricket. And not just on account of a memorable name!
For the last two candidates my reasons are perhaps subjective, but that's what this is all about.
Ranji - YES; for me he just squeezes in on account of his innovation in stroke play - especially the leg glance and the late cut!
Rhodes - NO. The debate on him has been excellent and I have learned a lot. But rather subjectively HoF entry just doesn't feel quite right to me. I know its not entirely fair, but some of his achievement feels more akin to those who invented the slip cradle, or a new fitness or dietary regime. The arguments put by Alfie earlier today also I think express my reservations. Rational or otherwise I have decided to weight Ranji's innovation above that of Rhodes.

Time to vote then methinks:

Enid Bakewell: I voted yes for both Belinda Clark and Rachel Heyhoe-Flint, but I don't think Bakewell quite measures up, either on or off the pitch.
No

Shaun Pollock: A record of outstanding, consistent achievement in both tests and ODIs
Yes

K.S. Ranjitsinjhi: The most difficult drcision of the week for me. Ranji is one of those mythical names in cricket, up there with Grace and Hobbs and Rhodes and Trumper. But do his achievements really measure up to that exalted company? Certainly his FC achievements do, but at test level there is the nagging question of the brevity of his career and the idea that this was mostly his own doing. Interestingly, perhaps, of those batsmen who scored 500+ runs during the period of Ranji's test career, Clem Hill averaged more. For me, in the end, despite his stature as an innovator the questions were just too much. And so, like the selectors of the ICC HoF, I've decided to decline Ranji as a member. This is a decision I would probably never have envisioned coming to a couple of weeks ago, but one which underlines the veracity of this process.
No

Maurice Tate: The greatest pace bowler of the inter-war years, and one of the greatest medium/fast-medium bowlers of all-time. A man who carried the England attack virtually on his own for a number of years. Described by Ponsford and Bradman as the finest bowler of his type they ever faced and by Bert Oldfield as the finest bowler of any type that he faced. Also a useful, hard hitting lower order batsman, and a genial, friendly fellow who made friends wherever he went.
Yes

Jonty Rhodes: I remember arguing that one of the claims to membership of our HoF that Learie Constantine had was his unarguable claim to be the greatest fielder of his generation. Whether Rhodes was as far ahead of his peers as Constantine was is unclear, but there can be no doubt that Rhodes was on the cutting edge of the development of fielding as one of the main facets of cricket, and that is something that cannot be claimed even for Constantine.
Whether Rhodes was alone in that is, again, somewhat questionable, at least for me, but there is little doubt that Rhodes was, at the very least, among the foremost leaders of that development. For me that is enough.
Yes

Guys can I just share a brief concern I have about Pollock's candidacy?

I think this round of candidates have been one of the most interesting we've had to debate so far. Not because they've been particularly strong, but because (perhaps with the exception of Bakewell) they've all been incredibly borderline (I wouldn't go as far as calling them "weak", but in relative terms to some of the earlier rounds...).

As such, it seems now likely that in spite of earlier concerns, Pollock is going to get in (almost?) unanimously, purely based on his excellent record. The thing is, I think we have as a group looked at his record not only in itself, but to some extent compared it to all the other candidates this round. And happily found that as opposed to all those other candidates it stands up on its own. Which of course it does, it is an excellent record, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Pollock isn't the best cricketer of this current bunch.

So why the concern? Well, the thing is in the past we have refused candidates like Neil Harvey and Rohan Kanhai who have similarly excellent records. And my concern is we did this because the candidates we were debating at the same time all had similarly excellent records if not better, and other factors as well.

I think for natural reasons, we are all worried about giving too many YES (5?) votes, but in particular too many NO (3?) votes in any given round, and so to some extent vote accordingly.

On the whole I am leaning YES for Pollock, but like Guildford he would be somewhere at the bottom of the HoF. Certainly as a cricketer I am not sure I would place him above either Harvey or Kanhai.

I hope this all makes sense. I'm not sure what the solution is, except for each and every one of us to make sure we are voting honestly against our criteria, and that if no one deserves entry then 5 NO votes are not only permissible, they are necessary.

He's also ginger.

On a serious note - I seem to recall some people getting in on the strength of their records and ability and also that they were part of a partnership - could that not count in his favour. To me at least it was always Donald and Pollock (with a healthy dose of Kallis thrown in). They really were an incisive and difficult pair to play against. Donald all out aggression and fire and bombast and Pollocks probing difficult line that stifled batsman and subtle variations. I think each would have suffered without the other.