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."

Mike Selig wrote: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.

That's fair enough Mike.
I think Guildford would agree with me when I say that our voting shouldn't be influenced by whether a candidate with a similar record did or did not get inducted, but rather, should depend solely on our own, individual, criteria.

ShahenshahG wrote: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.

Very good point.
Are Pollock and Donald up there with Trueman and Statham, Miller and Lindwall, Lillee and Thompson, Hall and Griffiths, Heine and Adcock, Ambrose and Walsh as one of the great fast bowling double acts?
Hasn't really been discussed much, as far as I remember.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote: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.

Very good point.
Are Pollock and Donald up there with Trueman and Statham, Miller and Lindwall, Lillee and Thompson, Hall and Griffiths, Heine and Adcock, Ambrose and Walsh as one of the great fast bowling double acts?
Hasn't really been discussed much, as far as I remember.

Pollock's bowling with Donald did come up although not as much as might have been expected. I was influenced by and did refer to his ''near outstanding partnership with Donald'' when voting YES.

We - if not all, certainly the vast majority including Mike - are agreed that Pollock has a rightful place in the HoF. That though is getting away from the main point that Mike was making. I'll respond to Mike's post separately.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/535666.html

In performance at least they really are up there. I'd like to have known the spread of their wickets - how many against the weaker teams of the period or how many tail enders. But I get the feeling a large majority of their wickets are good batsmen. What they left behind Kallis and co cleaned up usually.

Shahenshah - if you can (I seem to recall you didn't always have computer access in the past), it would be good to have you as a regular on this thread.

Gentlemen, Pollock and Donald played in 47 tests as a partnership.

During this time they took a total of 397 wickets

Donald took 208 wickets conceding 4580 runs at an average of 22.02 runs per wicket
Pollock too 189 wickets conceding 4093 runs at an average of 21.65 runs per wicket.

If there are any other information you need to the effectiveness of Pollock, please let me know.

I'll try, boxing is my first love but I remember a time when my parents banned me from watching cricket because i'd scream and holler and wake up the neighbours. Although the net issues have been sorted I am limited by work which really varies from absolute dead to complete mayhem. I will however try to get my votes in as long as you don't mind me sometimes not explaining why I chose to vote a particular way as I may be in a busy period at work.

ShahenshahG wrote:I'll try, boxing is my first love but I remember a time when my parents banned me from watching cricket because i'd scream and holler and wake up the neighbours. Although the net issues have been sorted I am limited by work which really varies from absolute dead to complete mayhem. I will however try to get my votes in as long as you don't mind me sometimes not explaining why I chose to vote a particular way as I may be in a busy period at work.

I think it's fair to say we would much prefer explanations - even brief ones - but do understand that the realities of life and work don't always make that possible. It'll be good to have you on board.

Am I the only one on this thread who actually saw the 1960 South Africans with Adcock (Test average: 104 wickets at 21 runs apiece)?
Heine (apparently a very aggressive unit but not in the same class as Adcock or with a comparable record).
Also was at Southampton to see Hugh Tayfield snaffle 11 Hampshire wickets. Jackie McGlew in the runs that match too.

kwinigolfer wrote:Am I the only one on this thread who actually saw the 1960 South Africans with Adcock (Test average: 104 wickets at 21 runs apiece)?

Kwini - I fear the answer to that is ''Yes''.

Mind you, the Corporal was probably listening to Barrington's batting on TMS from his pram a year or two earlier.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Mike Selig wrote: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.

That's fair enough Mike.
I think Guildford would agree with me when I say that our voting shouldn't be influenced by whether a candidate with a similar record did or did not get inducted, but rather, should depend solely on our own, individual, criteria.

Yes, I agree with both Mike and Hoggy above.

I also believe Mike was right to voice his concern, one I've felt for a while.

For me, each vote should be given on its own merits and regardless of the other four that same time. As it so happened, I gave 5 Yes votes the time before (including George Lohmann who was originally in the batch) and was originally expecting to deliver 5 No votes this time. That 3 of those provisional No's changed to a Yes was due to the quality of the case mounted and some research which overturned certain of my initial and ill founded perceptions.

I like to think that last sentence above is key to any required solution. Whilst we must remain true unto ourselves, we must also be prepared to check details and listen to views which are contrary to our initial ones. Let me emphasise that generally I believe we do that extremely well (eg Hoggy's switch of vote from his early certainty re Ranji).

Where I feel we have specifically stumbled - and I accept this may just be my own prejudice coming through although Mike's examples tend to provide some support - is in considering players of the 1960s and 1970s. Players like Harvey, Kanhai and, I would add, Greenidge were regarded as world greats in their own era and just as much, if not more, than those in the top echelon today. That should not guarantee them entry to the HoF. However, it does suggest that a higher benchmark is set for those from that era than others from the modern age (eg Pollock) or even earlier times (eg McCabe and before him, Hill).

I would stress that I have no problem with Pollock, McCabe and Hill being in the HoF - I voted Yes for all. However, I do find it strange that in my opinion a stronger candidate (to all three) like Kanhai misses out. (Worth mentioning that Grandad Fists - who shouldn't be regarded as making occasional appearances on this thread, via his grandson, just for comic effect - watched Kanhai regularly and testified for him.) I wouldn't guarantee our successors in years to come will definitely assert in respect of a player like Kanhai that we got it wrong. However, I would expect them to ask - did we really check and listen (including to Grandad Fists) enough?

guildfordbat wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Am I the only one on this thread who actually saw the 1960 South Africans with Adcock (Test average: 104 wickets at 21 runs apiece)?

Kwini - I fear the answer to that is ''Yes''.

Mind you, the Corporal was probably listening to Barrington's batting on TMS from his pram a year or two earlier.

But I did "see" on the radio the 1965 England v South Africa series. Among the notable features of the series was the superb fielding of Colin Bland....

You've only got to look at the endless debates about education standards (whether GCSEs and A levels are getting easier) for another example of how difficult it is to achieve consistency of standards.

I expect if someone with time on their hands were to reconstruct the way people have voted on this thread a number of us, me included, might well want to adjust one or two of our votes.

But one vote I wouldn't adjust is Kanhai. I voted for him then and I would do so again. Might be interesting to see whether Andy Roberst would still get in....

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
... Might be interesting to see whether Andy Roberst would still get in....

Corporal - I realise your final comment is on a par with bowling an apple the first ball of a tour match (do the younger contingent still do that? ) but will still try and play it with a straight bat.

By all means, remove Anderson Roberts. However, if you do - it should leave others sweating on their place and not many future fast bowling nominees confident of a YES vote, whch was very much Mike's point ....

Well, its nigh on impossible to reach a situation of total consistency in voting, and it is of course likely that you may look back on earlier decisions and question your judgement. But what matters is that we all make what we think to be the best decision at the time, and that as a collective we usually reach the correct decision.

Of course, factors such as who votes in a particular weak may effect some candidates - for example, I suspect Heyhoe-Flint may have done better had she been voted for by the exact same people who got Belinda Clark to the repecharge stage. But these anomalies exist in all forms of democracy and, as I say, the most important thing is that we vote in a way that we believe to be correct at the time.

Where I disagree with guildford is that I can't detect us being particularly harsher on '60s and '70s cricketers. I think I'm right in saying that Kanhai, Harvey and Greenidge - two I voted marginally no for and one I vote yes for - will all be back up for discussion shortly. However, I think that placing them in that middle category was right at the time. The rejection of some others from that era and also from the '80s (Cowdrey, Graveney, Boycott, the Chappells, Gooch) probably reflects a feeling that the era was over-represented by the ICC (perhaps as a result of a number of those on the panel being from that era or growing up watching that era). In fact, if there is an area where we are harsh it tends to be the modern guys - we pretty much unanimously agree that Pollock was 'unexciting': with an earlier cricketer where we are relying more on the evidence of others, he may have been an even easier pick. There is a tendency that most pre-war cricketers have got in, but maybe that's just because those up for nomination have generally been the very best.

Time for my votes.

Pollock: YES.

I take Mike's point, but Pollock's record is remarkable in both forms of the game, maybe moreso in ODIs even. His great partnership with Donald is another plus in his favour, and I think the "unexciting" tag may come from tha latter part of his career where his pace dropped and he was less threatening (though still more than effective). I also think one of the reasons he excites us less is that he never played in a dominant team (SA have had some fine teams but were never the best in the world when Pollock played, always second or third). Like guildford I would have him at a lower end of a HoF but nonetheless a worthy member.

Rhodes: YES.

For what he brought to the game of cricket. Mike made the case, and a very convincing one, so I won't go through it again. To a degree he was "the right man at the right time" but that should in no way be held against him. If fielding is such an important part of today's game it's in no small part due to this person, hence his HoF worthiness.

Ranji: NO.

At the risk of being somewhat incoherent with the Rhodes view, as his role in bringing the leg side into play should have been enough. However for me there's simply too many areas of concern. The one Mike raises about his role in not promoting Indian cricket development, and maybe even hindering it through his actions (watch the French take over the world, at least v2, this would never be allowed to happen in the ICC, we'd get at most one vote between us if we were lucky ). The ones Guildford raise about his general character, perhaps less so. Lastly I count the shortness of his Test career against him, as it seems largely self-inflicted. Could have been a true great of the game, but for various reasons wasn't, and misses out.

Tate: NO.

At the risk of upsetting Hoggy who made a great case . I'm just not convinced by Tate, I hear all the arguments, but in the end his record just isn't that great. I get that it was a batsman's era, but so is the current one, and Steyn (the only bowler from the current era who's played a decent amount I'd consider for HoF) is averaging low-20s still. Also pointed out that his debut series aside he struggled against Australia. For me, just a level short of HoF standard.

Bakewell: NO.

While we may have been harsh on Bakewell, I explained that I was borderline on Heyhoe-Flint, and Bakewell was some level below that IMO (and of course in the recollections of those members on here who were around at the time, which counts for a lot with me). I'd say she's suffered from not having either Mike or myself (the main advocates for Clark IIRC) defending her corner, and lack of "air-time". The fact remains that her record against Australia is OK but nothing special, and that she's done nothing noteworthy since retirement. Just doesn't do enough for me.

A tough bunch of candidates, and I'm still not sure I've got my votes right (Pollock and Ranji the two main uncertainties), but I'll stick with this.

On a side note, would like to see Claire Taylor considered for induction at some point.

MFC, if you want to make a case for Taylor you are more than welcome to. In a couple of weeks time we will start looking at repecharge candidates, but it would be nice to mix them them with a new one each week. Corporal has nominated Hendren for next week, you can have Taylor the week after

Time to finish of my votes:

Tate: YES. My concerns have been well addressed, many thanks to Hoggy in particular. I am convinced that his higher test average (compared to his first class record) is due in no small matter to pitches. MfC raises the modern game, but in the modern game the pitches used for first class games are similar to those used for tests (or certainly far more similar than what Tate had to contend with). It must have been very hard for a bowler to switch from bowling on seaming wickets to flat beds, and that Tate did so better than anyone else (the difference in average is less than all his contempories really) is surely a credit.

I also think his record suffers from a few matches played when past his best, due to the paucity of replacements available. In the same way that I don't think we should count Cowdrey's series against the West Indies when into his 40s against him, so is the case with Tate towards the (very) end of his test career.

Outstanding record when measured against his peers, and reportedly invented seam bowling. Praised greatly by contempories. Good enough for me.

Pollock: YES, my aired concerns notwithstanding. He is certainly excellent, and the little extra comes from a combination of his batting, his ODI record (which is remarkable) and the way he adapted to the changing game.

Whilst I don't think he has deserved the quasi-unanimity he has enjoyed on here (despite a lack of enthusiasm at the start of the debate!) he is a worthy addition to the HoF. For me though, he is as borderline as they can get. I voted NO to Statham and Walsh, who are probably the most similar candidates we've had, but Statham in particular was incredibly marginal - Pollock's extra attributes described above just give him an edge and push him over my imaginary line.

I remain concerned that we have denied other excellent candidates due to the relative quality of the others being debated at the same time, but we will have the opportunity to put this right.

So there you have it from me, 3 x yes and 2 x no.

A thoroughly interesting set of candidates as I said earlier, and some excellent debate. In particular on Tate (who I didn't know much about) and Ranji (who I had thought originally had ticked all the boxes).

Shelsey93 wrote:Well, its nigh on impossible to reach a situation of total consistency in voting, and it is of course likely that you may look back on earlier decisions and question your judgement. But what matters is that we all make what we think to be the best decision at the time, and that as a collective we usually reach the correct decision.

Of course, factors such as who votes in a particular weak may effect some candidates - for example, I suspect Heyhoe-Flint may have done better had she been voted for by the exact same people who got Belinda Clark to the repecharge stage. But these anomalies exist in all forms of democracy and, as I say, the most important thing is that we vote in a way that we believe to be correct at the time.

Where I disagree with guildford is that I can't detect us being particularly harsher on '60s and '70s cricketers. I think I'm right in saying that Kanhai, Harvey and Greenidge - two I voted marginally no for and one I vote yes for - will all be back up for discussion shortly. However, I think that placing them in that middle category was right at the time. The rejection of some others from that era and also from the '80s (Cowdrey, Graveney, Boycott, the Chappells, Gooch) probably reflects a feeling that the era was over-represented by the ICC (perhaps as a result of a number of those on the panel being from that era or growing up watching that era). In fact, if there is an area where we are harsh it tends to be the modern guys - we pretty much unanimously agree that Pollock was 'unexciting': with an earlier cricketer where we are relying more on the evidence of others, he may have been an even easier pick. There is a tendency that most pre-war cricketers have got in, but maybe that's just because those up for nomination have generally been the very best.

I did mean to emphasise that I wasn't suggesting any intentional bias against '60s and '70s cricketers. As I acknowledged before, the opposite might be the case with me being prejudiced in their favour. I just struggle to understand how the likes of Kanhai, Harvey and Greenidge who were regarded in their era as the epitome of cricketing entertainment and world greats scrape into a ''have another go, chum'' round whilst a modern player like Pollock - despite being labelled ''unexciting'' - sails through seemingly unanimously.

My beef is not with the vote on Pollock but with how some previous decisions stack up against it which, I think, is where Mike came in ....

I'd suggest that those you've mentioned all have something in common though - their records in themselves aren't enough to make them Hall of Fame-worthy. That's when you enter into a close debate. Whatever doubts we seemingly all had about Pollock, they've all ultimately been rendered of little relevance by how indisputably strong his record is.

I wouldn't be surprised if all three make it second time round (certainly, I'd expect to vote Yes for Greenidge this time and keep my Yes for Harvey).

It'll be interesting to see if second round opinions change and, if so, why.

Yes for all three from me. Next!

I don't think there's anything wrong with more recently retired players coming in for intense scrutiny; their exploits are fresh in the mind but true perspective on images up close can sometimes be difficult, even distorted.

In the absence of some set parameters which apply across the ages (3,000 hits, 300 wins for example) I wouldn't object to a frozen zone of, say 3 or 5 years after retirement, where players are not yet considered for the HOF.

Having said which, I'd say that Dravid and Pollock have been worthy inductees.

Just a final reminder that voting closes at tomorrow morning, 9am. So if you haven't voted yet you know what to do...

Shelsey
I realise that I'm being incredibly presumptuous and that I have no idea what you plan to take this thread forward, but talk of discussing 'repochage' candidates got me thinking that a number of people (myself included) put foreward multiple names for possible discussion which have not, so far, been discussed.
Now, I am concious of the need to limit our discussions to those who people genuinely believe have a decent case for inclusion in our HoF and so I would suggest that each poster put forward a maximum of three names, which could be added to the 'repochage' candidates as our next group for discussion.
As I say, this is merely a suggestion and one which is, at least partly, motivated by self-interest, so feel free to ignore it and initiate any plans you may have had in mind yourself.

Absolutely in agreement, Hoggy. The plan is to have 3 or 4 repecharge candidates (I haven't decided which yet) and 1 or 2 new ones in each round.

Hopefully this will ensure that we aren't only retracing old ground , whilst also meaning that we don't exhaust all new candidates.

The current list we are going through (which will be completed in the next set) was based mostly on those who were most strongly mentioned when we had our discussion after completing the ICC Hall of Famers.

My intention is that the new candidates will be specifically nominated by a poster - this will start with Patsy Hendren (nominated by corporalhumblebucket) who will be the fifth candidate alongside the last 4 from this list next week. So we are in need of candidates, and if you have any to nominate then they will certainly be considered!

Well, if I were to pick three names may I suggest:

Warwick Armstrong
Charlie Macartney
Athol Rowan

Is there any way the previous thread(s) debating the 606v2 HOF could somehow be more adjacent, thanks Richie, to this one and the original Hall Of Fame? The earlier debates are fascinating but it's a balls-aching task to keep on referring to them as far away on the site as they are. Sticky-ing would do it, or a separate HOF chapter on the Cricket board.

PS: I trust guildford will be nominating Larry Gomes.

Although I will give Andy Murtagh a miss, nomination of Roy Marshall is a great temptation.

kwinigolfer wrote:Is there any way the previous thread(s) debating the 606v2 HOF could somehow be more adjacent, thanks Richie, to this one and the original Hall Of Fame? The earlier debates are fascinating but it's a balls-aching task to keep on referring to them as far away on the site as they are. Sticky-ing would do it, or a separate HOF chapter on the Cricket board.

PS: I trust guildford will be nominating Larry Gomes.

Although I will give Andy Murtagh a miss, nomination of Roy Marshall is a great temptation.

If someone gives me a list of links I can move them into the "honours board" section.

We will need to set up a new thread in place of this one in the next week or 2, as once a thread goes past the 1000 post point it's in danger of being "auto-split" by the board software.


By the way, sorry for not participating this round, I just haven't had the time to give all the candidates the consideration they deserved.

OK. Voting closed and the results are in. A high turnout this week, although some seem to have decided to cop out on Ranji

Some interesting results.

Enid Bakewell 2 Yes, 10 No = 16.6%
Shaun Pollock 13 Yes, 0 No = 100%
KS Ranjitsinhji 4 Yes, 7 No = 36.36%
Jonty Rhodes 6 Yes, 7 No = 46.15%
Maurice Tate 10 Yes, 2 No = 83.33%

- Shaun Pollock and Maurice Tate are inducted to the Hall of Fame
- Enid Bakewell, KS Ranjitsinhji and Jonty Rhodes all miss out completely.

A fascinating debate, and one which has probably turned our expectations about Pollock and about Ranji on their head.

----

We now move on to the last set of candidates before we introduce repecharge candidates. They are:

Patsy Hendren (nominated by corporal)
Jeff Thomson
Fred Titmus
Bob Woolmer (nominated by Mike, I think)
Bob Willis

Another interesting set of candidates.
Patsy Hendren: Test average of 47, 57000 FC runs, 170 centuries
Jeff Thomson: Half of, perhaps, the most iconic fast bowling partnership of them all. The fastsest bowler ever?
Fred Titmus: Foock!n hell
Bob Woolmer: Innovative and inspirational coach at both FC and Test level
Bob Willis: The best English fast bowler since Trueman?

I nominated England and Middlesex off spinner Fred Titmus so happy to take that forward.

I'm essentially nominating him for his ''irrepressible spirit''. I'll try to explain and illustrate that further when I put up a full review and case in the next couple of days. Essentially Titmus served our game for a truly massive period of time and kept coming back for more whatever cropped up along the way - some of it fortunate, some of it quirky and one part horrifically dreadful. Although he would be unlikely to get in the HoF on his record alone, my research since first contemplating this this nomination has convinced me that he was more than a pretty useful cricketer.

Just a few snippets to be going on with:

* A county career lasting 33 years and embracing 5 decades.

* County Championship debut for Middlesex in 1949 at 16 alongside Horace Brearley (Mike's father).

* Final CC game for Middlesex in 1982 at 49 under the captaincy of Mike Brearley.

* He had appeared to have ''finally retired'' a couple of years before this last game but popped into the Middlesex changing room shortly before the start to wish his old colleagues well and ''cadge a cup of coffee''. A cartoon like bulb came on above Brearley's head who was well aware it was a spinner's wicket. Kit was quickly found for Titmus and off he went for a last hurrah. He let no one down.

* A Test career - although with several interruptions -which lasted twenty years.

* A quadruple Test match wicket maiden.

* When Boycott made his Test debut, Titmus opened the batting with him.

* Horrific injury on an overseas tour when he lost four toes in a boating accident (Forthcoming scoop - I'll be revealing who was driving the boat and why that never came out at the time! ) Rather than finishing his career as feared, he was playing again in six weeks - with the help of ballet lessons!

* Highly praised by the normally so critical Fred Trueman.

I'll try and pull this all properly together. I don't want to drown you in stats but it's only fair to the length of Titmus' career to highlight some aspects with comparisons. I also want to try and bring out a bit more the character and humour of the man.

My first impressions:

Hendren - On stats alone should be good enough, probably. But why isn't he usually spoken of in the same breath as even Woolley?

Thomson - When reference is made to fast bowling pairs Lillee and Thomson are perhaps the first that are turned to. England didn't like facing him, but was he consistent for long enough?

Titmus - Will need some convincing

Woolmer - I can't really say anything worthwhile until Mike tells us what he has specifically done for coaching

Willis - Another borderline candidate

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Another interesting set of candidates.
Fred Titmus: Foock!n hell

To be fair to this nominee and for the benefit of younger (and perhaps also older posters), I believe Hoggy is referring to a 1985 record by the band Half Man Half Biscuit which paid homage to Fred Titmus and is not expressing his own amazement at the nomination.

Will post on Patsy Hendren later....

kwinigolfer wrote:

PS: I trust guildford will be nominating Larry Gomes.

My stance on Larry Gomes has consistently been this:
Gomes was not a world great but he was an immensely valuable player to a team of world greats and that was perhaps more important.

If I were to pursue Gomes' nomination now, I would feel obliged to replace ''team of world greats'' with ''collection of repecharge candidates''. That to me is neither fitting nor right.

guildfordbat wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Another interesting set of candidates.
Fred Titmus: Foock!n hell

To be fair to this nominee and for the benefit of younger (and perhaps also older posters), I believe Hoggy is referring to a 1985 record by the band Half Man Half Biscuit which paid homage to Fred Titmus and is not expressing his own amazement at the nomination.

Yes indeed.
Didn't realise it was that long ago though. I'm feeling old now.
Must admit that this is, perhaps, the most marginal set of candidates we've had so far. Can't say that any of them induce an initial reaction of yes from me, although Big Bob would probably be the closest while f*ck!n hell it's Fred Titmus would probably be furthest away at this moment in time (sorry Guildford). Honestly though I'm quite undecided on all of them but, as always, I'm open to persuasion.

Blimey, Many of us will have seen plenty of four of these.

Patsy Hendren has an extraordinary record of run accumulation, 57,000 at 50.8 and 3,500 runs at 47.6 in Tests, certainly not as good vs the Aussies as vs South Africa and West Indies, but pretty good nonetheless. Am very surprised that Hendren has not made it to the ICC HOF.

I'll have a tough time with the credentials of the other four, huge fan of Freddie Titmus though I was. (Will the name of the lady he was with in the W.Indies - not his wife - also be revealed during the evidence for Freddie?)

Thoughts on previous round:

Pollock is a worthy addition, but as per previous post, feel that in the end (as with Davidson) the unanimous vote is slightly unearned.

Not surprised to see Bakewell miss out.

A bit disappointed that Rhodes misses out but understand the reasons people gave. Happy that his role in promoting modern fielding has been given air-time.

Surprised that Ranji misses out altogether - how things change, and perhaps his candidacy on its own justifies why the debating is so important: on the face of it it was the strongest one of the round, but it turned out to be not so.

Tate gets in, just (I think one more NO vote would have put him in the repechage).

Thoughts on this week's candidates:

Hendren's numbers look good, so why is he not more famous?

Thomson: longevity vs impact could come into play. He had the latter in spades, but the former? Oh, and what of character with this one?

Titmus: I knew of his horrific injury, and admire his resolve in coming back from that. However he strikes me as someone who was merely very good for a long time. What else is there?

Woolmer: the outstanding coach of recent times. Will expand more on this later when I have time.

Willis: for some reason I always thinks he gets a raw deal (always seems to play second fiddle to Truemann, Bedser, sometimes Larwood, even Statham and Tyson when discussing great English seam bowlers - Barnes of course as well, but that's merrited); even in his finest hour, he was overshadowed by another. Think statistically he has a strong enough case. Then again his commentary... can we hold that against him?

Elias Henry (Patsy) Hendren (1889 - 1962) was one of the greatest batsmen in the early decades of the twentieth century, as well as a fine all round sportsman who was good enough to play football for England in a Victory international in 1919 following WW1. We now have an opportunity for this forum in its small way to make good the absence of Hendren from the ICC's own HoF. I share Kwini's view that the omission of Hendren from that HoF is surprising. Hendren made his county debut for Middlesex in 1909 and retired from first class cricket in 1937. His test career lasted from 1920 - 1935. He broke through into the front ranks of cricket in 1919, so WWI probably served to delay his impact for several years.

Hendren was a short, stockily built player, known for the power of his driving and his cutting. Also for his courage in hooking fast bowlers.

The remarkable statistical records for Hendren themselves make a good starting point:

* he scored 170 first class centuries - second only to Jack Hobbs.
* His first class batting average was 50.80
* he hit 22 first class double centuries - a total surpassed only by Bradman and Hammond
* he scored 57,611 runs in first class cricket - in the list of all time run scorers he is only behind Hobbs and (narrowly) Woolley
* he played 51 tests, scoring 3525 runs at an average of 47.63; his highest score was 205* against WI at Port of Spain in 1930
* he was also a fine fielder, taking 725 catches in first class cricket. This places him within the top ten

In some ways it is not too difficult to position Hendren in the list of run scoring greats of his generation:

He sits below Hobbs in the pantheon of England batting greats, on account of the latter's more extensive test achievements. However, Hendren has a test batting record that is a great deal more extensive than that of both Woolley and Mead (the latter being the highly prolific Hampshire batsman); moreover, Hendren's first class batting average over a formidable total of 833 matches, at just over 50, is a remarkable 10 runs higher than that of Woolley. In fact his first class average is actually higher slightly than that of Hobbs.

If we are looking for defining moments there is an assortment to choose from:

* In the first test of the 1928/9 tour of Australia England were 161 - 4 when Hendren came in - a poor position for a Test with no time limit. He made a chanceless 169 off 314 balls. England went on to win the test by 614 runs (the Aussies were caught twice on a Brisbane sticky wicket) and went on to win the series 4 -1. His innings was pivotal to the match and probably the whole series.

* In the 1930 tour of the West Indies, he scored a local record 1,765 runs at 135.76, including a superb 205* in the Second Test , with 29 fours coming in 353 minutes.

* At Old Trafford in 1934, with the series standing at 1/1, he came in at 72/3 after the great leg spinner Bill O'Reilly had taken three wickets in four balls. He was 30* when the Yorkshire left hander, O'Reilly's nemesis Maurice Leyland, joined him on 149/4. Together they put on 191 in 185 minutes before Patsy gave "The Tiger" a return catch. He had batted 243 minutes and hit 22 fours in a blemish free 132. Leyland made 153 and the match petered out into a high scoring draw, but what would have happened had Patsy failed? He was 45 years and 151 days old and remains, second again only to Hobbs, as England's oldest Ashes centurion.

As far as I am aware Hendren didn't invent any new strokes as a batsman; nonetheless, I note in passing that he was ahead of his times in at least one respect. Jointly with his wife he can claim to be the inventor (1933) of the cricket helmet - described as having three peaks and lined with sponge.

Again, as a bit of background interest, Hendren was also one of the most successful substitutes ever -- against Queensland in 1928/29, he took a brilliant catch in the slips, whereupon the opposition captain requested his removal from the slips. Relocated to cover point, Hendren effected a run out. Moved again, this time to mid-off, he took another catch. The objections ceased. Thus any poster who has a subversive wish to nominate Gary Pratt for discussion on account of his defining moment could perhaps content themselves with helping to give recognition to Hendren

Character: Hendren was pretty much universally popular as a cricketer. As the Wisden obit says: "Apart from his achievements, "Patsy" was a "character" of a type sadly lacking in modern cricket. No game in which he was engaged could be altogether dull. If it looked like becoming so, Hendren could be relied upon at one time or another to produce some antic which would bring an appreciative chuckle from the onlookers. Furthermore, he was a first-rate mimic and wit, qualities which made him an admirable member of teams on tours, of which he took part in six." Jack Hobbs commented about his character in similar vein in his assessment: "Patsy was a great cricketer and great companion. He was the life and soul of the party on all our tours. In my opinion he was as good a player as anyone. He had beautiful strokes and he did get on with the game. I do not know of any bowlers who could keep him quiet on a good pitch and he was not so bad on the stickies."

In summary, Hendren should be recognised as an outstanding and prolific player in the early part of the 20th century, at a time when the first class game beyond test cricket had far more importance than, sadly, is currently the case. I make no claims that he is entirely on a par with Jack Hobbs. But his record is truly immense. I would also make a particular plea to those who dismissed the claims of Frank Woolley, also a giant of this period, to make the comparisons: Hendren's batting average in both test match and first class cricket was 10 runs higher. This represents a massive difference when we are looking at such lengthy and prolific careers.

Corporal

Must admit that the more I think about the more I'm inclined to give an initial yes to Willis. 300+ wickets at a shade over 25 (and his average was under 25 until Michael Holding smashed him for runs in his last test), all achieved despite terrible problems with his knees which meant that he often bowled in pain and had to run 5 miles a day at one point just to keep himself fit enough to bowl.
It's this determination that I think gives him a little edge. Len Hutton wrote of him that "Willis has emerged from dark passages of injury and non-success with his spirit and resolve fiercer than ever, which speaks volumes for his character. He must have unusual depths of willpower and is entitled to much credit and respect; he has become the symbol of the player who triumphs over adversity." While Wisden noted that "His indomitable service to England is handsomely reflected in his great collection of Test wickets. Although often beset with aches and pains, he never spared himself when bowling for his country."
Given his injury problems it's quite remarkable that he had as long and successful a career as he did, and it should be noted that after major surgery on his knees in 1975 he played 74 tests, taking 278 wickets at 23.99. Before that operation, he'd managed just 16 tests and 47 wickets at 32 in 4 years.

Corporal - that is an outstanding case.

It hardly seems you need to play the ''Elias'' card.

Any thoughts as to why someone with such a tremendously impressive record is poorly served (in comparison to others) by cricket history and totally ignored by the ICC?

Further to the corporal's excellent comments on Hendren, John Arlott describes him as "one of the most prolific run scorers, and one of the friendliest, most humorous and companiable of cricketers of his time", who, as a batsman was "Stocky, strong and quick on his feet to attack spin bowling, he was also a master against high pace; in fact argably the finest hooker England has produced."

Thanks all for the feedback re Hendren. (If memory serves, was it not Guildford who invented the "Elias" technique!?)

I'm not sure why the ICC haven't recognised him. I do have some recollection from the Middle Ages (ie my teens/twenties) that the name of Hendren was a familiar one then. He would often be mentioned alongside Hobbs, Hutton, Compton et al in any discussion about England batting heroes....

Perhaps Hendren has suffered on account of lack of notoriety... He seems to have been a thoroughly good bloke!

to introduce a bit of negativity on Hendren (sorry, but we know it has to be done) I've analysed his test career in a bit more detail and they're a couple of points that need making:

1) His overall average is 47, but this slips to a touch under 40 against the stronger Australians. Still good, but undoubtedly less impressive.

2) Hendren played his Test cricket at the same time as one recent HoF inductee Maurice Tate. Now an argument about why Tate's record was more impressive than it looked is that the pitches at that time were generally much flatter for test matches. I haven't done the comparisons, but how does Hendren's record compare to other batsmen at the time?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Thanks all for the feedback re Hendren. (If memory serves, was it not Guildford who invented the "Elias" technique!?)

Corporal - it was actually Fists who invented this technique with his highly original paper on ''Lancelot'' Gibbs. Sadly - perhaps like Hendren - history has not been kind to Fists and his ground breaking role is too often overlooked. I adopted - some might say, stole - this technique when presenting a paper on ''Cuthbert'' Greenidge and it has gone on to form the opening of several celebrated reports, of which yours is the latest.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to introduce a bit of negativity on Hendren (sorry, but we know it has to be done) I've analysed his test career in a bit more detail and they're a couple of points that need making:

1) His overall average is 47, but this slips to a touch under 40 against the stronger Australians. Still good, but undoubtedly less impressive.

2) Hendren played his Test cricket at the same time as one recent HoF inductee Maurice Tate. Now an argument about why Tate's record was more impressive than it looked is that the pitches at that time were generally much flatter for test matches. I haven't done the comparisons, but how does Hendren's record compare to other batsmen at the time?

Corporal - you don't yet need to introduce Hendren being a Coventry City footballer (my boyhood team) to keep me onside but I do think Mad raises two important points.

I'm surprised you haven't noted ROBERT George DYLAN Willis.
So named in a most prescient anticipation of Robert Allen Zimmerman, the bard of Hibbing.

Guildford - thanks for that correction. And, accordingly, apologies to Fists should he have time to read all the posts made while he is away. I think it would be also be fitting to revert to the term "Lancelot" technique!

Mad for Chelsea - you are right that Hendren played his test cricket during an era when there was a fair scattering of players with strong averages - high 40s and above. In that respect, as I have acknowledged, he is a rung on the ladder below the likes of Hobbs and Hammond in terms of his positioning specifically re test cricket. I would regard Hendren's test record as excellent but not of itself sufficient to get into HoF. The overall package is the point - his astonishing record over the first class game as a whole....

guildfordbat wrote:
Corporal - you don't yet need to introduce Hendren being a Coventry City footballer (my boyhood team) to keep me onside .....

Not to mention QPR, Man City, and of course Brentford!