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."

guildfordbat wrote:

A few thoughts on the others, particularly from their playing days:

* Thomson: I've always adhered to the view that a good team needs piano shifters as well as piano players. Whilst that relates principally to football, it can also be applied to cricket. The guy prepared to roll up his sleeves and scrap it out can be well worth his place even if he doesn't have the style of team mates. If that can be applied as well to cricket partnerships, there's no doubt that Lillee was the stylish and talented natural player. Thomson, by contrast, was not only prepared to fight it out but disappointed if a punch up didn't come his way. He spoke of wanting to see ''a batsman's blood''. Whether he took things too far is one of the aspects that will need to be considered - I find it difficult to envisage anyone who objected to Larwood on ''moralistic'' grounds being able to vote YES to Thomson. For me, Thomson took it further than Larwood and the other Bodyline bowlers; their desire was to intimidate, Thomson's was to hit (I consider there's a difference although accept some may not see it that way). As well as being a less elegant bowler than Lillee, my memory (which could be wrong) is that he was less effective. Certainly, I believe Thomson's star shone less long. I also saw a Cricinfo article article recently which showed his record in ODIs was pretty ordinary; I'll see if I can dig that out. I don't rule Thomson out and have less morals than many here when it comes to bowling fast at batsmen; however, I will need to be re-assured and that's not just his record.

This is what I posted yesterday in respected of Thomson.

It has been posted today that I was saying people who declined Larwood on ''moralistic'' grounds should not vote YES to Thomson. That overstates the case. My point was that such posters need to be satisfied that there is a difference in Thomson's favour. I can't find such a difference (nor can I envisage doing so) but if others can, then fine.

Clearly, those who voted YES to Larwood might still want to turn down Thomson on ''moralistic'' grounds if they believe he oversteps that line and/or some of the more usual cricketing reasons. Currently I need to satisfy myself as regards all his criteria ....

kwinigolfer wrote:Shelsey,
... to suggest that Tommo's "use of intimidatory bowling" was not the key factor to his success, against England in particular, is just plain incorrect.

Kwini - exceedingly kind and diplomatic post.

Thanks for clearing that up guildford. I should really have searched around for your actual post rather than roughly paraphrase...

Anyhow, I still personally see a slight (and not complete) difference.

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then... the same applies to Larwood - just that his whole case is built on 'Bodyline' and I just can't accept that Bodyline itself was morally right. Thomson's whole case is not built on hitting people... I'm not saying that short pitched and fast bowling is wrong... that would just be stupid, but there is a line which Larwood over-steepped: a line which was accepted as having been over-stepped by the MCC, who promptly changed the laws.

Anyway, I don't want to get back into the Bodyline debate right now save to say that I don't see the issue of 'intimidation' as having quite the same relevance to Thomson as to Larwood.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Well I only really remember Snow towards the end of his career, so maybe some of the old-timers could give us a better idea of their relative merits. All I would say is that Willis has, possibly, the superior statistical record and, for me at least, the fact that he overcame and coped with injury throughout his career in order to achieve those figures would probably give him the edge in this process.

Have to confess a bias in favour of Snow, mainly as he was England's leading fast bowler when I was first getting into the game. I haven't checked any stats but think of him having a shorter time at the top than Willis. At his best (or worst), Snow was certainly intimidating. Whereas Willis never completely lost the look of the grammar school boy he had been, I always felt there was a devil inside Snow trying to get out. Never better seen than when he shoulder charged Sunny Gavaskar in'71 and had a right spat with umpire David Constant which (IIRC) led to a suspension.

Something else - possibly worth checking in respect of Willis. This may be looking back to Snow's days with rose tinted specs but I think of him too often bowling at higher calibre batsmen than Willis. Certainly some of the Aussie batsmen during Willis' time in the '80s compare poorly to those of a decade or more earlier when Snow was bowling.

Question - when Willis was playing for England, were some opposition international batsmen missing from Tests due to World Series or rebel tours? Clearly that would help Willis' stats if the case. Apologies if that's a false path. Genuinely unsure.

Btw, whilst Willis just read and listened to Dylan's works, Snow was a published poet in his own right.

"I always felt there was a devil inside Snow trying to get out."
Just what you'd expect from the son of a county vicar then.

Quite possible I played against Willis when he was at Guildford RGS, though doubt he remembers me . . . .

Certainly felt that Snow was the most intensely competitive of the immediate post Trueman era of England quicks - and he was pretty quick - more so than Willis.

But first impressions can be so misleading, back to the books.


PS: Shelsey, I tried to emphasise I didn't hold Tommo's reckless competitiveness against him - up to the umpires to keep him within the rules of the game. Just that part of his success was certainly that intimidation element. I really see that as a plus, and something any fast bowler would want to have. But then I voted for Larwood!

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

I think it is unfair to see a bowler in a negative light due to bodyline.

At the time they played within the rules.

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

Guildford
There probably were periods of Willis' career when players were missing due to WSC, but he did play from 1971-84 so that would only have been a short section of his career.
(Did you know, incidentally, that Snow participated in what might be termed a 'rebel' tour in 1973-4, touring SA with a D.H. Robins XI under Brian Close)
And, while you are probably correct to assert that the Aussie batting line-up of the late 1970s/early 1980s was inferior to those Snow faced, would it be not be arguable that the batting line-ups of certain teams (India, Pakistan, perhaps even West Indies) were superior during the late 70s early 80s than they had been during Snows career?

Biltong wrote:I think it is unfair to see a bowler in a negative light due to bodyline.

At the time they played within the rules.

Biltong - where were you six months ago?

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Guildford
There probably were periods of Willis' career when players were missing due to WSC, but he did play from 1971-84 so that would only have been a short section of his career.
(Did you know, incidentally, that Snow participated in what might be termed a 'rebel' tour in 1973-4, touring SA with a D.H. Robins XI under Brian Close)
And, while you are probably correct to assert that the Aussie batting line-up of the late 1970s/early 1980s was inferior to those Snow faced, would it be not be arguable that the batting line-ups of certain teams (India, Pakistan, perhaps even West Indies) were superior during the late 70s early 80s than they had been during Snows career?

Hoggy - I believe both Snow and Willis played in Derrick Robins' rebel tours. Robins was a fascinating character [hope the Corporal reads this - he'll lap it up! ]. He (Robins, not the Corporal) played a couple of first class matches for Warks in 1947 in which he did very little and then dropped out of the game to concentrate on a hugely successful business career - a true self made man who started out with nothing more than a cement mixer and ended up a multi millionaire with fingers in many pies. He always maintained a strong interest in sport and became Chairman of Coventry City FC (my boyhood team) - his business acumen and Jimmy Hill's football management guided us from the old Fourth Division to Division One (now the Premier League).

He returned to cricket in the late '60s with the formation of his own XI and sometimes played in that team himself alongside a range of Test and county players, often against Test sides touring England. Bizarrely, and for reasons I make no claim to understand, some of these matches were accorded first class status. His third first class match thus came in 1969, following a break of twenty-two years. His fifth and final fc match came in 1971 when he was fifty-seven, the oldest person to play fc cricket since WWII.

Back to Willis. I take your point about the swings and roundabouts of batting line-ups during the different eras of Snow and Willis. I was falling into the common mistake of thinking that only matches against Australia count.

guildfordbat wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think it is unfair to see a bowler in a negative light due to bodyline.

At the time they played within the rules.

Biltong - where were you six months ago?

Ah, you know me, mingling.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

I was more than half expecting that ... but, not from you, Mad, not from you ....

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

I was more than half expecting that ... but, not from you, Mad, not from you ....

For what it's worth, I don't blame TREVOR Chappell for bowling underarm

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

I was more than half expecting that ... but, not from you, Mad, not from you ....

For what it's worth, I don't blame TREVOR Chappell for bowling underarm

Biltong - fully understood and agreed. You're not as daft as you look!

guildfordbat wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

I was more than half expecting that ... but, not from you, Mad, not from you ....

For what it's worth, I don't blame TREVOR Chappell for bowling underarm

Biltong - fully understood and agreed. You're not as daft as you look!

Who're you calling Biltong

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

I was more than half expecting that ... but, not from you, Mad, not from you ....

For what it's worth, I don't blame TREVOR Chappell for bowling underarm

Biltong - fully understood and agreed. You're not as daft as you look!

Who're you calling Biltong

dummy_half wrote:Shelsey
At the start of Thomson's career, the protection for batsmen hadn't moved on an awful lot from that used in the 30s - pads and gloves were better quality (although even now batting gloves don't offer great protection if the ball jams your hand into the bat handle) and I think thigh pads had come in. Helmets, ribs and arm guards weren't available until the later 70s, in part because of WSC and batsmen having to cope with the Windies quicks on sometimes quite poor batting tracks....

Sadly so! We come a full circle with this round of HoF nominees. What a pity that the prophetic action of Hendren in prototyping the first batting helmet back in the 1930s was not picked up by the less far sighted cricketing world....

Was Hendren prototyping the batting helmet anything to do with him having been stretched off unconscious after receiving a viscious delivery from Larwood! Certainly, it might explain why his wife was so keen!

Anyway. What does CMJ make of this week's candidates? The answer is not a lot!

Whilst Woolmer wouldn't be expected to find a place in 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time', none of the others get past the omissions either! Bob Willis and Jeff Thomson find themselves in the same sentence as Mitchell Johnson and Ishant Sharma ( ) of 'devastating fast bowlers' who weren't quite good enough. Meanwhile, Patsy Hendren finds his name in a list of twelve batsmen who made 100+ 100s but weren't in the list. And Titmus isn't even in the omissions list.

Shelsey93 wrote:Was Hendren prototyping the batting helmet anything to do with him having been stretched off unconscious after receiving a viscious delivery from Larwood! Certainly, it might explain why his wife was so keen!

That might well explain why the Hendren household was united in wishing to see Patsy's headwear incorporating a fair quantity of sponge...

Shelsey93 wrote:

Anyway. What does CMJ make of this week's candidates? The answer is not a lot!

Whilst Woolmer wouldn't be expected to find a place in 'The Top 100 Cricketers of All Time', none of the others get past the omissions either! Bob Willis and Jeff Thomson find themselves in the same sentence as Mitchell Johnson and Ishant Sharma ( ) of 'devastating fast bowlers' who weren't quite good enough. Meanwhile, Patsy Hendren finds his name in a list of twelve batsmen who made 100+ 100s but weren't in the list. And Titmus isn't even in the omissions list.

But as you emphasised last week, Shelsey, we are not seeking to list the 100 Greatest Cricketers of All Time. Our animal is quite different ... or, at least, should be.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

My concern is that if we start to see Thomson's fast bowling as morally wrong, then the same could be applied to just about every fast bowler since then...

I guess it depends where you draw the line, if at all. I'm generally old school on this and with Kwini - if it's (or was) in the rules, it's fine. I only think of it as a possible issue for Thomson in view of all the fuss made over Larwood.

Trevor Chappell?

(being deliberately disingenuous and mis-interpreting your point of course )

I was more than half expecting that ... but, not from you, Mad, not from you ....

ah but the other guy's busy dealing with all sorts of nonsense at the mo, and I just felt someone had to do it

Dropping in very quickly.

I am grateful to MfC for filling in for me in bringing up Trevor Chappell. However Pete's (not Biltong's ) point is reasonable.

There are quite a few similarities between Larwood and Thomson actually: both have on the face of it not special overall records, both were virtually unplayable in their pomp, and for both their pomp lasted maybe 2/3ds of their test career. And yes I will count Thomson's attempts to hit batsmen (not merely intimidate) against him.

There are a few differences of course: Larwood had that outstanding first class career which suggested that had he not been made a scapegoat he may have had a long and prosperous career; Larwood's impact was reducing someone like Bradman to merely excellent, whereas Thomson's was to some extent introducing helmets and real protective equipment; I also think there are some differences in the intimidatory tactics, which I'll expand on more later.

As I said, Thomson provides an interesting contrast to someone like Pollock (or earlier on Gibbs).

Some interesting debate on Hendren to be had: a wonderful opening salvo from the Corporal, and fine counter-points made by MfC. In particular it seems that on first class record terms Hendren is second only to Hobbs; his test record is a concern, but not to the same extent as Woolley's or others I would have thought. So the question is, is his extroardinary first class record (but not unmatched) worth entry to the HoF?

I think statistically Willis has a strong case, but a lot of the concerns raised mirror my own: why is he not held in higher regard than he is? His stats suggest he should be, so there must be something there...

I await guildford's case for Titmus before making further pronouncements.

Sorry for the wee diversion onto the underarm match, just thought I'd share this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UscXRYKz4

T. Chappell and McKechnie were happy enough to do that ad together 20 years on. Similarly Larwood eventually retired to Australia, and got on pretty well with the locals by all accounts

The Aussies realised he was just obeying orders. I doubt Jardine would have received a warm welcome

btw

Has Jardine been nominated yet?

Mike

I wonder if Willis's reputation simply suffered because:
1 - His career largely coincided with the much more charismatic Botham (certainly in my mind they are contemporaries, as both were in the England team when I first started paying attention to cricket around the start of the 80s)
2 - At the same time as Bob was charging in with his (shall we say) idiosyncratic run-up and action, there were several other fast bowlers who were more aesthetic (Holding, Roberts) and played for the dominant team of the era (West Indies).

In Willis's defence, Botham described him as the 'one world class fast bowler I played with for England'.

I think his career numbers viewed in isolation put him close to the borderline for HoF inclusion - oddly though, his career does rather the opposite of Thomson's, in that it improved markedly after his injury problems around 1975. Up to then, he'd taken 47 wickets at 32 (1 x 5 for in 16 matches), but after the injury he took 278 wickets at 24 (15 x 5 for's in 74 matches, so essentially 1 every 5 games), which is clearly well within the HoF range.

The one real oddity in his record is that he never took 10 wickets in a Test match

While he is not now considered to have been a great captain of England, his personal performances while captain were as effective as he ever was, even though well in to his 30s. Also, his WIkipedia biog makes an interesting comment that he was disappointed with the attitude of some of his team mates who seemed to accept failure too easily, which is clearly a highly commendable characteristic in any player and particularly understandable in a fast bowler who made what talent he had go a very long way.

Mike Selig wrote:

I think statistically Willis has a strong case, but a lot of the concerns raised mirror my own: why is he not held in higher regard than he is? His stats suggest he should be, so there must be something there...

I think that has a lot to do with the fact that, for much of his England career, he shared the new-ball with one I.T. Botham, a man who was often a headline writers dream.
Again, as in the case of Trueman and Statham, perhaps the 'larger' character often stole the headlines? For example, here's a nice article with Willis talking about his performance at Headingly in '81 where Botham definitely and, perhaps a little unfairly, did just that.
:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/bob-willis-my-career-was-hanging-by-a-thread-thats-motivation-2315463.html

Stella

Nominating Jardine - you are a bad person...

Perhaps one day we should nominate a Hall of Shame, for players who are more well known for their controversy than for playing excellence. There would be quite some competition for captain: Jardine for Bodyline, Cronje for match fixing, Greg Chappell for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Plenty of fast bowlers who would be up for consideration - Larwood (although as I said up-thread, I have some sympathy for his 'obeying the captain's instructions' excuse), Thomson (for hs comments about liking to see the batsman's blood) and Patrick Patterson for being probably the nastiest of the Windies quicks of the 80s and 90s.

Jardine was an innovator.

Not sure I would vote for him but some would argue against that, I'd hope

Hi folks - quick look in, fairly busy for once. Will try and post on Titmus tonight.

Firstly, profound apologies to Pete and Biltong for mixing the two of you up last night. There again, I'm sure you can both take enormous pride from being mistaken for the other.

A few quick comments on Willis.

Undoubtedly he was a very good and courageous bowler. However, my feeling has always been that he was never the best against the best. A glance at some stats seems to support that. 14 career Tests against New Zealand - 60 wickets at just under 19 each. 13 Tests against the West Indies - 38 at a bit over 36 (ie getting on for double).

I note Dummy's comment from Wikipedia that several of Willis' colleagues accepted defeat too easily when he was leading the side. Whilst that says nothing good about them, it perhaps also prompts the question as to how inspirational a captain Willis was.
Although Lloyd had far greater talent under his command, his players were far from very diverse backgrounds and yet he got them united and concentrating on one sole cause.
I mentioned the other day that I very briefly came across Willis when I was a schoolboy and found him petty then. I hardly find his commentary scintillating now. Whether his approach in the changing room and on the pitch was different - I don't know but I doubt it.

Finally, several posts have been made about Botham stealing the headlines from Willis. That is generally fair comment. However, even with my fondness for the role of the supporting or 'in the shadows' player, I would look at the other side of that coin and make the point that Willis benefitted from playing alongside Botham. Had there been no Botham, I would question how long Willis would have been able to last and how effective he would have been. I don't believe Willis would have been able to become a 1980s' version of Maurice Tate - I'm particularly referring to the frailty of his knees and not criticising his determination. Without Botham, England would have had to rely far more on the likes of Chris Old and Neil Foster opening with Derek Pringle as first change. As well as being harmful to England, that would not have helped Willis.

Willis indeed played at a time when there were a lot of very good fast bowlers around. West Indies of course , and Australia , and also South Africa -although Procter had to make do largely with County cricket and various unofficial tours for obvious reasons - all had fast bowling stars and I suspect Willis received less of the limelight than might otherwise have been the case purely because of this. Perhaps also he might have been better remembered had he been part of a traditional fast bowling "pair" ? Sure he was a great foil to Botham in the latter part of his career , but as Hoggy has alluded to above , in that case the larger than life Beefy rather dominated the headlines.
It is rather curious that he never took ten wickets in a Test...plenty of five wicket hauls but never a pair together...and of course his famous eight wicket effort at Headingley in 1981 followed a wicketless first innings. I don't think it was an issue of any lack of stamina to back up for a second innings , just one of those odd quirks of the game. Certainly his overall figures are up there in HoF territory , and I honestly don't believe there is any significant negative to rule him out - but I may have more to say later as I'm sure some people will want a little extra before committing to a yes vote.

GB

I probably agree with your interpretation of my earlier comments - Willis does not appear to have been a great motivator as a captain, and while his personal performances were good while he was in the role, the results were rather up and down. While being a very determined player and making the most of what natural gifts he had should be considered as positives, Willis's captaincy certainly shouldn't be viewed as an unqualified success.

I just realised that you could switch the name Gooch into the above paragraph and have it be similarly accurate.

As an aside, following Stella's (slightly tongue in cheek) comment suggesting Jardine as a nominee, I had a look at his Wiki biog - I obviously knew something of Jardine the captain, but didn't realise what a solid record he had and what a fine player he could potentially have been had he been able to dedicate more time to playing cricket.

guildfordbat wrote:
Firstly, profound apologies to Pete and Biltong for mixing the two of you up last night. There again, I'm sure you can both take enormous pride from being mistaken for the other.

No worries mat, if Pete is prepared to share his age with me, I can share my premature grey hair with him (Women love it)

At this stage I can't really decide which way to go with Willis.

On the face of it his record is good, and arguably Hall of Fame-worthy when you take into account longevity.

He also has the defining performances - not least Headingley '81.

But something's missing in comparison to the other greats of his era. I can't really put my finger on it, other than perhaps to suggest it might be that he bowled England to victory less that the WI bowlers bowled their team to victory or Australia's theirs.

Just saw guildford's comments above : while I can do nothing to make up for the bad impression he made on the schoolboybat (which probably wouldn't be itself make him ineligible ? Though it may well mean one vote will be hard to secure ) , I can offer some defence of his captaincy .
He actually won more Tests than he lost as skipper - rare among England captains around that time and a little later - and did so with what might charitably be described as limited resources
Consider some names : Cook. Tavare . Pringle. Miller.Hemmings.Cowans. Greig (not Tony)...hardly household names and all members of England teams under Willis in the early 80's. Not saying they were all rubbish , just to point out that he did reasonably well with a less than vintage selection. Incidentally I don't remember him as a particularly astute tactician , rather one who led by example ; but that he did quite well.

Shelsey93 wrote:

But something's missing in comparison to the other greats of his era. I can't really put my finger on it, other than perhaps to suggest it might be that he bowled England to victory less that the WI bowlers bowled their team to victory or Australia's theirs.

Shelsey - I tend to identify with that feeling. To be fair to Willis, the WI bowlers, in particular, were helped by their batsmen generally setting the opposition such huge and daunting totals. Not something Willis enjoyed so much.

Back tonight.

Bet you didn't know this about 'Big' Bob Willis:

"Fans of the former Surrey, Warwickshire and England fast bowler Bob Willis, missing from the current T20 Cricket World Cup TV commentary teams, have been forced to hunt him down on the Internet.

But hunting him down is a very appropriate phrase, as Google searches have revealed a strange link between the world of cricket and the scary dinosoaurs used in the iconic 1990's film series.

It seems that the deadly Velociraptors in the Jurassic Park films were an idea that Director, Steven Speilberg came up with after seeing a clip of Willis bowling.

When Speilberg met Willis in order to create an authentic body suit for the actors who played the raptors, the diminiutive director looked into the gangly former fast bowler's eyes and was horrified to see nothing there at all. Hence the shot in Jurassic Park 1 just before Bob Peck gets eaten, where we see one of the raptor's heads with the dead eyes looking at us. Peck then says, 'Clever girl' and we know the rest as he experiences a grisly end.

Ray Bright, the former Australian spin bowler from that time still shudders whenever he's reminded of the 1981 series and along with his colleagues of the time, has refused to watch any of the Jurassic Park films."

Amazing. Another claim to fame for the big man

OK, Willis gets a YES* from me - anyone who changes his name by deed poll to include the middle name Dylan (although I'm thinking Magic Roundabout more than Robert Zimmerman) and was the inspiration behind the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park has to be in the HoF regardless of playing record.

* This is not a final and considered vote, although I am edging that way...

Three days into the debate, no candidate has made a strong case in my view. Willis is the closest to a yes from me, and even he'll have to go a fair few way for that.

msp83 wrote:Three days into the debate, no candidate has made a strong case in my view. Willis is the closest to a yes from me, and even he'll have to go a fair few way for that.

Still waiting for the case to be made for Titmus and Woolmer, so have little to say on those two yet.

Hendren - certainly an outstanding County record, in line with HoF standards (given that fewer internationals were played during his era and that County matches were much more important than now). Overall Test record seems to me to be close to those of McCabe or Ponsford, but with the marked downside of an apparent weakness against Australia as by far the strongest opposition of the era. I'm currently thinking 'close but no cigar', but certainly could be persuaded otherwise.

Thomson - Was certainly notable for being the fastest and nastiest bowler when he started his Test career, but I'm still to be convinced that he reached HoF level for any significant spell of his career. While he was part of one of the great fast bowling partnerships, it is quite clear he was the lesser contributor by comparison with Lillee (200 wicekts in 51 matches @ 28 compared with 355 wickets in 70 matches @ under 24). OK, so Lillee is someone who sailed into the HoF, but Thomson is a long way behind for me, certainly further than Statham behind Trueman or Walsh behind Ambrose. It will certainly take some compelling argument for me to change opinion - so far I have him as falling short on overall career, outstanding performances, any innovation, character and any subsequent contribution to the game.

Willis - Test career stats for me are right on the borderline of HoF inclusion. Positives are that he was (briefly) England's leading wicket taker and that he certainly had the career-defining performance in winning the Headingley test in 81. Negatives are that he was somewhat overshadowed during his career (both within the England team and the world game), and he wasn't a great captain or commentator, plus he doesn't appear to be held in the highest esteem as a person - nothing particularly negative (unlike Thomson's comments about wanting to see blood), but a perception that he was perhaps a bit stand-offish and selfish. Given the quality of some of the players recently elected for the HoF, I'm thinking Willis just makes the cut, but perhaps had he been nominated earlier he would fall a bit short.

The case for Fred Titmus begins in earnest with:

His Place in Popular Culture.

Oh I was walking round my local store
Searching for the ten pence off Lenor
When suddenly I bumped into this guy
On seeing who it was I gave a cry
''F*c*in' 'Ell, It's Fred Titmus!''

The above is the first verse of F*c*in' 'Ell, It's Fred Titmus by UK Indie Band Half Man Half Biscuit first released in 1985.

Lead singer Nigel Blackwell said of the song, ''To be honest, when I started writing songs one of my fantasies ... perhaps too strong a term that but y'know ... was to have a load of folk shouting something ridiculous like 'F*c*ing Hell, it's Fred Titmus!' back at the stage as a counterblast to all those rock acts whose audience would hold their lighters aloft during some Godforsaken dross concerning 'a girl no longer with us due to flagrant disregard of the speed limit by persons unknown'. Much more fun I thought to have 'em shouting the name of a Middlesex spin bowler. Certainly more believable anyway, I think.''

Blackwell went on to state that the described incident never occurred, ''I have never met Fred Titmus, for example, let alone greeted him in such an overfamiliar way''.

''F*c*in' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus'' has been descibed in Paul Simpson's ''The Rough Guide to Cult Pop'' as ''The funniest song ever written about an England and Middlesex cricketer''.

Mike has recently warned us about making too many comparisons between nominees who happen to be in the same batch of five. I generally accept and agree with that. However, following Hoggy trumpeting 'Big' Bob Willis' contribution to the film world, I trust you will allow me to invite comparisons as to who has made the most valuable contribution to popular culture.

I feel the tide is already starting to turn in favour of one of our current nominees -

''F*c*in' 'Ell, It's Fred Titmus!''

Waiting for a lot more, guildford, although that was an interesting start.

[quote="msp83"]Waiting for a lot more, guildford, although that was an interesting start. [/quote

You want more?

Ok, tune in later ....

I'm waiting for the Larry Gomes testimony from guildford, though I'd prefer to hear some words of wisdom from Harry Latchman - who I last saw flipping burgers on the outside grill at The Star after a Middx / Hampshire game he bowled in. Peter Sainsbury and John Holder among those enjoying 'Arry's steak sarnies.

Harry Latchman was (and probably still is) head cricket coach at Merchant Taylors in Northwood, and his family are associated with Northwood CC, who play in the same league as my club's 1st XI.

My friend - a reasonably promising spinner - went to MTS, and seemed to be very fond of Latchman. I remember going to a Q&A evening with him hosted by Latchman, with Mark Ramprakash and Vikram Solanki as guests a few years ago.

Harry Latchman was very popular; never knew, but used to live round the corner from The Star and he always seemed to be a very popular patron!

Shelsey,
In Latchman's day I was also playing for a club who played Northwood, on the Uxbridge branch of the Metropolitan Line! Long time ago and imagine my contribution was swiftly forgotten. Rightly so.

Shelsey93 wrote:Harry Latchman was (and probably still is) head cricket coach at Merchant Taylors in Northwood, and his family are associated with Northwood CC, who play in the same league as my club's 1st XI.

My friend - a reasonably promising spinner - went to MTS, and seemed to be very fond of Latchman. I remember going to a Q&A evening with him hosted by Latchman, with Mark Ramprakash and Vikram Solanki as guests a few years ago.

Solanki was at a Surrey members' forum last month. Although I have doubts about his signing (age and recent form), as an individual he came across very well -pleasant, intelligent and respectful (overly respectful in fact - called me 'Sir' a couple of times which made me feel incredibly old! )

kwinigolfer wrote:I'm waiting for the Larry Gomes testimony from guildford, though I'd prefer to hear some words of wisdom from Harry Latchman - who I last saw flipping burgers on the outside grill at The Star after a Middx / Hampshire game he bowled in. Peter Sainsbury and John Holder among those enjoying 'Arry's steak sarnies.

Bizarrely perhaps, Hilary Angelo Gomes the bowler will be making an appearance on this thread when I consider further the case for Thomson ....

Kwini, where were you playing? Its just about possible I'd have heard of them (although the Uxbridge branch gets you just about into Middx territory!)

Was at Ickenham for a few years in the very late sixties/very early 70's.
Before the days of leagues.
We used to go east to Southgate, up to places like Radlett, north-west to the Rickmansworth area and down to Richmond.