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."

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Back on topic, here's a nice video showing clips of Thomson, and a number of interviews regarding his pace and impact, especially on opposition batsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cukAdBEpMs&feature=related

Very useful clip. Particularly good to hear the views of Benaud and Cozier - two observers I highly respect.

I've had a look in Benaud's 'My Spin on Cricket' for some discussion on Thomson, but he really offers little more than passing comment.

Clearly Thommo had success in a fair few series, but is a few series enough on which to build a strong enough case to get into the Hall of Fame? I genuinely don't know.

dummy_half wrote:
Back to the current nominees and Hendren -
It's clear that his career acheivements should put him somewhere between his contemporaries Hobbs and Woolley. My question then is why is he not in the ICC HoF and generally not considered as much of a legendary figure in the game as Woolley?

Is it a case of 'style over substance' that promoted Woolley's case, or is there some yet to be discussed negative in Hendren's back story?

I'm pretty clear that there was no negative background to Hendren. As reported in cover point "He was also one of the most popular of all cricketers, with fellow players and spectators alike, nowhere more so than in the Caribbean where he attracted a cult like following." We have already seen that 17,000 spectators halted play for five minutes on his final appearance for Middlesex v Surrey to sing "for he's a jolly good fellow".

That's also the real interest and point of this forum. Not simply rubber stamping ICC HoF. It's where we elect those over looked by ICC or reject those who entered ICC HoF. And the borderline characters.... I strongly advocated Woolley in the earlier discussions, who had a towering reputation. He was a real cavalier of the game. In the end he was rejected decisively - I strongly suspect because his cavalier approach to batting tended towards careless - eg lack of interest in playing himself in before going after the bowling. But Hendren is clearly a very much stronger batsman with an excellent test record. He had a massive impact on the public when many thousands would watch a county game. His batting record for Middlesex leaves the competition out of sight....

Shelsey93 wrote:Hobbs v Hendren v Woolley - Where does Patsy fit in?

The careers of Sir Jack Hobbs, Patsy Hendren and Frank Woolley almost directly overlap each other - Hobbs played FC cricket from 1905 to 1934, Hendren from 1907 to 1937 and Woolley from 1906 to 1938. But where does Hendren fit in between Hobbs - a member of the HoF's original 30 - and Woolley, who was almost unanimously rejected on the grounds of his mediocre Test efforts...................
All of the statistical evidence points to Hendren being somewhere between Hobbs and Woolley both in Test matches and in first-class matches, but the question remains of which side of the border he should be placed.........

Shelsey - Thanks. I would agree that was a very thorough and a largely fair assessment. I would however, suggest that once Hobbs has strolled up to the top table of our HoF Hendren stands unrivalled as a representative of stellar achievement in the first class game. Clearly he enjoyed massive popularity within the game from Lords to the West Indies. I would argue that there is something sadly missing in the HoF if we choose not to elect a single person as a representative of the best of the wider first class game.....

While I remember, is Everton Weekes on the list for consideration? Test av of over 58, including 15 centuries in his 48 match test career. And his name begins with "W".

Corporal, I'm pretty certain that we already inducted Weekes (and also pretty certain that you voted for him )

Shelsey - entirely possible indeed probable that my memory has failed again on both counts! I couldn't see Weekes on the list of people who had been inducted....Dont know whether I was looking in wrong place. I'm more than happy to register two votes for him!

Anyway, thanks for tactfully pointing this out!

And thanks to you for tactfully pointing out that I still haven't got round to sorting the list out!

Seems we are stuck a bit. The debate has moved on to the 2nd week and yet things are going on rather slowly.
On Thomson it seems most of us have significant doubts regarding his inconsistency and his overall stats not quite HoF stuff. There seem to be reasonable agreement that he was a bowler of impact and batsmen wern't the happiest lot facing him. But the question is whether the impact lasted long enough. Seems many here feel the answer to that is more on the side of no. His attitude too has been a matter of question.
On Hendren a good case has been made, and his first class stats are seriously impressive. Some of us feel that this has to be given significance as the county game was treated with a great deal more seriousness than the case at present. Some of us on the other hand pointed out that his test record is pretty good, but perhaps not quite HoF, as previous round debated suggests, the batters had a relatively easier time during his serious playing days, and that his average against the strong side Australia was not as good as it was against the West Indies and South Africa, who didn't play their cricket not at a massive standard.

The case of Fred Titmus is has become an interesting one. His record is nowhere near good enough to be considered for HoF. But he was a man of strong character, a man who confronted challenging circumstances with a great spirit. His long career is another thing in his favor. But at the same time it also has to be remembered that the unfortunate setback in the West Indies happened almost 20 years into his FC career and almost 13years into his test career and that he didn't play many test matches thereafter. someone like Pataudi played his entire test creer with an impaired vision. Titmus' status as a folk hero seems to be limited to parts of England, not so much outside England for sure. Certainly an admirable cricketer and it is his case that prompted most of my research work in this round of the discussions, but.......
Willis too, is a case of showing terrific fighting quality and spirit to extend his international career as much as he did, coming out of a career threatening knee injury and battling the pain and the dificulties to end his career as his countrie's highest test wicket taker is a massive achievement. Seems his captaincy was better than being credited, although he was no master strategist, but more of a man of leading through action.

As far as the Woolmer case goes, all that we have on the table is that he's been nominated for his role as a coach and not really as a player. He was a high profile coach who had success with Warwickshire, South Africa and Pakistan. We have to know what really was the standout with Woolmer the coach, in comparison with the likes of Right and Fletcher, or for that matter Simpson, Marsh and John Buchanan.

msp83 wrote:The case of Fred Titmus is has become an interesting one. His record is nowhere near good enough to be considered for HoF. But he was a man of strong character, a man who confronted challenging circumstances with a great spirit. His long career is another thing in his favor. But at the same time it also has to be remembered that the unfortunate setback in the West Indies happened almost 20 years into his FC career and almost 13years into his test career and that he didn't play many test matches thereafter. someone like Pataudi played his entire test creer with an impaired vision. Titmus' status as a folk hero seems to be limited to parts of England, not so much outside England for sure. Certainly an admirable cricketer and it is his case that prompted most of my research work in this round of the discussions, but.......

I think the irrepressible spirit shown by Titmus deserves to be emphasised and particularly comes out in that he did not, as was initially expected, pack up playing after his ''unfortunate setback ... almost 20 years into his FC career''. Instead, he battled back to play for another 14 years including a return to Test cricket and contributing significantly to Middlesex winning the County Championship.

As I mentioned to the Corporal, I don't feel it's appropriate enter into a ''my nominee [Titmus] was more adversely impaired than yours [eg, Tiger Pataudi]'' competition. For those falling into this broad category - consider the impairment, how it was overcome plus, most importantly, everything else about the nominee on an individual basis. I believe there's plenty extra for Titmus as set out in my main submission.

I would dispute your comment that his ''status as a folk hero seems to be limited to parts of England''. I believe you've misunderstood a reference in praise of a former Yorkshire favourite. Any limitation is far more a generational matter - certainly anyone who followed England Test cricket in 1968 and after will forever know the name of Fred Titmus. Clearly he remains best known at Middlesex but that is inevitable given his 33 years of playing there and his legacy to the Club (see Angus Fraser's comments in my earlier post).

I accept his playing stats fall short of many inductees but we're talking here about more than stats. In any case, I certainly don't feel his figures give rise to concerns so as to exclude him - ''the greatest self-made bowler since the war'', according to Fred Trueman, one of Yorkshire's finest and not normally someone to praise another without exceptionally good reason.

That's a fine response guildford.
Accept the point on the generational aspect.
Now the reference on Pataudi is not so much to suggest that we need a kind of adversity comparisons as such. The suggestion was aimed at trying to bring home the point that players have forged entire international test career facing down the impairment and so Titmus' case is not so much unique so as to look passed his record. A bowling strike rate of almost hundred has to be a concern in my book.
Now we considered overall record, flare, impact, innovation and so on for our HoF. You have made an interesting case that Titmus has to be included for the kind of spirit he has shown. While that is a fair point, I think we have to then look at players who came through similar circumstances, think it is something that can't be altogether avoided. Remember we voted Stan McCabe in and Bill Ponsford out, even though their overall records were pretty similar. Hope I am clear enough.

msp83 wrote:
On Thomson it seems most of us have significant doubts regarding his inconsistency and his overall stats not quite HoF stuff. There seem to be reasonable agreement that he was a bowler of impact and batsmen wern't the happiest lot facing him. But the question is whether the impact lasted long enough. Seems many here feel the answer to that is more on the side of no. His attitude too has been a matter of question.

I'm still not sure we've brought out how both terrifying and uncontrollable Thomson was.

Ian Chappell is on record as being approached by West Indies number eleven Lance Gibbs before the start of their Test series in Australia in 1975-76. Gibbs implored Chappell thus: ''I can sort out Lillee. He has a wife and kids like me. But you're responsible for that mad man Thomson. You must convince him not to kill me.''

Thomo in his early days, was quite a terror, and the above line from Gibbs is suggestive of how much. But again, for how long?
Also him not joining the parcker movement has to be placed in perspective, his cricinfo profile and other articles suggest that this was by and large the result of some other contractual obligations rather than him putting country before anything else.

guildfordbat wrote: I'm still not sure we've brought out how both terrifying and uncontrollable Thomson was.

Ian Chappell is on record as being approached by West Indies number eleven Lance Gibbs before the start of their Test series in Australia in 1975-76. Gibbs implored Chappell thus: ''I can sort out Lillee. He has a wife and kids like me. But you're responsible for that mad man Thomson. You must convince him not to kill me.''

I think Guildford is right to emphasise this point. But I am continuing to feel indecisive on this one. I think the impact factor is enough to get Thomson in. But only of course if the impact is sufficiently positive....

msp83 wrote:That's a fine response guildford.
Accept the point on the generational aspect.
Now the reference on Pataudi is not so much to suggest that we need a kind of adversity comparisons as such. The suggestion was aimed at trying to bring home the point that players have forged entire international test career facing down the impairment and so Titmus' case is not so much unique so as to look passed his record. A bowling strike rate of almost hundred has to be a concern in my book.
Now we considered overall record, flare, impact, innovation and so on for our HoF. You have made an interesting case that Titmus has to be included for the kind of spirit he has shown. While that is a fair point, I think we have to then look at players who came through similar circumstances, think it is something that can't be altogether avoided. Remember we voted Stan McCabe in and Bill Ponsford out, even though their overall records were pretty similar. Hope I am clear enough.

Thank you, msp.

I would just make the point that overcoming impairment mid or late career might be an even greater achievement than forging a test career facing it down throughout.

I agree strongly that we have to consider all aspects for each individual. I would hope that Bill Ponsford wasn't voted out (or at least to the repecharge round) because Stan McCabe was voted in although accept that may have come into it for some.

As regards strike rate, you must also look at his Test economy rate - 1.95 per over, one of the best of the twentieth century. So much of his game concentrated on wearing down the opposition and making them battle for every run (see again Fraser's comments as to his legacy to Emburey passed on in turn to Fraser and now to Finn). I mentioned in my main submission Titmus' quadruple wicket maiden against New Zealand. What I didn't flag before was that his figures in that innings were 26 overs, 17 maidens, 19 runs, 5 wickets with an economy rate of 0.73.

I acknowledge that he wouldn't be in my Best 100 Cricketers of All Time. Two points. Firstly, that's not particularly relevant to his nomination. Secondly, I'm genuinely convinced he was a damn better cricketer than I gave him credit for when I started out on this journey. In the words of Jim Laker, ''he was a master craftsman of his time''.

I'll try and leave it at that for all.

guildfordbat wrote:
As regards strike rate, you must also look at his Test economy rate - 1.95 per over, one of the best of the twentieth century. So much of his game concentrated on wearing down the opposition and making them battle for every run (see again Fraser's comments as to his legacy to Emburey passed on in turn to Fraser and now to Finn). I mentioned in my main submission Titmus' quadruple wicket maiden against New Zealand. What I didn't flag before was that his figures in that innings were 26 overs, 17 maidens, 19 runs, 5 wickets with an economy rate of 0.73.

This prompted me to look at the list of approaching 40 test bowlers with an economy rate of less than 2. Some very fine names in there - including some in HoF and some definitely not. Guildford - not surprisingly our mutual friend Sir Lancelot Gibbs was the one in the list who had taken by far the most wickets. An interesting comparison is between Titmus and Ray Illingworth who have broadly comparable bowling and test batting records. Illingworth has the added factor of captaincy - on the other hand I don't think he quite matches Titmus for folk hero status!

Must admit that, while Guildford's case has given me more pause for thought than I was initially expecting, I'm still struggling to see a yes vote for Titmus. I can appreciate the argument that he is one of the great characters of cricket, that the FC game had greater relevance during the large part of his career, that that career had great longevity and that he overcame adversity during it. BUT, at the highest level he was a useful player, but no more. IF his injury had come earlier in his career and he had battled back to post similar performances and figures in Tests, then that would have been different IMO. But it didn't. And while, of course, he should be given great credit for being able to overcome this set-back and to continue with his cricket career at all, and for managing to get back into the England team, if only for 4 matches, the truth is that, during the vast bulk of his international career, he was unhampered by any major impediment, and I'm struggling to see that the 'extras' associated with Titmus overcome the relative 'normalness' of his playing career at the highest level.

I'm also struggling to see a yes for Thomson at the moment. There's certainly no doubt that, at least for the first 5-10 years of his career, Thomson was a fine bowler, who was as fast (and possibly faster) as any of his contemporaries and who made a big impact on the game. But even during this, his best period as a bowler, I'd argue that he wasn't as GOOD a bowler as a number of other fast-bowlers of his time, and certainly not one of the greatest fast-bowlers in cricket history. And this was during his best period. If you factor in his later career when injuries and age had blunted his pace, while acknowledging that credit should be given to him for bearing the burden of Australia's attack during a period in which they were suffering from a paucity of good fast-bowlers, then, for me, it's difficult to see that he is HoF material, despite his initial impact on the game and the fact that he was half of, perhaps, the most famous and iconic fast-bowling partnership of all.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Must admit that, while Guildford's case has given me more pause for thought than I was initially expecting, I'm still struggling to see a yes vote for Titmus. I can appreciate the argument that he is one of the great characters of cricket, that the FC game had greater relevance during the large part of his career, that that career had great longevity and that he overcame adversity during it. BUT, at the highest level he was a useful player, but no more. IF his injury had come earlier in his career and he had battled back to post similar performances and figures in Tests, then that would have been different IMO. But it didn't. And while, of course, he should be given great credit for being able to overcome this set-back and to continue with his cricket career at all, and for managing to get back into the England team, if only for 4 matches, the truth is that, during the vast bulk of his international career, he was unhampered by any major impediment, and I'm struggling to see that the 'extras' associated with Titmus overcome the relative 'normalness' of his playing career at the highest level.

I'm also struggling to see a yes for Thomson at the moment. There's certainly no doubt that, at least for the first 5-10 years of his career, Thomson was a fine bowler, who was as fast (and possibly faster) as any of his contemporaries and who made a big impact on the game. But even during this, his best period as a bowler, I'd argue that he wasn't as GOOD a bowler as a number of other fast-bowlers of his time, and certainly not one of the greatest fast-bowlers in cricket history. And this was during his best period. If you factor in his later career when injuries and age had blunted his pace, while acknowledging that credit should be given to him for bearing the burden of Australia's attack during a period in which they were suffering from a paucity of good fast-bowlers, then, for me, it's difficult to see that he is HoF material, despite his initial impact on the game and the fact that he was half of, perhaps, the most famous and iconic fast-bowling partnership of all.

Hoggy - with regard to Titmus, I am encouraging posters to judge him on character, irrepressible spirit and service to our game. If we consider that he fails on those or that they have no place in our HoF without an excellent Test record, so be it. Just as Mike tried to show that Rhodes' batting wasn't a sufficient weakness to exclude him from the HoF, I would claim the same upon behalf of Titmus' Test record. By way of example and in the words of cricket writer John Thicknesse, ''He made 3 tours of Australia, and justified his selection each time.''

As was written the other day, ''the main basis for his possible inclusion in our Hall of Fame ... Not that he was an all-time great bowler, but that he was a very good bowler who achieved what he did because of his determination to overcome adversity and to do everything he could to help the cause.'' That was actually you stating the case for Willis. Fair enough, but don't those words apply even more to Titmus?

The concerns I have about Willis are very similar to those you have (rightly in my view) about Thomson. Yes, Willis was a real trier as testified by a host of cricketers from Sir Len Hutton to David Gower to arch villian of these boards Javed Miandad. No disputing that. He also had to carry too much of England's bowling when others weren't up to scratch. However, just as you say about Thomson, I would also assert that he wasn't as GOOD a bowler as a number of other fast-bowlers of his time. If I had had the opportunity, I would have happily swapped Willis for any one of the West Indian quicks, Lillee, Hadlee, Procter, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, McGrath, Wasim Akram, etc. I suspect the list would soon grow further from more of a look at those of a broadly similar era (even making no allowance for the clearly superior batting of most). His captaincy brought better results than might have been expected but would still get him no more than a footnote mention when all time great international captains are written about.

guildfordbat wrote:
Hoggy - with regard to Titmus, I am encouraging posters to judge him on character, irrepressible spirit and service to our game. If we consider that he fails on those or that they have no place in our HoF without an excellent Test record, so be it. Just as Mike tried to show that Rhodes' batting wasn't a sufficient weakness to exclude him from the HoF, I would claim the same upon behalf of Titmus' Test record. By way of example and in the words of cricket writer John Thicknesse, ''He made 3 tours of Australia, and justified his selection each time.''

As was written the other day, ''the main basis for his possible inclusion in our Hall of Fame ... Not that he was an all-time great bowler, but that he was a very good bowler who achieved what he did because of his determination to overcome adversity and to do everything he could to help the cause.'' That was actually you stating the case for Willis. Fair enough, but don't those words apply even more to Titmus?

The concerns I have about Willis are very similar to those you have about Thomson. Yes, he was a real trier as testified by a host of cricketers from Sir Len Hutton to David Gower to arch villian of these boards Javed Miandad. No disputing that. He also had to carry too much of England's bowling when others weren't up to scratch. However, just as you say about Thomson, I would also assert that he wasn't as GOOD a bowler as a number of other fast-bowlers of his time. If I had had the opportunity, I would have happily swapped him for any one of the West Indian quicks, Lillee, Hadlee, Procter, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, McGrath, Wasim Akram, etc. The list would soon grow further from more of a look at those of a broadly similar era (even making no allowance for the clearly superior batting of most). His captaincy brought better results than might have been expected but would still get him no more than a footnote mention when all time great international captains are written about.

Just a couple of points Guildford. On Titmus you say that my argument on Willis would apply equally or even more strongly in Titmus' case. Personally, I'd argue that it wouldn't because, while Titmus' injuries were posiibly more severe, Willis played the bulk of his career at international after having overcome injury problems and while dealing with the lasting consequences of those problems. Titmus didn't. Which leads me on to my second point. I agree with you that there were a number of Willis' contemporaries who were better than him, but my argument would be that most of the ones you've listed are genuine, bona fide all-time greats, and Willis was a lot closer to their level, IMO, than is generally accepted. Why that is I don't know. Maybe it was his lack of grace as a bowler, the fact that he was so intense and focused on the field or the fact that Botham took most of the headlines. But, purely in statistical terms Willis is not that far away from the greats you mention, (and is possibly ahead of a couple of them). To be so nearly an indesputably all-time great fast bowler, despite the major problems he had to overcome with regard to injury, and despite the fact that, throughout most of his long career, he was England's only consistent strike bowler, is why I've come to the conclusion that he probably should be elected to our HoF.

(That and his Warks. connections, of course )

Hoggy - as I was suggesting to msp last night, having had four of his toes sliced off at the age of thirty-five Titmus would have been and, indeed, was expected to take his pipe and smoke it in fairly contented retirement. It's the fact that he didn't jack it in at such a late stage and continued on playing - including a return to Test cricket - for a further fourteen years that so impresses me.

Anyway, onto Willis. I'll end any comparisons with Titmus, otherwise Mike will get grumpy on his return before he's even unpacked.

I'm tempted to ask - how many genuine, bona fide all-time fast bowling greats are you allowed in one era? I won't put a limit on the number and exclude Willis because there are others from that time ahead of him. However, it doesn't help his case - with me, anyway - that he would be unlikely to be in a Top Ten Fast Bowler List of His Era, let alone of All Time.

In order to help his case - with me, at least - can you say anything more about the physical adversity Willis overcame? Titmus' (apologies for resorting to another comparison - but it is relevant, hopefully! ) was horrific and obvious. Willis' less transparent. How do you respond to the claim that aches and pains, dodgy knees and bad backs are part of the lot of any fast bowler? I'm not trying to belittle Willis or your case here - looking for a peg to hang things on.

(Following up your comment about Willis' Warks connections, I've never seen anything at the Oval even mentioning him. If you leave uncapped, it's almost as if you were never there.)

Was Bob Woolmer a better coach than the likes of Fletcher, Simpson(who in many ways has to be considered the first modern coach), Marsh, Right and Whatmore? I am not talking about Guru Garry and Andy Flower here, there are more in the 2ned generation modern coaches?
Mike's technical inputs could be of certain help in the course of the discussions, but we are already passed the first week of the debate and we haven't even had a propper look at him. Either we have to get the process going or we will have to postpone his consideration for the next round perhaps? After all, a propper debate is needed for us to learn more engage more and then take a call?

Msp, Woolmer voting will indeed be postponed to the next batch if Mike isn't able to put forward his case in the next couple of days (no pressure Mike - work and French cricket come first ).

Shelsey93 wrote:Msp, Woolmer voting will indeed be postponed to the next batch if Mike isn't able to put forward his case in the next couple of days (no pressure Mike - work and French cricket come first ).

That will only be fair, thanks shelsey.

Guildford
I don't know exactly what was wrong with Willis' knees, but would suggest that the injury problems were out of the ordinary, even for a fast-bowler.
I say that because virtually every assesment of his career mentions his knee problems and how serious they were, because he missed a whole year of cricket due to the operation on them and because he continued to have to have repair work done on them ('reblading' whatever that means), at various points throughout the rest of his career.

A nice portrait of Willis, and the impact on him of his knee problems comes from the book The Ashes: A Centenary by Ray Illingworth and Kenneth Gregory, when they write of Willis 8/43 at Headingly
"Willis labouring is a bowler concious of his knees- or lack of knees; the Willis knees have undergone such surgery that the wonder is that he can stagger, let alone run, to the crease. But Willis rampant...When Willis is rampant, the batsman sees a 6 foot 5 and 1/2 inch giant with hair uncut since Bob Dylan was mobbed at Heathrow- a species of stampeding ostrich in huffy mood"

Just a heads up guys, this thread is about to hit the 1000 post mark (at some point between the 1000th and 1300th post the silly board software deletes the oldest 1000 posts).

So I'm going to create a new stickied thread shortly, with a link to this one in the OP, then I'll unsticky and lock this.

Pete,
Is there any chance of locking the Hall Of Fame threads together, adjacent as Mr.Benaud would say. Not sure how many of them there are having come late to this eloquent debate . . . . . .

kwinigolfer wrote:Pete,
Is there any chance of locking the Hall Of Fame threads together, adjacent as Mr.Benaud would say. Not sure how many of them there are having come late to this eloquent debate . . . . . .

I've put links to all the ones I could find in the new OP. I have a feeling some debate has already been "lost" unfortunately. If anyone spots any links I've missed let me know and I'll add them in.

New thread:
https://www.606v2.com/t37142-the-v2forum-hall-of-fame-discussion-thread