The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

First topic message reminder :

The thread to debate additions to the v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame

Current members:
https://www.606v2.com/t18388-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-inductees-graphics-included

FoF's original HoF debate summation:

Spoiler:

Previous debate:
https://www.606v2.com/t28256-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame
https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

[dummy_half]

Alfie

My issue with Bakewell was not so much the excellence of her playing record (although her average was boosted by performances against weaker opponents, and against Australia was much more 'normal' - same argument as with Hendren in the last batch of nominees), but more that it was based on so few matches that the averages were potentially inflated.

Clearly, we are not going to induct many women players, partly because most of us are essentially unfamiliar with the women's game and partly because it is still a game in development in much the same way as the men's game was 100 years ago - there simply isn't the rich history to refer back to. Heck, before this thread the only retired woman cricketer I could name was RH-F (who for me should be included in the HoF as she was the one who made it into the consciousness of the general public both for playing the game and for her contribution once retired from playing).

I think basically I've expanded on Shelsey's #2 there

Anyway, of this batch of nominees (at least the new ones):

Chappell - From a purely playing perspective, plenty good enough for the HoF (averaging 54 through the 70s and early 80s was exceptional, especially if you weren't West Indian). Obviously undermined by the 'underarm' incident and some controversy while the coach of India. In the balance for me at the moment (I need to consider how much I disapprove of the underarm thing and whether there are other negatives)

Lance Gibbs - Great economical spin bowler and the first spinner (2nd bowler after FST) to take 300 test wickets. Seems worthy to me, even allowing for his good rather than great average and relatively poor strike rate. Test cricket in Gibbs era was much more attritional than is now the case, and he was a man of his time - undoubtedly the finest spin bowler of that era. Starting from the perspective of a likely YES.

Belinda Clark - Will have to have a closer look. I was expecting to see even better statistics, but obviously gets a strong positive because of her involvement in administation and promotion of the game at the same time that she was a top player. Oh, and anyone who has scored a double ton in a ODI clearly has something about them.

Clare Taylor - clearly a fine player especially in the later part of her career and right at the forefront of the women's game over the last decade or so. As with Shelsey, I wonder if we are a bit too close in time to judge what her impact on the game will be.

For the two women nominees, I need to look more at their contemporaries to see what a Test average of 40+ means in the context of their game.

[Mike Selig]

I'm baaack!

First of all, my apologies about going quite so AWOL for quite so long. As I said, two players I coach (and hence have to support at all times, for I am nothing to my players if not loyal and honest) were indirectly involved in an incident which warranted my attention. Then there was a meeting on Saturday which needed a bit of preparatory work. The meeting now over, and the incident being dealt with, I can bring my attention to more vital and important matters such as the HoF thread. :-)

I stayed abreast of last week's debate, but didn't vote, as I hadn't contributed to the discussion enough, so didn't feel qualified to do so. I thought Thomson got a bit of a raw deal - not sure he deserved a 0% vote - his candidacy had many parallels to Larwood which I don't think were explored enough. In particular I don't think people gave him enough credit to just how good and terrifying he was at his best.

For the rest, we have reached eminently sensible decisions: Hendren was a good YES, and the very well made point that he was being inducted as a "great of the county game, who enjoyed success at test level" is a good one; Willis deserves more recognition than he frequently gets, and I am pleased to see him squeak in; Titmus had an excellent case put forward, but ultimately enough doubts there to mean he is due for repechage.

This week's candidates (in brief):
- I was a strong advocate of Clark, based on her record against her peers, but more importantly on what she did to drive the standards in the woman's game up. In particular I do believe she has done more to make the women's game known than RHF.
- I was eventually persuaded to vote yes for Gibbs. I think people when looking at his record need to look at it in context. At a time where test cricket was a war of attrition very often, Gibbs was the best soldier you could wish for.
- I also argued strongly for Greg Chappell, based on his record. I accept that the underarm incident must count against him, but would stress it was one mistake, made in the heat of a very stressful situation. Of course we'd all like to think that in that situation we'd act differently, but who can honestly say hand on heart that we're sure we would? I'm not sure I would, I know from experience that when the stakes are high the human being can do strange things. I am not sure those damning Chappell for that realise quite how high these stakes get.
On his coaching. He was a poor coach for India, mainly because he adapted fairly badly to a different environment (this contrasts exquisitely with Woolmer BTW). I don't think he is a poor coach overall, and he has done great things back at home.

Clare Taylor will be an interesting one. Being the first to be nominated for Wisden cricketer of the year is quite some feat. I do wonder about Shelsey's concern that it may be too soon to consider her legacy.

I outline my case for Woolmer, and will flesh it up later today:
- I admit to not knowing much about his playing career. It was better than Arlott's though, and he got in. But will research a bit to see what positives there are to find there.
- I believe he was a great coach. I mentioned adaptability earlier: that Woolmer managed to have success with teams as different as South Africa and Pakistan shows to me his adaptability and willingness to develop his methods to work with what he's given. His relationship with BC Lara at Warwickshire shows his man-management in all his glory IMO.
- He was also a great innovator. I shall expand a bit more on this in the times to come, but a lot of "modern coaching ideas" are straight from the Woolmer textbook. The Donald earpiece exercise in 1999 was but one example.
- Last but not least, he was a great teacher who has handed down his expertise to future generations. I haven't had the honour of meeting him, but know people who have, and they all say he was humble, always available for a talk and always keen to emphasise that he was only giving advice - it could all be entirely wrong. I have videos of Woolmer explaining his approach to coaching and giving tips on batting coaching: it is brilliant. One person I know quite well said that the only experience comparable to talking to Woolmer for an hour was talking to Benaud; can there be any higher praise?

[msp83]

Adaptability indeed is a very strong point in Woolmer's favor. Played his cricket for England, then coached South Africa with reasonable success and then moved to Pakistan to deal with a mercurial set of players and an even more mercurial administrative apparatus. Would like to hear more on his innovations as well as his man management skills. One thing we have to remember here is the role of the captain. How much of tactical brilliance could be attributed to the coach? Michael Vaughan, Andrew Strauss, Andrew Flintoff and Mahendra Singh Dhoni all worked with coach Fletcher. But Vaughan's tactical brilliance was a level above in comparison to the rest of the lot.
Despite his obvious flaws Cronje was a brilliant strategist and during his glory days, he was revered by his players, the establishment and even the cricketing public.

[guildfordbat]

I'm baaack!

I stayed abreast of last week's debate, but didn't vote, as I hadn't contributed to the discussion enough, so didn't feel qualified to do so. I thought Thomson got a bit of a raw deal - not sure he deserved a 0% vote - his candidacy had many parallels to Larwood which I don't think were explored enough. In particular I don't think people gave him enough credit to just how good and terrifying he was at his best.

Welcome baaak, Mike. As regards not voting, a very honourable stance - let's hope that finally rubs off on one particular nominee!

I said similar to you on Thomson deserving better (not the Larwood parallels though). I do feel it considerably helps the debate and this thread if at least one poster is clearly rooting for each nominee. Bakewell was (correctly) nominated because she joined the ICC HoF but without much backing became a damp squib here well before the fortnight was out.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Personally I feel that candidates for our HoF should be judged primarily on the merits of their main claim to fame and that, while success in other parts of their career might add to their claim, failure shouldn't really be held against them.
Thus with Chappell, for example, the underarm incident must be seen as a minus point to his claim (thugh how much of one is up for debate), as it took place during his playing career, the main basis of his candidacy. I don't think however, that his relative mediocrity as a coach should count too much against him, as we're not really judging him on that.

[Shelsey93]

Just realised I didn't really address Alfie's suggestion of looking at the female candidates separately properly.

All I'd say here (and it is not my intention to be dictatorial, so please comment if you have any suggestions) is that I think the number of female candidates that get even to the consideration stage is at this stage not likely to exceed 4 - Charlotte Edwards may get close on retirement, but she's still going strong right now.

Of those 4 I don't see any purpose in revisiting Bakewell: there was evidently very little support for her, and I can't see that re-opening the debate would serve any purpose. Clark and Taylor obviously have an opportunity to be looked at together here (albeit at different stages of the process). At some point in the future (still some time away right now) we'll exhaust all possible candidates, and I guess at that stage it might be appropriate to dot the Is and cross the Ts by admitting RHF if (particularly those who voted No at the time) feel she deserves a place in light of who else in in. But that is some time away, and right now I don't think our decisions should be influenced by who else is in or out: any consistency only need be exercised in relation to our own votes (and even then consistency isn't necessarily always the primary consideration).

[guildfordbat]

Seems to me women candidates are being expected to not only be icons of the game and have excellent figures against whoever they played , but also to have then gone on to do some undefined "extra" service to the game after retirement before they are considered worthy of serious consideration. Some people I know would call this sexism...I would prefer to call it thoughtlessness.
Clark is up for reconsideration and I can see the same issues arising " Can we invite her in while black balling RHF ?" etc...indeed it does seem odd from my angle ; a bit like saying Yes to Bradman but No to Grace...
Even Bakewell - the only other woman so far considered - had a batting average of over sixty ! And it counted for nothing , because we looked down on the standard of her opposition...What happened to judging people against their peers ?

A few words in support of the sexist and thoughtless.

Before I judge people solely against their peers, I need to be satisfied as to the quality of such peers. For this reason, I would not vote for A E J Collins even though he achieved the highest individual cricket score ever recorded (628 not out in a school house match spread over several afternoons at Clifton College, Bristol in 1899).

Similarly perhaps, some posters were not that impressed recently by Patsy Hendren's Test average as it had been boosted by high scores against the weakest nations.

The poor quality of female opposition as partially witnessed (going back forty years) and certainly perceived (fairly or unfairly) is a serious concern for me. I would not automatically vote against a female nominee but, if proposed purely on playing criteria, would need to see evidence of real dominance over a significant period. Without that, I would be looking for ''extras''.

As for Clark being voted on now whilst Heyhoe-Flint was black balled - as I've flagged before, if you consider that I and others got it wrong on H-F, that is no reason why you should be bound by that apparent mistake.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

My votes on Taylor and Clark are completely undecided on basis of lack of knowledge. Unless I've missed it I haven't seen the case for either summarised in one place.

Every substantive comment on Gibbs increases my conviction that he is a clear YES.

Woolmer - will watch the arguments, but I am clear that his playing career won't enhance his case significantly. An eminently reasonable player but nothing more. It's all about his coaching.

Chappell - his batting clearly sufficient for HoF. Very stylish and very good test figures. The minus of the underarm incident is substantial. It's much worse than in the heat of the moment claiming a catch that wasn't quite made when players may have barely a second to think. Bowling underarm is so far removed from the normal conduct of the game over many decades that quite rightly it created pretty much an international scandal /crisis at the time. I don't rule out relenting, as eg Guildford has done. But I won't necessarily change my vote this time simply because I expressed disapproval the first time he came up...

[guildfordbat]

....Despite Titmus' longevity and many strengths, it should be noted that Gibbs took more than twice as many Test wickets; a world record, breaking that of Trueman which had stood for many years, and lasting until surpassed years later by Lillee....

I do think Gibbs' test bowling records will hold up to scrutiny. If we look at the test records of the approaching 40 bowlers who had an economy rate of under two runs an over, Gibbs took by far the highest number of wickets (309). The next highest is Alan Davidson (inducted into our HoF pretty much by acclamation) on just 186 wickets.

Of all the bowlers who took over 300 test wickets Gibbs had the highest proportion of dismissals of middle order batsmen - no doubt reflecting the existence of the fast bowling greats around in the team who would have been brought back on to mop up the tail.

Of all the bowlers who took over 300 test wickets Gibbs had the lowest % of LBW dismissals at just 6.8%. This should be kept in mind when looking at his strike rate. In those days the interpretation of LBW rules did few favours to spinners like Gibbs. This contributed to the situation whereby Gibbs was used mainly as a containing bowler in the fist innings of test but as a match winner in the second innings when he bowled on wearing pitches. Accordingly, of all those who took over 300 wickets, there is the biggest differential between his bowling average in first (33.49) and second innings (24.36) of tests.

Corporal - fine post. I think it's particularly worth emphasising ''mopping up the tail'' and ''low LBW dismissals'' aspects.

Not only would the West Indies fast men - the likes of Hall, Griffith, Roberts and Holding - normally have had first dibs in bowling at the tail but it would have been unusual for numbers nine, ten and Jack to put up much resistance. I certainly don't associate tailenders during Gibbs' era giving much thought to their batting and working on it. Remember there were no central contracts for Test players of any nation then and nothing like the training and development of one's all round game that is taken for granted now. Brian Statham infamously desribed pre-season training as ''a fag and a cough!''. Bowlers would essentially concentrate on their bowling and when it came to their batting tend to get out quickly after attempting a few lusty blows. Certainly there were exceptions but I believe the general point is fairly made.

When researching Titmus, I came across the same point as the Corporal makes that ''the interpretation of LBW rules did few favours to spinners like Gibbs''. This was years before DRS that has so benefited off spinning successors such as Swann.

One other point going back to the West Indies' fast men. Home Test wickets would have been prepared for them and not Gibbs. Keep that in mind when comparing Gibbs' stats with those of Indian slow bowling greats from around the same era - Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Venkat - who would have been twirling their arms on home wickets tailor made for them.

[guildfordbat]

Chappell - his batting clearly sufficient for HoF. Very stylish and very good test figures. The minus of the underarm incident is substantial. It's much worse than in the heat of the moment claiming a catch that wasn't quite made when players may have barely a second to think. Bowling underarm is so far removed from the normal conduct of the game over many decades that quite rightly it created pretty much an international scandal /crisis at the time. I don't rule out relenting, as eg Guildford has done. But I won't necessarily change my vote this time simply because I expressed disapproval the first time he came up...

Corporal - I'm only relenting as I'm such a modern softy.

Excellent contributor and cyber man that he is, I wasn't impressed by Hoggy's comparison of the underarm incident to the Bodyline tour.

The underarm incident was and remains disgraceful, shameful, cowardly and dishonest in that it cheated not only the opposition but also the paying spectators. Your analogy with Brian ''I do declare'' Rose is spot on. It cannot be defended. Incidentally, the rightly revered Benaud said much the same.

It is up to each poster how much he holds or continues to hold Chapple's conduct in this incident against him. For me, the concern has rightly been raised and registered. I therefore won't pursue the matter although, as shown above, my clear disapproval remains. I certainly won't be pushing for you and others to join me. That's for you and all to decide. I understand if you choose to stay where you began.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Fair enough Guildford.
Perhaps my comparison was not entirely apt.
I do think, however, that excluding probably the best batsman of the 1970s and possibly the best Australian batsman since Bradman from our HoF, for a decision which, while entirely wrong, was taken during the heat of battle and for which he later expressed regret would, perhaps, be a little overzealous.

Perhaps it's fair enough that that event has caused Chappell to be consigned to the repochage in the first place because, without it, he'd almost certainly be in our HoF already.

[guildfordbat]

Fair enough Guildford.
Perhaps my comparison was not entirely apt.
I do think, however, that excluding probably the best batsman of the 1970s and possibly the best Australian batsman since Bradman from our HoF, for a decision which, while entirely wrong, was taken during the heat of battle and for which he later expressed regret would, perhaps, be a little overzealous.

Perhaps it's fair enough that that event has caused Chappell to be consigned to the repochage in the first place because, without it, he'd almost certainly be in our HoF already.

Hoggy - your final sentence is really my take on things and why - using the Corporal's expression - I now relent.

[Mike Selig]

The minus of the underarm incident is substantial. It's much worse than in the heat of the moment claiming a catch that wasn't quite made when players may have barely a second to think.

Completely disagree. The time-frame involved in both incidents is remarkably similar. For the underarm incident it took roughly 2 minutes from the moment Chappell moves to talk to the bowler to the moment the ball is delivered. For someone claiming a catch the umpires will usually consult, then send the batsman on his way. From the appeal to the batsman leaving the playing inclosure (at which point we pass the moment of no return) surely takes about 2 minutes?

Unlike guildford I don't see why Bodyline (which was certainly not a heat of the moment thing) is that much more excusable than bowling underarm. One is certainly more against the spirit of the game than the other, but one challenges the integrity of the game, and the other the lives of the players. Much as I'm committed to the integrity of cricket, I'm not sure it's worth more than a player's life.

[Mike Selig]

Here was the case I put forward for Belinda Clark back in the day she was first debated:

Why should Clark get in?

Her stats alone make her a great of the women's game. That is not in dispute. An average of 45 in tests puts here in the top 15 or so averages, whilst her one-day average is only bettered by Karen Rolton (and only fractionally at that). She is the leading run scorer of all time in ODIs and in the top 10 in tests. And of course, she was the first ever cricketer to reach a double century in an ODI.

She also is probably the most successful captain of all time in any form of the game, having won 83 out of 101 ODIs as captain (another women's record). She captained her country to two world cup wins (and scored crucial runs in the matches) and indeed I believe only lost one match as a world cup captain (in the final in 2001 but this may need checking).

More importantly though was what she did for the game of cricket overall. In a similar way to what WG Grace and then Victor Trumper did for modern batting in the men's game, Clark brought the women's game forward immesurably. The fact that when you watch a women's game now you could imagine watching a minor county match is in no small measure due to Clark's influence. She was a fearless moderniser, both in batting style (before her arrival a women playing a delightful cover-drive for 4 was almost unheard of) and of course with her captaincy.

Now to address some of the criticisms.

1) The standard of cricket.
But of course this is an argument we can make about anyone we haven't seen play. Indeed as an absolute, the standard of cricket has almost constantly improved, so should only modern greats be accepted? Of course not, we compare players with their peers, and judge greatness on how far ahead of their peers those players being considered are/were. That is the only sensible measure (short of time machines). Clark was as far ahead of her peers than anyone bar Bradman has been in the men's game.

People say the women's standard in general is less high. Of course they are comparing different beasts but in general I agree that comparitively to their physical capabilities, there are still some aspects (such as fielding) where the women's game lies behind that of the men's, even if in some aspects they are actually ahead of the men (e.g. the standard of wicket-keeping). However it is far closer in standard than it was say at the start of the 90s, and to this we owe a lot to Belinda Clark.

2) only 15 tests.
Sorry but this is ridiculous. She only played 15 tests because that was all she could play due to circumstances. We may as well reject Compton for missing out on tests during WW II.

3) Her record overall isn't gobsmacking.
Neither was Grace's yet no one would argue against his inclusion in the HoF. You can't compare her average with a man's as the game is different. Averages in general in the women's game are lower due to worse pitches, less pace on the ball added to less strength which makes the big shots harder to hit, slower outfields, etc. Comparing Clark to her peers, her overall record is great.

4) Her record against Minnows.

First of all, the difference in standard between the top women's sides and the minnows, and the same difference in the men's game is higher in the women's at the moment. It is no greater than the difference in the men's game in the late 70s say.

Secondly Clark did have a better record against the lesser teams, but so what? So did Murali, so did Bradman (I bring him up as he averaged quite a bit less against England than overall). So do most players. This is normal. Her average remains excellent (when viewed against her peers!) against the top sides.

Conclusion:

The point of the HoF is to judge those who have made an outstanding contribution to the game of cricket (as players, coaches, or even others). I can't believe that when faced with the evidence and considering it objectively people can honestly say Clark doesn't deserve her place.

[Shelsey93]

Underarm - and why I think people are being extraordinarily harsh

The first thing to say is that I am not defending underarm bowling - it is clearly against the spirit of the game, should not have happened and has rightly been outlawed. But to exclude, or even consider excluding, somebody who participated in 161 international matches from the Hall of Fame on the basis of it is, for me, vastly out of proportion.

1. Bowling underarm was within the laws of the game. Therefore, I see it as odd to argue that acting within the laws of the game was such a heinous crime as is being made out: particularly when this argument is coming from the same people who see Larwood's attempts to hurt people within the laws of the game as perfectly acceptable.

2. Guildford describes the incident as "dishonest". I think that term is unfair - Chappell was completely upfront about the incident and, if I remember rightly, checks with the umpires first.

3. The match in question was not a hugely significant international: it was the 3rd match of a 5-match finals series, and not a World Cup final or crucial Test Match. If there was a moment to get his curiosities about whether underarm could be used as a tactic out of his system, in many ways, this was it.

4. Linked to the previous point, the match situation meant that six were needed to tie. The chances of this happening in the pressurised environment of the final ball on a huge ground like the MCG, and with the batsman, Brian McKechnie, facing his first ball and batting at number 10, were miniscule. I suspect that a desire to 'see what would happen' and whether it could be used as a legitimate tactic influenced the decision to go ahead.

5. I suspect a bit of family politics was involved - would Dennis Lillee have been asked to bowl underarm? I imagine not. Because Trevor was bowling the last ball, it might be that Chappell thought he couldn't trust his younger brother, and so resorted to this extreme move, without thinking about the wider effects.

6. As others have argued, it all happened very much in the heat of a movement. In the death overs of a close ODI a captain has a lot on his plate - which bowlers to bowl, what field to set etc. Greg has no further record that I'm aware of of poor decision making in the heat of the moment (a Shahid Afridi would be excluded because his brainfades have been repetitive), and is believed to have regretted it. Is this any worse than Collingwood not recalling Grant Elliot at The Oval a few years ago?

7. The incident brought about some good, in that the law was changed.

8. Were the crowd cheated? Only sort of. I'd imagine to this day spectators remember attending the 'underarm game'. Would they remember, for arguments sake, that McKechnie scrambled a single and the Aussies won by 6 runs? Not attempting a justification here, but I think crowds are cheated more when 'bad' light stops play, or a Test match becomes highly one sided.

---

A further question has been raised over Chappell's spell as coach of India.

In my view he is again unfairly tainted for overseeing a period which in reality wasn't as bad as is often made out. The World Cup 2007 will always be highlighted, but who knows how far India would have gone if they beat Bangladesh? I suspect they'd have done better than England.

He had a tough task in managing players who didn't want to be managed, and made some clear errors. But he was acting for the good of Indian cricket, and I think the board should take the responsibility for employing somebody who was unsuited to coaching a side which didn't need a great deal of 'coaching'. Its also notable that his era laid the seeds for the team's most successful Test period in 2007-2010: in the first series after his departure they won in England, and they were soon at number one.

Also, I'm not sure his coaching really comes into his case: he is being nominated as a player, and whilst good coaching would boost his case, poor coaching shouldn't really damage it.

[msp83]

I don't think I would go with nominees being considered only for one aspect of their contribution is a fair way to go about. In fact I would say that's not the way we have gone about. Ranji for eg, his offfield character, even his innactions came in when we considered him. Bakewell, it was argued didn't do much other than playing the game. On Jayasuriya, besides his batting and bowling records, we considered his status as an innovator and his impact on Sri Lankan cricket.
I think overall, that is the currect approach. Otherwise had we considered Ranji only as an innovator, he would have walked in. In my case, my yes vote for Stan McCabe was also influenced in parts by his contributions as a bowler.

[msp83]

Now before some says we can favorably consider the additions but can't take it against a nominee if they falter in some of those additional departments, again Ranji's case has to be looked into.

[msp83]

Again just to clarify, I am not implying that Ranji was eventually rejected only on the basis of the additional factors, but only pointing out that a hyper selective approach may not work. It certainly doesn't work for me.

[Hoggy_Bear]

msp
I'm not saying that only one aspect of a career should be considered, just that, unless a candidate were to have done something extremely detrimental to the game of cricket during their 'secondary' career, mediocrity in that career should have minimal effect upon their selection.
For example, in the case of these candidates, the fact that Greg Chappell was (is) a mediocre coach/selector should IMO, have little bearing on his candidature, just as the fact that Woolmer was a mediocre player should have minimal bearing on his.
IF Chappell had, for example, instructed those he was coaching to cheat or if Woolmer had cheated in some way when playing then, of course, that would need to be discussed, but the fact that they both had 'average' secondary careers shouldn't be seen as being detrimental to their respective cases IMO.

[Hoggy_Bear]

And, as for Ranji. In the case of my own 'NO' vote for him, it was based mainly on the brevity of his career and the suggestion that that brevity was, at least in part, down to Ranji himself.

[dummy_half]

msp

I think how we consider nominees almost has to be addressed on a 'case by case' basis - for example, Bob Woolmer was nothing more than a decent player (good county pro and played a few Tests but never with great distinction), so he is nominated based on his achievements and innovations as a coach. In a way, it may even be a positive that his playing record was so weak, as it makes his success in coaching more commendable. Similarly, consideration of Chappell is really about the great batsman, and his coaching record can be discounted.

On the other hand, Belinda Clark's record needs considering in its entirety - she was clearly one of the leading women players, but add to that she was an outstandingly successful captain and a great driving force in the running of women's cricket in Aus. Peter May was nominated / inducted based on a similar holistic assessment of involvement as player, captain and selector, and Benaud's inclusion must surely have also taken into account his quality as a commentator and communicator on the game.

Oh, on Chappell and the underarm bowling, my issue is two fold:
1 - While legal (at the time) it was clearly against the spirit of the game, and it is this 'spirit' that even now sets cricket apart from other team sports (footballers are expected to cheat, and rugby players are positively praised for it as long as they don't get caught).
2 - It was really cowardly and unnecessary in the context of the match. OK, if 6 was needed off the last ball by Viv Richards in full flow then I might consider what options I have to stop it (perhaps placing a fielder half way up the stand at mid wicket ), but for a tail ender first ball up? 1000-1 against him getting it, and probably only 25-1 on him even getting the middle of the bat on the ball.

The differences between this and Bodyline is that the underarm ball was not a premeditated tactic, and clearly has no possibiity of hurting an opponent (beyond a badly broken toe nail).

[msp83]

My view on the matter of holistic assessment of a nominee is that while there could be a central aspect to a nominee's case, other aspects, both positive additions as well as negatives should be considered. The secondary factors could remain secondary in the eventual assessment, nevertheless they do have a place in my book, all be it not a fundamental one.
One thing we have to note in the case of Chappell is that he became Indian coach also on the back of his achievements as a player and captain, a commentator and so on. At the time of him taking over the position, it was a high profile cricketing job, it is the results and other issues that eventually made it mediocre. Could also throw some light on the personality of the nominee, remember people were relating Willis the commentator and Willis the person. While general personality, so long as it is not majorly controversial is secondary among the secondary factors for me, again that too, deserves some consideration.

[guildfordbat]

Unlike guildford I don't see why Bodyline (which was certainly not a heat of the moment thing) is that much more excusable than bowling underarm. One is certainly more against the spirit of the game than the other, but one challenges the integrity of the game, and the other the lives of the players. Much as I'm committed to the integrity of cricket, I'm not sure it's worth more than a player's life.

First of all, a few words about Chapple the batsman. Probably the best Australian I've seen live (either on tv or at a match) and reckoned by many to be the best post Bradman. I haven't done any research as yet this time but am fairly sure the stats back up those views.

Normally a nominee like that would easily get a YES vote from me. He didn't last time because of the underarm incident. I've said in the past and repeated this week that I will vote for Chapple this time in view of (i) his overall playing record and (ii) the rightful concern over the underarm incident having already been registered through our not inducting hime first time round.

As a YES voter this time, I'm reluctant to become or be painted a poster boy (or old fogey) for any anti-Chapple group and trust that is understandable.

However, we should all agree and accept that his actions that day were wrong. If anyone is in doubt, just find and look at the clip of Rod Marsh - a hardened, street fighter, if ever there was one, who would have been thought to do anything for a win - shaking his head behind the stumps when the realisation of what was about to happen became known to him and mouthing, ''No! No!''.

Richie Benaud's immediate after match condemnation was also startlingly clear. Those of us who put Benaud on a pedestal cannot pick and choose when to take him off it.

I find the comparison between the underarm incident and Bodyline contrived and inappropriate. Bodyline required great accuracy from the bowlers and still gave the batsmen a chance. Stan McCabe got into our HoF largely on the strength of it. There was no such opportunity for the New Zealand batsman.

You (obviously and rightly) place great importance on a player's life. That then raises various fast bowling issues. Is an occasional bouncer that catches a batsman by surprise actually worse than a continual barrage of bodyline balls? It is after all only one ball that could kill a player. Where does Andy Roberts fit in this with his slow bouncer to lull the batsman into a false sense of security and then the one at full pelt to catch the batsman unawares? A menacing brutal thug or a master of his art? For me, the danger and intimidation with the skilled response is all part of the game. Yes, some checks and controls need to be in place but this is a long, long way from underarm bowling which was never acceptable. By all means, debate these aspects of cricket and danger but let's recognise that underarm bowling is not part of the discussion.

I would liken your comparison to comparing abusive language with fast driving. The latter can be deadly; however, with proper controls and checks, it can be fun, exciting and effective. The former, however, is always wrong even though no one will die as a result of it by itself. Most of all though, abusive language has nothing to do with fast driving - they are different subjects and the same applies to underarm bowling and Bodyline.

Back to the Chapple incident. As stated, the incident was clearly wrong and it's for each of us to decide how much we hold that against him. That is the question. The answer should largely determine whether he gets a YES or NO vote. That's what needs to be decided - and it has nothing to do with Harold Larwood's bowling of almost ninety years ago! That man has suffered enough without being dragged through this debate.

As a footnote, I think it's right to take some note of Chapple's post playing career as it is for all nominees. However, it clearly has no relevance to his batting and unless it shows anything else up as significant I would be inclined to let it go. I'm always conscious that a cricketer has no obligation to stay in the game post playing and so tend to usually regard anything afterwards as a little bonus rather than a major factor. (I recognise Woolmer is entirely different.)

[msp83]

When I said Chappell's stint as coach would be 1 of the factors I would look into, I didn't say I vote no just because he wasn't the most successful coach on the planet.
Now guildford has pointed out that the underarm incident was looked down upon by players involved in the game concerned yet Chappell went ahead. If we stretch things a bit and I am doing that a little bit, we could see he was a touch undemocratic to say the least, and and that aspect of his personality landed him in trouble with many of India's players later. I would like to read more on Chappell the captain more and then take a call on how much of his coaching stint should be given a weightage in the overall scheme of things.

[guildfordbat]

I would like to read more on Chappell the captain more and then take a call on how much of his coaching stint should be given a weightage in the overall scheme of things.

Msp - just a line to emphasise that it's your vote and you have every right to explore where you consider appropriate before casting it.

[Mad for Chelsea]

right ho, let's start the discussion on Taylor.

1) Taylor the cricketer: Claire Taylor was a very fine batswoman. Indeed Mike Selvey suggests she was "perhaps the finest batsman the women's game has seen." She averaged over 40 in both tests and ODIs. Her conversion rate in tests is excellent (4 centuries for 2 fifties) and she holds the highest ODI score at Lords with 156 not out against India in 2006. I'm not necessarily going to run through her whole career here, as it would take a while. However, one very interesting point is that after the 2001 World Cup - where England fared dismally but Taylor did very well with 260-odd runs at an average in the mid-60s - she gave up her job as an IT consultant to become a full-time cricketer. I haven't found any evidence as to whether she was the first to make this sort of move, but this shows great dedication to the game, as her income as a cricketer was (according to Wikipedia) around £7000 per year, so she had to move back in with her parents to get by. I'd also suggest this move (and the consequent improvement - she was much more consistent after 2001) is an important milestone in the professionalisation of the women's game, and indeed a cornerstone for England's success in the latter half of that decade.

2) Some achievements. Again I won't list them all, but here are a few to get on with. Her 156 not out previously mentioned (surpassing Viv Richards knock of 139 in 1979, still the highest individual score in an ODI at Lords (I think). She starred in all three World Cups she played in, finishing with averages of over 60 and more than 260 runs in 01, 05, and 09. Indeed, in 2009, she was named player of the tournament in England's successful campaign (something the men of course are yet to achieve), scoring 324 runs in the process (leading run scorer, and highest average of those who scored at least 100 runs). She was also later that year player of the tournament in the inaugural T20 World Cup, which England also won, scoring 199 runs only being dismissed once (leading run scorer again) and guiding England home with 39 not out in the final against New Zealand.

Basically, she thrived on the biggest stage (I think it's important to note that her record in World Cups is remarkable), and was perhaps the most important member of the England side which swept all before them in the year 2009.

3) Awards. Claire Taylor was nominated for woman's cricketer of the year in 07, 08, and 09. Unsurprisingly, she won the award in 2009. Somewhat more unexpectedly, her spectacular year in 09 saw her become the first (and as of yet, only) woman to be named one of Wisden's five cricketers of the year. Though at the time there was a bit of muttering about this, when you consider how good her batting was that year (averaging 70 in ODIs, and over 100 in T20s) this award was totally deserved. Scyld Berry wrote in the Telegraph: "It would have been a sin of omission, an act of prejudice, not to have selected her" (full article here. This nomination of course helped immeasurably with the exposure of the women's game, helping it gain greater recognition. Finally, she was awarded the same year an MBE.

I think that's a good start, and on this basis feel Taylor would make a fine addition to our HoF.

[msp83]

"Even to team-mates he could look stern, schoolmasterly. Geoff Lawson has described the agonies of entering the Australia team in 1980, of Chappell with hands on hips at slip "as if to say, 'Don't bowl that crap, son,' every time I bowled a half-volley or got hit for a boundary": he deemed Chappell "one of the poorest captains that I had ever played under". His confreres Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh found Chappell a more communicative and empathic captain after he had tasted ruinous failure in the summer of 1981-82."
This is an extract from an article by Gideon Haigh on cricinfo.
In the same article haigh goes on to say
"Chappell's great indiscretion was the underarm delivery. Most cricket conflicts arise from adrenaline, anger, petulance. Here was a rare counter-example, originating in the opposite state of mind, from a coldly rational assessment of problem and of probabilities, involving a solution on Chappell's mind since a one-day match during World Series Cricket had been won off the last ball by a tailender's six. Chappell's decision is generally construed as a momentary lapse, an instance of judgement impaired by tiredness. Yet it might also be seen as one of Chappell's truest actions - evidence of his analytical mind and unsentimental nature. Producers in Channel 9's commentary position used to direct cameramen to vision of Chappell with a terse instruction: "Give us a shot of Killer." Killers are as killers do."

[guildfordbat]

Mad - good opening case for Taylor.

When did she pack up playing and what's she doing now? Please don't say earning a mint in IT!

[guildfordbat]

"Even to team-mates he could look stern, schoolmasterly. Geoff Lawson has described the agonies of entering the Australia team in 1980, of Chappell with hands on hips at slip "as if to say, 'Don't bowl that crap, son,' every time I bowled a half-volley or got hit for a boundary": he deemed Chappell "one of the poorest captains that I had ever played under". His confreres Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh found Chappell a more communicative and empathic captain after he had tasted ruinous failure in the summer of 1981-82."
This is an extract from an article by Gideon Haigh on cricinfo.
In the same article haigh goes on to say
"Chappell's great indiscretion was the underarm delivery. Most cricket conflicts arise from adrenaline, anger, petulance. Here was a rare counter-example, originating in the opposite state of mind, from a coldly rational assessment of problem and of probabilities, involving a solution on Chappell's mind since a one-day match during World Series Cricket had been won off the last ball by a tailender's six. Chappell's decision is generally construed as a momentary lapse, an instance of judgement impaired by tiredness. Yet it might also be seen as one of Chappell's truest actions - evidence of his analytical mind and unsentimental nature. Producers in Channel 9's commentary position used to direct cameramen to vision of Chappell with a terse instruction: "Give us a shot of Killer." Killers are as killers do."

Msp - there's a bit of Fred Titmus about you as well. (Hoggy will understand even if you don't!)

[Hoggy_Bear]

"Even to team-mates he could look stern, schoolmasterly. Geoff Lawson has described the agonies of entering the Australia team in 1980, of Chappell with hands on hips at slip "as if to say, 'Don't bowl that crap, son,' every time I bowled a half-volley or got hit for a boundary": he deemed Chappell "one of the poorest captains that I had ever played under". His confreres Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh found Chappell a more communicative and empathic captain after he had tasted ruinous failure in the summer of 1981-82."
This is an extract from an article by Gideon Haigh on cricinfo.
In the same article haigh goes on to say
"Chappell's great indiscretion was the underarm delivery. Most cricket conflicts arise from adrenaline, anger, petulance. Here was a rare counter-example, originating in the opposite state of mind, from a coldly rational assessment of problem and of probabilities, involving a solution on Chappell's mind since a one-day match during World Series Cricket had been won off the last ball by a tailender's six. Chappell's decision is generally construed as a momentary lapse, an instance of judgement impaired by tiredness. Yet it might also be seen as one of Chappell's truest actions - evidence of his analytical mind and unsentimental nature. Producers in Channel 9's commentary position used to direct cameramen to vision of Chappell with a terse instruction: "Give us a shot of Killer." Killers are as killers do."

So a somewhat autocratic captain who took a decision to use a tactic that, though legal, he would have known would be controversial and construed as being against the spirit of cricket, after a rational and unsentimental assesment of the situation.


Douglas Jardine? (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[msp83]

Here is the link for the above mentioned article.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/489402.html

[Hoggy_Bear]

It's a good article msp, but the idea that it was a rational decision reached after an unsentimental assesment is a littleat odds with Chappell's own recollection of events, as put forward in a radio interview in 2004

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1035164.htm

[dummy_half]

Hoggy

One of the interesting things I read about Jardine was that he was just about the best batsman in England at playing against Bodyline or other short-pitched fast bowling. I wonder if this was part of the reason he didn't see it as a particularly radical tactic (after all, leg theory already existed, as did short pitched fast bowling, it was just the combination of the two that was new).

Not sure that Greg Chappell was the best at hitting 6s off underarm bowling (although given it was his kid brother bowling it, he might have hit a few out of the back garden ). Actually, the discussion so far does a lot to show the type of character GC was - extremely determined (even for an Aussie) and prepared to do anything and everything it took to win, even in this case over-stepping the mark in most people's opinions. May not make for the best captain or coach in relation to man management (as the Geoff Lawson anecdote indicates), but may have played a big part in why he was such a good player.

[msp83]

Here are Chappell's own reflections on how he should have handled a few things differently as Indian coach, and his own assessment that many of the mistakes were on line with the ones he made as captain.
"My biggest regret was falling out with Sachin over him batting at number four in the one-day team," PTI quotes Chappell as writing in his new autobiography, Fierce Focus. "It was a shame because he and I had some intense and beneficial talks together prior to that. My impatience to see improvement across the board was my undoing in the end.

"The mistakes I made were not particularly 'western' but the same kind of mistakes I had made as a captain in my playing days. I didn't communicate my plans well enough to the senior players. I should have let guys like Tendulkar, (VVS) Laxman and (Virender) Sehwag know that although I was an agent of change, they were still part of our Test future."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/539968.html

[msp83]

His troubles as selector in the 1980s are also instructive.

[guildfordbat]

Actually, the discussion so far does a lot to show the type of character GC was - extremely determined (even for an Aussie) and prepared to do anything and everything it took to win, even in this case over-stepping the mark in most people's opinions. May not make for the best captain or coach in relation to man management (as the Geoff Lawson anecdote indicates), but may have played a big part in why he was such a good player.

Dummy - I think that's a very valid point. I tried to emphasise in the opening of my post to Mike earlier today that we should recognise what an extremely good batsman he was - that's in danger of being forgotten or overlooked as we trample through the long grass of underarm bowling. A hugely talented batsman with determination in equal measure - he was always the Aussie I most wanted us to get out.

[Mad for Chelsea]

on Chappell:

simply put, if we take "underarm"-gate out of the equation, he's a shoe-in for the HoF. His cricketing career is remarkable, averaging 54 in the 70s-80s is superb. I'm not sure his coaching stint with India is all that important: for one, it wasn't quite the disaster it's usually made out to be, and for another, India are a team quite a few coaches have struggled with IIRC.

The question then comes down to whether "underarm-gate" is in itself sufficient to exclude him from the HoF. Now I sympathise with Mike somewhat here, in that I think it tends to be over-played at times. Yes, it was thoroughly against the spirit of the game, but was it all that calculated? I think it was more of a spur of the moment thing, and most people's accounts from the time suggest that GC was not in a great state of mind (IIRC he'd wanted to go off the field quite a bit earlier, only to be persuaded by Marsh to stay on). I'm not condoning GC's actions, which were wrong, but they are mitigating circumstances, and I think it's unfair to hold one moment in a long, highly distinguished career, to the extent that's being done.

[Mad for Chelsea]

on the other candidates (which I'm sure we'll get to in time):

Mike makes a great case for Clark. I'm sure those who were around first time will recall that Mike and myself were probably her two strongest advocates. In particular the influence she had on the women's game as a trailblazer is key for me.

Gibbs: I think I voted a reluctant NO first time around, but I think I was a bit harsh. A couple of good points about low n° tail-enders dismissed, and the fact he was very very good at the time of game which was played then (Mike says "war of attrition") may well tip the balance in his favour.

[msp83]

MFC I don't think quite a few coaches have had so much of trouble with team India. Some of them faced problems from the administrative side, but not so much with the players. There were individual issues, just like thee would be in any setting, but nothing more than that.
I had started with Chappell's coaching as a minor aspect that needs consideration, but the more I research, the more I am getting convinced it actually deserves a more serious look, particularly as it reflects a kind of pattern when he was captain and then later selector as well.
May not enough to riject his case in the end, as he was a batsman of superb class and a master of all conditions and has a mighty fine record.

[msp83]

If your captain is a perfectionist ready to chastise you on the first given opportunity, that could have a pretty negative impact on the team as a whole.

[Mike Selig]

Quick question regarding Chappel: if he hadn't gone on to become a coach, would we hold that against him? In that case how can we hold against him actually trying to help the game directly? Here's a thought, let's hold it against all those who have chosen to make a quick and easy dollar as a commentator rather than give something directly back to the game? Ludicrous.

Also, suggestions that Chappel was a mediocre coach are ridiculous. He was a very good coach who had a poor stint at India, because he failed to adapt to his environment, but in the scheme of things he was a very good coach.

[msp83]

Quick question regarding Chappel: if he hadn't gone on to become a coach, would we hold that against him? In that case how can we hold against him actually trying to help the game directly? Here's a thought, let's hold it against all those who have chosen to make a quick and easy dollar as a commentator rather than give something directly back to the game? Ludicrous.

Also, suggestions that Chappel was a mediocre coach are ridiculous. He was a very good coach who had a poor stint at India, because he failed to adapt to his environment, but in the scheme of things he was a very good coach.

Well, the fact is that he indeed went on to become a coach and a pretty controversial one at that..
As I have tried to make clear over my last few posts, there are certain similarities between Chappell the captain and Chappell the coach. So I don't think there is anything ludicrous in there.

[Mike Selig]

He had a poor stint in India, where his personality clashed with the players. I am personally of the opinion that that is his fault, that as a coach you have to adapt to what's in front of you and you can't demand that what's in front of you adapts to you; you have to introduce "soft change" in an environment like India's, something Kirsten managed to do, but Chappel didn't. That doesn't make him a poor coach, or necessarily a controversial one.

Again, I don't see how you can hold his coaching career against him. In that case you have to hold Botham and Willis's commentary against them (they are far worse commentators than Chappel is a coach, even ignoring the fact that by coaching you are giving something back to the game).

I just don't think it is fair to hold his coaching against him, whereas had he sat on his backside and done nothing we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[msp83]

Well, haveing a very public spat with the captain through organized and planned meadia leaks has to be quite controversial in my view.
Again, my point is that his coaching and captaincy has to be considered extention of one another in certain senses. In both departments Chappell wasn't an out and out disaster, but both his captaincy and coaching stints had a serious element of controversy/player dissatisfaction. More than the coaching stint, I would give weightage to the captaincy stint and and put for the point that his later issues as coach and selector had some roots in Chappell the captain.

[guildfordbat]

- I was eventually persuaded to vote yes for Gibbs. I think people when looking at his record need to look at it in context. At a time where test cricket was a war of attrition very often, Gibbs was the best soldier you could wish for.

Mike - I meant to mention yesterday how apt I thought this comment was. I noticed MfC flagged it today.

It very much ties in with the following tribute from West Indian cricket writer Frank Birbalsingh, ''not only the greatest West Indian spin bowler (309 wickets) - but one of the most combatative of West Indian cricketers''.

Too often, a ''combatative'' cricketer is thought of as an aggressive, in your face with bat or ball type such as Pietersen or Thomson. We shouldn't overlook that it also relates to those who determinedly and continually drill away and, as you say, Gibbs was the best at that.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Must admit I'm being won over to the Gibbs' cause (though I'm still not absolutely certain).
His service to Warks. as hinted at in his Cricketer of the Year testimonial from 1972 is, of course, of particular interest to me, and may prove highly influential in the way I vote.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/154522.html

[Corporalhumblebucket]

The minus of the underarm incident is substantial. It's much worse than in the heat of the moment claiming a catch that wasn't quite made when players may have barely a second to think.

Completely disagree. The time-frame involved in both incidents is remarkably similar. For the underarm incident it took roughly 2 minutes from the moment Chappell moves to talk to the bowler to the moment the ball is delivered. For someone claiming a catch the umpires will usually consult, then send the batsman on his way. From the appeal to the batsman leaving the playing inclosure (at which point we pass the moment of no return) surely takes about 2 minutes?

Mike. Big difference in my view. The pretty much instinctive claim for a catch that wasn't quite made. But then it's about unwillingness to back down, to own up to a mistake, meanness, ruthlessness - or whatever - in not taking the opportunity to withdraw the claim. Worlds apart from instructing bowler to go underarm. But I recall last time round we differed strongly on this issue as well. Probably been done to death so will reach a view on the balance of arguments - including those put forward by the Rt Rev Benaud . "Disgraceful" .... "one of the worst things I have ever seen being done on the cricket field"

Good case being made for Taylor.... Pleased to see merits of Gibbs getting a good airing, including his contribution to Warks which I hadn't previously paid much attention to.

[Mike Selig]

I think it's fair to say that we won't agree on this Corporal. My opinion is that it was disgraceful, but extenuating circumstances should be given as it was done in the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure, and I believe has been regretted ever since.

And I don't think it should be enough on its own to get a NO vote to arguably Australia's 2nd greatest ever batsman.

MfC has made an excellent case for Taylor - I would certainly agree that she's the greatest ever batswoman. I would also argue that she has taken on where Clark left off in driving the standards of the woman's game forwards - to compare she is Tubby Taylor to Alan Border for Australia...

I'm still concerned it is too soon to judge her "legacy".

[msp83]

Both Taylor and Clark have the records that has to be taken note of. Clark has made significant contributions to the game after her playing days. Taylor has retired rather recently, but MFC's case for her is a particularly interesting one. Think I would start with a favorable outlook.

[guildfordbat]

I think it's fair to say that we won't agree on this Corporal. My opinion is that it was disgraceful, but extenuating circumstances should be given as it was done in the heat of the moment, under extreme pressure, and I believe has been regretted ever since.

And I don't think it should be enough on its own to get a NO vote to arguably Australia's 2nd greatest ever batsman.

Mike - I consider your comments understandable and certainly more credible than Shelsey's apparent suggestion yesterday (11:51 am, points 3 and 4) that Chapple acted out of some sort of cricketing curiosity. For me, that stretches incredulity beyond all reasonable limits.

[Sponsored content]