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

[Hoggy_Bear]

I think with regard to Clark and Taylor, alfie's point of comparing them with their peers is extremely important (a point with which I agree but which, perhaps, I didn't apply consistently in the case of Bakewell).
Were Clark and Taylor great in comparison with other women cricketers and, especially, other women cricketers of their own time?
Of course, as Guildford has said, it is right to raise the question of how good their peers actually were. After all, it's easier to stand out if the general standard is very low. But then, should such questions not also be asked about, for example, WG Grace's oustanding performances in comparison with other FC cricketers in the latter part of the 19th century?
These are difficult questions to answer so, personally, I would tend toward the view that outstanding performance in comparison to peers should be the most important criteria. This is because outstanding personal performance is not only indicative of a candidates own abilities, but may also be indicative of that candidate's place in the development of the game, as such outstanding performance (as in the case of Grace and, possibly, in the case of someone like Clark) often helps to drag the game forwards.

[msp83]

I think with regard to Clark and Taylor, alfie's point of comparing them with their peers is extremely important (a point with which I agree but which, perhaps, I didn't apply consistently in the case of Bakewell).
Were Clark and Taylor great in comparison with other women cricketers and, especially, other women cricketers of their own time?
Of course, as Guildford has said, it is right to raise the question of how good their peers actually were. After all, it's easier to stand out if the general standard is very low. But then, should such questions not also be asked about, for example, WG Grace's oustanding performances in comparison with other FC cricketers in the latter part of the 19th century?
These are difficult questions to answer so, personally, I would tend toward the view that outstanding performance in comparison to peers should be the most important criteria. This is because outstanding personal performance is not only indicative of a candidates own abilities, but may also be indicative of that candidate's place in the development of the game, as such outstanding performance (as in the case of Grace and, possibly, in the case of someone like Clark) often helps to drag the game forwards.

When I voted for Bakewell, her outstanding record was the determining factor for me. The one serious concern I had was her record against Australia that was good but not great. I think we should factor in Clark's and Taylor's performance against the predominant sides of their era, otherwise their overall record is pretty good.

[guildfordbat]

Of course, as Guildford has said, it is right to raise the question of how good their peers actually were. After all, it's easier to stand out if the general standard is very low. But then, should such questions not also be asked about, for example, WG Grace's oustanding performances in comparison with other FC cricketers in the latter part of the 19th century?
These are difficult questions to answer ....

Hoggy - thanks for the acknowledgement. I actually do have concerns about the quality of Grace's peers in the latter part of the 19th century. I just don't know how good they were. For this reason, I need a lot of evidence and convincing before voting YES to someone from that era. Shelsey supplied it in respect of George Lohmann whilst Grace's reputation and eminence as a founder of the game was enough for me to agree to him being one of our initial thirty members. However, I feel they are exceptions for me from that time rather than the rule.

Without a significant contribution to the game post playing, I would want to see and be sure of subtantial dominance over a substantial period (which I perceived to be the case for both Lohmann and Grace) for others from this era before giving any of them a YES vote. Do you disagree? Genuinely interested.

I certainly accept this is all ''difficult'' as you say and readily accept that my ignorance of the particular era adds to that. When I know little about a nominee (eg, Tate, Ponsford), I'm happy (very happy!) to find out more about the person; it's generally not too difficult when I already have some awareness of the era they played in. However, it's a lot more complex and challenging to judge an unknown when you also have to learn about their peers from an unknown era. I find similarities here with the womens' game where I have little knowledge and less of an interest.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Without a significant contribution to the game post playing, I would want to see and be sure of subtantial dominance over a substantial period (which I perceived to be the case for both Lohmann and Grace) for others from this era before giving any of them a YES vote. Do you disagree? Genuinely interested.

No, I think I'd agree with that, which is one of the main reasons I voted against Ranji.
I also probably agree that questions over the quality of opposition should make such a requirement neccessary for women candidates as well, particularly from earlier periods of the women's game, but would say that, where sustained levels of dominance over their peers IS present (as I believe it is in Clark's case), it should be that dominance in relation to their peers that should be the overiding factor in their candidature.

[guildfordbat]

Cheers, Hoggy. Appreciated. I think we're at one on the principles. As for interpretation ...

As a thank you, I'll give you a present on Gibbs a little later.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

And on Chappell.....I think on reflection that what I react badly against is any argument that the under arm incident wasn't all THAT bad compared with X or Y. But I will give a bit more attention to what if were any genuine extenuating circumstances (ie not simply desire to win a tight match!).

At risk like many a good Corporal of re fighting old wars. But I remain surprised that Ranji wasn't given greater credit for his innovation. Relevant to the point Guildford raises. When looking at players from long gone periods, innovation is another important factor that should weigh, alongside substantial domination over a substantial period....

[guildfordbat]

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

Hoggy - I was living in the Land of the Bears and following them back in the '70s when Gibbs was doing his stuff. Even when he wasn't knocking opponents over, he was still so often providing a highly valuable role - probably never better illustrated than in this scorecard when Warks defeated Worcs to reach the final of the 1972 Gillette Cup 60 over tournament, the leading one day competition of its day.

You'll see two other Hall of Fame contenders (one inducted last week and the other a further repocharge candidate) played alongside Gibbs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/416409.html

[Shelsey93]

Wow. Those figures are stunning.

Without having done any extensive research into him yet, I'm more and more convinced that Gibbs isn't particularly debatable - we go on about him so often not taking the wickets but being a fine team member and complementing the other bowlers, but he took 308 Test wickets himself.

The average is probably the primary concern people have. But spinners will almost always have higher averages, because when runs are being leaked they are the ones that are asked to bowl all day, and because they often have to support the quick men, particularly in England, Australia and SA. Note that even Warne's average was above 25, and Murali's not as low as you might imagine for a man with 800 wickets.

[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

Hoggy - I was living in the Land of the Bears and following them back in the '70s when Gibbs was doing his stuff. Even when he wasn't knocking opponents over, he was still so often providing a highly valuable role - probably never better illustrated than in this scorecard when Warks defeated Worcs to reach the final of the 1972 Gillette Cup 60 over tournament, the leading one day competition of its day.

You'll see two other Hall of Fame contenders (one inducted last week and the other a further repocharge candidate) played alongside Gibbs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/416409.html

Took some tap in that match didn't he

But what a good team Warks. had at the time

[Shelsey93]

I wasn't aware that teams could have four overseas players at that time - Kanhai, Kallicharan, Murray and Gibbs.

Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm guessing that then all you had to do to be eligible was qualify through local cricket?? If so, was this a talking point at the time? Did people think that this was potentially blocking the path of young English players - an accusation which has more recently been levelled at kolpaks?

I'd assumed there had always been a limit in place.

[Hoggy_Bear]

As far as I'm aware Shelsey, there were no limits on the number of overseas players allowed in the late 60s/early 70s (other than money), and there wasn't really much discussion abut them blocking English players, as far as I know.
Having said that, Warks. were, probably, the biggest user of overseas players in the country at the time, so their team was not typical.

[Shelsey93]

As far as I'm aware Shelsey, there were no limits on the number of overseas players allowed in the late 60s/early 70s (other than money), and there wasn't really much discussion abut them blocking English players, as far as I know.
Having said that, Warks. were, probably, the biggest user of overseas players in the country at the time, so their team was not typical.

Thanks for that Hoggy.

Obviously it was the early days of overseas players so I guess it was establishing itself.

Would be interesting what would have happened if it hadn't changed. Would it have become more like football with certain teams systematically buying up world superstars? And hence would there be a greater international emphasis on county cricket today than there is now?

Anyway, we are digressing a little.

[guildfordbat]

As far as I'm aware Shelsey, there were no limits on the number of overseas players allowed in the late 60s/early 70s (other than money), and there wasn't really much discussion abut them blocking English players, as far as I know.
Having said that, Warks. were, probably, the biggest user of overseas players in the country at the time, so their team was not typical.

Thanks for that Hoggy.

Obviously it was the early days of overseas players so I guess it was establishing itself.

Would be interesting what would have happened if it hadn't changed. Would it have become more like football with certain teams systematically buying up world superstars? And hence would there be a greater international emphasis on county cricket today than there is now?

Anyway, we are digressing a little.

An interesting digression though. A good thread is like a good dinner party. Plenty of flowing conversation. Where's the wine, eh Kwini?

I think Hoggy is right about there not being limits (other than financial constraints). The overseas players did have to complete a residency period. When Gibbs first was discussed on here, I read that he wasn't immediately able to play for Warks but, in a show of team support, kept turning up at the ground asking to be twelfth man!

As Hoggy suggests, there was no noticeable discussion at the time of such players blocking the way of home born talent. The thing which is very different now and which you have to appreciate is that back then county cricket was seen as a highly prestigious form of the game in its own right. It was not primarily viewed as being a feeder for the England Test side (that was a function of it but not the perceived main function). English cricket followers clearly supported England but they also tended to have a much closer affinity with their county side than today. Thus, Warks supporters generally welcomed these overseas signings taking the view that they were excellent acquisitions for the side and that any English youngsters at the Club would need to up their performance to get a game.

Whilst Warks led the way in terms of numbers, several other counties were not far behind. In the Gillette match I flagged, Worcs had three overseas Test players; West Indies opening bat Ron (son of George) Headley, his fellow opener New Zealander Glenn Turner and West Indies seamer Vanburn Holder. As Kwini will probably wax lyrical about if he sees this post, Hants had a trio of world greats; Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge and Andy Roberts.

I think the key reason the English cricketing public (including supporters of opposing teams) generally so warmed to these players - even more than their ability - is that they demonstrated loyalty and commitment to their adopted county over several years. Unlike today where an overseas player might jet in for a handful of T20 county games and then jet out with a shedload of cash, they were in for the long haul. The Hants trio above put in a combined total of over 40 seasons.

I think the biggest cause - or certainly catalyst - for change was Kerry Packer who showed there should be a lot more money for the top players of the game. However, that subject will soon become a large digression and so I'll leave it there. Hope it helps!

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Hi all,

I really will need to do a lot of reading back before voting this time around, work's been busy this week.

Anyways, Guildford asked me to offer up the modern NZ perspective on the underarm incident for those pondering their vote on ChappellG.

World Series Cricket in the early '80s holds a lot of cricketing memories for New Zealanders. There was Lance Cairns' 6 sixes (in those days that meant something) at the MCG in final 2 in 1983, and there was the 1981 final match at the MCG, notable for a couple of unsportsmanlike acts that resound in memory by Greg Chappell.

Firstly there was the Snedden catch - NZ seamer Martin Snedden* took a brilliant diving catch at mid wicket to dismiss Chappell. However Chappell refused to take Snedden's word the catch had been taken, and the (home town) umpires both decided they had been watching the popping crease for short runs. No DRS in those days sadly. Chappell was on 52 at the time, and eventually "walked" on 90 after a similarly brilliant catch by Bruce Edgar**. Secondly there was the underarm ball itself. Putting it in context, ChappellG had made a hash of his bowling rotation, and got to the final over with only ChappellT having any overs left***. Hence had NZ won he'd have really copped a barrel in the media, especially after the Snedden incident. Brian McKechnie walked in at #11 to face the last ball, with 6 runs needed to tie the match. McKechnie wasn't the worst #11 in the world, he played as an bowling all rounder for Otago****, averaging 18 in first class cricket (so a solid #8 or 9 bat).

At the time the incident raised a firestorm, albeit not quite at bodyline levels. NZ Prime Minister Muldoon (who was quite handy with a quip, and badly in need of votes that year to retain power) described it as

...the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket ... it was an act of true cowardice and I consider it appropriate that the Australian team were wearing yellow.

Australia toured NZ the following summer, and NZ crowds were initially in no mood to give Chappell any breaks - someone rolled a lawn bowl onto the field during the Eden Park ODI. However he won them over with some sublime batting which ultimately the crowds could only applaud.

Chappell has claimed (see http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1035164.htm) that he suffered a mental breakdown during the match due to the pressure he was under as captain in a new fully pro era, without a coach or support team.

The final quote from the interviewer I find interesting

...But whatever was going through Greg Chappell's mind, why ever it happened, it will always be the final arrow in the quiver when Kiwis and Australians argue. And Australians know that the discussion is then over – there's just no comeback to the incident of the underarm ball.

, and he's right. I think nowadays us Kiwis love that we can always resort to "at least we don't bowl underarm" to end a debate.

The trans-Tasman ODI series between Australia and NZ is contested for the Chappell-Hadlee trophy, recognising the 2 premier families in the countries' games. That series was inaugurated in the 2000s, I doubt NZ would have agreed to the name 10 years earlier, but time has healed.

A wee excerpt from the Wiki article on underarm:

... Also on 17 February 2005, over 24 years after the original underarm delivery, Australian fast bowler Glenn McGrath light-heartedly revisited the incident in the first ever Twenty20 international, played between Australia and New Zealand. In the last over of the match, a grinning McGrath dummied an underarm delivery to Kyle Mills, which prompted New Zealand umpire Billy Bowden to produce a mock red card. This drew a large reception from the Eden Park crowd, which was mostly made up of New Zealand fans.

Looking back at the game now, over 30 years on, I actually find that I'm more peeved with Chappell over the Snedden catch than the underarm ball. And I'm probably leaning towards voting YES on his induction.


As a final comment on the underarm ball, technically it WAS a no ball - Dennis Lillee was leaning on the boundary fence and hence not in the field of play at the point of delivery.



*later head of NZ cricket, and CEO of the 2011 Rugby World Cup organising company - shades of Seb Coe
** Edgar was the non-striker when the ball was bowled, he was later criticised in NZ for his slow strike rate, he batted the full 50 overs for his 102 not out off 141 balls.
*** The Aussies went in with a massively stacked batting line up - only 2 recognised seamers in Lillee and Max Walker, a utility medium pacer/off spinning all rounder in Geoff Beard (who played 3 tests and 2 ODIs in his career) with the Chappell brothers bowling 10 overs each - Greg took 3-43
**** McKechnie was a pretty handy sportsman. Only 6 men have played both cricket and rugby for NZ, and he was one, playing 14 ODIs and 10 rugby tests (all off the bench). In 1978 he was a hero at the end of a test match, kicking the winning penalty goal vs Wales after a contoversial lineout penalty

[guildfordbat]

Many thanks, Pete.

That's a very helpful and informative post, particularly as to what went before and after the incident. The absence of irrelevant comparisons (eg, hardly a mention of Bodyline which too often bizarrely and needlessly gets prominently brought into the discussion) is especially appreciated.

Also, commendably devoid of emotion which can sometimes overtake many of us (pro and anti Chappell) when judging the incident.

I have to confess total ignorance about Lillee leaning on the boundary fence and the requirement to be in the field of play at the point of delivery.

All good stuff.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Cheers Guildford.

I'll add that the underarm ball wasn't the most controversial incident in NZ sport that year - that honour went to the Springboks rugby tour a few months later (sanctioned by Muldoon who (correctly) reasoned that the tour's opponents weren't going to vote for him anyway, and that getting rugby fans out to vote for him would carry the day). Queue anti-apartheid riots in the streets, pre-Hillsborough English soccer-style policing at matches and a light plane dropping flour bombs on the players during one test.

Somethiong I've just read on the Wiki page for the underam game, McKechnie got a telling off for dissent after the match for throwing his bat away after blocking the ball!

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Hi all,

I really will need to do a lot of reading back before voting this time around, work's been busy this week.

Anyways, Guildford asked me to offer up the modern NZ perspective on the underarm incident for those pondering their vote on ChappellG. .....

Excellent contribution - much food for thought. Certainly, mental breakdowns can completely warp the judgement.....

[alfie]

Hi all ...popping in with an apology for tossing in a hand grenade about the women and promptly disappearing ...was not my intention , but I've been unwell.

Will try and digest all the stuff written on here over the last few days and rejoin the discussion shortly. Cheers.

[guildfordbat]

Finding it difficult to get too excited about Claire Taylor's Test record.

15 matches in total with an average just over 41.
8 matches against Australia at a bit under 38.
5 matches against India at a bit over 23.

In contrast against South Africa - 2 matches, 2 innings, 2 centuries and an an average of 154. That's mightily impressive but such dominance doesn't appear wide ranging.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Finding it difficult to get too excited about Claire Taylor's Test record.

15 matches in total with an average just over 41.
8 matches against Australia at a bit under 38.
5 matches against India at a bit over 23.

In contrast against South Africa - 2 matches, 2 innings, 2 centuries and an an average of 154. That's mightily impressive but such dominance doesn't appear wide ranging.

Personally I'm of the opinion that for modern women's cricketers we need to take more account of limted overs - simply because the decline in the number of tests vs limited overs games in the womens' game is far more pronounced than for the men.

(note, I haven't had a chance to look up her ODI stats)

[Shelsey93]

We must remember that by the time Taylor emerged, women's Test cricket was already a fading force: by the time she was attracting headlines in T20 and ODI cricket women's Test cricket had been reduced to one-off Ashes encounters.

[guildfordbat]

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?

Mike - when Woolmer was first being mentioned around the time you were being extradited to France , Dummy queried whether he was more David Moyes than Sir Alex Ferguson. I think the implication was - very decent bloke and more than solid at his job but no real silverware or tournament wins to back up his credentials. Interested in your views and any further fleshing up, thanks.

[JDizzle]

McKechnie was a pretty handy sportsman. Only 6 men have played both cricket and rugby for NZ, and he was one, playing 14 ODIs and 10 rugby tests (all off the bench). In 1978 he was a hero at the end of a test match, kicking the winning penalty goal vs Wales after a controversial lineout penalty

Not in Wales he wasn't.

And controversial is one way of describing it! I wasn't even born when it happened and I am still bitter about it!

[guildfordbat]

Personally I'm of the opinion that for modern women's cricketers we need to take more account of limted overs - simply because the decline in the number of tests vs limited overs games in the womens' game is far more pronounced than for the men.

(note, I haven't had a chance to look up her ODI stats)

Pete - like you, I haven't got round to Taylor's ODI stats yet. However, I'm ideally looking to be satisfied on both ODIs and Tests ....

[guildfordbat]

McKechnie was a pretty handy sportsman. Only 6 men have played both cricket and rugby for NZ, and he was one, playing 14 ODIs and 10 rugby tests (all off the bench). In 1978 he was a hero at the end of a test match, kicking the winning penalty goal vs Wales after a controversial lineout penalty

Not in Wales he wasn't.

And controversial is one way of describing it! I wasn't even born when it happened and I am still bitter about it!

Good to see you over here, JD. Hope you'll stay around!

[Mike Selig]

A bit more on Woolmer:

A brief synopsis of his career.

First of all, his playing record. No one would suggest that Woolmer was a great player. He did however play 19 tests (and 6 ODIs!). His test record is ok without being extraordinary: an average of 33 with 3 centuries. Perhaps his greatest performance came in just his second game where he batted for 495 minutes at the Oval against an Australian side featuring Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Mallett. Following on more than 300 runs behind, England saved the test thanks in no small part to Woolmer's efforts - at the time the slowest hundred made by an England player.

His first class batting record more or less matched his test record, with the added bonus of picking 420 wickets at around 25 apiece. In fact Woolmer first broke through the ranks at Kent as a tidy medium-pace swing bowler, particularly useful during the middle overs of one-day matches, as an economy rate of 3.44 testifies to. From the mid-70s onwards, his batting came to the fore more, and this resulted in his being selected for England.

After his century in 1975, Woolmer would score two more against Australia in 1977. This led to him being contacted by Kerry Packer, and his best years were thus lost to international cricket. His decision to accept the invitation to play in the World series also undoubtedly cost him the Kent captaincy. When he returned to the international game in the early 80s he was but a shadow of his former self, and had little success.

His international career was effectively ended by his participation in the rebel tour of South Africa in 1982.

Of course participations in rebel tours are a bone of contention, but it is noticeable that on emigrating to South Africa in 1984, Woolmer joined a "coloured" club (Avendale) rather than a "white" one. He also spent a lot of time coaching local schools. Part of his legacy during his initial stint in South Africa is still there in the shape of an annual scholarship for a cricketer of Avensdale to come to Hampshire (source is Wiki, so this may or may not be accurate).

Woolmer then cut his teeth with the 2nd XI at Kent, before becoming Warwickshire's coach in 1991. He enjoyed great success at Warwickshire, which led to him being offered the job of South Africa. During his time there, he won 10 out of 15 test series, and 73% of ODIs, but failed to win the World Cup in both 1996 and 1999. He turned down the England job in 99, and took a break from coaching full-time to work for the ICC (more on this later). In 2004 he was named as Pakistan's head coach, to much derision from some of the locals. In 2005, his team managed a draw in India: to this day, only 2 other sides (South Africa and England) have matched that performance since 2004; no one has bettered it. He also recorded home wins over England (just after their ashes triumph), India and Sri Lanka. 3 test series in a row, all won 1-0 for Pakistan? Who else could have achieved such consistency with such a mercurial side?

Shortly after, he died in tragic circumstances. I don't believe it is worth going into these, although naturally his death will always be in the background.

Guildford asks whether Woolmer was more David Moyes than Alex Ferguson? I think that is a bit unfair: he won many trophies with Warwickshire, and most of his test and ODI series with both pakistan and South Africa. Beyond that, though, I think there are attributes that put Woolmer on a different level to other coaches of this game.

Moral attributes: fierce loyalty.

You may find this strange for someone who sanctioned (by his presence) a rebel tour to South Africa. Perhaps it was an eye-opener, because as mentioned when he returned to South Africa to coach he comitted himself to spreading the game widely.

What really characterises Woolmer's morals though is a fierce loyalty, trust and belief in his players. In two well-documented cases perhaps this was misplaced. First of all, Woolmer was betrayed (badly) by Cronje. Then there was the ball-tampering row with Pakistan in England (2006). In the latter case, Woolmer is said to have asked all the players to take an oath that they didn't tamper with the ball. To his death he maintained that he believed each and every one of them when they said they hadn't.

I think this shows Woolmer's commitment to honesty: he was nothing if not honest and expected the same from his players. Once a player was under his charge, that player then got unconditional support in return. Trust and honesty are a key part to making a coach-player relationship work. Woolmer understood this and placed it at the foundation of his coaching ethic.

So when a player betrayed his confidence like Cronje did, it went against everything he had ever believed in. Perhaps that was why he had so much trouble accepting it. His failure to condemn Cronje stemmed from part of what made him such a great coach.

A commitment to spreading the game.

This was visible not only during his time in South Africa, but also his time with the ICC (2001-2004). He was employed by them as "high performance director", and during his time there worked tirelessly to promote the game outside the test nations. It is highly unlikely the associate game would be where it is today without Woolmer's efforts. In particular he worked very closely with Ireland. An irish player from the 2007 WC said to me "Woolmer understood the potential from working with the young players and keeping our U19 group from 2003 together quicker than anyone else". That 2003 side contained Gary Wilson, Kevin O'Brien, Eoin Morgan, Boyd Rankin, William Porterfield... Not bad...

Coaching methods: moderniser in chief.

Woolmer is widely accepted as being the first "computer coach". He was a driving force behind using video analysis and computer analysis to work out where a batsman scored and how to get him out. An early example of this was the dismissal of Hick in the 96 World Cup, caught at short mid-wicket.

Another example is the "earpiece-gate" of the 99 WC. Woolmer used an earpiece to communicate with Cronje during the matches. The practice was later forbidden. There are two issues here: first of all, it is another example of someone keeping with the times and using modern technology (I don't actually see why it should be banned TBH). Secondly, the actual communications: Woolmer maintained (and I believe him) that he wasn't using it to give itactical nstructions; rather, he was merely communicating on Alan Donald's stride pattern. Indeed, Woolmer had noticed that when Donald's stride lengthened or his run-up pace increased because of extra effort, his action became less smooth and he lost pace and accuracy; as a result, Woolmer had determined what the ideal stride length for Donald was, and his ideal speed of run-up; he then used the earpiece to communicate to Cronje how Donald was doing compared to this ideal.

Woolmer was fortunate enough to work with Jonty Rhodes. I spoke about how Rhodes revolutionised fielding techniques. Woolmer was perhaps the first coach to make use of this, and in particular apply goalkeeping techniques to cricket.

In fact, Woolmer often looked at other sports: he was also a hockey coach, and perhaps it is because of this that he was an early advocate of the reverse sweep.

Now all of these inovative practices may well have happened without Woolmer, but undoubtedly he was a driving force behind them.

Coaching philosophies.

Coaching = helping players coach themselves. A phrase of which Woolmer was fond. As well as being a great moderniser, Woolmer was a great simplifyer. He believed that a coach's role was to use every tool at his disposal, so the player wouldn't have to. In other words, his job was to know everything to simplify things for the athlete.

At a time where England in particular believed in a "right way" of coaching (a hangover from the Gooch era) Woolmer recognised that there was no such thing. You have to adapt to what's in front of you, and help them realise their potential. I believe his success with sides as different as South Africa and Pakistan show that he not only understood this, but knew how to implement it as well.

Above all, Woolmer recognised that the more enjoyable he could make the game, the better his players would respond. With Pakistan he used to introduce "fun" aspects to field practice, and no two fielding drills would be the same.

Finally, Woolmer's philosophy included passing on his knowledge. To this day, videos of him explaining his coaching outlook, and giving tips on technique are widely available. People I know who talked to him say he came accross as humble, but always keen to chat and pass on advice. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of his death was that the book he was writing never got finished. Now that would have been quite a read.

Conclusion:

Woolmer wasn't perfect by any means. His loyalty at times and in particular in Cronje's case could make him blind to his players's faults. During his playing career he was known for his affection for the finer things in life, and perhaps this is what led to him joining up for the Packer series. He arguably didn't make the most of his talents as a player.

What Woolmer did have though, was a sincere love of the game. This expressed itself in his coaching, his admin work, and his general attitude. His coaching was pioneering in both methods and outlook, and successful enough for him to widely be viewed as one of (if not the) greatest coaches of all time.

This HoF is a place to recognise those who have made an outstanding contribution to cricket. Woolmer has certainly done that, many times over. He deserves recognition.

[JDizzle]

McKechnie was a pretty handy sportsman. Only 6 men have played both cricket and rugby for NZ, and he was one, playing 14 ODIs and 10 rugby tests (all off the bench). In 1978 he was a hero at the end of a test match, kicking the winning penalty goal vs Wales after a controversial lineout penalty

Not in Wales he wasn't.

And controversial is one way of describing it! I wasn't even born when it happened and I am still bitter about it!

Good to see you over here, JD. Hope you'll stay around!

Unfortunately, due actually having to do some work this year, my time is limited but I make sure I always read this thread and keep up to date with what is going on as it is certainly the best thread on the cricket board, probably on the site. I'd feel tremendously guilty if I just popped up with one post every two weeks explaining my votes after reading some of the sterling research and debates everyone else puts forward! Hopefully I will have some more time in a few weeks and over Christmas and I will try to help the cause of someone then, but until then keep up the good work everyone! It really is a tremendous read.

Oh, and Guildford, I'd have voted no to Titmus too.

[guildfordbat]

Oh, and Guildford, I'd have voted no to Titmus too.

JD -Get back to your studies, you idle so and so!

Mike - good stuff on Woolmer which I'll review properly a bit later, thanks.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

A bit more on Woolmer:......................

What really characterises Woolmer's morals though is a fierce loyalty, trust and belief in his players. In two well-documented cases perhaps this was misplaced. First of all, Woolmer was betrayed (badly) by Cronje. Then there was the ball-tampering row with Pakistan in England (2006). In the latter case, Woolmer is said to have asked all the players to take an oath that they didn't tamper with the ball. To his death he maintained that he believed each and every one of them when they said they hadn't. ..............

Excellent piece Mike. This bit reminded me of an incident which remains vivid in the memory of my mother. In her childhood one of the children at school had committed a misdeed. The identity of the miscreant was unknown. The class was lined up and in turn each asked whether they had done in. When the penultimate child to be asked, like all the others before them, solemnly denied having committed the offence the teacher immediately rounded on the remaining child in the queue, for punishment - on the basis that it must have been them. Clearly it pays not to be No 11 in the batting order - you can easily get stranded.

I'm a bit unclear on how good Woolmer's coaching performance was for SA. The stats look strong enough - apart from the World Cups - Is it a lot better than par given the players at his disposal....?

[guildfordbat]

I'm a bit unclear on how good Woolmer's coaching performance was for SA. The stats look strong enough - apart from the World Cups - Is it a lot better than par given the players at his disposal....?

Mike - yes, informative and helpful, thanks. Woolmer has clearly had a positive influence on some of your colleagues directly and yourself indirectly - all credit to him for that.

I think what caused Dummy's ''more Moyes than Ferguson'' query to stick in my mind was South Africa's and later Pakistan's World Cup failings (as flagged for the former by the Corporal).

When Cronje was up to no good, I assume that was on Woolmer's watch. I'm not seeking to impugn Woolmer's integrity there but perhaps show that loyalty and trust can go too far.

[Mike Selig]

When Cronje was up to no good, I assume that was on Woolmer's watch. I'm not seeking to impugn Woolmer's integrity there but perhaps show that loyalty and trust can go too far.

Indeed.

[dummy_half]

GB
That was one of my main reasons for raising the question in the first place. I haven't seen a list of titles for Woolmer the coach, but my impression is that he did a good job of getting a lot out of the players he had available, albeit that at times the playing resources at his disposal were not as strong as some of the opposition (particularly Australia).

OK, looks like he was successful as a coach at County level between 93 and 95 - 2 County Champs, 2 Natwest Trophies and 1 each of the B and H and Sunday League. OK, so having Lara in the team in 94 helped, but they were certainly the dominant force in FC cricket for those 3 years.

At international level he certainly appears to have had a very good record but with the notable flaw of not having won the World Cup in any of the three tournaments he coached through.

The impression from Mike's post and from his CricInfo biography is that he was a very much admired man within the game, whether as a player, coach or administrator, and that he probably was at the forefront of any technical and tactical innovations that came about in the last 20 years. Now, whether this is enough for me to vote YES I'm undecided (although probably edging that way).

Next - time to expand my knowledge of womens cricket...

[guildfordbat]

Finding it difficult to get too excited about Claire Taylor's Test record.

15 matches in total with an average just over 41.
8 matches against Australia at a bit under 38.
5 matches against India at a bit over 23.

In contrast against South Africa - 2 matches, 2 innings, 2 centuries and an an average of 154. That's mightily impressive but such dominance doesn't appear wide ranging.

Personally I'm of the opinion that for modern women's cricketers we need to take more account of limted overs - simply because the decline in the number of tests vs limited overs games in the womens' game is far more pronounced than for the men.

(note, I haven't had a chance to look up her ODI stats)

Just got round to looking at Taylor's ODI record. An average a shade over 40 from 120 odd matches. Stand out average of almost 99 with 3 centuries from 7 matches against Sri Lanka - is that as good as it sounds or are they particularly useless? Consistent without being spectacular against the other nations - more often than than not, an average somewhere in the thirties.

3 fifties, no centuries from 26 t20 international knocks. Average just under 28. Strike rate bordering 119.

Add in her Test record as flagged earlier and it's all certainly good but I'm struggling to see a continued period of dominance. Is that too harsh?

[Mad for Chelsea]

it depends on what you call continued period of dominance guildford. I would argue that in the era Claire Taylor played in an average of 40 was very very good indeed, and that maybe you're guilty of comparing it with the men's game where averages are higher (better pitches, more power, etc.). I would also say that in 09 she had one of the greatest years a cricketer has aver had (man or woman).

I do think there's a tendency when looking at women candidates to start off with a "oh, women's cricket" viewpoint, which makes us want to look for something truly extraordinary, which maybe we wouldn't need in the men's game. As Mike said, having a better record against the weaker nations isn't something we should frown upon (otherwise our HoF would be limited to about five players), and Taylor's record against Australia more than stands up to scrutiny.

Also, as Pete says, when looking at women (particularly in the modern era) I think their ODI record has to take precedence over their Test record anyway. Like it or not, ODI cricket is actually the pinnacle of the sport in the women's game.

[Shelsey93]

Sri Lanka are indeed particularly average - them, Pakistan and SA are best seen as Associates in men's terms.

40, however, is a very good average in women's ODI cricket.

[guildfordbat]

Mad - I admit to having certain of the tendencies you mention. I attempted some form of explanation and, optimistically, justification in my post ''in support of the sexist and thoughtless'' to Alfie last week.

On one specific. I wouldn't say I frown upon success against the weaker nations but I would suggest, for example, that in the mens' game a century against South Africa would normally now be a greater achievement than one against Bangladesh. Others appeared to take a similar approach when they assessed Hendren's Test career and gave a heavy emphasis to his comparative lack of success against Australia.

[Hoggy_Bear]

On one specific. I wouldn't say I frown upon success against the weaker nations but I would suggest, for example, that in the mens' game a century against South Africa would normally now be a greater achievement than one against Bangladesh. Others appeared to take a similar approach when they assessed Hendren's Test career and gave a heavy emphasis to his comparative lack of success against Australia.

To be fair to Taylor though Guildford. Her average against Australia in both ODIs and tests is not much lower than her overall averages.

[guildfordbat]

On one specific. I wouldn't say I frown upon success against the weaker nations but I would suggest, for example, that in the mens' game a century against South Africa would normally now be a greater achievement than one against Bangladesh. Others appeared to take a similar approach when they assessed Hendren's Test career and gave a heavy emphasis to his comparative lack of success against Australia.

To be fair to Taylor though Guildford. Her average against Australia in both ODIs and tests is not much lower than her overall averages.

Hoggy - fully accept that and never intended to suggest otherwise. I made this comment in response to a specific point made by Mad rather than with Taylor specifically in (my) mind. Possibly Mad felt I was having a dig for her best ODI average being best by far against Sri Lanka. I did acknowledge the general consistency of Taylor's Test and ODI averages with the odd stand out exception.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Fair enough Guildford.
Misinterpreted your point

[alfie]

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).

Thanks very much for your considered response , Shelsey.

I certainly don't mean to make life difficult for anyone , but my concern with the women is really that , unlike the men , we didn't really start with a template for admission standards...the men ( and I wasn't on the thread at the time , but I've read it back ) were kicked off , very sensibly I think , with 30 players accepted "by acclamation". And it went from there , with players deemed to be close enough to the founder group added...all fair enough.

But Clark just came up alphabetically , with no discussion about how the women's game should be judged , how many women might be looked at - or even if we wanted women in the list at all ! And she didn't fare too well. RHF fared worse , perhaps partly on the Clark precedent.

Some posters have been honest enough to admit scant knowledge of , and little interest in , the women's game. Others have made the very good point that the one day game should assume a higher priority in comparison to Tests because of the proportion in which the two formats are played in the modern era.

Not to bang on about it , because I can handle Shelsey's idea that four candidates are the limit for now ( though were there more interest I might suggest a few others) I'd have preferred more discussion at the start , but that's my own fault for not being on at the time

So to cut a long story short I will vote yes for Clark to start the ball rolling , and hope a way will be found to get RHF in through the back door later...

Will consider Taylor next , along with the others this round. Will be a yes for Chappell for sure.

[dummy_half]

Alfie

You make a good point regarding our ability to evaluate the merit of male players and the difficulty of assessing the women players in the same way.

The other issue I have is that I don't really have a handle on the averages for the women's game. For the modern era male game it's fairly simple to say a batting average of 40 is good, 45 very good and 50 gets you there or thereabouts for the HoF, and similarly any quick bowler averaging 25 or less per wicket over a long period is close to HoF level.

Having had a quick look at Taylor's contemporaries, they play too few Tests for that average to be really meaningful (Taylor's average of just over 40 looks good, but Charlotte Edwards averages almost 50 in more matches, while most of the other batsmen in the team are in the 20s, but mostly in 10 matches or fewer), so we probably need to look more at ODI records where they play enough games for the stats to me meaningful.

Helpful list:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/284195.html

Looks like an average of 40+ in women's ODIs is more than good, although this list does more to support Clark's HoF induction than Taylor's (most runs, much higher average and highest individual innings), and there is also more outside pure playing record to support Clark's HoF credentials.

I'm reasonably sure of YES votes for Gibbs, Chappell and Clark, but still need some convincing on Woolmer and Taylor.

[Mike Selig]

still need some convincing on Woolmer

What are your reservations? (out if interest, so I can perhaps try and answer them)

[dummy_half]

Mike

I'm edging towards a YES based on your presentation so far, but I'm not absolutely sold on whether he was a great enough coach to make the HoF purely on that basis. As with my assessment of Jonty, I'm largely disregarding the other aspects of his cricket life - he was clearly a good county player and an OK Test level batsman, but nothing to set him ahead of the crowd.

Perhaps one of the problems I'm having is over his innovations - I don't recall his teams doing much in the bowling and fielding department that was particularly unusual beyond having the best point fielder in the world at the time (of course this may just be me not remembering rather than him not innovating). His main innovation to batting was encouraging players to use the reverse sweep more, but this was not (as far as I know) a shot of his invention, and his main innovation to bowling was the radio earpiece that Cronje used that was subsequently outlawed.

Also, perhaps if he had managed to lead SA to a World Cup win, I'd not have any reservations, although obviously there's only so much a coach can do about one of your safest fielders dropping a relatively straightforward catch because he went to throw the ball up before he had proper control...

[Mike Selig]

I'm not sure he was an innovator so much as a driving force behind innovations if that makes sense? For example regarding fielding techniques, it was really Rhodes's technique which was the great innovation - Woolmer "merely" applied it, and helped spread it. Similarly with the reverse sweep. As for the use of computer analysis to set up plans, again it is less innovation (people have had plans going back to bodyline to counteract Bradman, and probably beforehand) but more recognising the potential for new developments and driving them.

As for South Africa failing to win a WC, well that is a bit of a blot. However, I'm not sure the failing is really Woolmer's: for example most would argue that in 99 he got his tactics spot on (some people said he held Klusener back too late in the semi-final - that's rubbish, Klusener got South Africa into an almost unlosable position from when he came in, so how is that holding someone back too late?); in 96 he came up against a special innings from BC Lara, and then his batsmen collapsed to Jimmy Adams.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Must admit that I'm edging closer to 5 yes votes.
I voted yes to Chappell and Clark first time round, and haven't seen anything to change that opinion. As for Gibbs, who I voted against initially, further research, allied with some excellent stats from the Surrey mafia , and his importance to Warks. have convinced me that he's probably worth a yes as well.
Woolmer also has an exalted place in Warks. cricket history, presiding as he did over, probably the most successful period of our history. Add to this his success at international level, his support of innovation as a coach, and his influence on the spread and development of cricket among associate nations, and he has a strong case.
Taylor, meanwhile, has an excellent record with regard to her peers, has been lauded as one of, if not the, finest female batsman ever, and has achieved a number of records and firsts. If one of the criteria for selection to our HoF is an outstanding record in comparison to ones peers, over a reasonable amount of time, then I think that Taylor should qualify, even given the caveat that, due to concerns over the quality of some of those 'peers', the record of female candidates perhaps needs to be even more outstanding in comparison, than in the case of modern male players

[Hoggy_Bear]

Further on Claire Taylor. Don't know if this has already been posted, but here's a link to Mike Selvey's appreciation of Taylor on the occassion of her retirement:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/jul/08/claire-taylor-retirement-womens-cricket

[guildfordbat]

Woolmer also has an exalted place in Warks. cricket history, presiding as he did over, probably the most successful period of our history. Add to this his success at international level, his support of innovation as a coach, and his influence on the spread and development of cricket among associate nations, and he has a strong case.

Certainly agree there's lots of very good stuff about Woolmer. However (and you all knew that was coming next! ), certain issues:

1. Cronje. [Relax Alfie - I'm not about to do a character hatchet job as for Ranji. ] There's no suggestion at all from me that Woolmer was on the fiddle although I do wonder if he should have been more clued-up as to what Cronje was all about. Mike emphasised how loyal and trusting Woolmer was. That's true and admirable when coaching good guys but I query whether it smacks of naivety when in charge of a rogue?

2. Feel his World Cup track record quite badly lets down his coaching reputation. Went there 3 (?) times and never won it. Would have liked a HoF coach to have done better. His final match when Pakistan lost to Ireland seems very sad in all respects and doesn't appear to be getting any mention.

3. Like my fellow member of the Surrey mafia, I'm a strong supporter of the county scene and applaud Woolmer's success with Warks. However, we normally pay scant regard to a player's domestic achievements and wonder if we're being inconsistent in praising it so heavily now.

I've a lot of time for Woolmer the man and the characteristics that Mike has shown. I hope people appreciate it's his credentials for HoF membership which I'm questioning and I don't see those as being exactly the same.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Good riposte Guildford.
Certainly Woolmer's support of Cronje is problematic. while, as Mike says, it displays his loyalty, it also displays that that loyalty could, at times, be misplaced.
His failure to win a WC is slightly less of a problem for me as, while success is obviously important, IMO Woolmer's case is based more on his status as an innovator and a developer of the role of coach. As you say though, success at a WC would certainly have added to his case.
Finally, while I don't know whether too much emphasis is being placed on Woolmer's success at Warks. I would agree that he was lucky in terms of personnel in the team that he led. Firstly, as has been mentioned, having Brian Lara in the side helped but, more importantly IMO, having Dermot Reeve as captain was an enormous boon, as he seems to have been the sort of forward looking, radical thinking captain who would have been the perfect foil for an innovative coach like Woolmer. Indeed, while there is no doubt that Woolmer made a major contribution to Warks. success during his first term as coach, it must be asked whether he or Reeve was the most important part of the partnership. However, it's probably fair to say that Warks. success in those years would probably not have been achieved without either of them, so Woolmer must be given credit for his part in that.
As I say, I am edging toward a yes for Woolmer, but only edging.

[Hoggy_Bear]

There's some interesting stuff on Woolmer's time at Warks., the type of coaching regime he introduced and his relationship with Reeve here:

http://www.spincricket.com/2009/03/13/bob-woolmer-by-the-warwickshire-players-who-knew-him/

[Corporalhumblebucket]

As for Gibbs, who I voted against initially, further research, allied with some excellent stats from the Surrey mafia , and his importance to Warks. have convinced me that he's probably worth a yes as well.

Hoggy - Surrey mafia is a powerful force in county cricket. First (cunningly disguised by (a) promoting the old rival county, and (b) separately championing two different players - Titmus and Hendren) - Middlesex. Secondly, in concert, in the wholly admirable the form of Sir Lancelot Gibbs - recognition of Warks ..... But also cunningly disguised by a degree of caution about Woolmer...

Given away trade secrets

[Sponsored content]