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

[guildfordbat]

Mike, my comments about Greenidge not facing his own attack were more along the line that in that case his record should perhaps have been better than it was (for a HoF nominee).

MfC - Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillee, Derek Underwood, Bob Willis ... all already members of our Hall of Fame and Test bowlers that Cuthbert Gordon Greenidge (ok, Corporal )came up against and didn't do too badly.

Something else, often overlooked - Greenidge was also a very good to excellent slip and took 96 Test catches. For both his batting and catching, I would guess that the West Indian pace quartet weren't too upset that he was on their side.

Posters often bang on about nominees being compared to their peers. I look forward to hearing which Test opening peer was superior to Greenidge. He was readily and publicly acknowleged by his talented and under rated partner Desmond Haynes as being the better batsmen. He was selected (with Conrad Hunte) by a knowledgeable and experienced West Indian cricket panel as an opener for the All Time West Indies Invincibles XI. Greenidge was also classed as one of the top six openers of all time by no less an expert than Richie Benaud.

There's a lot more about him - including a ''must see'' YouTube clip of his 214 not out - on pages 13 to 15 of part one of this thread.

am I allowed Barry Richards?

You are - and fall straight into my elephant trap!

In 1973 Hampshire won the County Championship for only the second time in their history. Their openers were Richards and Greenidge. Their top scorer that season was Greenidge with (from memory) over 1,600 runs.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Btw, when did we turn down Amiss?

Memory may be faulty as per normal, but I do recall there was a lot of discussion around the time we were looking at Boycott, Gooch, Gower. Possibly he did not come up for voting, but I think there was a fair degree of recognition among posters at the time that he was another good English player who was in a similar bracket - decent record but just a bit below HoF. (If we didn't vote before perhaps someone should give him a punt and see whether the Warks connection helps. My memory of Amiss is evenly split between recollection of some outstanding really long innings, plus for much of his career he was on verge of being dropped, or on the comeback from being dropped... Bit like an upmarket version of Keith Fletcher.... )

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I'm struggling to remember much about Kumble playing for Surrey.

[Shelsey93]

Kumble's average - 29 - is exactly the same as Gibbs's.

But what he lacks in comparison to Gibbs is that Gibbs played a pivotal role in holding up an end for the seamers. India had few seamers of note in Kumble's career, so you may expect him to have bowled more overs, taken a greater share of the wickets and thus have a better average.

Statistically, away from home is a major concern.

As against a home record of 350 wickets @ 24.88, with 25 5-fors and 7 10-fors, his record away is as follows:

In Australia - 49 wkts @ 37.73
In England - 36 wkts @ 41.41
In NZ - 11 wkts @ 40.27
In Pakistan - 24 wkts @ 42.41
In SA - 45 wkts @ 32.02
In SL - 30 wkts @ 44.63
In WI - 45 wkts @ 31.28

He also took 29 wkts in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at good averages.

I don't want to be accused of double standards, as I don't remember ever (or very often) judging an English player by how they got on in Asia. But it is disappointing that he didn't average better than 30 against any major nation away from home and potentially a major flaw.

Now, it would be a big call to reject the third highest wicket taker of all time.

But it always surprises me to see his name on that particular list. He was a good bowler, but I never recall opposition teams seeing him as the same sort of threat that Murali, Warne or Ajmal are.

I'd also argue that to some extent he was worked out as his career went on. Good players began to understand that they could play him as a medium-pacer rather than looking for turn. That's reflected in the statistics: between 1990 and 1999 he took his wickets at 27.80, but after 2000 he took his wickets at 31.02, including some pretty enormous figures towards the end of his career.

[Shelsey93]

On a side note which isn't that relevant to his Hall of Fame nomination, I found the Kumble captaincy to be somewhat bizarre.

You felt he inherited a team which was already Dhoni's team, and was just looking after it until such point as Dhoni took over (which was only about a year after Kumble took over).

I personally felt Monkey-gate was disgustingly handled by all parties to be honest. But I don't really recall Kumble being too heavily involved and, like underarm with Chappell, I think its a relatively minor part of a long career.

[msp83]

Kumble's average - 29 - is exactly the same as Gibbs's.

But what he lacks in comparison to Gibbs is that Gibbs played a pivotal role in holding up an end for the seamers. India had few seamers of note in Kumble's career, so you may expect him to have bowled more overs, taken a greater share of the wickets and thus have a better average.

Statistically, away from home is a major concern.

As against a home record of 350 wickets @ 24.88, with 25 5-fors and 7 10-fors, his record away is as follows:

In Australia - 49 wkts @ 37.73
In England - 36 wkts @ 41.41
In NZ - 11 wkts @ 40.27
In Pakistan - 24 wkts @ 42.41
In SA - 45 wkts @ 32.02
In SL - 30 wkts @ 44.63
In WI - 45 wkts @ 31.28

He also took 29 wkts in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at good averages.

I don't want to be accused of double standards, as I don't remember ever (or very often) judging an English player by how they got on in Asia. But it is disappointing that he didn't average better than 30 against any major nation away from home and potentially a major flaw.

Now, it would be a big call to reject the third highest wicket taker of all time.

But it always surprises me to see his name on that particular list. He was a good bowler, but I never recall opposition teams seeing him as the same sort of threat that Murali, Warne or Ajmal are.

I'd also argue that to some extent he was worked out as his career went on. Good players began to understand that they could play him as a medium-pacer rather than looking for turn. That's reflected in the statistics: between 1990 and 1999 he took his wickets at 27.80, but after 2000 he took his wickets at 31.02, including some pretty enormous figures towards the end of his career.

Someone like Ricky Ponting has a significant difference between his home and away average. Ponting is not the first batsman to have such a difference, neither is Kumble the first bowler with such a difference.
Kumble did have Javakal Srinath along side him through long periods in his career. While you say the lack of support could mean he would have bowled more overs and should have got more wickets. But then as I mentioned, A spinner, particularly on unhelpful tracks, has to get his wickets through pressure. While Kumble usually kept things quiet even on unhelpful tracks, there was not much of consistent pressure from the other end. Also more often than not, he had to defend smallish totals and had to take less risk and hence less chances of wickets.
The case for test cricket's 3rd highest wicket taker is not just on his playing stats. Its about the man, remember the Titmus debate? Kumble was a man of character, a man of determination, as Sambit Bal would put it "A warrior bowler". He was not the most natural as a spin bowler, yet he became the 3rd highest wicket taker in test cricket. When he came on the seen, not many gave a chance to the young man who didn't turn the ball big, yet he lasted 18 years in international cricket. In the early years of the last decade he was dropped, yet he came back, continued to learn new things, reestablished himself as India's led spinner. Played T-20 towards the end of his career, found ways to be successful there.
Became an administrator, thus choosing to give back to the game we love, and has already made a difference, whether it as the KSCA president or as the BCCI technical committee.

[msp83]

Perhaps it is instructive to remember that when the RCB fell to the bottom part of the IPL, Vijay Malya trusted Kumble to lift the team as captain and he did oblige in some style.
Kumble's international captaincy stint wasn't long, but in the given time, he navigated troubled watters and produced good results, whether it was the saga in Australia, or the home test win against Pakistan.

[guildfordbat]

The case for test cricket's 3rd highest wicket taker is not just on his playing stats. Its about the man, remember the Titmus debate?

Msp - That would be the debate in which you concluded, ''I don't think I can look passed his record. No.''

And before Hoggy says it - not that I hold grudges!

[msp83]

The case for test cricket's 3rd highest wicket taker is not just on his playing stats. Its about the man, remember the Titmus debate?

Msp - That would be the debate in which you concluded, ''I don't think I can look passed his record. No.''

And before Hoggy says it - not that I hold grudges!

But then guildford, here we have a determined warrior of a bowler, who's record by no means is nothing less than very very good.

[guildfordbat]

Msp - yes, thought you would bite.

[msp83]

Msp - yes, thought you would bite.

Knew you were up to your usual mischief, but couldn't resist it!.

[Mike Selig]

I don't like being bound by case precedent, but anyway all the case precedent says is we examine the candidates based on all their merits.

For Kumble, the main concern is really his away record.

Sydneygate: people did worry about Woolmer and his Pakistan team refusing to take the field again - well there was genuine concern at the time that if the ban on Harbajhan was maintained India would go home there and then; as captain, shouldn't Kumble have made it clear that they would do no such thing, or that if they did it would be because the board was acting against the will of the players?

The umpiring during the test was very poor, but significantly better than what England suffered in Galle in 2001 say. By my counts there were 7 real shockers, 5-2 against India: Symonds and Ponting both blatantly caught behind, Symonds stumped twice (once Bucknor not even calling for the 3rd umpire) and Dravid wrongly given out caught behind when he went nowhere near the ball. On the flip side, Ponting smashed it into his pad in the first innings when well set on 50odd, and Clarke had Tendulkar plumb LBW on about 60 (Sachin went on to score 160). There was the odd missed no-ball as well, but for me that is not a shocker, it is something which happens all the time (and I believe we should make easier for the umpire).

The point is a more general one though: no matter how bad the umpiring, and how badly Australia behaved on the field, nothing excuses subsequent Indian behaviour once the game was finished. This includes the incessant changes of story over the Harbajhan-Symonds incident, the "Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat" complaint put in against Hogg (and immediately dropped once Harbajhan's appeal succeeded), the chartering of the flight the morning of the appeal, and the hounding of Bucknor through public channels (there are channels through which India could have proceeded - they chose not to use them). I do think Sydneygate marked a turning point in India becoming the bully they now are, and the ICC bending over to accomodate them.

But anyway this is slightly off-topic. The point is though, would a stronger captain have stood up to the board more?

I am being slightly disingenuous. I thought Kumble was a very good on-field captain, and he held the team together very well off the field. I'm not sure he could have done much about the incident in question, but my concern is it's not obvious he tried. In the overall scheme of things though, I won't be holding it against him, but I do think the issue is worth raising.

msp wonders whether Kumble may have more impact on the game in his role with the ICC cricket committee than had he gone into coaching. I would sincerely hope not - the day any committee has more impact on cricket than direct involvement through coaching is surely a sad day indeed. But this is a complete aside.

ON Greenidge: for my part, both Gooch and Boycott were turned down not only due to having only "very good" records, but also because of major character flaws. In Gooch's case, I do maintain his attitude set English cricket back for a long time. Boycott was inherently selfish, sometimes at the detriment to the team. I'm not sure either charge is something you could reasonably level at Greenidge, therefore in my case, no votes to Gooch/Boycott certainly don't imply a no vote to Greenidge.

Besides which, I again express my concern that comparing candidates against others is a recipe for problems. It is attempting to compare things which aren't comparable, and impose a consistency which isn't really possible. Far better to measure each candidate on his own merits, than worry about consistency with past decisions. IMO.

Anyway, I seem to remember Greenidge being fairly borderline for me first time around, so shall go back to the previous pages and have a look at the arguments.

[msp83]

Mike, the Sydney saga generated a lot of anger at that time in India, matter not been helped when Simonds admited with a grin that he had edged Ishant behind....... Clarke staying out there after being caught behind clearly, Ponting claiming a bump ball as a catch....... As I said, Bucknor has history with India, and the perspective from here may not similar to an Australian one or for that matter from anywhere else.
Didn't the Australians themselves changed around the nature of their complaint? Also, a lot of the stuff flying about came from the press. I don't think we can hold anything in that against Kumble. Remember Garry Kirsten hadn't quite taken charge then and India were without a coach. The captain had all the responsibility to hold the side together after all that drama and this was a job that Kumble did very well. Had started clarifying every bit of news emerging in the press during those days, then he wouldn't have been able to do anything much.
We have to understand that Sydneygate had escalated into a lot more than a cricketing issue, broadly similar to the aftermaths of bodyline, involving even governmental interventions all be it at an informal level. .

[Mike Selig]

Mike,[...]Clarke staying out there after being caught behind clearly

Caught at slip off Kumble IIRC; Clarke says he stayed out of disappointment at the shot.

Ponting claiming a bump ball as a catch

If that was the Ganguly one on day 5 then that was Clarke, and I am yet to see any convincing replay which shows the ball bounce before Clarke catches it. It's like all the close catches on the TV, looks inconclusive. Clarke did ground the ball afterwards, but the catch had been completed by then. Ponting claimed a catch at silly point (the ball had in fact brushed Dhoni's glove, but virtually impossible to tell without action replay so don't hold it against the umpires) which he also grounded whilst picking himself up - again, that's after the completion of the catch so ok.

I don't think we can hold anything in that against Kumble. Remember Garry Kirsten hadn't quite taken charge then and India were without a coach. The captain had all the responsibility to hold the side together after all that drama and this was a job that Kumble did very well. Had started clarifying every bit of news emerging in the press during those days, then he wouldn't have been able to do anything much.

I agree. I think the issue does deserve raising in light of previous arguments, which was all I was doing.

[msp83]

A good administrator can make a very good impact like a good coach can. But as far as coaches go, their influence could be more impacting at the formative stages of players. All that a coach can do in terms of technique for an established team player is to look for any bit of rust coming in and also minor changes here and there. Other coaching responsibilities are about player management and also looking after the day today administrative needs of the side.
An administrator like Kumble, as KSCA president has already watched over the setting up of the Karnataka Cricket liegue that has given young players far more exposure, brought more money to the state association that would in turn help set up more coaching facilities at the formative levels.
At the BCCI level, Kumble's administrative engagements have already seen him influencing the recent changes in the domestic cricket structure through the point system and format changes in the Ranji Trophy. In domestic OD cricket in India, from this season onwards, one bowler will be allowed to bowl 12 overs. This change is entirely down to Kumble, and rather than all the free hits and the powerplays, this could make the captains think, and the batting side plan more.
As the link above that I posted today suggests, Kumble the Administrator is also caring about the spectator experience, a refreshing change from the usual types you get in India.

[guildfordbat]

msp wonders whether Kumble may have more impact on the game in his role with the ICC cricket committee than had he gone into coaching. I would sincerely hope not - the day any committee has more impact on cricket than direct involvement through coaching is surely a sad day indeed.

Sounds like a withdrawal of support for the Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia ....

[Mike Selig]

I had a quick look through previous arguments about Greenidge and Harvey. They are worth a read if you have time. I attempt to reproduce a few points for those who maybe don't (plagiarism abounds then).

Firstly, Harvey and Greenidge were being considered amongst a truly outstanding set of candidates. The other 3 up for voting at the time were Wally Hammond, George Headley and Charlie Grimmett. I have commented in the past that I think there is an understandable reticence amongst us to induct too many or too few candidates in any one batch (3 seems to be the optimal number), so some candidates suffer and some profit purely from their place in the alphabetical order. Another reason to try and judge candidates purely on their merits rather than attempt any comparison. For the record, Hammond, Headley got in with 100% yes votes, and Grimmett just one no vote. Harvey and Greenidge narrowly missed out.

Guildford in particular made a compelling case for Greenidge. With no attempt at completion, I reproduce some of the pretinent points here:
- Greenidge is considered amongst the very top openers to have played the game. In particular Benaud always ranked him in the top 6, and he was a unanimous choice to open for an all-time West Indian XI. Our very own 606 had him as high as equal 3rd on the all-time openers list.
- people shouldn't only look at his overall average (which is very good at a shade under 45, but not great); this was deflated by Greenidge carrying on for a while past his prime (indeed past the age of 40), and we shouldn't hold it against cricketers that they respond to a call for help by the selectors.
- after starting off as a bit of a dasher, Greenidge managed to keep the flamboyance whilst playing more responsibly.
- he was very much part of surely one of the all-time great opening partnerships with Barry Richards at Hampshire. In 1973, he outscored Richards.
- THAT knock of 214 not out against England, after Gower had set the West Indies 340 to win on the last day. They won by 9 wickets in less than 70 overs!
- Very good character references.

On Harvey:
- As I said earlier, most would have him, G. Chappell and R. Ponting as their top 3 australian batsmen since Bradman. Not bad!
- Undoubtedly Australia's best batsman in the immediate post-Bradman years.
- A great stylist who could also knuckle down when needed (69 in 4 and a half hours at Headingley), and who often scored runs in the toughest conditions when his team needed it.
- A great romantic: when told that he should have scored 300, his response was "who wants to score 300?"
- Fantastic outfielder.
- Part of the invicibles of 1948. In fact Harvey's 18 not out secured a win for Australia against Yorkshire early on in the tour, when, chasing just 60, Australia had collapse to 31/6 (effectively 7 with Sam Loxton out injured). It would be the closest they came to losing on the tour.
- His 112 on ashes debut is one of the great innings. Coming in at 68/3 facing England's 496, he and Keith Miller launched an astonishing counter-attack, which eventually took Australia to 450odd. The match is famous for Australia chasing down 404 on the last day (Harvey hit the winning runs) but Harvey's role, also taking 2 astonishing catches, was a key one.
- Concerns over his average (a shade under 40) against England, the strongest team around at the time. However this is overblown by one very poor series (56, where hardly any Australians did well, and Harvey averaged just 19). Harvey's record measures up extremely well against any of his peers.

I believe both would make excellent additions to our HoF for the reasons mentioned.

[Mike Selig]

msp wonders whether Kumble may have more impact on the game in his role with the ICC cricket committee than had he gone into coaching. I would sincerely hope not - the day any committee has more impact on cricket than direct involvement through coaching is surely a sad day indeed.

Sounds like a withdrawal of support for the Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia ....

You're being mischevious again... I have made quite clear that I think Clark's best contribution to women's cricket was made on the field. Also, Clark was the director of the CoE at Brisbane for a while - now there's direct coaching involvement.

[msp83]

msp wonders whether Kumble may have more impact on the game in his role with the ICC cricket committee than had he gone into coaching. I would sincerely hope not - the day any committee has more impact on cricket than direct involvement through coaching is surely a sad day indeed.

Sounds like a withdrawal of support for the Chief Executive of Womens Cricket Australia ....

You're being mischevious again... I have made quite clear that I think Clark's best contribution to women's cricket was made on the field. Also, Clark was the director of the CoE at Brisbane for a while - now there's direct coaching involvement.

Mike, think we should expect a few more coming from the senior pro, seems to be on a high today!.

[msp83]

Guildford, anything interesting on Kumble's Surrey days? I know he was a massive success at TB, but not a lot of idea about him at Surrey.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just a few points on Arthur Morris:

-Made first class debut, aged 18, for NSW against Queensland in 1940-41, scoring a century in each innings of that match, becoming the first ever player to achieve that feat on debut
-Averaged 55 in that first season before WWII intervened
-Made test debut vs. England in 1946/7 series
-Struggled initially before scoring 3 consecutive centuries at Melbourne and Adelaide
-Became only the 2nd Australian to score two centuries in an Ashes match
-Highest average and runs scored during the 1948 Ashes. Including 3 centuries
-Career highlights include scoring 182 in a partnership of 301 with the 'Don' to win Headingly test of '48 after Australia were set 404 to win on final day; 196 out of 389 at the Oval in the same series (when Bradman was out for a duck in his last innings); 206 out of 371 against England at Adelaide 1951.
-Good average (50+) against England
-Retired relatively early (aged 33) due to wifes illness
-Highly rated. Included in Bradman's 'Dream Team', ACBs 'Team of the 2oth Century' Cricinfo's 'All-time Australian XI' and as one of the shortlisted openers for Richie Benaud's 'Greatest XI'
-Described by E. W. Swanton thus "Arthur at his best looked out of the top draw, a left-hander with all the strokes...and what the figures do not say is that few more charming men have played for Australia , and I cannot name one who was more popular with his opponents"
-Brilliant player of fast bowling, especially bouncers. Once hit 24 off a Keith Miller over, the most runs Miller ever conceeded from an over.
-According to Ray Robinson "no other post-war batsman has rivalled his smashing counter-attacks on bowling swift enough to give the toughest team the tremors…A menacing bouncer colliding with Morris' bat was like a rocky fist against an iron jaw."
-Despite being known as 'Bedser's bunny', Morris' average was 57.42 in the 37 Test innings in which he faced Bedser, and more than sixty in the 46 first-class innings when the two met.

[guildfordbat]

Guildford, anything interesting on Kumble's Surrey days? I know he was a massive success at TB, but not a lot of idea about him at Surrey.

Kumble only played a small handful of CC games for Surrey back in 2006. I saw him really struggle - although to be fair, so did every bowler - on debut on a perfect batting track at Guildford in an incredibly high scoring draw against Somerset. The Cidermen scored almost 700 - 8 declared with Justin Langer scoring a perfectly judged triple century. Kumble took one for 120 odd. In reply, we just overtook their total before being all out. Neither side had the chance to bat again. Kumble did much better (I had to look this bit up) in his next and last two matches taking an eightfer and a fivefer.

Compared with most of the dross we've signed from overseas in the last decade, he was an outstanding success!

[msp83]

As far as Greenidge goes, I haven't been around when his candidature came up first. After having a look at his cricinfo profile, I was a bit surprised to see him averaging a bit under 45. Perhaps his last couple of years with an aging body have taken its toll. He has been a distructive opener, part of one of the most successful opening partnerships in the history of the game. That average under 45 is a bit of a concern though, starting with a 50-50 position on him, waiting for more discussion.

[msp83]

A significant plus for Greenidge is his terrific ODI batting average. An ODI batting average 45 puts him right up there among the best, at a then very much acceptable strike rate around 64.

[msp83]

On Neil Harvey, I have always read about him as one of Australia's foremost in the batting department, along with the likes of Greg Chappell and Ricky Ponting. The other thing I have read about him is that Neil Fairbrother, one of ODI cricket's fine exponents, got his first and middle name from this great Australian cricketer. His batting average of 48 doesn't automatically get him through, but my initial impression is that there is a lot more to Harvey than that. And he continued to serve the game after his playing days and made an impact as a national selector for Australia. Starts with a bit of a favorable position.

[msp83]

On Waqar.
His test record is terrific, his ODI record is phenomenal. There is that cloud of match/spot fixing hanging over him as player and coach although nothing is proven and unlike Woolmer, he has confronted and condemned the culprits. But again, perhaps a youngster like Amir should have more space to interact and engage with the coach? Also it is said Shahid Afridi lost his captaincy due to the efforts of the fixing group within the team. A coach should have none that? But again, Pakistan cricket being Pakistan cricket, we don't quite know what to believe and what not to. Also there are questions about whether his peak wasn't quite long enough. I don't think we can really hold it against him, his peak was certainly more extended than that of Thomson, and his overall stats are pretty good. Not really able to even take an early call.

[msp83]

Ashley Mallett the former Australian spinner and author, places Harvey above the likes of Greg Chappell and Ricky Ponting as Australia's best since Bradman.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/563136.html

[msp83]

On Arthur Morris.
An interesting candidate. Bradman had very nice things to say about him. Has a pretty good ashes record. Stats not bad at all, but on their own not enough to see him through. Cricinfo profile suggests that in the latter half of his career he wasn't as consistent as he used to be.
Looking for some extras that could strengthen his candidature. Think he may not go through without a lot of those. Looking forward to the debat, as usual.

[guildfordbat]

As far as Greenidge goes, I haven't been around when his candidature came up first. After having a look at his cricinfo profile, I was a bit surprised to see him averaging a bit under 45. Perhaps his last couple of years with an aging body have taken its toll. He has been a distructive opener, part of one of the most successful opening partnerships in the history of the game. That average under 45 is a bit of a concern though, starting with a 50-50 position on him, waiting for more discussion.

Msp - I think it's fair to say I put a reasonably comprehensive (I won't say effective as that's for others to judge) case for Greenidge first time round - it's on page 15 of part one of this thread.

Feedback wasn't too offensive. As well as myself, it seemed to help get YES votes from Hoggy, Mike, Mad, Corporal, Kwini, Fists and Skyeman, many of whom had been wavering initially. It wasn't enough to prevent NO votes from Shelsey, Alfie and CF with the result that Greenidge missed out by a whisker. The first two expressed some reluctance and/or regret - Shelsey's main concern was Greenidge's ''inconsistency'' (I'll try to address that later tonight which relates also to your comment about his average) whilst Alfie wished to keep YES votes - pre repecharge, at least - for those with an ''indisputable'' case. CF voted NO to Greenidge within two days of him and his fellow nominees being named (before my case was even put up) with the comment, ''IMO not one of the windies greatest so therefore not good enough to be in HOF.'' I feel my case as originally presented challenges CF's opinion. Grateful if you would have a look and tell me what you think.

[msp83]

As far as Greenidge goes, I haven't been around when his candidature came up first. After having a look at his cricinfo profile, I was a bit surprised to see him averaging a bit under 45. Perhaps his last couple of years with an aging body have taken its toll. He has been a distructive opener, part of one of the most successful opening partnerships in the history of the game. That average under 45 is a bit of a concern though, starting with a 50-50 position on him, waiting for more discussion.

Msp - I think it's fair to say I put a reasonably comprehensive (I won't say effective as that's for others to judge) case for Greenidge first time round - it's on page 15 of part one of this thread.

Feedback wasn't too offensive. As well as myself, it seemed to help get YES votes from Hoggy, Mike, Mad, Corporal, Kwini, Fists and Skyeman, many of whom had been wavering initially. It wasn't enough to prevent NO votes from Shelsey, Alfie and CF with the result that Greenidge missed out by a whisker. The first two expressed some reluctance and/or regret - Shelsey's main concern was Greenidge's ''inconsistency'' (I'll try to address that later tonight which relates also to your comment about his average) whilst Alfie wished to keep YES votes - pre repecharge, at least - for those with an ''indisputable'' case. CF voted NO to Greenidge within two days of him and his fellow nominees being named (before my case was even put up) with the comment, ''IMO not one of the windies greatest so therefore not good enough to be in HOF.'' I feel my case as originally presented challenges CF's opinion. Grateful if you would have a look and tell me what you think.

Guildford that is an excellent case. Two things stand out for me. That 1983 innings, and his work with Bangladesh.
The average of 45 is a concern, but now the no campers will have to do a great deal of convincing so that I won't overlook it.

[guildfordbat]

Thanks, msp. I believe Greenidge's batting should be good enough by itself to get him in the HoF but wish I knew a bit more about his work with Bangladesh. That should also count for a lot. Bangladesh have generally been a disappointment at Test level but I don't see how Greenidge can be blamed there. In fact, that probably makes his role in helping them be awarded Test status all the more remarkable.

I'll try to cover concerns over inconsistency and average a bit later.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I won't attempt to detract from the no doubt thorough exposition that will be coming from Guildfordbat. Just to say that the Greenidge seemed to have two periods of sustained really high achievement - in three consecutive series between 1976 and 1977/78 and in four consecutive series between 1982/83 and 1984. And plenty of other series (around 20) that were either reasonable, or rather poor, (or were against NZ ). The last five years of his test career were on the patchy side.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Lot of similarities between Greenidge and Morris.
Similar overall records, similar 'stand-out' innings, similarly rated in the history of their respective countries.

[guildfordbat]

Lot of similarities between Greenidge and Morris.
Similar overall records, similar 'stand-out' innings, similarly rated in the history of their respective countries.

Benaud rating Greenidge and Morris amongst the top six openers of all time carries a lot of weight for me.

With regard to concerns about Greenidge's inconsistency and his final Test average, I would emphasise that his Test career amounted to 108 matches and was spread over seventeen years. He played his final Test on his fortieth birthday. In his later years, he was largely being picked for his influence and experience. It is surely not surprising that there would be dips and a consequent lowering of his average during such a lengthy Test career.

I pointed out when Greenidge was originally considered that had his Test career finished about two years earlier and he therefore hadn't played his final 14 matches, his average would have risen to above 47 with a still impressive Test length of fifteen years. Had Greenidge chosen to walk away from the Test team at this time (or even earlier), it can thus be seen that his final average would have improved. However, I don't see that would mean he was a greater cricketer or more worthy of joining the HoF. We need to be careful not to penalise someone for agreeing to play so long.

The context of the West Indies Test side throughout the majority of Greenidge's career and his role in it also needs to be appreciated. The West Indies during this era were one of the greatest (I would claim the greatest but I'll let that go in this post) Test sides of all time. Greenidge was encouraged to play an attacking role - which increased the risks for him personally - in the full knowledge that there were other greats or near greats (Richards, Haynes, Lloyd, Kallicharran) ready to bat and add to the carnage for the bowling opposition. In the unlikely event of several of those failing, there was normally the safety net of Gomes ready to come to the team's aid. I know I bang on about Gomes and play up to it but there was a reason he was known as ''Mr Dependable''. When required, Gomes' cautious and supportive play would get the West Indies out of a hole. The point I'm trying to make is that it was more important and valuable to the team that Greenidge went for the jugular from fairly early on; that increased the likelihood of his own inconsistency but, given the company he was in, it did not pose problems for the team. If you doubt that, please tell me how many times Greenidge played in a losing Test match. I don't know the answer to that but would bet it wasn't too often.

As msp touched on, Greenidge's ODI record is impressive and certainly gives me no consistency concerns. An average of a shade above 45 with a strike rate touching 65 (very high for his time). Also, a fine conversion rate of fifties to centuries in both ODIs and Tests.

As mentioned before, there's a lot more already on pages 13 to 15 of part one of this thread. In addition to that, I'll try and flag this week one or two of his stand out innings for me together with a few comments from others.

I would though stress it's not just all about stats and comments. It's far more about what you have seen, experienced and felt. In the forty odd years I've been watching cricket from the late 1960s to now, Greenidge features in the very best opening pairs I've seen at both English county level (as the junior partner to Richards at Hants) and Test level (as the senior partner to Haynes for the West Indies).

[msp83]

Back on Kumble, I think his status as one of only 2 men in the history of test cricket to have taken all 10 wickets in a test, his 'wow performance', in itself should get him near that HoF. Then he's test cricket's 3rd highest wicket taker, and we also have to look at his impact on Indian cricket. Just like we did with Sanath Jayasuriya. It is undoubted that no other bowler has won as many test matches for India as Kumble did. I doubt whether even Sachin Tendulkar has set up as many test wins as Jumbo managed!.

[dummy_half]

GB
Good case for Greenidge. I do though feel that CF's original comment that he was not the greatest of that Windies team does have some merit (although was expressed rather bluntly). You look at the Windies of the 70s and the first thoughts are of Richards with the bat and the 4 quicks with the ball - Greenidge, along with Lloyd and Kallicharan were the next best players. Not that this in itself should exclude GG from consideration for our HoF, and there is certainly a case to be made about the excellence and importance of the starts to innings that he and Haynes gave them (with Greenidge widely acknowledged as the senior partner).

One question to ask is would he have been under consideration for the HoF if he'd had a similar career for a less dominant side.

As for Kumble, he clearly had a great career but will forever be in the shadow of his contemoporaries Warne and Muralitharan, both of who were more effective across the range of conditions encountered. Kumble's relative lack of success outside the sub-continent does concern me, but his overall wicket haul is so extraordinary that I find myself thinking these concerns are insufficient to deny him admittance to our HoF (even if he would be at the lower end of the membership).

[msp83]

Kumble may not have been as effective as Murali or Warne were. But now since they are all gone, we can realize how important they were to their respective sides. Like SL with Murali and Australia with Warne, India also haven't yet found a worthy successor to Kumble. Kumble was not as great a spinner as the other 2 were, but most certainly he's way above most of those who are playing at the moment, and many who went before him. Murali and Warne were extraordinary among the extraordinary.

[guildfordbat]

GB
Good case for Greenidge. I do though feel that CF's original comment that he was not the greatest of that Windies team does have some merit (although was expressed rather bluntly). You look at the Windies of the 70s and the first thoughts are of Richards with the bat and the 4 quicks with the ball - Greenidge, along with Lloyd and Kallicharan were the next best players. Not that this in itself should exclude GG from consideration for our HoF, and there is certainly a case to be made about the excellence and importance of the starts to innings that he and Haynes gave them (with Greenidge widely acknowledged as the senior partner).

One question to ask is would he have been under consideration for the HoF if he'd had a similar career for a less dominant side.

Thanks, Dummy.

I acknowledged first time round that Greenidge wasn't the greatest member of that West Indies team. The batting honours clearly fall to Viv Richards. The bowling honours are less clear and opininions vary; fortunately, I don't think that matters now.

However, it was a great team and I would happily instruct the Corporal and his army to fight to the death any persons who suggested otherwise. In my book, the only batsman Greenidge was behind was Richards. That cannot be of any meaningful detriment to Greenidge. If the HoF were to be resricted to Richards and players of equal calibre, this thread would have packed up almost as soon as it began. Of other contemporary team mates, I would place Greenidge one or two rungs above the likes of Lloyd, Kallicharran, Haynes and Gomes.

Greenidge played a major part for that team in both Tests and ODIs. I am keen that we should celebrate and reward his role rather than penalise him for whom he played alongside.

By the by, I do wonder if Greenidge has suffered a little unfairly on this thread by comparison with others he's been associated with. Viv Richards at international level. Barry Richards at English county level. When Greenidge originally came up on this thread, he was being considered alongside three sure fire Yeses for most - Wally Hammond, George Headley and Clarrie Grimmett (the same applied to Neil Harvey who is soon going to need a further shout). Greenidge's nomination was also soon after Chappell had been consigned to the repe charge round (''Whose fault was that, Guildford?'' - shut up, Hoggy! ) which caused some unease - particularly for Alfie - nothwithstanding the one off reason for the latter's initial exclusion.

With regard to Dummy's question, don't forget that such ''a less dominant side'' could have been England. Although born in the West Indies, Greenidge was largely brought up and educated in England (Reading) meaning he had the choice of which international side to play for. Just think - recent HoF inductee Bob Willis could have been a team mate rather than a suffering opponent when Greenidge scored his 214 not out in a day. Had Greenidge chosen the England side, he almost certainly would not have enjoyed so much team success but I'm sure he would have stood out more as an individual and probably not needed this second round.

[msp83]

Greenidge and Boycott!, what a terrific opening combo that would have been!!!.

[dummy_half]

Greenidge and Boycott!, what a terrific opening combo that would have been!!!.

100 run opening partnerships with Greenidge having 90 and Extras 10, while Boycs would still be working on the quality of his 'leave' (unless he'd run Greenidge out).

GB
It's a fair comment that limiting the HoF to players of Richards calibre would have made this a very short and dull thread. The question in my mind is whether Greenidge did enough to get in at the lower end of the HoF - certainly his part in the 'Greenidge and Haynes' opening partnership and some of his innings are strong positives, while his overall career record was very good rather than extraordinary (noting the comments about his average declining because he was kept in the side well beyond his peak, but also that he never had to face the best bowling attack of his era). I think voting him in to the repecharge batch initially was justified, as his record is not a match for those considered at the same time.

The issue with Kumble is somewhat the same - he was clearly the third best spin bowler of his era, but the two who were better than him are already viewed as all time greats and sailed into our HoF. Do Kumble's achievements pass the bar for being one of the lesser HoF members? Certainly the volume of wickets and the 10 in an innings present a very strong case for inclusion, which has to be balanced against his less than stellar bowling average and lack of success away from the sub-continent. I'm inclined to think he did enough - after all, being only the second bowler to ever take 10 wickets in an innings is a staggering feat which as MSP suggests should be almost enough regardless of what else he achieved.

[alfie]

Well the last group righted some wrongs in adding Clark Chappell and Gibbs to the HoF...

This time round I am disposed to change my previous No votes for Harvey (definitely) and Greenidge (very probably) to Yes , and hope that helps to get them admitted.

Morris seems a likely candidate too ...will look at his record in some more detail.But I am inclined to look favourably on him.

Kumble is as recent a player as I like to be looking at for this (just a personal thing , I prefer to let the dust settle on their careers before judging them ) but his total wicket haul is impressive , I always thought of him as a determined fighter for India (of a type they'd like to have right now !) ...and msp is putting up a strong case.

Waqar the most controversial of this group ...again his overall record is strong , will need reading and thinking. But a possible 5/5 ?

[guildfordbat]

Hi again Dummy - If consideration of others is permitted - and apologies to a certain young rebel for not only a comparison but blatantly comparing apples with oranges - I would make the point that Greenidge was a better batsman than Willis was a bowler.

That's not a dig at Big Bob (for whom I gave YES vote) but a reflection of my view and even greater respect for Cuthbert.

As to Kumble, I'm inclined to agree with you, Dummy. I do though go back to one of Shelsey's opening comments that he was never a bowler who filled me with fear when England were playing India ....

[Hoggy_Bear]

One thing I would point out, with regard to Kumble, is that, despite concerns about his record outside of India and despite India's strength in depth when it comes to spin bowling, he does appear in most 'all-time Indian XIs' that have been picked for various reasons, including the cricinfo one, and one selected by Tony Greig.
Not saying that this is, in any way, some sort of conclusive evidence as to his greatness, but it does show that some decent judges hold him in pretty good esteem.

[guildfordbat]

Thanks, Hoggy.

As you suggest, it doesn't do Kumble any harm to be in those 'all-time Indian XIs', particularly given the number of revered Indian spinners from the past. I'll certainly have a look, more out of general interest than anything else.

[guildfordbat]

I had a quick look through previous arguments about Greenidge and Harvey. They are worth a read if you have time. I attempt to reproduce a few points for those who maybe don't (plagiarism abounds then).

Firstly, Harvey and Greenidge were being considered amongst a truly outstanding set of candidates. The other 3 up for voting at the time were Wally Hammond, George Headley and Charlie Grimmett. I have commented in the past that I think there is an understandable reticence amongst us to induct too many or too few candidates in any one batch (3 seems to be the optimal number), so some candidates suffer and some profit purely from their place in the alphabetical order. Another reason to try and judge candidates purely on their merits rather than attempt any comparison. For the record, Hammond, Headley got in with 100% yes votes, and Grimmett just one no vote. Harvey and Greenidge narrowly missed out.

Guildford in particular made a compelling case for Greenidge. With no attempt at completion, I reproduce some of the pretinent points here:
- Greenidge is considered amongst the very top openers to have played the game. In particular Benaud always ranked him in the top 6, and he was a unanimous choice to open for an all-time West Indian XI. Our very own 606 had him as high as equal 3rd on the all-time openers list.
- people shouldn't only look at his overall average (which is very good at a shade under 45, but not great); this was deflated by Greenidge carrying on for a while past his prime (indeed past the age of 40), and we shouldn't hold it against cricketers that they respond to a call for help by the selectors.
- after starting off as a bit of a dasher, Greenidge managed to keep the flamboyance whilst playing more responsibly.
- he was very much part of surely one of the all-time great opening partnerships with Barry Richards at Hampshire. In 1973, he outscored Richards.
- THAT knock of 214 not out against England, after Gower had set the West Indies 340 to win on the last day. They won by 9 wickets in less than 70 overs!
- Very good character references.

On Harvey:
- As I said earlier, most would have him, G. Chappell and R. Ponting as their top 3 australian batsmen since Bradman. Not bad!
- Undoubtedly Australia's best batsman in the immediate post-Bradman years.
- A great stylist who could also knuckle down when needed (69 in 4 and a half hours at Headingley), and who often scored runs in the toughest conditions when his team needed it.
- A great romantic: when told that he should have scored 300, his response was "who wants to score 300?"
- Fantastic outfielder.
- Part of the invicibles of 1948. In fact Harvey's 18 not out secured a win for Australia against Yorkshire early on in the tour, when, chasing just 60, Australia had collapse to 31/6 (effectively 7 with Sam Loxton out injured). It would be the closest they came to losing on the tour.
- His 112 on ashes debut is one of the great innings. Coming in at 68/3 facing England's 496, he and Keith Miller launched an astonishing counter-attack, which eventually took Australia to 450odd. The match is famous for Australia chasing down 404 on the last day (Harvey hit the winning runs) but Harvey's role, also taking 2 astonishing catches, was a key one.
- Concerns over his average (a shade under 40) against England, the strongest team around at the time. However this is overblown by one very poor series (56, where hardly any Australians did well, and Harvey averaged just 19). Harvey's record measures up extremely well against any of his peers.

I believe both would make excellent additions to our HoF for the reasons mentioned.

Mike - thanks for that post which I somehow missed yesterday.

Particularly appreciate your comments about Greenidge. You certainly highlight major parts of the case. There are of course several innings giving substance to those points and highlighting his impact. I'll flag two or three later in the week. The only other aspect - which I don't know much about so won't push it strongly - is Greenidge's coaching work with Bangladesh which helped them on the way to Test status.

Good to see a very decent shout being made on Harvey's behalf as well. Perhaps inevitably, the era in which nominees played seemed to have quite a bearing first time round. Maybe I just hanker back to days of childhood but I do feel we were particularly tough on those from the 1960s and '70s (eg, Harvey, Greenidge, Gibbs, Kanhai, Marsh). A specific about Harvey which has now been largely lost with the passing of time - when he retired, he was second only to Bradman in being Australia's leading run scorer. Just as Greenidge was often (but certainly not always) overshadowed by Viv Richards, nothing wrong in being second to one of the very greatest of all time.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I don't see how Waqar can be refused entry to HoF, even allowing for a certain amount of controversy surrounding parts of his career. His figures and especially his strike rate are highly impressive. Certainly of test bowlers with a very high strike rate he took by far the most wickets. (Steyn may turn out to be the biggest rival on this front). His rapid inswingers with the old ball had a terrifying impact on the opposition. No longer could batsmen thrive simply by seeing off the new ball - and he deserves recognition for generally bowling at the stumps rather than the batsman's head. Clearly stats are not everything but his test career figures are fairly similar to those of the legendary Malcolm Marshall. The latter had a better economy rate and average but Waqar had the better strike rate. Waqar was part of one of the best ever fast bowling partnerships, with Wasim Akram - who gained ready entry to our HoF.

And of course Waqar is a Surrey legend.

[msp83]

Wasim also had all those bits of controversies associated with his name as well. But yeah, the Corporal has a point. Waqar's stats are right up there and as the controversies are unproven, the only substantial bit remaining against him is the spot fixing issue that happened under his watch as coach. But unlike Woolmer, Waqar strongly contdemned the parties involved and never really tried to justify them in any way.
What a pitty though, Kumble got only a few matches to play for Surrey!.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

What a pitty though, Kumble got only a few matches to play for Surrey!.

[guildfordbat]

Wasim also had all those bits of controversies associated with his name as well. But yeah, the Corporal has a point. Waqar's stats are right up there and as the controversies are unproven, the only substantial bit remaining against him is the spot fixing issue that happened under his watch as coach. But unlike Woolmer, Waqar strongly contdemned the parties involved and never really tried to justify them in any way.
What a pitty though, Kumble got only a few matches to play for Surrey!.

Unlike too many overseas players who have been happy to take a quick buck from the English domestic game, Waqar continually gave very fine service. A major success at Surrey which saw him chosen in 1991 as the Professional Cricketers' Association Player of the Year and the next year as a Wisden Cricketer. In 1997 he was heavily instrumental in Glamorgan winning the County Championship.

I still want to do some more research but feel I'm looking at 5 YES votes for this batch. Maybe no completely outstanding all time great there but each candidate seems fairly safely above my bar ,,,,

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Guildford - I might well be looking at 5 YES as well. Some good points made about Kumble - I don't see him as being anywhere near the top table of our HoF and wouldn't vote with massive enthusiasm, but it is difficult to set aside the sheer number of wickets he took plus the 10 wickets in an innings.... Obviously he is not particularly like Shaun Pollock - but maybe there is a kind of similarity - a yes vote partly driven by a sense of duty / fairness....

[Sponsored content]