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]

... Kumble - .... 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....

Corporal - I've also been thinking of Kumble in terms of some similarities to Pollock, particularly opposition supporters not giving either of them the respect they were probably due.

[msp83]

There indeed are some similarities between Kumble and Pollock that I can see, for one they both went about their job in a rather understated way, but were pretty effective in what they did.

[Shelsey93]

Greenidge revisited

I'm afraid to say it's a very regrettable NO from me by a fraction. Guildford and others make a fantastic case for his inclusion but I just think his inconsistency takes him just below the standard where I'm comfortable with voting yes, particularly where others with outstanding cases but not in outstanding teams (Boycott and Greg Chappell in particular) miss out. Having said that it is a very marginal case and I would welcome his inclusion in the Repecharge round when his case could be further weighed up against others who we consider over the weeks. I also think he is one of those players where a better opinion comes out of those who are old enough to have seen and enjoyed him playing - I am not old enough for that, but even with the 214* at Lord's will stand by my vote.

That was my original vote on Greenidge - a vote which reflected a highly marginal decision, a place around extremely strong candidates (some of whom had been rejected or sent to the Repecharge in previous weeks before I was taking part in this thread), and the fact that I perhaps hadn't quite been overwhelmed by his character and general candidacy in the way I had Harvey.

I'll first offer a brief comment on the theory that we psychologically don't want to give out too many Yes/ No votes in one go. I agree that this probably influenced me with Greenidge to some extent, although he also needs to be placed in the context of some very strict voting in previous weeks which had seen, for a variety of reasons, Gooch, Boycott, Cowdrey, Gibbs and Chappell not admitted.

Now to my current assessment of the case, almost exactly a year on from when we last visited it:

Statistically an average of 44.42 would still be the lowest of any specialist batsman admitted to the Hall of Fame to date apart from WG Grace, Victor Trumper and Hanif Mohammad - all of whom had more extenuating circumstances to explain their lower averages than Greenidge, and all of whom had extra factors to their cases on top of pure batting ability/ performances. That is not to say that 44.42 is a poor average. It isn't. I take on board guildford's view that playing on longer (which he can't be criticised for) could have affected the final figure, although the statistics don't necessarily reflect that: he averaged 40+ in 4 of his last 6 series, including 45 v Australia with a double-ton in his last series. He did have a shocker in Pakistan in 1990, but his main form dip seems to have been between 1978 and 1983, a period in which he didn't hit a single hundred. My conclusion about his average is that if we are to accept him with an average lower than many, even taking into account longevity, he must have a particularly compelling case overall.

I mentioned 'inconsistency' in my original vote. That is probably a little harsh, but it is reflected in the fact that in eight years he averaged below 40. I don't know how that compares to others, but I'd suggest it would be below Hall of Fame par. CMJ also explicitly describes him as 'less consistent' than George Headley and Everton Weekes, although both were of course setting very high standards, and also as 'occasionally reckless' in his early days.

An additional 'issue' I might bring up is his record in Asia. We perhaps have neglected this in the past, preferring to look at how people got on against the best opposition of their time. But with WI by far and away the best team, perhaps he was challenged most by Lillee and Thomson, and also in Asia. In neither case does he have standout figures, averaging 40 v Oz (boosted by that late double at Bridgetown, when the aforementioned pair were long gone) and 36 in Asia. In particular, he seems to have had a torrid time in Pakistan.

However, there is much to like about him.

In particular, his case is probably centred on three things:

1/ The Greenidge/ Haynes (and to a lesser extent Greenidge/ B Richards) opening partnership

Being involved in two of the greatest opening partnerships of all time is somewhat a result of luck: having a good partner who is consistently selected. But we shouldn't underestimate what the Greenidge/ Haynes pair did for WI. Although WI had strong batting, had wickets fallen early opposition teams might have sniffed an opportunity. As it was, they were left worn down and often with the daunting prospect of IVA Richards striding to the crease at 100-1. Haynes himself is highly unlikely to get in the Hall of Fame, and so for this integral part of one of the greatest teams of all time to be recognised, you feel it has be Greenidge that gets it. In the overall pantheon of opening pairs only Hayden/ Langer and Hobbs/ Sutcliffe can really lay claim to challenge them: they put on 800 runs more together than any other pair (with Hayden/ Langer second), averaged 47 and put on more 100 stands than any other pair. It is indisputable that they were the best opening pair of their era in any case, even if in absolute terms its hards to look past Hobbs/ Sutcliffe.

Overall, I feel that the contribution this made to the great WI team should be recognised, but given we can't induct the partnership, I need a little more from Greenidge.

2/ That innings at Lord's

That innings at Lord's is undoubtedly one of the great Test innings. If we give Laker and Kumble's cases a considerable bounce for having taken 10 wickets in an innings, Greenidge's case surely must be significantly boosted by this.

To put it into context, the runs were scored at over 5 an over, with Greenidge himself having a SR of 88. That is good going in modern ODI cricket. WI also didn't have that much batting in that game, with Dujon at 6 and Malcolm Marshall at 7. Greenidge was able to pull it off in the company of the calm Gomes (who batted ahead of Richards) to ensure a famous win.

This could well be my tipping point for Greenidge. I'd like evidence that it wasn't a once in a career wonder though, and so far I think that is somewhat lacking.

3/ Beyond Test cricket

It is understandable that we focus a lot on Tests, but by Greenidge's time, and particularly in the second half of his career, ODIs were important, particularly World Cups. Greenidge of course had an excellent ODI record, averaging 45 and scoring 11 100s - more than Viv, who played more games. He was the leading runscorer in the 1979 World Cup win, with 253 runs including half-centuries v NZ and in the semis, and a ton against India in the opening game. He also made 90 in a win against Australia in 1983 and 100 against Zimbabwe.

Overall, a stunning ODI career, perhaps with the regret that he failed in all three World Cup finals he played in. In all pre-1990 ODIs he had the second best average, the second most 100s (behind Haynes, surprisingly). His SR perhaps doesn't match his reputation as a dasher, but that might have been influenced by the fact that at that time it would appear to have been standard to bat the first 10 overs like a Test Match. Viv's SR of 90 just shows that he was batting on a different planet to everyone else.

His county contributions are also significant to his case. Its always nice to see somebody committing to a county. Indeed, you could argue that Greenidge, Marshall and B. Richards did a lot to transform Hampshire from a small county to a well followed county.

---

I'm not yet in a position to conclusively vote yes. I still have issues, outlined above which need addressing and am still yet to be completely blown away by any element of his candidacy as I have with Harvey (whom I'll discuss tomorrow). But I feel I'm getting there, and would repeat my comment from a few days ago that its highly likely I'll be changing my original vote on Greenidge.

[msp83]

Superb analysis there, shelsey. The innings mentioned by Guildford, this was the first time I really read about it, that 154 in absolutely challenging, not so much from the pitch, not so much from the bowlers but from grave external circumstances has to be right up thre with that knock of 214 when we consider the man.
As you said, I too have concerns, but I am a bit more closer to a yes rather than a no at this stage.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Shelsey - an excellent an authoritative exposition Sums up the position well - Greenidge looks like a probable yes but on the same analysis it would also be entirely possible to give a regretful and very marginal no.

[Shelsey93]

Harvey revisited

Whilst I'm undecided on whether I can be converted to the Yes camp on Greenidge, I will definitely be voting Yes again for Neil Harvey.

I think he needs another push, so I'll go over in particular some of the stories which Richie Benaud writes about in his book, and add the comments of Brian Johnston which I didn't included last year. It was Benaud's anecdotes which really convinced me that he was a worthy member of the HoF first time round, and probably that he should be up there with Chappell, Border and Ponting as Australia's best post-war.

First, a quick resume of the basics:

- Australia's main batsman in the transitional period following the break up of the Invincibles, through to the early '60s
- Test average of 48 with 21 100s
- Six 100s in his first 13 innings
- Aggressive player, who liked to hit over the top and down the ground
- Superb fielder
- Selector after retirement

But what really gets him over the line in my view, is the sheer number of innings singled out for special praise by various writers:

Benaud singles out one in particular amongst the six greatest innings he'd ever seen played by Australians. It was at Dacca (now Dhaka) in 1959 against Pakistan on a matting pitch against Fazal Mahmood, who Benaud descibes as 'the greatest modern-day bowler on matting'. It is pointed out that matting wickets in Pakistan were particularly difficult to bat on, because they were softer and thinner, and placed on top of soft clay. After being ill with dysentery the previous night, Harvey made a 'brilliant' 96 out of 151 runs scored whilst he was at the crease. He had to go off the field many times, but never contemplated retiring and back-cut, pulled and danced down the pitch to Mahmood. Australia eventually won a low-scoring match by 8 wickets.

CMJ mentions the 1954-55 Ashes Test at Sydney, when he made 92 not out in a total of 184 against Tyson and Statham (when Tyson took 6-85). He also talks about a 4 and a half hour innings of 69 against his aggressive instincts at Headingley against Lock and Laker in '56.

Additionally, we have 112 in his first Ashes match at Headingley, and Benaud says that those that played in 1949-50 in South Africa think his 151 at Durban on that tour, against Hugh Tayfield, was one of the finest innings of the past 60 years. In 1952-53 he made 834 runs in a series against SA, including a 106 minute hundred at Adelaide and a double at Melbourne.

---

Further supporting evidence:

Benaud says that Harvey and Arthur Morris were the two best players of spin he played with or against.

Brian Johnston ranks him as 'with Bradman, Greg Chappell and Allan Border as one of the most successful Australian Test batsman'. He points out that remarkably Harvey scored hundreds in his first club match, first game for Victoria, second Test and first Ashes match.

Ashley Mallett picks Harvey as a surprise inclusion in the best five batsmen he's seen in his article on Cricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/563136.html). He argues that he was the best Australian batsman post-Bradman, and picks out the 92 in '54-55 as 'amazing'. In fact, he goes as far as to say that he has 'never seen the equal of Harvey's batting, and I've seen most of the great batsmen of the past 50-odd years', putting him above the other five looked at in the article - V. Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers and B. Richards. He points out that his average was below 50 primarily because he had to deal with some excellent bowlers, and says he'd have averaged 75 in the modern era.

Graeme Pollock also ranks Harvey second only to Bradman (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/332156.html). He says that he was quite special partly because teams in those days had very few left-handers, and partly because he was willing to take the attack to the bowlers.

In a list of the 50 greatest Test innings by Australians, compiled by an illustrious 30-man panel, Neil Harvey features six times, two times more than Bradman.

---

If there is a weakness to his case, its that he could have converted more starts. This is explained by Johnston as being because he occasionally had a go at a few outside off stump because he found leaving the ball boring, and didn't care about his averages. However, when he really need to dig in he did, as is evidenced by the innings against Laker and Lock in '56. Some might question his overall Ashes record too, but we must remember that England were very good in the 1950s. He had to deal with Statham, Trueman, Tyson, Laker and Lock. To average 38 with six hundreds including a number of key ones would appear to be a very commendable effort against that lot.

So, overall I think Harvey's case has gone from hunch when I looked at him first time round to indisputable now.

Not only did he play a number of stunning innings, and compile an excellent record as Australia's best batsman of the '50s, but those who were around to see him play rate him right up there with the very best of all time.

[guildfordbat]

A bit more about Greenidge from Rohan Kallicharan

The heading of 'Gordon the Great' nails his colours to the mast. Certainly some impressive and interesting stuff - particularly, the view of Alvin Kallicharan and Greenidge's Test average being higher for second innings than first.

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/comment/gordon-greenidge-west-indies-cricket

Following Shelsey's post, I'll try to add one or two other points of my own a bit later.

[alfie]

Thanks Shelsey for that excellent summary re Harvey. As one who did see him play , I am happy to endorse his position as a very fine batsman...and also an exceptional fieldsman who would have relished the modern developments in that aspect of the game.
Will definitely be voting Yes this time around...all seems a bit hypocritical now since I raised questions about his Ashes record first time around , and eventually talked myself into a no vote , if I recall correctly. I can only plead that I had just joined in this debate at the time , and was feeling my way a bit ...also rather shocked at the earlier rejection of Chappell , Cowdrey etc.
In the light of subsequent choices I now consider Harvey as a certain Yes. The only thing against him is he seems to have become a bit of a crusty so and so in his later years judging from some of his comments on modern players in recent times ! But I guess we are all allowed bursts of crankiness once we reach a certain age

Interesting too the comments of Benaud aligning Harvey with Arthur Morris re batting against spin...Reckon if Benaud had a vote on here Morris would be joining the HoF as well. Am also leaning that way myself...

[Hoggy_Bear]

Interesting too the comments of Benaud aligning Harvey with Arthur Morris re batting against spin...Reckon if Benaud had a vote on here Morris would be joining the HoF as well. Am also leaning that way myself...

I think that, if yu asked most Australians who watched cricket in the 40s and 50s they'd also vote for Morris, given the fact that he appears in most of the 'all-time Aussie XIs' I've seen on the web.
It's interesting that, given the fact that Morris was a reknowned player of fast bowling, Benaud also highlights his skill against spin. An all-round batting great then?

[guildfordbat]

Greenidge revisited

... 1/ The Greenidge/ Haynes (and to a lesser extent Greenidge/ B Richards) opening partnership

Being involved in two of the greatest opening partnerships of all time is somewhat a result of luck: having a good partner who is consistently selected. But we shouldn't underestimate what the Greenidge/ Haynes pair did for WI. Although WI had strong batting, had wickets fallen early opposition teams might have sniffed an opportunity. As it was, they were left worn down and often with the daunting prospect of IVA Richards striding to the crease at 100-1. Haynes himself is highly unlikely to get in the Hall of Fame, and so for this integral part of one of the greatest teams of all time to be recognised, you feel it has be Greenidge that gets it. In the overall pantheon of opening pairs only Hayden/ Langer and Hobbs/ Sutcliffe can really lay claim to challenge them: they put on 800 runs more together than any other pair (with Hayden/ Langer second), averaged 47 and put on more 100 stands than any other pair. It is indisputable that they were the best opening pair of their era in any case, even if in absolute terms its hards to look past Hobbs/ Sutcliffe.

Overall, I feel that the contribution this made to the great WI team should be recognised, but given we can't induct the partnership, I need a little more from Greenidge.

2/ That innings at Lord's

That innings at Lord's is undoubtedly one of the great Test innings. If we give Laker and Kumble's cases a considerable bounce for having taken 10 wickets in an innings, Greenidge's case surely must be significantly boosted by this.

To put it into context, the runs were scored at over 5 an over, with Greenidge himself having a SR of 88. That is good going in modern ODI cricket. WI also didn't have that much batting in that game, with Dujon at 6 and Malcolm Marshall at 7. Greenidge was able to pull it off in the company of the calm Gomes (who batted ahead of Richards) to ensure a famous win.

This could well be my tipping point for Greenidge. I'd like evidence that it wasn't a once in a career wonder though, and so far I think that is somewhat lacking.

...

I was just going to initially provide a couple of quotes about the impact of ''That innings at Lord's''. However, the second of these leads me here to ''The Greenidge/ Haynes (and to a lesser extent Greenidge/ B Richards opening partnership''. I'll try to comment on some of the other points raised by Shelsey in a later post.

Anyway back now to Lord's 1984. Greenidge's match for sure but also the Test debut of England opener Chris (father of Stuart) Broad. His take on things years later:
''Things did not go too badly for the first four days, just on the last day things fell apart - or rather Greenidge pulled a big one out of the bag. That innings taught me a bit about being a Test match opener.''

In my view, Simon Hughes (ex Middlesex) is a far better writer and analyst of the game than he ever was a player. From his review of the 1980s - headed ''The Real Invincibles'' - in his book,'And God Created Cricket:
''India's playing success was shortlived and for the rest of the decade the West Indies were totally dominant. After 1980 they didn't lose a series for fifteen years. It's not surprising really if you look at their team. The 1984 side that toured England included not three, not four, but seven [italics] all-time greats of the game: Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd, Marshall, Garner and Holding. You wouldn't fancy Bradman's 1948 Invincibles against them. They won the Test series 5-0 to inflict England's first-ever 'blackwash', and but for an early one-day international loss remained unbeaten for the entire four-month tour.
They had numerous match-winners. Richards had been the man in '76, but in '84 he was upstaged by Greenidge who made two double-centuries in the series. His 214 not out at Lord's, as West Indies successfully pursued 341 in less than a day to win by 9 wickets, was one of the most devastating innings of all time.''

I appreciate no one disputes - or, at least, I hope they don't - the worth of this innings. I just believe its 'devastating' nature and the impact on many who saw it live (at the ground or on tv) are not fully appreciated and deserve to be emphasised. Now I don't put him in the class of Broad or Hughes but our old friend Skyeman also saw it and wrote profoundly about Greenidge on this thread last year; worth a look - circa page 14 of part one. Skye also provided some good and impressive stats about the runs Greenidge put on with Haynes.

Interesting that Hughes classes Desmond Haynes as ''an all-time great of the game'' whilst Shelsey dismisses him as ''highly unlikely to get in the Hall of Fame''. Predictably, I am in the Hughes camp although, regrettably for me, Shelsey is also probably correct. Haynes was the lesser of the duo (as he has readily and publicly acknowledged) and so is unlikely to attain HoF status whilst stops still have to be pulled out for his senior partner. Haynes though was an under rated batsman and very fine foil for Greenidge. Only seven West Indians have scored in excess of 7,000 Test runs; four were founder members of the HoF - Sobers, Richards, Lloyd and Lara; one is still playing - Chanderpaul. The other two are Greenidge and Haynes.

Shelsey comments that, ''Being involved in two of the greatest opening partnerships of all time is somewhat a result of luck''. I understand where you are coming from, Shelsey, but don't like use of the word, ''luck''. I suspect you wouldn't die in a ditch over it . It may be good fortune to be presented with a potentially suitable partner but from there things need to be developed, worked upon and maintained. It is to Greenidge's and Haynes' immense credit that they did all that so successfully. It's an easy example but something Boycott was palpably unable to achieve with several very good fellow openers (eg, Edrich and Amiss).

In conjunction with Barry Richards, Greenidge had another highly successful opening partnership for Hampshire, never better than in 1973 when they won the County Championship. I make no claim for Greenidge to be better than Richards (he wasn't) but would flag again that the West Indian outscored the South African that season. Something I had overlooked or forgotten about that '73 Hants side was its inexperience and how unexpected their CC triumph was. In a 1974 article, Arlott writes the team was ''young almost to the point of rawness'' (that expression alone merits Arlott being in our HoF! ) and that,''There can be little surprise that the bookmakers quoted 66 to 1 against them for the Championship: they themselves thought the odds fair.'' Arlott then pays tribute to the openers, thus ''Greenidge and Richards were valuable not only for the many and brilliant runs they scored, but for the fashion in which they took the initiative from opponents and passed it on to the later batsmen.''

That'll have to do for now. I'll try and provide later tonight - as requested by Shelsey - evidence that the Lord's innings ''wasn't a once in a career wonder'' plus a bit more including Greenidge's run in with the police - don't worry, Alfie, I'm not about to change sides and do a hatchet job! Something Mike should lap up!

[msp83]

Guildford Lara is a founder member of the HoF. You are being mischievous again?
By the way you haven't been present on the awards thread and even on the ongoing test match thread you have been making only rare appearances? tied down with too much responsibilities?

[guildfordbat]

Guildford Lara is a founder member of the HoF. You are being mischievous again?
By the way you haven't been present on the awards thread and even on the ongoing test match thread you have been making only rare appearances? tied down with too much responsibilities?

Msp - so nice to be so noticed. No mischief intended on Lara, just a forgetful mess up. I'll edit my last post.
Have been fairly busy recently but don't tend to make too many comments on the test match threads. The old maxim - keep quiet and let them think I'm a fool rather than open my mouth and prove it!
I'll have a look at the awards soon. No prizes for voting first!

[Shelsey93]

Thanks for that post Guildford.

The Haynes question is interesting. It was later on in the post, after I'd said he won't make the Hall of Fame, that I saw that he had 17 ODI 100s to go with a Test average in the 40s. Perhaps a dark horse, but there might be scope for somebody to make a case (17 is still 3 more than any England player has ever got in ODIs, despite the impression that they played less of them then - though of course they were 60 overs)

I also agree that "luck" was a poor choice of words. Fortune is probably much better.

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - thanks for your response on Haynes. For the backburner now but maybe one for the future.

[guildfordbat]

That'll have to do for now. I'll try and provide later tonight - as requested by Shelsey - evidence that the Lord's innings ''wasn't a once in a career wonder'' plus a bit more including Greenidge's run in with the police - don't worry, Alfie, I'm not about to change sides and do a hatchet job! Something Mike should lap up!

Ok, running late like Sports Personality of the Year. Anyone else think Bradley Wiggins is a cocky git?

Anyway, a bit more about some other wonder innings from Greenidge.

* Msp has already flagged his innings against India made at Antigua in April 1983 in truly traumatic circumstances. I drew attention to this first time round (page 15 of part one of this thread for anyone still interested). Essentially Greenidge batted the latter part of the second day and the entirity of the third day in making an undefeated 154. At the same time his young daughter was in hospital with a kidney infection which unexpectedly and progressively worsened. Greenidge was kept informed of her condition during the intervals and through notes brought out to him at the wicket. To maintain concentration ball by ball and make this score with such inner worries must have required a super human effort. At the end of the third day, Greenidge had to leave the Test to be with his little girl. I reported before that she had died prior to Greenidge reaching her. In fact, I have since seen an article in which Greenidge stated she died a few days later. I hope Greenidge was able to take some comfort from being with her then. Greenidge was clearly unable to take any further part in the Test match he had left. He was though awarded the Man of the Match Award. It was not just a sympathy vote. He was the highest scorer in a drawn game. The future inner turmoil Greenidge experienced must have been terrible. This makes the innings immediately below all the more remarkable.

* Greenidge played his next Test innings six months later in October 1983 against the same opponents at Kanpur. Any haunting memories were put to one side as Greenidge's batting carried on where he left off. This time he scored 194 in a comfortable West Indies victory.

* In his penultimate Test at the age of almost forty, he amassed 226 as the West Indies easily defeated Australia. This wasn't Australia's greatest ever attack (principally McDermott, Lawson and Reid) and nor was it Greenidge's most stylish innings (described by one poster on another board as 'scratchy'). Nonetheless, his determination knew no bounds as he strove not to give his wicket away and still keep the scoreboard moving.

* For an especially wonder innings though, I'll go back to 1976 and a defining one that is too often overlooked. Many will remember or be aware of England captain Tony Greig's highly unfortunate threat that year to the West Indian tourists to make them 'grovel'. Many will also know that those words ultimately stuck in Greig's throat. However, it is now generally overlooked that it seemed at one stage as if Greig might end up victorious. The first two Tests of the five match series were drawn and after about an hour of the first morning of the third Test at Old Trafford the West Indies were in a near dreadful position of 26 - 4 with Fredericks, Richards, Lloyd and Kallicharan all back in the hutch. Greenidge was still there and stayed firm as the West Indies were finally dismissed for 211. Incredibly, he made 134. Only two other West Indians reached double figures. As Widen wrote when Greenidge was named one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1977, 'There have been few more dedicated innings played for the West Indies than his 134 out of 211 in the first innings of the Old Trafford test on a pitch of uneven bounce and fashioned out of the ruins of a start of 26 for four.' As he did at Lord's eight years later, Greenidge had turned a Test on its head. England were skittled by the West Indies' quicks for 70 odd. The West Indies scored over 400 in their second innings and Greenidge made his second century (101) of the match. From having the West Indies at 26 - 4 on the first morning, England finished the third day needing to score over 550 in their second innings to win. They got nowhere near and the West Indies took a 1-0 series win. That became 2-0 and then 3-0 as the West Indies won the Tests at Headinngley and the Oval. Greenidge scored 115 at Headingley, his third successive Test century, and eighty odd at the Oval. I just wonder how different things might have been for Greig and the West Indies if Greenidge had joined the illustrious dismissed quartet early on in the third Test with the scoreboard then reading 26-5.

On other aspects, Greenidge was a determined worker. I've mentioned before what a fine slip catcher he was with 96 Test catches. This extract from Wisden in 1977 is insightful, 'Greenidge recalls that he was, in his own words, a ''lousy fielder'', at the start. He was, he admits, only interested in batting, but gradually realised his future in the game depended upon more than just scoring runs. His first chore, then, was to overcome what he calls ''laziness'' and he worked on it so hard that he would be pounding the streets of Southampton past midnight in an effort to get fitter - until a police car stopped him on one occasion and put him in some bother to explain his movements! That kind of dedication has paid dividends, for Greenidge must surely rank, at the present time, as one of the game's best fielders anywhere, particularly in the slips.'

Both Simon Hughes and John Arlott refer to this aspect - admittedly, without specifically naming Greenidge - when respectively covering the success of the West Indies in the 1980s and Hants' CC triumph in 1973. Hughes writes, 'Their hidden secret was fitness.' Arlott put it thus, 'The fielding was superb.'

Gordon Greenidge - a determined player who has a very good, rather than brilliant, Test average. Over eighteen calendar years and 108 Tests, we cannot expect complete consistency. As Shelsey points out, I accept it is a regret that he averaged below 40 in eight of those years. However, in two years he averaged in the 40s and in the other eight he averaged over 50, including over 60 in two of those years. All in all, as stated before, I believe he often produced brilliant performances when required and certainly enough to warrant admittance to our HoF together with the lasting impact upon those who played alongside him (Alvin Kallicharan), against him (Chris Broad) and those who just watched him (Richie Benaud amongst many).

[Mike Selig]

Anyone else think Bradley Wiggins is a cocky git?

Crikey yes! Very good sportsman and all that, but arrogant as hell. Probably more sportsmen are like him, but put on a public image to look good and he doesn't bother, but... Call me old-fashioned but I do believe you can be confident without being arrogant, and you can be the very very best and still be a nice guy. E.g. Glenn McGrath: once met a good friend of mine, who works with France Cricket, before the 2005 ashes when Australia visited the war memorials in France; came up to the guy and introduced himself "hi, I'm Glenn". My friend was a bit star-struck...

Back on topic (although character is somewhat on topic anyway for this thread).

Greenidge for me ticks all the boxes: excellent player with numerous stand-out moments. Guildford has made an excellent case and I don't have that much to add to it. However I will stress for those concerned about his overall average that had he retired earlier he would have averaged higher (whilst I accept Shelsey's point that he wasn't a bad player in his last few years, few would dispute that he was a lesser player by that stage), possibly as high as 47 (which is an excellent average for an opener).

It's not as if he faced bad bowlers either: Australia had Lillee and Thomson, England had Willis, Botham and co. whilst India had their usual plethora of spinners.

Finally I oppose Shelsey's claim that his involvement in 2 all-time great opening partnerships was a lot down to luck. To achieve one could well be, it could be you had a partner who complemented your game perfectly; to achieve two is quite a feat, particularly when your partners had games as different as Haynes and B. Richards - it shows some measure of adaptability and getting the best out of your partner.

Harvey has an excellent case as outlined by Shelsey. If judgement by one's peers is something we all place value on then he is surely a shoe-in.

Morris ditto really. Almost always viewed as Australia's best ever opener in the 20th century and as such hard to leave out.

Kumble has a good case made for him by msp. The comparisons with Pollock are interesting although not necessarily as accurate as some have made out. Both seem to have that "underrated" (by whoom though?) tag attached to them; both adapted well to different eras (I would argue both Kumble and Pollock's careers went through the transition from the bowler's decade of the 90s to the batsmen's one of the 00s with heavy bats, short boundaries, flat wickets etc.) - in fact as batting became a more important component of a bowler's armoury it is noticeable that both improved their batting as their careers progressed. Both were fighting cricketers, not necessarily the most naturally gifted, who made the most of what abilities they had.

However Pollock's overall figures place him amongst the very best (and his ODI economy rate is extraordinary). Kumble's, whilst excellent, do not. What Kumble has that Pollock didn't is that he was more of a match-winner and so has more of those "defining" moments, primary amongst them of course the extraordinary feat of achieving 10 wickets in an innings.

His overseas overall record remains a worry though. When talking of adapting, Pollock's record in India (average of 27 and eco rate of just 2.18) and the subcontinent in general is very good for a supposed medium-pace trundler. Kumble's record in less helpful conditions, frankly, is not. Could he have done things differently? The very best are capable of adapting to unhelpful conditions, even without runs on the board. Kumble was a match-winner in helpful conditions, but...

I think it's probably too early to judge his work as an administrator. I'm sure he'll do a lot of good with the ICC cricket committee, although I would have rather he gone into coaching, but won't hold that against him.

Finally to Waqar. Purely on figures he has a seemingly unanswerable case. My concern is that he was absolutely outstanding for 6 or so years (92-98ish), and then once he lost a yard of pace frankly very average (culminating in the 2003 WC). I seem to remember him being dropped towards 99 then making a comeback and being pretty poor.

On the flip side, at his best he was unplayable, and formed one of the all-time great partnerships with Wasim Akram. And I think he's done some good as coach of Pakistan. You can't really hold the spot-fixing against him at all IMO, what was he meant to do, lock the players up? Put them under surveillance?

[dummy_half]

Mike

I find your concerns about Waqar's longevity slightly harsh - he did manage to take 373 Test wickets (and 400+ in ODIs) over a 13 year career, so we aren't talking about a Tyson-like shootind star.

However, his early career was definintely stronger - first 154 wickets were taken at 18.35 and a strike rate of 35.8 (27 Tests), while the other 60 tests yielded 219 wickets @ 27.2 and sr of 48.8.

Obviously, had he continued on the rampage that was his first 5 years in Tests, he'd have been considered the greatest quick bowler ever (or at least since WW2), but even allowing for his form to drop his career was still very fine indeed. Comparing with Thomson, his prime was longer and stronger, while his performance later in his career remained superior.

I'm edging towards 5 YES votes, although quite marginal for Greenidge and Kumble - for me both didn't quite have the career stats to match up to the HoF members, but both have outstanding individual performances that push them up sufficiently.

[msp83]

Greenidge's Asian record isn't the greatest, Comble's overseas record isn't great either. But they both were involved in some key good moments away from their best arena for their sides.

[msp83]

On Waqar Younis.
Stats alone makes a very strong case for Waqar. 373 test wickets at an average of 23 and very importantly a strike rate of 43 should place him right up there.
Waqar's impact was not just about stats, he was fast, he swung the ball at pace as fine as anyone else and the stumps were under sustained threat whenever he was bowling. A master of reverse, the Waqar yorker had become a phenomenon.
I'd say Waqar has been the best ODI bowler in the world, better than Wasim, better than Murali....... In 262 matches he took 416 wickets at an economy rate of 4.6 The most impressive part of that ODI bowling record is his 13 5 wicket hauls.
Now on areas of concerns. The aligations against him were never proven. He did confront Amir, Asif and Bhutt after the spot fixing fiasco and never tried to defend or trivialize what they did. Him being considered for the Australia job even after all that gives him further credit as a coach.
The concerns about the lack of longevity are misplaced in my view. He played international cricket for 14 years, played 87 tests and 262 ODIs. A far cry from the likes of Jeff Thomson. There is a gulf of 173 test wickets between Waqar and Thommo!.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I don't think it's so much concerns about longevity, msp. More a concern that the second part of his career (after he'd lost a bit of pace) was less impressive than the first. People like Pollock or McGrath adapted really well to a loss of pace and remained a threat, the same isn't so true of Waqar (who was frankly ordinary in the 03 WC for instance). I think it's a bit harsh: the issue with Thomson was that he had a few stellar series but quite a few less impressive ones, and tailed off badly. Waqar was on top of his game for 6 years, and remained consistently very good afterwards. I must say I have a very positive view on Waqar's possible inclusion at the moment.

[msp83]

MFC the 2003 WC came at the very end of his career.
Even in the last 5 years of his career, Waqar remained a top bowler in test matches. He wasn't the same fource of nature as he was in the first half of his career, but he was very very good.
1998-2003

39

68

1094.1

200

3625

135

6/55

10/133

26.85

3.31

48.6

3

1.
He had some bad series in that period, yet his strike rate remained under 50. Terrific achievement in my view and that average was under 27.

[msp83]

On Morris I am not quite convinced as yet.
Was he really better than the likes of Boycott?

[msp83]

Morris had a fabulous start to test cricket, but since 1949, he averaged only 37. He played 32 test matches during this period and scored his highest of 206 in 1951.
Despite a good ashes record, a touch too inconsistent?

[msp83]

An average of 74 in his first 14 tests, then averaging only half of it in the next 32. You certainly couldn't really expect anyone to carry on averaging 74 throughout, but the fall is too sharp for my liking.

[Hoggy_Bear]

msp
Don't know if Morris was better than Boycott, but Boycott was rejected primarily because of his selfish attitude rather than because of doubts about his skill.
As for the fall-off in Morris' record, I must admit that that is a concern, and something to think about.

[kwinigolfer]

I'm no longer participating having voted for Greenidge and a strong YES! for Harvey last time round.

But I would add for Arthur Morris, he's obviously highly rated by Benaud, and by the Aussies own Hall Of Fame, having been inducted in 2001 and before:
Greg Chappell
Ian Chappell
McCabe
Davidson
Clem Hill
Rodders Marsh
. . . . and well before Benaud himself!

Ooh, And I meant to add that there were reports that Arthur's other half was terminally ill towards the end of his career. That can't be projected to turn 30's into 70's or 50's into 100's but it might be an explanation for a drop-off in form when he might be expected to be in his prime.
I also see that the self-styled cricinfo "experts" picked Arthur Morris in their all-time Aussie XI.

[Shelsey93]

I think Morris will need a shout. I don't know which way to go yet, but will probably look into him tomorrow. Sounds quite borderline.

[msp83]

Does voting end today? Or are we extending it for another week like last time?

[Shelsey93]

As nobody has voted yet (and I think we still need to fill some gaps in on Morris and Waqar) voting will be extended by a week

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I am voting YES for Greenidge, Harvey, Kumble and Waqar.

Am undecided on Morris. Instinct is towards yes on basis of his reputation as one of the Aussie greats - but like others would welcome a bit more of an assessment.

[msp83]

Perhaps Morris is good enough as an Australian HoF member, but I am not really sure about him deserving a place in our Hof. Was superb during his peak, but has it lasted long enough? We had rejected Thomson on a similar basis.

[msp83]

I don't think I'd vote yes for him just on the basis of his playing record. Would be interested to know if there are good supportive additional reasons for his inclusion.

[guildfordbat]

Perhaps Morris is good enough as an Australian HoF member, but I am not really sure about him deserving a place in our Hof.

The point Kwini was making was that Morris was not only adjudged by his own countrymen to be worthy of a place in the Australian HoF but that he was chosen ahead of several of our founder members and others who have already been inducted. That's not a precedent for us (is anything?) but worth noting.

[kwinigolfer]

Spot on guildford, Much more interested in how a sportsman's peers judged a player than exhaustive statistical analysis. Not sure how I would vote on Morris, one of a number of players from the 1945 - 1975 in something of a grey HOF area for me. Just missed his prime, unfortunately or fortunately.

[guildfordbat]

Probably best for me to vote now as I'll be away for a few days and fairly busy for some of the others. If anything significant gets posted before deadline day which causes me to change my mind, I'll vote again (although think that unlikely).

General comment first. I do wonder from some comments if we're in danger of concentrating too much on career stats and unrealistically expecting to see total consistency throughout. I've always been a fan of consistency but view it as pretty much impossible to maintain during a lengthy career. Some blips are almost inevitable. We need to look at things in the round together with defining moments. These comments apply to several of the current nominees.

Greenidge - I stand by my post first time out, well summarised the other week by Mike. I was very surprised Greenidge did not get inducted first time round. Revered by team mates, opponents and spectators. A hugely talented opening batsman who experienced considerable individual and team success at both Test and domestic level. Numerous stand out innings along the way. YES.

Harvey - Slightly before my cricket watching time but clearly a leading figure of his era. Upon his retirement, the leading Australian Test run scorer other than Bradman - how quickly it seems we dismiss past fame. An exceptionally fine fielder and vice captain to Benaud which says a lot for his calibre - whilst Benaud would as ever have been polite, he would not have accepted anyone as his deputy if he had concerns about them. YES.

Morris - Another Australian before my time but again one highly respected by Benaud and his fellow country men including Bradman. Whenever I have done research on other Australian batting nominees from the first half of the twentieth century, Morris' name regularly crops up as a reference point and comparator. A hugely significant member of the 1948 Invincibles. Whilst comments have been made about his Test stats being better in his earlier years, matters should be viewed as a whole. A career Test average above 46 against all opponents and above 50 in Ashes Tests. For many years, Australia's 404-3 against England was the highest fourth innings winnings score. Morris set that victory up with his 182 which is probably too often overlooked when considering great Test innings. YES.

Kumble - He has been remarkably well served by msp. Clearly some considerable way behind Warne and Muralitharan but that should not exclude him. Similar to Underwood to the extent that in helpful conditions, he was almost unplayable. In less helpful conditions, he was not so effective but - like Titmus - was always a fighter and I like that. Throw in his stand out moment of 10 wickets in a Test innings - and boy does that stand out! - and he has to be inducted. YES.

Waqar - Served both his country and his English counties very well with the ball. An excellent opening partnership with Wasim Akram. Comparisons have been made to Thomson's partnership with Lillee. However, Waqar lasted longer and took far more Test wickets. His huge contribution to normally lowly Glamorgan winning the County Championship is also a signicant plus for me. YES.

[msp83]

While I agree stats can't tell us everything, I certainly think statistical analysis can tell us a lot.
We haven't inducted Bil Ponsford in our Hof despite him making it to the Australian Hof, we haven't inducted Jeff Tomson despite the terror factor and a fabulous early test career and considerable ashes success.

[guildfordbat]

While I agree stats can't tell us everything, I certainly think statistical analysis can tell us a lot.
We haven't inducted Bil Ponsford in our Hof despite him making it to the Australian Hof, we haven't inducted Jeff Tomson despite the terror factor and a fabulous early test career and considerable ashes success.

No suggestion that stats don't come into it. Just a pointer that we're compiling a Hall of Fame and not a Hall of Averages.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

If anything significant gets posted before deadline day which causes me to change my mind, I'll vote again ...

....I do wonder from some comments if we're in danger of concentrating too much on career stats and unrealistically expecting to see total consistency throughout. I've always been a fan of consistency but view it as pretty much impossible to maintain during a lengthy career. Some blips are almost inevitable. We need to look at things in the round together with defining moments. These comments apply to several of the current nominees.

Glad it's not just me that tries voting more than once! Tho' in my case it's likely to be inadvertent

I think that - in aggregate - we mostly strike a reasonable balance over the use of stats. For me the main problem seems to be when it comes to some of the players in the more distant past like Harvey, Morris, Ponsford when it becomes more difficult to interpret what some of the more variable and patch stats actually signify - re quality of opposition, uncovered pitches, LBW rules etc. On the other hand there's quite a proliferation of older players said to be the best / one of the best that X (esteemed cricket player / commentator) ever saw / played against. And so it can be difficult to work out whether reputations have been enhanced by rose tinted specs...

[alfie]

Not going to do a formal vote until next week but I'm leaning towards four or five yes votes...

Will use this thread to wish everyone on here a Merry Christmas

[kwinigolfer]

Merry Christmas to all you Hall Of Famers from the Green Mountain old folks home.

PS: Having just read guildford's wonderful Harold Pinter bon mot, I often think America would be a better place if they played cricket . . . . . (Some linseed oil in your stocking, guildford, for exhuming that quote!)

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Happy Christmas one and all from the barracks....

Kwini - in some ways it's a bit surprising cricket never took on in US despite the best efforts of Ronald Reagan. The late Miles Kington published a selection of the correspondence he received at the time of the death of the former President.

From Sir George "Gubby" Trotter:

"Sir, In all the long eulogies of the late Ronald Reagan, I have seen no mention of one of his most abiding characteristics, and that was his life-long love of cricket.

I realise that it may seem unlikely that a top American actor and politician should even know about the English national game, let alone be addicted to it, but as he once said to me: "Gubby, where do they think I acquired my imperturbable nature from? From American football? I do not think so. From baseball? Unlikely. No, it is the long hours that I have spent watching cricket games, pretending an interest in the proceedings, that enabled me to survive my meetings with Gorbachev and other Russian leaders whose names now escape me." ....

From Harvey Watchsmith:

"Sir, As an erstwhile adviser to Ronald Reagan while governing California, I can vouch for the above.

Mr Reagan was always alive to the threat from Communism. He also once said to me that the most dangerous thing in the world, after Communism, was a rising ball outside the off-stump. When I looked baffled, he said: "All you have to know, Harvey, is that no Communist has ever played cricket. The Reds play football, love athletics, and are good at chess, but they're frightened of cricket. That's why I love the game."

From Arnold Wachter:

"Sir, As one of Mr Reagan's top aides during his glory years, I can vouch for the above. Mr Reagan was sometimes portrayed by his opponents as an amiable simpleton, but I think much of this was due to his use of cricketing imagery which none of us could understand. This, of course, is why he took to Mrs Thatcher. She loved his aura of power; he loved the chance of having an ally who understood cricketing analogies. What Reagan never realised to his dying day was that Thatcher knew nothing about cricket and usually had no idea what he was talking about.

I remember once he said to her, about Castro, that the wily Cuban leader was easy to contain, "as long as you kept an eye open for his occasional Chinaman". For years afterwards, Maggie kept badgering Intelligence to find out about Castro's secret Chinese connection."

[Shelsey93]

That must be a late candidate for post of the year, corporal

Now to Arthur Morris.

I'll start by saying he doesn't make CMJ's Top 100 Cricketers of All Time, not that that should be a barrier to inclusion.

As you'd expect he's better served by Richie Benaud. He finds himself amongst Richie's 4 best openers of all time (he picked 3 teams, and he is in the 2nd XI with Len Hutton). A short explanation is given:

'A wonderful attacking left-hander and I agonised for a long time over a left-right hand combination, but in the end I had him on the second line with Len Hutton. Arthur was my first captain and a very good one too, but after NSW had one of their best seasons, Morris with both bat and captaincy, surprisingly he was removed and Keith Miller was made skipper of the state side'.

I'd argue that putting him in the 2nd XI probably reflects personal biases (which is fine, as its his team after all). Herbert Sutcliffe would seem very hard done by to not make any of the three and Barry Richards is also absent. However, it also perhaps highlights the fact that opening the batting is difficult. Less openers have been what we'd describe as bona fide Hall of Famers than in just about any other position. Maybe that's because we fail to take into account enough that opening is difficult, and building huge averages nigh on impossible.

Morris, along with Keith Miller and Ray Lindwall is given a whole chapter in the book in which Benaud essentially eulogises about how great all three were as mentors, saying that they 'remain the bench mark for me in the manner in which they played their cricket and responded to the needs of youngsters'. He says that 'Under his quiet exterior Arthur had a very good tactical mind and also willingness not to kow-tow to cricket administrators'.

Overall, I think its a tight decision.

In his favour is that he was the best batsman on the famous 1948 'Invincibles' tour. 696 runs @ 87 with 3 100s in the Tests. He also scored 3 100s in the '46/47 Ashes, and 206 at Adelaide in '50/51 (when nobody else scored more than 44 in the Australian innings)

On the other hand after a marvellous start he falls away a bit once Bradman departs the scene, and he only scored 3 more centuries after his first four series (in which he hit a total of 9). At no stage does he appear to be appalling, but he doesn't seem to have stepped up once the Invincibles moved aside, not scoring a century and averaging 31 in the 1953 series which England stole in the last Test after four draws. He seems to have faded early in life too. He was only 31 by 1953, but his stats look like those of somebody who's career was drifiting to a close. His career ended at the age of just 33 having not averaged over 40 in any of his last 5 years. In particular, he has a very ordinary record against WI, for whom Ramadhin and Valentine got his wicket 6 times between them in 8 matches. He also fell to Everton Weekes's leg-breaks on one occasion. A weakness against spin?

[guildfordbat]

... On the other hand after a marvellous start he falls away a bit once Bradman departs the scene, and he only scored 3 more centuries after his first four series (in which he hit a total of 9). At no stage does he appear to be appalling, but he doesn't seem to have stepped up once the Invincibles moved aside, not scoring a century and averaging 31 in the 1953 series which England stole in the last Test after four draws. He seems to have faded early in life too. He was only 31 by 1953, but his stats look like those of somebody who's career was drifiting to a close. His career ended at the age of just 33 having not averaged over 40 in any of his last 5 years. In particular, he has a very ordinary record against WI, for whom Ramadhin and Valentine got his wicket 6 times between them in 8 matches. He also fell to Everton Weekes's leg-breaks on one occasion. A weakness against spin?

Hi folks - hope all on this thread, in particular, are having a good Christmas.

I certainly haven't done anything like a full analysis of Arthur Morriss' career and dismissals against spin but have noted from cricinfo that he scored Test centuries against attacks including some leading slow bowlers of his era. West Indies' Sonny Ramadhin and Sonny Valentine, Souh Africa's Hugh Tayfield and Tufty Mann, India's Vinoo Mankad, England's Jim Laker and Eric Hollies (when Hollies bowled Bradman for that final duck he went on to get a fivefer whilst Morriss scored 196 before being run out).

A google search showed that Morris was regarded by some as ''Bedser's bunny''. Alec Bedser dismissed him twenty times in Tests, more than anyone else. However, in his 37 innings against Bedser, Morriss still came out on top with an average over 57. Statistics!!

As for Morriss' career fading too quickly, I wonder how much this was due to his wife's illness and premature death.

Hard to form concrete conclusions about this and the above figures without a greater knowledge. However, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt ant trust the likes of Benaud and Bradman.

[msp83]

I have no doubts on whether Morris was a very good player, he indeed was. So I am not surprised that Benaud and Bradman had nice things to say about him.
As shelsey said above, Benaud's list of top openers didn't include some top performers.
Harbhajan Singh picked up 32 wicket in his first comeback series and briefly emerged as India's led spinner even in tests. He has in overall analysis, has more than 400 test wickets. Murali, at the time of his retirement, reckoned that if any then playing spinner had a chance of rewriting his record, then it would Bhaji.

[guildfordbat]

Hi msp - struggling to see where Bhaji fits in to the current debate. Grateful for clarification, thanks.

[Shelsey93]

Subject to anything else coming up I will vote now:

Gordon Greenidge - I still don't think his case is 'overwhelming', but based on the role he played in a great team, that innings at Lord's and a few other anecdotes kindly supplied by guildford (particularly the innings he played whilst his daughter was ill - an indicator of incredible character), together with his ODI and county careers, he does enough to make it this time. YES

Neil Harvey - For reasons listed a week or so ago, a resounding YES from me. Certainly regarded as great by his peers, with a number of stand-out performances and a record which stacks up well.

Anil Kumble - Really quite a difficult one. I like a hard-worker, but just feel he didn't do quite enough away from Asia, and was worked out a bit as his career went on. Maybe one to look at again in a future Repecharge. NO for now

Arthur Morris - I don't think his record has quite enough depth to it to justify getting in at this stage. The boundaries for the Hall of Fame are meant to to be tough to break through and, whilst he shone at his best, it was all a bit too briefly for me. I appreciate the possibility raised by guildford that his wife's illness and death may have affected this. But I see a long-term decline from a point which, regardless of the qualifying factors, is for me too early to put him in the Hall of Fame. NO

Waqar Younis - Unproven fixing allegations aside, I see no reason to exclude him. His record has few real flaws and all of the other great bowlers of the '90s are in apart from Allan Donald (who perhaps suffers from similar drawbacks to Thomson, though might be worth a debate?). YES

[Shelsey93]

Voting closes on Sunday at 9am

[alfie]

OK to make some formal votes :

Harvey YES...if not the best Australian bat since Bradman , he is in the mix. Top fielder too. Clear choice this time round.

Greenidge YES...I think we did the right thing in making him proceed through the second round , but also that he is a must to get a tick now. If his final record isn't quite unassailable , the high points , including , but not limited to , that innings at Lord's (and thanks to Guildford for that useful summary of several other very significant innings ) surely must swing any doubt in his favour.

Morris YES... If he declined a little in his last couple of years , and his career was cut a bit short we should also recall that he might well have started his Test career a little earlier if not for a rather inconveniently timed war...of course his contemporaries were all similarly affected , but considering he made six hundreds in his first ten Ashes Tests it may well be that he was one of those players whose best years were his earlier ones ? Suggestions he may have struggled against spin are surely put to rest by Benaud's assertion that " though...an opening batsman he was at his most brilliant when facing spin...with footwork that has never been bettered". In fact Benaud hints it was actually fallibility against the swinging ball around leg stump which later hindered his consistency ...in short that the likes of Bedser had eventually "worked him out". He still played well enough to make 150 at Brisbane in 1954. Considering England were usually the strongest opponents in his time , his Ashes average of 50 , several points higher than his overall mark , is a useful indicator of his class. Good enough for Benaud , and good enough for me.

Waqar YES...the average is excellent. The strike rate is fantastic. Buckets of wickets. Memories of unplayable yorkers in truly fierce spells of match changing bowling...plus a great ODI career and some coaching success with the most uncoachable national team of them all...it seems pretty automatic. If he were convicted of involvement in match fixing it would negate things , but really no-one has even produced any evidence to associate him with the bad guys , beyond the fact that he played for Pakistan. I am very happy to send him in to join his great fast bowling partner in the HoF.

Kumble. The one I really had to think about. Am indebted to msp for his detailed account and strong advocacy...his overall wicket taking record , not to mention the large number of five and ten wickets hauls (including of course one ten in an innings !) certainly put him in line for a spot , but I am concerned by his "away" record , which is a bit too consistently poor to be dismissed as a statistical abberration. Can I offer a possible point in mitigation ? The Indian team in which he played often struggled with the ball away from home , and as the most reliable member of the attack he may well have been forced into bowling perhaps more than he should have done in unhelpful conditions. I have to admit I have no statistical or match report data to back up this theory , but I wonder if it might not have been at least a factor. Even so , a bowler of his experience should have done better , so we must mark him down a bit for being evidently less effective when removed from his comfort zone. Is this enough to exclude him ? We didn't worry too much about Warne's figures in India...(and yes , I know that is not a fair comparison )
I can't find a lot in his batting to offer as a counterweight : I had vague memories of a couple of fighting tail end efforts , but I confess I can't locate them ; his better scores , including the one century against England , seem to have come in big innings on very flat wickets. Useful , but not significant , though his best batting figures come against Australia, West Indies (mostly pre 2002) and England - ignoring Zimbabwe as it was only nine innings - so perhaps he did grit it out better when times were tough , as is my impression. I also rate his captaincy , and don't hold the Sydney business against him. Who knows what he said behind closed doors to his players and his management ? In public he could hardly have done other than stand up for the team he was leading...
In the end it will probably come down to what we make of the stats. He sits second on the best bowling in an innings with his ten ; equal ninth in annual hauls with his 74 wickets in 2004 - and five of those above him played more than the twelve Tests he had in that year ; and third in overall wicket takers , surrounded by players already admitted to our top table...if his average is not spectacular it is comparable with the likes of Gibbs and other admired spinners who haven't graced the Hall but are certainly highly rated - Quadir , Bedi , Saqlain (and Swann )
Perhaps none of this is conclusive , and I'll understand if he gets put through the repachage , but it being Christmas I am going to err on the side of generosity and vote a marginal YES.

Apologies for the verbosity...

[msp83]

Here we go.
Harvey Yes. Has a pretty decent record, played some remarkable knocks, Carried Australian batting after the Bradman era got over. Made significant contributions as an administrator after his playing career. Greenidge yes. A part of one of the best opening partnerships, played some real Waw knocks and has a good but not spectacular record. Did well as the coach of Bangladesh, thus playing a role in the expansion of our dear game.
Anil Kumble Yes. I had already made a very detailed case. I don't know how much can we hold Kumble's away record against him. Greenidge's Asian record isn't the greatest is it? Murali's record in Australia isn't the best is it? I believe Kumble has a great overall record, many match winning contributions home and even away, was a fighter of a cricketer and has already made a difference in his young administrative career.
Arthur Morris no. Well, Morris is well regarded in Australia. He has a good record. But there are some significant inconsistencies there, averaging under 40 for the best part of a 7 year career is not good enough in my book for the HoF, although he was a fine player. There are close similarities with Jeff Thomson in this case.
Waqar Younus Yes. There were some fixing related questions on Waqar, but nothing has been proven as yet. As a coach he never let his sense of loyalty to come in the way during the spot fixing issue. Has the record that is as good as that of anyone else.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Right, this'll have to be quick I'm afraid, but I'm going to say yes to all 5.

[Sponsored content]