About v2The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
+15
Biltong
guildfordbat
JDizzle
Mike Selig
Fists of Fury
dummy_half
ShahenshahG
alfie
msp83
Mad for Chelsea
Shelsey93
Corporalhumblebucket
kwinigolfer
Hoggy_Bear
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)
19 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Cricket :: 606v2 Honours Board
Page 10 of 20
Page 10 of 20 • 
1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 15 ... 20
The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:34 pm
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:
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
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:
- Following on from Gregers' idea to implement our very own Hall of Fame at 606v2, here is the thread where all the deliberating will take place.
As you know, there is a Hall of Fame already set up by the ICC, though looking through it there are some names in that list which are debateable as to whether they really belong in such company. That, then, is up to us to decide. Let's make our Hall of Fame elitist in every way, ensuring that only the most worthy of candidates are elected.
I propose that we elect 30 founder members of our Hall of Fame before the voting gets underway - whose position in cricketing history we can all agree on. Remember, this Hall doesn't have to only include players but can include managers, figureheads or anyone else that we feel has had a significant impact upon the sport to deem them worthy of a place.
In order for a candidate to gain election to the Hall, they will need a yes vote of 75% or more. Anything less will see them fail to get in. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and no currently active players will be considered.
Once our initial 30 members are agreed upon I suggest that we consider 10 more per month, working our way through the current ICC Hall of Fame and casting our own votes as to whether those names should belong in our own elitist Hall of Fame here at 606v2. Voting for each 10 candidates will run from the 1st of the month, when those names will be posted, until the last day of the month, when the votes will be tallied.
When we have exhaused those names in the current ICC Hall of Fame, there will be an opportunity for our members to decide upon the next group of 10 nominees that aren't currently in the ICC Hall of Fame, but may be worthy to be considered for our own (i.e. those that have recently retired such as Gilchrist etc).
My suggestion for the inaugural 30 is as follows. It is intended that these be the 30 very best and uncontroversial inductees, so please put forward any suggestions that you may have as to possible changes to this list, before we get started. We need to get the right names in this initial 30. In no particular order:
1) Don Bradman 2) Ian Botham 3) Sydney Barnes 4) Sunil Gavaskar 5) W.G Grace 6) Jack Hobbs 7) Richard Hadlee 8) Imran Khan 9) Malcolm Marshall 10) Garfield Sobers 11) Shane Warne 12) Muttiah Muralitharan 13) Viv Richards 14) Clive Lloyd 15) Keith Miller 16) Andy Flower 17) Brian Lara 18) Bill O'Reilly 19) Wasim Akram 20) Glenn McGrath 21) Michael Holding 22) Richie Benaud 23) Adam Gilchrist 24) Allan Border 25) Curtly Ambrose 26) Dennis Lillee 27) Frank Worrell 28) Victor Trumper 29) Kapil Dev 30) Jim Laker
So, let me know your thoughts and possible changes to this 20, and then we will get on with the business of the first ten names that are up for nomination. Any questions let me know.
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
Last edited by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) on Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Pete C (Kiwireddevil)- Posts : 10925
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : London, England
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:00 pm
To confirm, yes to all 5 from me also as per my post last Saturday.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:12 pm
I have already voted YES to four candidates. I'm thinking Morris is borderline, but I have come down (just) on NO side. Mainly having regard to the relative brevity of his period at the peak of form.
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:14 pm
Final reminder: Votes close tomorrow at 9am
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:22 am
Votes are in with a few less contributions than normal, probably due to Xmas.
Gordon Greenidge - 6 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Neil Harvey - 6 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Anil Kumble - 5 Yes, 1 No = 83.3%
Arthur Morris - 3 Yes, 3 No = 50%
Waqar Younis - 6 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Greenidge and Harvey comfortably in this time, with Waqar also through with 100% and Kumble with few problems also. Morris just about makes the repecharge.
----
Candidates for the next two weeks are:
Repecharge
Rohan Kanhai
Harold Larwood
Nominated
Nawab of Pataudi (msp83)
Martin Crowe (Stella)
Warwick Armstrong (Hoggy_Bear)
Gordon Greenidge - 6 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Neil Harvey - 6 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Anil Kumble - 5 Yes, 1 No = 83.3%
Arthur Morris - 3 Yes, 3 No = 50%
Waqar Younis - 6 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Greenidge and Harvey comfortably in this time, with Waqar also through with 100% and Kumble with few problems also. Morris just about makes the repecharge.
----
Candidates for the next two weeks are:
Repecharge
Rohan Kanhai
Harold Larwood
Nominated
Nawab of Pataudi (msp83)
Martin Crowe (Stella)
Warwick Armstrong (Hoggy_Bear)
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Biltong Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:42 am
Wher do I make nominations for some of my SA bretheren?
Biltong- Moderator
- Posts : 26945
Join date : 2011-04-27
Location : Twilight zone
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:52 am
Glad Greenidge and Harvey got in. Waqar and Kumble are also deserving inductees IMO. As for Morris, although I voted for him myself, I suppose the repecharge is fair enough, given the concerns about the latter part of his career.
As for Warwick Armstrong, I'd like to start the debate on him by outlining his case.
Warwick Windridge Armstrong: 'The Big Ship'
Warwick Windridge Armstrong was a colossus of Australian cricket. He scored more first-class runs than Bill Ponsford or Charlie Macartney and took more first-class wickets than Bill O’Reilly or Ray Lindwall. In a test career stretching from 1902 to 1921, he played 50 matches, scoring 2863 runs at an average of 38.68 and taking 87 wickets at 33.59. On three tours of England he performed the double, and, after the end of WWI he captained Australia in 10 tests against England, winning 8 on the trot and losing none.
A big man at 6’3”, by the time of these captaincy triumphs Armstrong weighed as much as 140kg, and would be regarded today as unfit. Yet he was fit to do what was needed. In the year running from 1919 to 1920 in first-class cricket alone, he batted 52 times, scoring 2282 runs at an average of almost 56. He bowled 5420 deliveries, claiming 117 wickets at a cost of 15.47 runs each. For the purposes of comparison, consider that in Test, first-class and one-day cricket during the year from October 1999, Steve Waugh batted 42 times, and Shane Warne bowled 4572 deliveries. Armstrong, in other words, did more than both put together - going on 42 years of age, what is more, and despite two recurrences of malaria.
He hadn’t always been that size, of course, and in fact had been a high class Aussie Rules footballer in his youth. He started his test career as a useful batsman and leg-spinner and, in his 2nd test helped Reggie Duff put together the first ever 100 run 10th wicket stand in tests. Later the same year (1902), he scored an unbeaten 159 opening the innings against South Africa. As a batsman he was not great to watch, but was very effective. His batting during his maiden century against Sussex in 1902 was described as such in the Times “His pose at the wickets gives an impression of awkwardness which is not dispelled when he shapes to play the ball and his strokeplay is essentially laboured....His methods, however, are remarkably effective; they show a most admirable blend of aggression and caution, backed by the right temperament. His defence is very sound, watchful and painstaking, his strokeplay is limited in its variety, but very sound in its execution.”
As a bowler, Armstrong was known more for his accuracy than his turn from the pitch. His action consisted of an easy amble and a gentle arc and was described in the Sporting Life as "...rather like a fat uncle, not altogether unlike a fat aunt." Again, it was effective, however, with the Daily Telegraph stating after the First Test in 1921, "...there is not a single batsman in England who faces with any appearance of confidence his innocuous slows."
Armstrong was also a quite controversial figure, prone to grand gestures. He had a number of run ins with Australian cricket authorities including being one of the ‘Big Six’ (Armstrong, Victor Trumper, Clem Hill, Hanson Carter, ‘Tibby’ Cotter and Vernon Ransford), who refused to tour England in 1912 in a dispute over player payments. He also antagonised opponents. During the 1921 tour of England he famously read a newspaper in the outfield while England were batting so that, as he said, he could find out “who we’re playing”. He was also one of the first players who didn’t walk, a characteristic which annoyed Jack Hobbs among others.
It could be argued that Armstrong was simply one of the first ‘play to win’ captains. Certainly Percy Fender saw Douglas Jardine as "a man cast in the toughest Australian mould, a la Armstrong", while Neville Cardus thought it "a pity his [Jardine's] opponent is not Warwick Armstrong". Whatever your view on his attitude and tactics, there can be no doubt of his impact on the game and upon contemporaries. Cardus wrote of him “Armstrong - how well the name befits his composition!... He is elemental, of the soil, the sun and wind - no product of the academies. Nature has by herself fashioned him - he has grown on the cricket field, like the grass. Someone has called him a cricketing Falstaff. The simile will not do. There is no kind of alacrity about Armstrong, no apprehensiveness, nothing 'forgetive'. His composition is of the humours, shrewd instincts and most likeable flesh... Australian cricket is incarnate in him when he walks from the pavilion, bat in hand. Consider the huge man's bulk as, crouching a little, he faces the bowler. He is all vigilance, suspicion and determination. The bat in his hand is like a hammer in the grip of a Vulcan."
Perhaps the best, and most famous, description of him, however, came from Edmund Blunden in his Country Cricket when he wrote "He made a bat look like a teaspoon, and the bowling weak tea; he turned it about idly, jovially, musingly. Still he had but to wield a bat - a little wristwork - and the field chased after the ball in vain. It was almost too easy." And Blunden went on to say "If I were to write a dictionary of cricket, I would enter in the index: Armstrong WW, see Grace WG, and Grace WG, see Armstrong WW."
Warwick Windridge Armstrong, Australia’s WG. Need there be any debate about his entry to our HoF?
As for Warwick Armstrong, I'd like to start the debate on him by outlining his case.
Warwick Windridge Armstrong: 'The Big Ship'
Warwick Windridge Armstrong was a colossus of Australian cricket. He scored more first-class runs than Bill Ponsford or Charlie Macartney and took more first-class wickets than Bill O’Reilly or Ray Lindwall. In a test career stretching from 1902 to 1921, he played 50 matches, scoring 2863 runs at an average of 38.68 and taking 87 wickets at 33.59. On three tours of England he performed the double, and, after the end of WWI he captained Australia in 10 tests against England, winning 8 on the trot and losing none.
A big man at 6’3”, by the time of these captaincy triumphs Armstrong weighed as much as 140kg, and would be regarded today as unfit. Yet he was fit to do what was needed. In the year running from 1919 to 1920 in first-class cricket alone, he batted 52 times, scoring 2282 runs at an average of almost 56. He bowled 5420 deliveries, claiming 117 wickets at a cost of 15.47 runs each. For the purposes of comparison, consider that in Test, first-class and one-day cricket during the year from October 1999, Steve Waugh batted 42 times, and Shane Warne bowled 4572 deliveries. Armstrong, in other words, did more than both put together - going on 42 years of age, what is more, and despite two recurrences of malaria.
He hadn’t always been that size, of course, and in fact had been a high class Aussie Rules footballer in his youth. He started his test career as a useful batsman and leg-spinner and, in his 2nd test helped Reggie Duff put together the first ever 100 run 10th wicket stand in tests. Later the same year (1902), he scored an unbeaten 159 opening the innings against South Africa. As a batsman he was not great to watch, but was very effective. His batting during his maiden century against Sussex in 1902 was described as such in the Times “His pose at the wickets gives an impression of awkwardness which is not dispelled when he shapes to play the ball and his strokeplay is essentially laboured....His methods, however, are remarkably effective; they show a most admirable blend of aggression and caution, backed by the right temperament. His defence is very sound, watchful and painstaking, his strokeplay is limited in its variety, but very sound in its execution.”
As a bowler, Armstrong was known more for his accuracy than his turn from the pitch. His action consisted of an easy amble and a gentle arc and was described in the Sporting Life as "...rather like a fat uncle, not altogether unlike a fat aunt." Again, it was effective, however, with the Daily Telegraph stating after the First Test in 1921, "...there is not a single batsman in England who faces with any appearance of confidence his innocuous slows."
Armstrong was also a quite controversial figure, prone to grand gestures. He had a number of run ins with Australian cricket authorities including being one of the ‘Big Six’ (Armstrong, Victor Trumper, Clem Hill, Hanson Carter, ‘Tibby’ Cotter and Vernon Ransford), who refused to tour England in 1912 in a dispute over player payments. He also antagonised opponents. During the 1921 tour of England he famously read a newspaper in the outfield while England were batting so that, as he said, he could find out “who we’re playing”. He was also one of the first players who didn’t walk, a characteristic which annoyed Jack Hobbs among others.
It could be argued that Armstrong was simply one of the first ‘play to win’ captains. Certainly Percy Fender saw Douglas Jardine as "a man cast in the toughest Australian mould, a la Armstrong", while Neville Cardus thought it "a pity his [Jardine's] opponent is not Warwick Armstrong". Whatever your view on his attitude and tactics, there can be no doubt of his impact on the game and upon contemporaries. Cardus wrote of him “Armstrong - how well the name befits his composition!... He is elemental, of the soil, the sun and wind - no product of the academies. Nature has by herself fashioned him - he has grown on the cricket field, like the grass. Someone has called him a cricketing Falstaff. The simile will not do. There is no kind of alacrity about Armstrong, no apprehensiveness, nothing 'forgetive'. His composition is of the humours, shrewd instincts and most likeable flesh... Australian cricket is incarnate in him when he walks from the pavilion, bat in hand. Consider the huge man's bulk as, crouching a little, he faces the bowler. He is all vigilance, suspicion and determination. The bat in his hand is like a hammer in the grip of a Vulcan."
Perhaps the best, and most famous, description of him, however, came from Edmund Blunden in his Country Cricket when he wrote "He made a bat look like a teaspoon, and the bowling weak tea; he turned it about idly, jovially, musingly. Still he had but to wield a bat - a little wristwork - and the field chased after the ball in vain. It was almost too easy." And Blunden went on to say "If I were to write a dictionary of cricket, I would enter in the index: Armstrong WW, see Grace WG, and Grace WG, see Armstrong WW."
Warwick Windridge Armstrong, Australia’s WG. Need there be any debate about his entry to our HoF?
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:09 am
A fine start on the Armstrong debates Hoggy.
The inspiration for Pataudi's case certainly goes to guildford and the Titmus debate. Shall make the detailed case a bit later.
But as initial thinking points, MAK Pataudi the tiger, is the first Indian captain credited with bringing about a significant transformation in Indian cricket. A man of sound tactics, a fighting batsman who played the short ball as fine as anyone else. Very importantly, he played all his test cricket with no sight in one eye, a result from an accident.
The inspiration for Pataudi's case certainly goes to guildford and the Titmus debate. Shall make the detailed case a bit later.
But as initial thinking points, MAK Pataudi the tiger, is the first Indian captain credited with bringing about a significant transformation in Indian cricket. A man of sound tactics, a fighting batsman who played the short ball as fine as anyone else. Very importantly, he played all his test cricket with no sight in one eye, a result from an accident.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:41 am
Hi Biltong - just flag their names in a post on this thread and I'm sure Shelsey will include them in future batches.Biltong wrote:Wher do I make nominations for some of my SA bretheren?
You're probably aware but just to emphasise that players need to have retired. You can say a tiny bit about them now if you want but that's up to you. You'll have the opportunity to make as much a case as you want when they come up for consideration.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Biltong Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:47 am
Thanks mate. Will do so.
Biltong- Moderator
- Posts : 26945
Join date : 2011-04-27
Location : Twilight zone
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:09 pm
Biltong wrote:Wher do I make nominations for some of my SA bretheren?
Just name them in this thread please, and I'll add them to the list at the bottom of the Home Page (in the Honours Board sub-section) when I have a moment
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Biltong Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:22 pm
Eddie Barlow
Mike Procter
Allan Donald
Hugh Tayfield
and finally I'll add Ntini.
by the way what did you guys think of CLive Rice?
Mike Procter
Allan Donald
Hugh Tayfield
and finally I'll add Ntini.
by the way what did you guys think of CLive Rice?
Biltong- Moderator
- Posts : 26945
Join date : 2011-04-27
Location : Twilight zone
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:38 pm
Happy enough with the last lot of results although a shame more were not able to vote.
Pleased that Morris at least got to the repecharge. Whilst some supportive comments were made on his behalf, he didn't have anyone battling his corner which is generally so necessary now we've moved on from the ICC List. I doubt that Kumble would have got in first time without msp's herculean efforts. I note that Kerry Packer is coming up soon - I suspect someone will certainly need to do some work if he is to be inducted; can't just leave it at being ''an interesting nomination''.
As for this time, I know very little about Armstrong and so will review Hoggy's post keenly. Crowe seems a good call although I'll still need to do some research. As for 'Tiger' Pataudi, I see that msp has started to butter me up already
; more seriously, I don't think of him as a great player. However, that may be wrong and, in any case, for me isn't a barrier that cannot be overcome. Look forward to msp's case.
As for the repecharge candidates, I was strongly in support of Larwood and Kanhai first time round and cannot see that changing.
I did as comprehensive post as I could for Larwood which can be found on page 20 (the final page) of part one of this thread. Mike added a fine balanced post around the start of part two which came down in Larwood's favour. I was also very impressed by a succint post from the much missed JDizzle which explained his reasons for a YES vote.
Kanhai's case was covered by me around pages 2 and 3 of part two. That was again supported by Mike and our learned consultant Grandad Fists. Grandad Fists should not be dismissed too readily as he had the benefit of seeing Kanhai many times at the crease.
Probably fair to point out that the bar was being set pretty high when Larwood and Kanhai were first considered. Shelsey commented that it was very unlikely that a bowler with a better Test average like Bob Willis would be inducted to our HoF (he has been!) whilst Greenidge then only having made the repecharge appeared to tip some voters to a NO.
Pleased that Morris at least got to the repecharge. Whilst some supportive comments were made on his behalf, he didn't have anyone battling his corner which is generally so necessary now we've moved on from the ICC List. I doubt that Kumble would have got in first time without msp's herculean efforts. I note that Kerry Packer is coming up soon - I suspect someone will certainly need to do some work if he is to be inducted; can't just leave it at being ''an interesting nomination''.
As for this time, I know very little about Armstrong and so will review Hoggy's post keenly. Crowe seems a good call although I'll still need to do some research. As for 'Tiger' Pataudi, I see that msp has started to butter me up already
; more seriously, I don't think of him as a great player. However, that may be wrong and, in any case, for me isn't a barrier that cannot be overcome. Look forward to msp's case.As for the repecharge candidates, I was strongly in support of Larwood and Kanhai first time round and cannot see that changing.
I did as comprehensive post as I could for Larwood which can be found on page 20 (the final page) of part one of this thread. Mike added a fine balanced post around the start of part two which came down in Larwood's favour. I was also very impressed by a succint post from the much missed JDizzle which explained his reasons for a YES vote.
Kanhai's case was covered by me around pages 2 and 3 of part two. That was again supported by Mike and our learned consultant Grandad Fists. Grandad Fists should not be dismissed too readily as he had the benefit of seeing Kanhai many times at the crease.
Probably fair to point out that the bar was being set pretty high when Larwood and Kanhai were first considered. Shelsey commented that it was very unlikely that a bowler with a better Test average like Bob Willis would be inducted to our HoF (he has been!) whilst Greenidge then only having made the repecharge appeared to tip some voters to a NO.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:49 pm
Well his death has shocked and saddened the cricket world. But it has given people an opportunity to take a serious relook at the much vilified Toni Greig.
I have a feeling someone had taken his name earlier to be considered, I would like us to consider him for our HoF.
I have a feeling someone had taken his name earlier to be considered, I would like us to consider him for our HoF.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:52 pm
As guildford said, Pataudi, on his playing record alone, wouldn't come anywhere close to our HoF, but there are larger points to be considered.
As far as Kumble's case was concerned, he had a mighty fine record along with all the extra factors in his favor. Pataudi will have to contend with more of the usual additional stuff.
As far as Kumble's case was concerned, he had a mighty fine record along with all the extra factors in his favor. Pataudi will have to contend with more of the usual additional stuff.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:15 pm
I certainly think that Greig's case is worth considering. I'm not sure I'd be prepared to take it up myself (I have reservations about him) but a few people on TV over the last couple of days have gone as far as to say he'd influenced cricket as much as just about anyone over the last four decades: that probably qualifies him for at least consideration.
Probably best to let the dust settle on his death first though before jumping into a debate.
Probably best to let the dust settle on his death first though before jumping into a debate.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:51 pm
My thoughts entirely.Shelsey93 wrote:
Probably best to let the dust settle on his death first though before jumping into a debate.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:19 pm
Musings from the OFH:
Interesting to follow these debates from the sidelines, but would like to add this little note to your collection:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/20876470
Honour well deserved I would say.
Glad you all voted Neil Harvey in; similarly, you share my reservations about Arthur Morris - was he better than the likes of Graveney and Cowdrey who are not in the 606v2 HOF? I don't know that he was.
Would be a big supporter of Warwick Armstrong, Kanhai and, especially, Larwood.
Definitely not of the N of P, although his impact on Indian cricket as a leader was obviously significant. Not much better than a top County player as a batsman however.
Going back to your last intake, would Waqar Younis rank as the top Pakistan quick of all time?
And: Towny Grigg will be a toughy! From where I stood, usually in a Lords bar, he was just as much a force for bad as he was for good, certainly in his playing days. Does his post-playing career redeem him?
Interesting to follow these debates from the sidelines, but would like to add this little note to your collection:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/20876470
Honour well deserved I would say.
Glad you all voted Neil Harvey in; similarly, you share my reservations about Arthur Morris - was he better than the likes of Graveney and Cowdrey who are not in the 606v2 HOF? I don't know that he was.
Would be a big supporter of Warwick Armstrong, Kanhai and, especially, Larwood.
Definitely not of the N of P, although his impact on Indian cricket as a leader was obviously significant. Not much better than a top County player as a batsman however.
Going back to your last intake, would Waqar Younis rank as the top Pakistan quick of all time?
And: Towny Grigg will be a toughy! From where I stood, usually in a Lords bar, he was just as much a force for bad as he was for good, certainly in his playing days. Does his post-playing career redeem him?
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:28 pm
Biltong - that's a highly impressive batch of nominees.Biltong wrote:Eddie Barlow
Mike Procter
Allan Donald
Hugh Tayfield
and finally I'll add Ntini.
by the way what did you guys think of CLive Rice?
Rice was a highly successful captain and all rounder for Notts in the 1980s. Just looked up his stats - they are astoundingly good! Over 40 with the bat and under 22.5 with the ball. As those figures suggest, he was too good for most county opponents. Together with Richard Hadlee, he was part of a great attack. I had forgotten / hadn't appreciated what an effective batsman he was. A cricketing tragedy that he never played a Test match. I'm sure he would also have been a success at that higher level.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:44 pm
Kwini - cracking post as ever.
Agree with you about McGrath. Would be surprised if anyone didn't.
Waqar has to be there or thereabouts.
I suspect younger posters will be surprised as to how deeply unpopular Greig was at one time. There's a lot to go in the mix when we do consider him.
PS If the pitch isn't waterlogged (it's never stopped raining this month), I'm planning to see Woking play Luton Town in tomorrow's New Year's Day game - how the once mighty Hatters have fallen!
Agree with you about McGrath. Would be surprised if anyone didn't.
Waqar has to be there or thereabouts.
I suspect younger posters will be surprised as to how deeply unpopular Greig was at one time. There's a lot to go in the mix when we do consider him.
PS If the pitch isn't waterlogged (it's never stopped raining this month), I'm planning to see Woking play Luton Town in tomorrow's New Year's Day game - how the once mighty Hatters have fallen!
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:45 pm
Of course Greig's case should be considered after things settle down.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:46 pm
Greig was, from what I've read and heard from people, was very very popular to start with, 1977 and after and his early comments during the west Indies series made him rather unpopular in some parts of the world. Is that right guildford?
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:52 pm
Hi guildford,
Hope you found that linseed oil I left in your Xmas stocking.
My recollections/prejudices? of Greig were of an above average all-rounder who seemed destined for Test recognition almost regardless of prowess in the first class game (similar to thoughts about Derek Pringle later). And when he rose to the Test arena, so did the quality of his performances.
Many felt that South Africans were moving to qualify for English Test cricket almost as merchant fleets might search for a flag of convenience. Count me among them. Still. He rose in England seniority as much via force of personality as on-field performance, and thence to the Captaincy. Some, me included, never accepted him, felt he hadn't really paid his dues.
Then he took/led the Packer path and that also divided sentiment.
Personally, I always preferred Proctor and Clive Rice among the true South African all-rounders, and loved the single bloodymindedness of Eddie Barlow.
I know nothing of Greig's life in Australia - it's easy now to say how much the Packer revolution changed cricket for the better, but I was never sure of that at the time and still take some convincing. Oh well.
Ah, but you also remind me of possibly my least favourite footie destination: Kenilworth Road. Almost like running the gauntlett to get from the station to the ground, and not much better once incarcerated inside.
Not many will remember perhaps that a pop/rock icon's cousin scored against Luton in the Cup Final more than 50 years ago. Later memories are repleat with names such as Bruce Rioch, Malcolm MacDonald, Ricky Hill - great player I always thought - Brian Stein. Sadly depleated now of course, but once upon a time they played compleat football!
What a mess they've become, hope desperately that PFC find the brakes before plunging to that level. The Hatters! Should be the Down On Your Uppers . . . . . .
Hope you found that linseed oil I left in your Xmas stocking.
My recollections/prejudices? of Greig were of an above average all-rounder who seemed destined for Test recognition almost regardless of prowess in the first class game (similar to thoughts about Derek Pringle later). And when he rose to the Test arena, so did the quality of his performances.
Many felt that South Africans were moving to qualify for English Test cricket almost as merchant fleets might search for a flag of convenience. Count me among them. Still. He rose in England seniority as much via force of personality as on-field performance, and thence to the Captaincy. Some, me included, never accepted him, felt he hadn't really paid his dues.
Then he took/led the Packer path and that also divided sentiment.
Personally, I always preferred Proctor and Clive Rice among the true South African all-rounders, and loved the single bloodymindedness of Eddie Barlow.
I know nothing of Greig's life in Australia - it's easy now to say how much the Packer revolution changed cricket for the better, but I was never sure of that at the time and still take some convincing. Oh well.
Ah, but you also remind me of possibly my least favourite footie destination: Kenilworth Road. Almost like running the gauntlett to get from the station to the ground, and not much better once incarcerated inside.
Not many will remember perhaps that a pop/rock icon's cousin scored against Luton in the Cup Final more than 50 years ago. Later memories are repleat with names such as Bruce Rioch, Malcolm MacDonald, Ricky Hill - great player I always thought - Brian Stein. Sadly depleated now of course, but once upon a time they played compleat football!
What a mess they've become, hope desperately that PFC find the brakes before plunging to that level. The Hatters! Should be the Down On Your Uppers . . . . . .
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Msp - that's pretty much the case in summary. Greig's attacking and talented play together with his 6 foot 6 inch frame and blond hair made him not only a popular but also a stand out figure. However, he was never a stranger to controversy. Key incidents were:
* Run out of Alvin Kallicharran. This was off the last ball of play in the 1974 Trinidad Test. Kalli was walking to the pavilion when Greig threw down the stumps believing (correctly) that the ball was still in play. Kalli was given out but he continued his innings the next morning when the appeal was withdrawn over night with a riot and cancellation of the series threatened. Greig claimed his back was to Kalli for most of the time as the ball went past him and he instinctively threw down the stumps upon seeing Kalli out of his ground rather than stopping to ask questions. Again according to Greig, he was approached in the England changing room by Sobers who told him he had done the right thing. Kalli certainly didn't see things that way having smashed his bat on the pavilion steps and burst into tears in the Windies' changing room.
* ''Grovel'' comments. Remarkably unfortunate, tactless and insensitive. Understandably they were badly received by the West Indies team and their supporters. I believe the context in which they were intended was more reasonable - that the Windies were ''magnificent'' [he also used that word but that is long forgotten] when on top but could not cope when put under pressure and that he planned to put them under pressure. Regardless of the racist interpretation given by some, the comments did little for Greig's credibility as the Windies won the 5 match series 3-0.
* Kerry Packer. This was seen - particularly by the English press - as the ultimate betrayal by an England captain. Not only signing up to a ''Circus'' (as the press continually referred to Packer's brand of cricket) but using his position to attract and help Packer in secretly signing up others. Rights and wrongs here can be debated but the resulting changes were seismic.
* Run out of Alvin Kallicharran. This was off the last ball of play in the 1974 Trinidad Test. Kalli was walking to the pavilion when Greig threw down the stumps believing (correctly) that the ball was still in play. Kalli was given out but he continued his innings the next morning when the appeal was withdrawn over night with a riot and cancellation of the series threatened. Greig claimed his back was to Kalli for most of the time as the ball went past him and he instinctively threw down the stumps upon seeing Kalli out of his ground rather than stopping to ask questions. Again according to Greig, he was approached in the England changing room by Sobers who told him he had done the right thing. Kalli certainly didn't see things that way having smashed his bat on the pavilion steps and burst into tears in the Windies' changing room.
* ''Grovel'' comments. Remarkably unfortunate, tactless and insensitive. Understandably they were badly received by the West Indies team and their supporters. I believe the context in which they were intended was more reasonable - that the Windies were ''magnificent'' [he also used that word but that is long forgotten] when on top but could not cope when put under pressure and that he planned to put them under pressure. Regardless of the racist interpretation given by some, the comments did little for Greig's credibility as the Windies won the 5 match series 3-0.
* Kerry Packer. This was seen - particularly by the English press - as the ultimate betrayal by an England captain. Not only signing up to a ''Circus'' (as the press continually referred to Packer's brand of cricket) but using his position to attract and help Packer in secretly signing up others. Rights and wrongs here can be debated but the resulting changes were seismic.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:45 pm
Kwini - yes, many thanks for the linseed oil!
Very interesting comments about Greig. That should be a really good debate when it comes round.
My boy crush on Procter and Barlow was formed during the 1970 England v Rest of the World series in 1970. It has since transormed into the crush of a grumpy old man but otherwise still remains with me and always will.
To the list of former Luton footballers you can add the celebrated names of Johnny Aston Jr, the Futcher twins, the late Les Sealey and the late Brian Lewis (once of Guildford).
Best wishes to you and all for 2013.
Very interesting comments about Greig. That should be a really good debate when it comes round.
My boy crush on Procter and Barlow was formed during the 1970 England v Rest of the World series in 1970. It has since transormed into the crush of a grumpy old man but otherwise still remains with me and always will.
To the list of former Luton footballers you can add the celebrated names of Johnny Aston Jr, the Futcher twins, the late Les Sealey and the late Brian Lewis (once of Guildford).
Best wishes to you and all for 2013.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:52 pm
Very disappointed to see no sign of transparency in the ICC's Hall Of Fame election process - who determines who is being considered for induction?
No old-timers included - have the pre-WWII guys had their HOF day? Who knows??
Baseball HOF announcement next Tuesday - we know the players who are on the "ballot", what the rules are for gaining entry, who votes and for whom, and that, if a player fails to secure a certain %age of the vote, he will be removed from the "ballot" for consideration next year. If a player is on the "ballot" for 15 years without being elected, his name is automatically removed - the excellent Dale Murphy waiting for that particular guillotine to fall this year.
Then a Committee consisting entirely of HOF'ers considers at a later date anyone who has fallen through the cracks, their version of the v2 repecharge if you like. Sometimes years go by without a player being elected via this route.
Writers, officials, managers, umpires and any other servants of the sport are elected separately.
Oh well.
Wishing all the Cricket Hall Of Fame advocates a Very Happy New Year. Play!
guildford,
Yes, should certainly have included the great Brian Lewis. Should be in the "Characters" wing of the Football HOF.
No old-timers included - have the pre-WWII guys had their HOF day? Who knows??
Baseball HOF announcement next Tuesday - we know the players who are on the "ballot", what the rules are for gaining entry, who votes and for whom, and that, if a player fails to secure a certain %age of the vote, he will be removed from the "ballot" for consideration next year. If a player is on the "ballot" for 15 years without being elected, his name is automatically removed - the excellent Dale Murphy waiting for that particular guillotine to fall this year.
Then a Committee consisting entirely of HOF'ers considers at a later date anyone who has fallen through the cracks, their version of the v2 repecharge if you like. Sometimes years go by without a player being elected via this route.
Writers, officials, managers, umpires and any other servants of the sport are elected separately.
Oh well.
Wishing all the Cricket Hall Of Fame advocates a Very Happy New Year. Play!
guildford,
Yes, should certainly have included the great Brian Lewis. Should be in the "Characters" wing of the Football HOF.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:04 pm
Happy New Year everyone (I know it's a bit late)
I've already outlined the case for Warwick Armstrong's inclusion in the HoF, but the other candidates are a very interesting bunch.
Kanhai, I voted in favour of first time around, although I needed persuading by Guildford before I did so. He was one of, (if not the), leading batsmen of the 1960s/early 70s, and the link between the 3 Ws and Viv Richards in the line of great West Indian batsmen. He was also a legend at Warks. I'll take some persuading to vote no this time around.
Larwood was someone I voted against first time around, due to his mediocre record away from the Bodyline series. However, as kwini pointed out back then, he was held in very high esteem by contemporaries, and while looking at the case for Maurice Tate, I discovered a number of quotes backing this up. May well change my mind here, but not quite decided yet.
Martin Crowe is a worthy candidate IMO. Possibly the best batsman New Zealand have produced. A player whose record is probably more impressive than it might first appear, especially given that he was the wicket everyone wanted throughout most of his career.
The Nawab of Pataudi is an interesting one. On the face of it his record is not good enough for entry to our HoF, but given the fact that he overcame the loss of sight in his right eye, added to his status as a captain, he has a good case IMO.
With my own impending support for the candidature of Athol Rowan on similar grounds, I think I could well be persuaded to vote yes on this one but, as always, I'm not certain of anything yet.
I've already outlined the case for Warwick Armstrong's inclusion in the HoF, but the other candidates are a very interesting bunch.
Kanhai, I voted in favour of first time around, although I needed persuading by Guildford before I did so. He was one of, (if not the), leading batsmen of the 1960s/early 70s, and the link between the 3 Ws and Viv Richards in the line of great West Indian batsmen. He was also a legend at Warks. I'll take some persuading to vote no this time around.
Larwood was someone I voted against first time around, due to his mediocre record away from the Bodyline series. However, as kwini pointed out back then, he was held in very high esteem by contemporaries, and while looking at the case for Maurice Tate, I discovered a number of quotes backing this up. May well change my mind here, but not quite decided yet.
Martin Crowe is a worthy candidate IMO. Possibly the best batsman New Zealand have produced. A player whose record is probably more impressive than it might first appear, especially given that he was the wicket everyone wanted throughout most of his career.
The Nawab of Pataudi is an interesting one. On the face of it his record is not good enough for entry to our HoF, but given the fact that he overcame the loss of sight in his right eye, added to his status as a captain, he has a good case IMO.
With my own impending support for the candidature of Athol Rowan on similar grounds, I think I could well be persuaded to vote yes on this one but, as always, I'm not certain of anything yet.
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:01 pm
An interesting Cricinfo article from 2008 on ''Pushing the laws to the limit'' including some past and present HoF nominees.
Whilst the writers' verdict upon Bodyline (Larwood is not referred to by name) is ''innovative'', Armstrong is described as ''a player always wishing to stretch the laws to their limit'' and his time-wasting tactics (more annoyingly intimidatory for poor Frank Woolley, in my view) in 1909 are adjudged ''against the spirit''.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/355286.html
Whilst the writers' verdict upon Bodyline (Larwood is not referred to by name) is ''innovative'', Armstrong is described as ''a player always wishing to stretch the laws to their limit'' and his time-wasting tactics (more annoyingly intimidatory for poor Frank Woolley, in my view) in 1909 are adjudged ''against the spirit''.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/355286.html
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:42 pm
Interesting reading!
I especially like the slow over-rate policy of Hutton in Australia in 1954 - he certainly showed Bedser who was boss as AV was dropped after the first Test.
Important thing for me regarding "Bodyline" is that the bowlers were mere pawns in the game - don't feel as if Larwood's career reputation or belittled should be besmirched just because he was the most successful at carrying out Jardine's orders.
I especially like the slow over-rate policy of Hutton in Australia in 1954 - he certainly showed Bedser who was boss as AV was dropped after the first Test.
Important thing for me regarding "Bodyline" is that the bowlers were mere pawns in the game - don't feel as if Larwood's career reputation or belittled should be besmirched just because he was the most successful at carrying out Jardine's orders.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:48 pm
I am pretty sure to be in the YES camp for Kanhai again unless anything really untowards happens.
Looking forward to learning a lot more about the case for Nawab of Pataudi.
I expect Crowe will have quite a strong case.
Looking forward to learning a lot more about the case for Nawab of Pataudi.
I expect Crowe will have quite a strong case.
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Shelsey93 Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:57 pm
My initial thoughts:
Larwood - I was quite a strong advocate of a No last time. Am willing to be persuaded (and for reasons I'll point out when I have a moment he has gone up in my estimation). However, I still have significant concerns which I will need to reiterate about a number of aspects to his case.
Kanhai - I can't remember which way I eventually voted, but it might well have been No. He was a good player, but was he really a great?? And if he wasn't a great has he done much else for the game?
Nawab of Pataudi - When he died in 2011 I found out quite a bit about him. Much like Titmus a fascinating character, and it may be easier to convince me that he's a Hall of Famer than Titmus, given that he was a Test captain and is well regarded in India for bringing the team forward.
Crowe - May have a case to add to the NZ contingent in the HoF (only Hadlee currently I think). Certainly their best batsman along with Bert Sutcliffe. I think he'll need a push: if Stella's not going to provide it (I hope he is) then maybe Pete C can if he's around.
Armstrong - Don't know much about it. Will read Hoggy's post shortly, and also what writers (including the late CMJ) have had to say.
Larwood - I was quite a strong advocate of a No last time. Am willing to be persuaded (and for reasons I'll point out when I have a moment he has gone up in my estimation). However, I still have significant concerns which I will need to reiterate about a number of aspects to his case.
Kanhai - I can't remember which way I eventually voted, but it might well have been No. He was a good player, but was he really a great?? And if he wasn't a great has he done much else for the game?
Nawab of Pataudi - When he died in 2011 I found out quite a bit about him. Much like Titmus a fascinating character, and it may be easier to convince me that he's a Hall of Famer than Titmus, given that he was a Test captain and is well regarded in India for bringing the team forward.
Crowe - May have a case to add to the NZ contingent in the HoF (only Hadlee currently I think). Certainly their best batsman along with Bert Sutcliffe. I think he'll need a push: if Stella's not going to provide it (I hope he is) then maybe Pete C can if he's around.
Armstrong - Don't know much about it. Will read Hoggy's post shortly, and also what writers (including the late CMJ) have had to say.
Shelsey93- Posts : 3134
Join date : 2011-12-14
Age : 31
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:29 pm
Shelsey,
I LOVED watching Kanhai at the crease; in terms of entertainment, big innings, and representing a steadying force in the fine late 50's/60's West Indies teams he was a Great!
He could be stoic when necessary, a gritty competitor, but was an outstanding improvisor and thoroughly compelling when at the crease. His longevity speaks for itself.
As well as being a very good fielder he was also a Test wickie, and transported everything that was good in those great West Indies teams to the County game with Warwickshire. Fabulous player - if there was anything negative to be said about him it is that his class would have been even more apparent if he hadn't been a contemporary to Sir Garfield.
I LOVED watching Kanhai at the crease; in terms of entertainment, big innings, and representing a steadying force in the fine late 50's/60's West Indies teams he was a Great!
He could be stoic when necessary, a gritty competitor, but was an outstanding improvisor and thoroughly compelling when at the crease. His longevity speaks for itself.
As well as being a very good fielder he was also a Test wickie, and transported everything that was good in those great West Indies teams to the County game with Warwickshire. Fabulous player - if there was anything negative to be said about him it is that his class would have been even more apparent if he hadn't been a contemporary to Sir Garfield.
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:47 pm
Excellent post, Kwini. Furthermore, Sir Garfield was convinced that Kanhai was a Great - I'll dig out the quote tomorrow.kwinigolfer wrote:Shelsey,
I LOVED watching Kanhai at the crease; in terms of entertainment, big innings, and representing a steadying force in the fine late 50's/60's West Indies teams he was a Great!
He could be stoic when necessary, a gritty competitor, but was an outstanding improvisor and thoroughly compelling when at the crease. His longevity speaks for itself.
As well as being a very good fielder he was also a Test wickie, and transported everything that was good in those great West Indies teams to the County game with Warwickshire. Fabulous player - if there was anything negative to be said about him it is that his class would have been even more apparent if he hadn't been a contemporary to Sir Garfield.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:23 am
Some similar thoughts to Shelsey at the moment regarding Crowe. Sympathetic to his cause but still feel he needs a push.Shelsey93 wrote:My initial thoughts:
Crowe - May have a case to add to the NZ contingent in the HoF (only Hadlee currently I think). Certainly their best batsman along with Bert Sutcliffe. I think he'll need a push: if Stella's not going to provide it (I hope he is) then maybe Pete C can if he's around.
Batting wise (and I appreciate there may be more to it than that), I'm inclined to put him him some way below Kanhai and more on a par with unsuccessful nominees like Graveney and Ian Chappell.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by dummy_half Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:49 am
Apologies for not voting for the last batch - my home PC has melted and I was away over Christmas. I was certain of 4 yes's with only Morris to decide on, so could have pushed him down to the 'rejected' list (I don't think enough was done to mount a case for inclusion).
As for this lot, I'll review Kanhai and Larwood again, particularly the earlier discussions. My recollection is that both had strong advocates, and while I feel RK's case for inclusion now has been strengthened, I still have reservations about how effective Larwood was outside of the Bodyline series (I have no issue with HL as a professional fast bowler bowling to the orders of his captain, given the era).
Crowe I recall as a talented and stylish batsman, but I will need some persuading that he was of HoF calibre - his record is not too disimilar to David Gower (about a 1 run higher average and a better conversion of 50s to 100s, but only scoring about 2/3rds as many runs), and for all Gower's style I don't think he achieved what he should have.
Armstrong - An interesting contribution from Hoggy. First impressions are that he doesn't measure up to HoF level solely as a Test player, but that his case is strengthened by his Captaincy and first class record while perhaps slightly undermined by his character.
Nawab of Pataudi - MSP has already provided some information a couple of months ago and I think will mount a good case for his inclusion. We also have some precedent for inducting players (Hanif Mohammad being one) as much for their contribution to Test cricket in their home country as for their playing record, so I'm interested to see how this one is going to go.
As for this lot, I'll review Kanhai and Larwood again, particularly the earlier discussions. My recollection is that both had strong advocates, and while I feel RK's case for inclusion now has been strengthened, I still have reservations about how effective Larwood was outside of the Bodyline series (I have no issue with HL as a professional fast bowler bowling to the orders of his captain, given the era).
Crowe I recall as a talented and stylish batsman, but I will need some persuading that he was of HoF calibre - his record is not too disimilar to David Gower (about a 1 run higher average and a better conversion of 50s to 100s, but only scoring about 2/3rds as many runs), and for all Gower's style I don't think he achieved what he should have.
Armstrong - An interesting contribution from Hoggy. First impressions are that he doesn't measure up to HoF level solely as a Test player, but that his case is strengthened by his Captaincy and first class record while perhaps slightly undermined by his character.
Nawab of Pataudi - MSP has already provided some information a couple of months ago and I think will mount a good case for his inclusion. We also have some precedent for inducting players (Hanif Mohammad being one) as much for their contribution to Test cricket in their home country as for their playing record, so I'm interested to see how this one is going to go.
dummy_half- Posts : 6483
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 52
Location : East Hertfordshire
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Hoggy_Bear Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:24 pm
dummy_half wrote:Armstrong - An interesting contribution from Hoggy. First impressions are that he doesn't measure up to HoF level solely as a Test player, but that his case is strengthened by his Captaincy and first class record while perhaps slightly undermined by his character.
I would just point out that, between 1902-1912 (from his debut to his last test before WWI), Armstrong averaged 35 with the bat. By comparison, during the same period, Victor Trumper averaged 40 and Clem Hill 39. Armstrong also took 70 wickets in that period. So, as a batting all-rounder I'd say his record was pretty good.
As for the article Guildford linked to, while it is fair to say that Armstrong was certainly willing to push boundaries with regard to the Laws, in that instance in 1909, Armstrong wasn't captain so, maybe, he wasn't solely responsible in that case.
Hoggy_Bear- Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 58
Location : The Fields of Athenry
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:17 pm
Here we go, on the Nawab of Pataudi.
My case for Pataudy is based on 3 aspects.
First and formost, he was one of the great captains that India have seen and made a remarkable impact on Indian cricket and thereby world cricket as such.
Second, he overcame serious disadvantages to became a decent ttest cricketer and a man of massive impact.
Third, he was a batsman who played some real fine knocks in challenging circumstances and has a decent enough record.
Pataudi the captain.
Pataudi became the captain of India in dificult circumstances. captain Nari Contractor had his head broken in the West Indies , hit on the head by a Charley Grifith bouncer. The team had never won overseas, there was lot of factionalism and defeatism was the rule of the day. Selection was all about satisfying regionalist elements. Besides, Pataudi was just 21, the youngest international test captain, and he had lost sight in one eye less than a year before.
But Pataudi was a leader who commanded respect. His captaincy was all about being positive. He instilled a sense of belief in his side. He used his influence to clean up the selection system, during his captaincy, selections became more or less merit based. He was able to keep factionalist tendencies under check, but never alinated senior players, he always listened to their advices but was quite capable of taking his own decisions in the end.
Understanding that there was no real depth of seaming bowling quality in India at that point, Pataudi successfully argued that the team should play to their strength. India had some emerging spinners of quality at that time, Pataudi understood that India's real strength was in that department and gave his spinners all the backing.
Under his captaincy, India mostly played with 3 spinnersIn a match against England in 1967, all 4 of India's goldan generation spinners, Bedi, Venkat, Prasanna and Chandra played together. Pataudi placed great importance on fielding and led from the very front in that department. He was a real tiger at cover, and under his watch, a quality ring of close in fielders including Eknath Solkar and Ajit Wadekar was developed.
Under his leadership India won 9 out of the 40 matches. They won their first overseas test in New Zealand. 9 out of 40 may not look great from today's vantage point, but Pataudi led sides that on their best was a middling one and mostly poor otherwise.
As Mukul Keshavan puts it, "When Pataudi took charge of the Indian team, it was a team that didn't believe they could win or bowl the opposition out twice. He left them ready to hold their own against any opposition, with the self-belief necessary for success". http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/533514.html
My case for Pataudy is based on 3 aspects.
First and formost, he was one of the great captains that India have seen and made a remarkable impact on Indian cricket and thereby world cricket as such.
Second, he overcame serious disadvantages to became a decent ttest cricketer and a man of massive impact.
Third, he was a batsman who played some real fine knocks in challenging circumstances and has a decent enough record.
Pataudi the captain.
Pataudi became the captain of India in dificult circumstances. captain Nari Contractor had his head broken in the West Indies , hit on the head by a Charley Grifith bouncer. The team had never won overseas, there was lot of factionalism and defeatism was the rule of the day. Selection was all about satisfying regionalist elements. Besides, Pataudi was just 21, the youngest international test captain, and he had lost sight in one eye less than a year before.
But Pataudi was a leader who commanded respect. His captaincy was all about being positive. He instilled a sense of belief in his side. He used his influence to clean up the selection system, during his captaincy, selections became more or less merit based. He was able to keep factionalist tendencies under check, but never alinated senior players, he always listened to their advices but was quite capable of taking his own decisions in the end.
Understanding that there was no real depth of seaming bowling quality in India at that point, Pataudi successfully argued that the team should play to their strength. India had some emerging spinners of quality at that time, Pataudi understood that India's real strength was in that department and gave his spinners all the backing.
Under his captaincy, India mostly played with 3 spinnersIn a match against England in 1967, all 4 of India's goldan generation spinners, Bedi, Venkat, Prasanna and Chandra played together. Pataudi placed great importance on fielding and led from the very front in that department. He was a real tiger at cover, and under his watch, a quality ring of close in fielders including Eknath Solkar and Ajit Wadekar was developed.
Under his leadership India won 9 out of the 40 matches. They won their first overseas test in New Zealand. 9 out of 40 may not look great from today's vantage point, but Pataudi led sides that on their best was a middling one and mostly poor otherwise.
As Mukul Keshavan puts it, "When Pataudi took charge of the Indian team, it was a team that didn't believe they could win or bowl the opposition out twice. He left them ready to hold their own against any opposition, with the self-belief necessary for success". http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/533514.html
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:24 pm
Some of the tributes at the time of his death.
Note in particular those from Bedi, Chandra and Prasanna, as well as Rahil Dravid.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/533487.html
Note in particular those from Bedi, Chandra and Prasanna, as well as Rahil Dravid.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/533487.html
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:41 pm
Right from an early age, Pataudi was destined for great things on the cricket field. Having been send to England for his school education, he had excelled at the game. He broke most of Jardine's batting records at Winchester and at oxford he was a major cricketing success.
Then at the age of 20, he was involved in a car crash and and lost sight in one eye as a result. He had to live with the impairment for the rest of his life and a return to cricket was considered unlikely.
But Pataudi was a man of determination, and within months of the disaster, he resumed playing and made his debut for India. In less than a year after the accident, the responsibility of captaining India was thrust upon his young shoulders. As discussed above, he made a major and lasting impact on Indian cricket as captain.
Due to his impairment, while batting he saw the ball in 2 and after struggling the double vision for a while he worked out a way to deal with the crisis by trying to play the inner one of the 2 balls he was seeing.
He scored 46 test matches with an impaired vision, scored over 2700 test runs including 6 scores above hundred and 16 others above 50.
To play the game at any level after the kind of injury he suffered takes great courage and determination. To do it successfully at the highest level for no less than 14 years takes massive amount of these qualities besides some real skills. And as we know, his achievements were way beyond the scores he made with the bat.
Then at the age of 20, he was involved in a car crash and and lost sight in one eye as a result. He had to live with the impairment for the rest of his life and a return to cricket was considered unlikely.
But Pataudi was a man of determination, and within months of the disaster, he resumed playing and made his debut for India. In less than a year after the accident, the responsibility of captaining India was thrust upon his young shoulders. As discussed above, he made a major and lasting impact on Indian cricket as captain.
Due to his impairment, while batting he saw the ball in 2 and after struggling the double vision for a while he worked out a way to deal with the crisis by trying to play the inner one of the 2 balls he was seeing.
He scored 46 test matches with an impaired vision, scored over 2700 test runs including 6 scores above hundred and 16 others above 50.
To play the game at any level after the kind of injury he suffered takes great courage and determination. To do it successfully at the highest level for no less than 14 years takes massive amount of these qualities besides some real skills. And as we know, his achievements were way beyond the scores he made with the bat.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:55 pm
Just to be devil's advocate given that comparisons with Hanif Mohammad in terms of leadership of an emerging Test power have been mentioned:
Pataudi:
Test Record: 2,800 runs at 35 with 6 tons and 16 x 50's.
First Class: 15,400 runs at 33 with 33 centuries and 75 x 50's.
Hanif:
Test: 3,900 runs at 44 with 12 hundreds and 15 fifties.
First Class: 17,000 runs at 52 with 55 tons, 66 x 50's.
Hanif had very impressive playing credentials, especially given the era he played in, plus his pioneering work for Pakistan.
No doubt he played under considerable handicap and we have recorded that at least one better batsman than Pataudi has tried and failed to return from similar injuries, but last time I checked there was nothing about great courage and determination in this HOF.
Seems to me it's perfectly valid to advocate on behalf of his leadership of Indian cricket, as msp has impressively done, but surely his playing record falls far short?
Pataudi:
Test Record: 2,800 runs at 35 with 6 tons and 16 x 50's.
First Class: 15,400 runs at 33 with 33 centuries and 75 x 50's.
Hanif:
Test: 3,900 runs at 44 with 12 hundreds and 15 fifties.
First Class: 17,000 runs at 52 with 55 tons, 66 x 50's.
Hanif had very impressive playing credentials, especially given the era he played in, plus his pioneering work for Pakistan.
No doubt he played under considerable handicap and we have recorded that at least one better batsman than Pataudi has tried and failed to return from similar injuries, but last time I checked there was nothing about great courage and determination in this HOF.
Seems to me it's perfectly valid to advocate on behalf of his leadership of Indian cricket, as msp has impressively done, but surely his playing record falls far short?
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:12 pm
Pataudi the batsman was, perhaps understandably a bit inconsistent. But his eventual test average isn't remarkably different from the likes of Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain. He was never a passenger with the bat. As has been the usual case with him, adversity always got the best out of Pataudi the batsman.
At Headingley in 1967, Pataudi scored a brilliant 148 to save India from an innings defeat.
India's reputation as poor travellers is something that has been historic. But interestingly, Pataudi averages almost 3 runs more away than his career average. Again in 1967-68 season, Pataudi played arguably his best test innings. It was not his double hundred, 203 not out, it wasn't the 148 mentioned above, it wasn't even any of the 4 other test hundreds he scored. It was a knock of 75 against Australia at the MCG. Choosing to bat in overcast conditions, Pataudi didn't even had time to agonize about his decision which itself was motivated by some sound cricketing logic, when he had to go out to bat at 25-5. Besides his permanent impairment, Pataudi that day was also hampered by a hamstring strain that further restricted his movements and forced him to play with a runner. But he pulled and hooked his way to a magnificent 75, forcing Lindsay Hasset to say that that was the way Bradman attacked the bowling!. For good measure, he added an 85 in the 2nd innings. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/533439.html
The likes of Arlott and Johnston used to wonder during that 1967 England tour as to how much more Pataudi the batsman would have achieved without the impairment?
We would never know, but even without a 50+ test average, Tiger Pataudi has left a lasting and significant legacy for Indian cricket, and by helping make India into a significant cricketing power, he has hplayed his part in setting up the base for today's riches that Indian cricket offers to world cricket.
I am sure he would be a worthy addition to our Hof. And with that, I rest my case!.
At Headingley in 1967, Pataudi scored a brilliant 148 to save India from an innings defeat.
India's reputation as poor travellers is something that has been historic. But interestingly, Pataudi averages almost 3 runs more away than his career average. Again in 1967-68 season, Pataudi played arguably his best test innings. It was not his double hundred, 203 not out, it wasn't the 148 mentioned above, it wasn't even any of the 4 other test hundreds he scored. It was a knock of 75 against Australia at the MCG. Choosing to bat in overcast conditions, Pataudi didn't even had time to agonize about his decision which itself was motivated by some sound cricketing logic, when he had to go out to bat at 25-5. Besides his permanent impairment, Pataudi that day was also hampered by a hamstring strain that further restricted his movements and forced him to play with a runner. But he pulled and hooked his way to a magnificent 75, forcing Lindsay Hasset to say that that was the way Bradman attacked the bowling!. For good measure, he added an 85 in the 2nd innings. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/533439.html
The likes of Arlott and Johnston used to wonder during that 1967 England tour as to how much more Pataudi the batsman would have achieved without the impairment?
We would never know, but even without a 50+ test average, Tiger Pataudi has left a lasting and significant legacy for Indian cricket, and by helping make India into a significant cricketing power, he has hplayed his part in setting up the base for today's riches that Indian cricket offers to world cricket.
I am sure he would be a worthy addition to our Hof. And with that, I rest my case!.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:23 pm
Little desire to engage in a ''his hero was more handicapped than your's'' debate but only accurate to flag that the failure of Ollie Milburn (the ''better batsman'' referred to by Kwini) to return to the game was due not only to him being blinded in one eye but the sight in his other being impaired in the same car accident.kwinigolfer wrote:
... No doubt he played under considerable handicap and we have recorded that at least one better batsman than Pataudi has tried and failed to return from similar injuries, but last time I checked there was nothing about great courage and determination in this HOF.
Seems to me it's perfectly valid to advocate on behalf of his leadership of Indian cricket, as msp has impressively done, but surely his playing record falls far short?
I've nothing against ''great courage and determination'' going into the mix for a HoF nominee. Indeed, that was a continuing theme and an important part of my case for Titmus. However, there were other parts to that case as well. I guess we now need to consider whether all the positive elements for Pataudi, as well trumpeted by msp, outweigh understandable concerns as to his Test and first class record ....
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Corporalhumblebucket Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:48 pm
I am in awe of anyone who can pull and hook test match bowling attack with only one eye (as it were!)
A quick google of the question ""Why do we have two eyes instead of only one?" gives the following:
"We receive visual information about our world through two eyes. Why two? Because we need to know not only what is out there, but how close it is. A single eye can provide some depth information: when moving one's head from side to side, for instance, close objects appear to move more than far objects (parallax); and an object far away appears smaller (perspective). But it doesn't necessarily follow that all small objects are far away. Two eyes, however, can provide two slightly different viewpoints: Two perspectives which, when compared to each other, can yield depth information for any object or surface in the scene. Astoundingly, our brains are wired to do exactly that: to decode (instantaneously) depth information for every object (simultaneously) in our field of view, simply by comparing the information gathered from two slightly different viewpoints.
Try the following out:
1. Close one eye
2. Hold a pencil in your hand, and try to touch something small with it
3. Can you do it?"
Why not? Because, with only one eye, you cannot tell how close the object is"
But if I were to vote yes for Tiger Pataudi I think it would be for broadly the same kind of reason that I supported the unsuccessful candidature of Frank Woolley - essentially that he was an archetypal romantic cricketing hero, a towering figure in the game. Food for thought....
A quick google of the question ""Why do we have two eyes instead of only one?" gives the following:
"We receive visual information about our world through two eyes. Why two? Because we need to know not only what is out there, but how close it is. A single eye can provide some depth information: when moving one's head from side to side, for instance, close objects appear to move more than far objects (parallax); and an object far away appears smaller (perspective). But it doesn't necessarily follow that all small objects are far away. Two eyes, however, can provide two slightly different viewpoints: Two perspectives which, when compared to each other, can yield depth information for any object or surface in the scene. Astoundingly, our brains are wired to do exactly that: to decode (instantaneously) depth information for every object (simultaneously) in our field of view, simply by comparing the information gathered from two slightly different viewpoints.
Try the following out:
1. Close one eye
2. Hold a pencil in your hand, and try to touch something small with it
3. Can you do it?"
Why not? Because, with only one eye, you cannot tell how close the object is"
But if I were to vote yes for Tiger Pataudi I think it would be for broadly the same kind of reason that I supported the unsuccessful candidature of Frank Woolley - essentially that he was an archetypal romantic cricketing hero, a towering figure in the game. Food for thought....
Corporalhumblebucket- Posts : 7413
Join date : 2011-03-05
Location : Day's march from Surrey
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:13 pm
Corporal - when Titmus reappears as a repecharge candidate, I'll ask you to open proceedings with, ''Why do we have ten toes?''.
More seriously, an interesting post. Something I've never really thought about. I remember Ollie Milburn in an old radio interview shortly after he had finally called it a day musing that he might have been able to continue playing if his remaining eye hadn't been damaged. Whether that was wishful thinking or not, we'll sadly never know.
More seriously, an interesting post. Something I've never really thought about. I remember Ollie Milburn in an old radio interview shortly after he had finally called it a day musing that he might have been able to continue playing if his remaining eye hadn't been damaged. Whether that was wishful thinking or not, we'll sadly never know.
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by dummy_half Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:00 pm
msp
Thank you for making such an eloquent case for Pataudi. Clearly there is a lot to consider, as he would fall quite some distance short of our HoF if being considered purely on playing statistics, which are those of a decent to good player for a developing Test nation.
One unanswerable question is what would he have achieved without his accident? I note Kwini's comment suggesting Ollie Milburn was a better batsman, but clearly Milburn's career was based on being able to see (and perceive depth) properly, while Pataudi was injured before his career really got going (previously he had shone in school and university cricket but was untested at higher levels).
As well as Milburn, losing vision in one eye in a car accident was enough to end the footballing career of Gordon Banks, although I do recall him commenting that he took the decision rather hastily and that after a year or so to adjust to his impairment, he thought his ability to see and judge the position of the ball would have been sufficient to let him return to playing (although probably not to the same standard).
Thank you for making such an eloquent case for Pataudi. Clearly there is a lot to consider, as he would fall quite some distance short of our HoF if being considered purely on playing statistics, which are those of a decent to good player for a developing Test nation.
One unanswerable question is what would he have achieved without his accident? I note Kwini's comment suggesting Ollie Milburn was a better batsman, but clearly Milburn's career was based on being able to see (and perceive depth) properly, while Pataudi was injured before his career really got going (previously he had shone in school and university cricket but was untested at higher levels).
As well as Milburn, losing vision in one eye in a car accident was enough to end the footballing career of Gordon Banks, although I do recall him commenting that he took the decision rather hastily and that after a year or so to adjust to his impairment, he thought his ability to see and judge the position of the ball would have been sufficient to let him return to playing (although probably not to the same standard).
dummy_half- Posts : 6483
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 52
Location : East Hertfordshire
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by kwinigolfer Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:19 pm
dummy,
Good point about Milburn, which makes me realise mine was poorly made; the intention was to show that Milburn was a top class player who didn't overcome his handicap (albeit, as guildford says, more severe) in the way that Pataudi did.
It was meant really to be an endorsement to msp's testimony of "great courage and determination".
PS: Gordon Banks was voted top goalie in the NASL in 1977 whilst playing for the Fort Lauderdale Strikers! At the age of 39 and five years after his accident!!
Good point about Milburn, which makes me realise mine was poorly made; the intention was to show that Milburn was a top class player who didn't overcome his handicap (albeit, as guildford says, more severe) in the way that Pataudi did.
It was meant really to be an endorsement to msp's testimony of "great courage and determination".
PS: Gordon Banks was voted top goalie in the NASL in 1977 whilst playing for the Fort Lauderdale Strikers! At the age of 39 and five years after his accident!!
kwinigolfer- Posts : 26476
Join date : 2011-05-18
Location : Vermont
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by guildfordbat Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:19 pm
Another footballing world great from Banks' era who was also ultimately defeated by a serious eye injury was the Brazilian forward Tostao. He was an important - if now largely forgotten - member of Brazil's wonderful 1970 World Cup winning team linking play so well with the likes of Pele and Jairzinho. It surprised many that he was able to play in this tournament as he had suffered a detached retina the previous year when a football struck him in the face. Sadly, further damage to his eye in 1973 caused him to retire from the game at the age of just twenty-six. He scored 36 goals in 65 international appearances.
I appreciate this is some way removed from Tiger Pataudi's cricketing efforts for India. It does though probably help to emphasise the handicap that Pataudi played under. That certainly engenders sympathy and respect. However, I feel unable to automatically give a YES vote for ''what might have been'' and to simply overlook his actual playing record. I'll need to consider further the additional factors placed before us by msp ....
I appreciate this is some way removed from Tiger Pataudi's cricketing efforts for India. It does though probably help to emphasise the handicap that Pataudi played under. That certainly engenders sympathy and respect. However, I feel unable to automatically give a YES vote for ''what might have been'' and to simply overlook his actual playing record. I'll need to consider further the additional factors placed before us by msp ....
guildfordbat- Posts : 16883
Join date : 2011-04-07
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:43 pm
Tiger Pataudi is among the most influential figures in Indian cricket.
Tiger Pataudi, Sunal Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Jagmohan Dalmiya.......
Tiger Pataudi, Sunal Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Jagmohan Dalmiya.......
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by Mike Selig Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:17 pm
Hi all. Been a while; holidays at the grandparents is not overly conductive to internet usage (no wifi and with others always on the hunt for cable usage, v2 duties were not considered high enough priority unless conducted in the middle of the night whilst watching cricket when everyone else asleep - and then I was too tired to get involved in serious debate).
Happy to see the previous set of results, although I feel Kumble maybe should have been a strong repechage rather than a first time inductee. Pleased to see Greenidge and Harvey ease in this time around, and Waqar is a welcome addition, my previous concerns notwithstanding. Morris won't be far away 2nd time around, and fair that he has to go through repechage IMO.
From the current list.
There was A LOT of debate on Larwood last time. I eventually came down with a YES and am happy with that. I think it's worth reading over the previous debate on Larwood but it is lengthy. I'm not sure it's sensible to attempt any kind of summary but as far as I can recall the main points were:
- the legacy of bodyline: undoubtedly Larwood's greatest achievement in reducing Bradman to merely very good.
- unfairly made a scapegoat and subsequently dropped.
- outstanding and lengthy first class career
- held in high esteem by his peers (Lindwall copied his action) and respected by the Australian public (suggesting honesty and integrity)
- average test career outside bodyline (but short - by no fault of his own, see previous point, and with mitigating circumstances - his two worst series came against Bradman in his prime). How he would have fared had his career continued is up for debate (for what it's worth I think he would have adapted - as he did in his first class career)
- the other legacy of bodyline: is it a good thing to try and hurt people? Long debate over this, with comparisons to underarm bowling, the West Indian quartet of the 80s, whether Larwood is to blame or the captain (but Allen refused to bowl bodyline) etc... You'll have to make up your own mind.
I also in the end ended up in strong support of Kanhai, and here is my summarising (and heavily plagiarised) post:
On Kanhai:
His test career spanned 17 years either side of the 60s. He played 79 tests and average 47.5, with 15 centuries. His first class record is better, with an average just short of 50.
Neither record is on its own great. They are both very good, but as we have seen so far, "very good" is not enough to get into our HoF. In fact, for me "excellent" on its own doesn't warrant inclusion. I am judging players not merely on how good they were but what their impact was.
So what was Kanhai's impact? His peers certainly view him as a great player. For that we have the evidence of grandad Fists and also of Gavaskar. Kanhai played throughout his career with great players for both club and country yet still managed to shine. That in itself is an achievement.
Guilford then comes in for the kill with 3 points.
First of all he mentions Kanhai's 256 against India. On the whole I am tempted not to give this too much credit: it was against a very average Indian side, who failed to put up much of a fight. I'm not sure I attach more importance to it than I would Gillespie's double hundred against Bangladesh.
Then he mentions Kanhai's supporting role during the WC final. This is far more relevant. For those who don't know the story, I recall some of the details. West Indies were in trouble at 50/3, with Fredericks (unlucky to fall on his stumps after hooking Lilee for 6), and the greats Greenidge and Kallicharan out. Clive Lloyd strode out to the middle to face an attack comprising of Lilee, Thompson, Gilmour and Max Walker (in other words a fairly decent attack). Lloyd made his famous 100 off just 82 balls, but Kanhai (who was nearing 40 at the time) provided the support Lloyd needed with an invaluable 55. The pair of them put on 149 and the game changed. West Indies went on to win by 17 runs, in what was undoubedly the greatest World cup final.
So Kanhai played a part in one of the great cricketing contests. That deserves to be recognised, and has perhaps been underplayed (again, test snobbery coming through).
Guilford then mentions Kanhai's captaincy. This is IMO a very very important point. I make no claims for originality, but shall simply underline what Guilford said.
West Indies under Sobers had great players but not a great team. According to people around at the time, Sobers took is carefree style into his captaincy, and the team didn't gel together. In the short time he was captain (about 13 test matches over 2 years) Kanhai managed to start to change this. So much so that under Lloyd the team became the best in the world by a distance, and one of, if not the, top teams of all time. Lloyd followed Kanhai as captain, and continued his methods. But accotding to people around at the time, Kanhai deserves a lot of credit for the transformation.
If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt it) then surely his impact on the game is not in doubt?
Guildford also pointed out how Kanhai started off as a dasher and ended as a more solid player, but was successful in both roles. I have always liked a cricketer who can adapt and play different parts (e.g. Shaun Pollock).
On the new candidates:
- Crowe was a very good player, but as a batsman surely in the I. Chappel, Gower, etc. bracket. A notch below what is required. He has however done a lot of very good things as an administrator, including being a driving (some even say creative) force behind T20 (whatever your views on that form of the game, and I suspect we shall come accross some test cricket snobbism which will annoy me, there is no doubt that when 46,000 people watch a big bash game at the MCG that is good for cricket).
- Armstrong is an interesting one, and I'll need to read Hoggy's case in more detail.
- I didn't know much about Tiger Pataudi. But I do know something about one-eyed vision, and essentially your perspective is messed up (people who can only see with one eye struggle with things like walking down stairs, because their vision is essentially 2-dimensional). To have any kind of sporting career with one eye seems to me extraordinary. Interesting debate to come I would say.
Happy to see the previous set of results, although I feel Kumble maybe should have been a strong repechage rather than a first time inductee. Pleased to see Greenidge and Harvey ease in this time around, and Waqar is a welcome addition, my previous concerns notwithstanding. Morris won't be far away 2nd time around, and fair that he has to go through repechage IMO.
From the current list.
There was A LOT of debate on Larwood last time. I eventually came down with a YES and am happy with that. I think it's worth reading over the previous debate on Larwood but it is lengthy. I'm not sure it's sensible to attempt any kind of summary but as far as I can recall the main points were:
- the legacy of bodyline: undoubtedly Larwood's greatest achievement in reducing Bradman to merely very good.
- unfairly made a scapegoat and subsequently dropped.
- outstanding and lengthy first class career
- held in high esteem by his peers (Lindwall copied his action) and respected by the Australian public (suggesting honesty and integrity)
- average test career outside bodyline (but short - by no fault of his own, see previous point, and with mitigating circumstances - his two worst series came against Bradman in his prime). How he would have fared had his career continued is up for debate (for what it's worth I think he would have adapted - as he did in his first class career)
- the other legacy of bodyline: is it a good thing to try and hurt people? Long debate over this, with comparisons to underarm bowling, the West Indian quartet of the 80s, whether Larwood is to blame or the captain (but Allen refused to bowl bodyline) etc... You'll have to make up your own mind.
I also in the end ended up in strong support of Kanhai, and here is my summarising (and heavily plagiarised) post:
On Kanhai:
His test career spanned 17 years either side of the 60s. He played 79 tests and average 47.5, with 15 centuries. His first class record is better, with an average just short of 50.
Neither record is on its own great. They are both very good, but as we have seen so far, "very good" is not enough to get into our HoF. In fact, for me "excellent" on its own doesn't warrant inclusion. I am judging players not merely on how good they were but what their impact was.
So what was Kanhai's impact? His peers certainly view him as a great player. For that we have the evidence of grandad Fists and also of Gavaskar. Kanhai played throughout his career with great players for both club and country yet still managed to shine. That in itself is an achievement.
Guilford then comes in for the kill with 3 points.
First of all he mentions Kanhai's 256 against India. On the whole I am tempted not to give this too much credit: it was against a very average Indian side, who failed to put up much of a fight. I'm not sure I attach more importance to it than I would Gillespie's double hundred against Bangladesh.
Then he mentions Kanhai's supporting role during the WC final. This is far more relevant. For those who don't know the story, I recall some of the details. West Indies were in trouble at 50/3, with Fredericks (unlucky to fall on his stumps after hooking Lilee for 6), and the greats Greenidge and Kallicharan out. Clive Lloyd strode out to the middle to face an attack comprising of Lilee, Thompson, Gilmour and Max Walker (in other words a fairly decent attack). Lloyd made his famous 100 off just 82 balls, but Kanhai (who was nearing 40 at the time) provided the support Lloyd needed with an invaluable 55. The pair of them put on 149 and the game changed. West Indies went on to win by 17 runs, in what was undoubedly the greatest World cup final.
So Kanhai played a part in one of the great cricketing contests. That deserves to be recognised, and has perhaps been underplayed (again, test snobbery coming through).
Guilford then mentions Kanhai's captaincy. This is IMO a very very important point. I make no claims for originality, but shall simply underline what Guilford said.
West Indies under Sobers had great players but not a great team. According to people around at the time, Sobers took is carefree style into his captaincy, and the team didn't gel together. In the short time he was captain (about 13 test matches over 2 years) Kanhai managed to start to change this. So much so that under Lloyd the team became the best in the world by a distance, and one of, if not the, top teams of all time. Lloyd followed Kanhai as captain, and continued his methods. But accotding to people around at the time, Kanhai deserves a lot of credit for the transformation.
If that is the case (and I have no reason to doubt it) then surely his impact on the game is not in doubt?
Guildford also pointed out how Kanhai started off as a dasher and ended as a more solid player, but was successful in both roles. I have always liked a cricketer who can adapt and play different parts (e.g. Shaun Pollock).
On the new candidates:
- Crowe was a very good player, but as a batsman surely in the I. Chappel, Gower, etc. bracket. A notch below what is required. He has however done a lot of very good things as an administrator, including being a driving (some even say creative) force behind T20 (whatever your views on that form of the game, and I suspect we shall come accross some test cricket snobbism which will annoy me, there is no doubt that when 46,000 people watch a big bash game at the MCG that is good for cricket).
- Armstrong is an interesting one, and I'll need to read Hoggy's case in more detail.
- I didn't know much about Tiger Pataudi. But I do know something about one-eyed vision, and essentially your perspective is messed up (people who can only see with one eye struggle with things like walking down stairs, because their vision is essentially 2-dimensional). To have any kind of sporting career with one eye seems to me extraordinary. Interesting debate to come I would say.
Mike Selig- Posts : 4295
Join date : 2011-05-30
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by dummy_half Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:37 pm
Mike
"- the other legacy of bodyline: is it a good thing to try and hurt people? Long debate over this, ...whether Larwood is to blame or the captain (but Allen refused to bowl bodyline) etc"
One distinction to note - Gubby Allen was an amateur, and well thought of by the MCC, so could get away with taking a stand aganst Jardine's tactics. Larwood was a professional and a working class guy - that he was later scape-goated by the MCC for following Jardine's instructions should tell you everything you need to know about the opinion the MCC had of him...
"- the other legacy of bodyline: is it a good thing to try and hurt people? Long debate over this, ...whether Larwood is to blame or the captain (but Allen refused to bowl bodyline) etc"
One distinction to note - Gubby Allen was an amateur, and well thought of by the MCC, so could get away with taking a stand aganst Jardine's tactics. Larwood was a professional and a working class guy - that he was later scape-goated by the MCC for following Jardine's instructions should tell you everything you need to know about the opinion the MCC had of him...
dummy_half- Posts : 6483
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 52
Location : East Hertfordshire
Re: The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4
by msp83 Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:15 pm
As far as Larwood goes, I would say I wouldn't hold it much against him for going with his captain's orders. I have my fair share of reservations about the tactic as such, but at that time it was legal, although not really within the spirit of the game. Larwood's status as a professional wouldn't have given him much space with the captain, and if anyone has to be held accountable, it has to be the captain.
A fine fast bowler he was, and he could offer important lower order runs as well. He was a decent fielder as well.
But my major concern is that other than that one terrific and terrifying series, Larwood's performances at the test level has been nothing spectacular.
A fine fast bowler he was, and he could offer important lower order runs as well. He was a decent fielder as well.
But my major concern is that other than that one terrific and terrifying series, Larwood's performances at the test level has been nothing spectacular.
msp83- Posts : 16173
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India
Sponsored content
Page 10 of 20 • 1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 15 ... 20
Similar topics» The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2
» 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 1
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame - Part 3
» The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2
» 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Cricket :: 606v2 Honours Board
Page 10 of 20
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum