The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

First topic message reminder :

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

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

FoF's original HoF debate summation:

Spoiler:

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

[kwinigolfer]

And I flagged Gibbs!

Difficult to compare Lindwall and Willis, one the best quick of his (pre-Trueman) generation, the other possibly in the top half-dozen of his, possibly not quite.

Very interested in the opening argument for Athol Rowan, certainly someone I've looked at after entering the thought process knowing next to nothing about him.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Anyway, I've already flagged Greenidge and Larwood tonight. Can I mention anyone else? I'll say that again - Kanhai I mention anyone else?

'Course you can. I'm not a Chappell hold that against you.

[alfie]

Votes then :

Willis , I think I have already made clear , YES

Thomson...I wonder if his case has suffered from having no-one on here to really champion his cause ? He certainly was a very good - and frighteningly fast - bowler , and in Australia in the mid seventies was nearly unplayable at times. And even after injuries sapped his main weapon he continued to give his best for Australia (even with the bat - remember the 10 th wicket stand with Border that so nearly stole the 1982/83 Melbourne Ashes Test ?). He , like others , should have earned extra marks for loyalty and service to the national cause.
But his days of greatness , like Tyson twenty years earlier , were relatively brief , and I think overall he falls just short ; so a NO from me.

Hendren : Wooley didn't make it , neither did Ponsford ...we seem to have been hard on players whose cases rested heavily on first class records , especially batsmen from the pre-war era...I am starting to wonder if we have been wrong , and perhaps the repachage rounds may help to correct this error , if error it is.
Whatever , I find it hard to vote against a Middlesex man, with a first name of Elias (!) , and who is reported to have "taken as much pleasure from the coincidence of making a duck in both his first and last game for Middlesex as he did from any of his 170 centuries"...
He seems to have been a very entertaining cricketer , and sounds like a really lovely man , who made friends wherever he went...Perhaps I'm going soft but I'm going with a YES

Finally Titmus : as I said earlier he was a clear no at first , but guilford's eloquence has done wonders...the 150 and 1000 double he brought to our attention has helped : and like Hendren his extraordinary County record earns him a lot of points (doesn't hurt that he played for Middlesex )
Personality , strength in adversity ...not certain that it adds up , quite , and I don't think he will make it - but I am giving a YES , slightly to my own surprise , in hopes of getting him into the "second chance" group...

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Sorry - out and about on patrol - so may be a few seconds after the deadline, but I hope it's OK. Dont want the successful candidates to lack a mandate - as in certain other recent elections I could mention.

Excellent debate this time round and I have found my views shifting on several candidates - which is what it is all about!

My votes are:

Hendren YES. The only final point I would re emphasize is that it is genuinely puzzling that he didn't make it into the ICC HoF

Willis YES. Had long thought of him as a bit of workhorse - a real trier, with the one stand out moment against the Aussies. But I now vote YES - mainly on account of taking account of the amount of time he had to battle away with minimal support.

Thomson: borderline for me. But I am tipping, just, into the NO camp. I have voted both for (Statham) and against (Roberts) bowlers who tended to be the support act for others. But here I would say there is a fair bit of negativity about Thommo. And his successful career was fairly brief.

Titmus. I started off with Titmus as a clear no and he has remained in that camp for most of the debate. Test record - very reasonable but clearly a bit short of HoF. Character - excellent but there were numerous other cricketers who have showed fortitude and character in difficult circumstances. But on reflection, a telling point was made about his huge contribution to the county game. (my weak spot in case no one had noticed! ) Finally balanced but I am just in the YES camp.

[Shelsey93]

Results are in, with turnout down on last week. But not to worry - more people voted for our Hall of Fame than at this polling station in Newport: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-20355358.

EDIT: As a result of a late recount these results have been adjusted. See later post.

----

The next group sees us start the repecharge.

The reasons for having a repecharge are:

- To allow us to re-balance our arguments in light of later debates, or the views of other posters
- To allow further debate on the most debatable candidates
- To allow those who weren't able to participate in the original debate to have a view on the candidate

Obviously, a candidate can't go the repecharge again so this time they need 75% to get in, or else they are totally out.

These candidates will be mixed with new candidates, in order to keep things fresh and to ensure that we don't exhaust all possible new candidates too quickly.

This weeks candidates are:

FIRST BALLOT

Bob Woolmer (nominated by Mike Selig)
Claire Taylor (nominated by MFC)

REPECHARGE

Greg Chapple
Belinda Clark
Lance Gibbs

In the next couple of days I'm going to try and make it a priority to get the Hall of Fame page showing those inducted so far up to date.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Greg Chappell again. Expect some fireworks. Shelsey will need to be at the top of his game to make sure there are no underhand (or underam ) tactics...

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Probably the right result for Titmus. I think it would have been a step too far if he had gone straight through - considering the calibre of some of those who haven't made it at the first attempt, eg Kanhai, Gibbs, etc. But it will be illuminating to look at him again after we have been through a number of the other borderline characters to see how he measures up ....

[guildfordbat]

Gibbs' case was originally made by Fists and supported by myself and others. It's covered in pages 10 to 12 of Part 1 of this thread.

As Shelsey said about himself and fielding, womens' cricket ''does not resonate with me'' so the cases for Taylor and Clark will ned to be compelling.

I previously led the NO case in respect of Chapple and believe that was correct in view of the ''underarm'' incident. However, as I have since posted, I believe it would be vindictive to continue to oppose such a magnificent batsman on the basis of one act, albeit dreadful. The Corporal has assured me that a note will remain on Chapple's military record as to why he did not get elected first time into the HoF and that is sufficient to satisfy my blood lust.

I await Woolmer's case with interest. I suspect that may also prompt thoughts as to how much we can separate one specific part of a nominee's career ....

[kwinigolfer]

Do you mean his death?

[msp83]

An interesting set of candidates for the fresh round. I wasn't involved in the debates when 3 of the candidates where originally discussed.
The Woolmer case has to be made so is the case with Taylor. I have to do a lot of research on the latter, so no initial thoughts.
Among the Repecharge candidates, I start with a positive outlook towards Gibbs. Have to do more research on Clark, and have to think about Chappell, as I have more than a point of early disagreement.

[guildfordbat]

Do you mean his death?

Hi Kwini - I assume your question is a serious one and will respond accordingly.

No. I wasn't referring to Woolmer's death at all.

I was wondering whether a nominated coach has to be more than excellent in that role to be elected to the HoF if his playing career was pretty ordinary.

In my view, it is a person being nominated each time and not their role. Clearly the role(s) undertaken (how effective, how innovative, how significant, etc) will have great bearing on why someone is being nominated and how we judge that person.

Woolmer's playing career was probably not so bad or controversial as to make it noticeably relevant. However, it may help Mike's cause to satisfy us on that as well as extolling major plus points.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that Mike is planning to do so - or that, in any case, it has any great application to Woolmer - but I don't believe you can airbrush out certain concerns of a particular nominee by wholly concentrating on where they were most successful. All needs to go into the mix, albeit with understandable and differing levels of emphasis.

Anyway, that's my view and starting point as to the approach. As always, others may not agree ....

[msp83]

Do you mean his death?

Hi Kwini - I assume your question is a serious one and will respond accordingly.

No. I wasn't referring to Woolmer's death at all.

I was wondering whether a nominated coach has to be more than excellent in that role to be elected to the HoF if his playing career was pretty ordinary.

In my view, it is a person being nominated each time and not their role. Clearly the role(s) undertaken (how effective, how innovative, how significant, etc) will have great bearing on why someone is being nominated and how we judge that person.

Woolmer's playing career was probably not so bad or controversial as to make it noticeably relevant. However, it may help Mike's cause to satisfy us on that as well as extolling major plus points.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that Mike is planning to do so - or that, in any case, it has any great application to Woolmer - but I don't believe you can airbrush out certain concerns of a particular nominee by wholly concentrating on where they were most successful. All needs to go into the mix, albeit with understandable and differing levels of emphasis.

Anyway, that's my view and starting point as to the approach. As always, others may not agree ....

Egree guildford.
A nominee has to be considered in the full package and not just in parts. There could be certain strong points that could make the centre of the case, doesn't mean other parts should be discounted altogether.
For both Chappell and Woolmer, for me their playing and coaching careers would matter. Same was the case with Jayasuriya and Titmus, I voted yes for one and no for the other, and in both those decision, the entire package was the subject matter.

[kwinigolfer]

guildford,
Purely facetious comment, perhaps in desperate search for sick humour as my beloved PFC slides inexorably towards the abyss. Or at least League 2. Cov next week . . . . . . .


Having said all that, do you really mean what msp understands you to mean? I would have thought HOF'ers are judged on their best work or at least a body of excellent work.

Greg Chappell's coaching wasn't as successful as his cricketing, but why would his efforts after his playing career diminish his accomplishments on the field?

Equally, Woolmer's solid playing career, decent enough as it was but certainly not in top 1,000 of all time, surely shouldn't do anything to undermine his coaching qualities?

That seems a bit perverse somehow.

A bit like saying 'Arry can't be a good manager because he can't read.

[msp83]

If the centre of the case is beyond excellent, then some flaws in other aspects could be overlooked. But to insist that those shouldn't form part of the discussion, I don't think I would take that. We have even been considering character, remember Ranji not contributiong to the development of Indian cricket in an active way and his financial troubles went against him despite him being one of the game's formost innovators, the holder of a superb FC record and a fine test record in a short career?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

MSP - true but I actually felt it was perverse in the circumstances to hold it against Ranji that he failed to develop Indian cricket.

[kwinigolfer]

msp,
I for one discounted Ranji because of the cameo nature of his excellence, a shooting star if you like whose brilliance wasn't sustained.
Couldn't care less about his extra-curricular business but, for me anyway, he just wasn't good enough for long enough to merit induction to an HOF where so many have done so much more.

I used to pick up my Sporting Life from Denis Compton's newsagent, saw him there occasionally. If a small %age of the stories said paperpusher told me were true, and repeated here, either Compton would have been the very first cricketer inducted, or he'd never have seen the light of HOF day.

[msp83]

MSP - true but I actually felt it was perverse in the circumstances to hold it against Ranji that he failed to develop Indian cricket.

Thanks Corporal, I did feel the same at that point.
But the larger point is that the majority felt that the central case for Ranji of being an innovator and one of the top batsmen of his times wouldn't add up when encountered with the apparent flaws.
Say if Woolmer could be considered only for his coaching and Chappell for his batting alone, then Ranji could have been considered for his status as one of the game's formost innovators and I don't think not many had a problem with that particular dimension of his candidature and he would have been somewhere among the top of our HoF.

[Shelsey93]

My thoughts at this stage:

G. Chappell - Almost certain Yes. Will write something about 'underarm' and why I think some on here are being unduly harsh on it.

Clark - Could be a Yes. Need convincing of her influence on women's cricket.

Gibbs - On the Yes rather than No side so far.

Woolmer - I await Mike's case.

Taylor - She was a fine player, but I have some reservations: was she at her best for long enough? Was she the product of what RHF and Clark had done so much for? Is it too early to judge the impact of what she did, particularly in '09, on the women's game?

[guildfordbat]

guildford,

Having said all that, do you really mean what msp understands you to mean? I would have thought HOF'ers are judged on their best work or at least a body of excellent work.

Kwini - I'm probably in danger of saying all things to all people but .... a couple of points.

1. This has no bearing (I think) to Woolmer but it's not always that straightforward or appropriate to compartmentalise excellent work. I objected previously to G Chapple due to his captaincy in a specific ODI. I would have been livid (even by my normally grumpy standards) if someone had tried to circumvent that by nominating him solely for his Test match batting. That argument (in my view) would have had some technical validity but no morality.

2. The better or worse someone does in roles less important to the main reason for their nomination can still help or hinder their cause. I gave an example recently that if Onions were ever nominated for his bowling, I would also look kindly on his batting and determination when he held out against the Aussies to earn a precious draw. The batting would be a minor part of the mix but it would still be in there. I think that's fair and right. In the same example, if Onions had tried to hit the first ball he received out of the ground and had his stumps scattered, I would have held such irresponsibility against him. As for Woolmer - as well as demonstrating his coaching excellence, it may help Mike to show that other parts of his career should be regarded as minor positives or at least neutral (ie irrelevant).

There again, it's not the place for an old fogey to dictate methods for a young rebel to follow. That's entirely up to him. Must go - there's a knock on the door, I see it's a new friend popping round to ''cadge a cup of coffee'' ....

[guildfordbat]

My thoughts at this stage:

G. Chappell - Almost certain Yes. Will write something about 'underarm' and why I think some on here are being unduly harsh on it.

If you read an earlier post, you should be aware that one on here might be thought to being unduly forgiving on it.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Well I voted yes to Chappell and Clark and no to Gibbs first time round and i'll need convincing to change those votes, though I'm open to persuasion.

On Woolmer I'll have to wait and see Mike's case but, at the moment, I'm not conviced of his credentials for our HoF.
As for Taylor, I think she's an interesting candidate. First (and only) woman to be selected as one of Wisden's Five Cricketer's of the Year and hailed by Mike Selvey on her retirement as "perhaps the finest batsman the women's game has seen." Pretty decent credentials to start with, but I'm sure MfC will expand upon them.

[kwinigolfer]

That's all fair enough guildford, "bringing the game into disrepute" as they like to say over here.

Completely agree that Woolmer's playing career is neutral, almost irrelevant in this debate. What I was getting at was that, if Bradman, say, had been a terrible coach or broadcaster, it shouldn't detract from his HOF credentials as a player. Laker apparently got in after all!!

I'm looking at two Yes's, two No's and a case-to-be-made.

Not many English Test Cricketers who made a mark in South Africa, then coached Pakistan, were born in India and died in the West Indies - high marks for versatility though.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Well I voted yes to Chappell and Clark and no to Gibbs first time round and i'll need convincing to change those votes, though I'm open to persuasion.

Hoggy - given the impeccable soundness of your views on Hendren I dare to hope that you will see the light on Gibbs

I took a hard line on Chappell - were it not for the underarm incident I would have voted yes. But I do regard the underam incident as a severe negative. Pretty much on a par with the behaviour of Brian (I do declare) Rose. I will take some persuading but am open to counter arguments.

Agree Woolmer's playing career is neutral as regards his credentials for HoF based on coaching.

I recall re discussions on Gooch that Mike took the view that Gooch's influence on batting coaching was positively negative - ie actively harmful - and so should detract from his case. That is a legitimate point of view though when
assessing Gooch I was really only looking at his batting career.

[msp83]

Woolmer's playing record may not make much of a difference to the discussion as the the centre of the case is his coaching, but it could be a positive addition, or as guildford said, should not be a negative. Certain actions of his during the playing career could be determining for me, and I am not yet sold big on his coaching credentials, waiting for Mike's case before further elaboration.
As for Greg C. I think there are certain obvious concerns related to his coaching stint with India as well as the coaching/tallent management related roles he performed with Australia. The central case might be strong enough to withstand the limitations, nevertheless those have to be considered.

[guildfordbat]

That's all fair enough guildford, "bringing the game into disrepute" as they like to say over here.

Completely agree that Woolmer's playing career is neutral, almost irrelevant in this debate. What I was getting at was that, if Bradman, say, had been a terrible coach or broadcaster, it shouldn't detract from his HOF credentials as a player. Laker apparently got in after all!!

I'm looking at two Yes's, two No's and a case-to-be-made.

Not many English Test Cricketers who made a mark in South Africa, then coached Pakistan, were born in India and died in the West Indies - high marks for versatility though.

Kwini - Bradman had such a stand out career and Laker a Test of such monumental impact, that they were always nailed on for the HoF. Had they been genuinely borderline candidates, a subsequent (ie post playing) terrible cricket related role may have just tipped things against them.

With regard to Woolmer's worldwide connections - he is believed to be the only person who saw both Hanif Mohammad score 499 in Karachi in 1958 and Brian Lara 501 not out for Warks against Durham in 1994.

[kwinigolfer]

1,000 runs just like that, average 1,000 too!
Coincidence is a wonderful thing; a few months ago a poster on the golf board and I figured out we were in the same place, two of perhaps one hundred, watching the same group in a minor tournament in Dallas thirty+ years ago during a particular incident that one wouldn't have known about unless one was there!

I shall be judging Chappell strictly on his playing career . . . . . . . . and assume he just did pipe and slippers upon retirement.

[guildfordbat]

Well I voted yes to Chappell and Clark and no to Gibbs first time round and i'll need convincing to change those votes, though I'm open to persuasion.

Hoggy - given the impeccable soundness of your views on Hendren I dare to hope that you will see the light on Gibbs

I took a hard line on Chappell - were it not for the underarm incident I would have voted yes. But I do regard the underam incident as a severe negative. Pretty much on a par with the behaviour of Brian (I do declare) Rose. I will take some persuading but am open to counter arguments.

Corporal - as well as Hoggy's impeccably sound view on Hendren, you could have also said Titmus.

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

As well as his service to the West Indies, Gibbs also played with distinction for Warks from the late '60s into the '70s. A testimonial from our resident consultant and long time Warks follower Grandad Fists might be handy.

It would be a real bonus, for example, to belatedly discover that Gibbs lost half a dozen toes in 1968 when his feet were run over in 1968 by Grandad Fists whilst drunkenly in charge of a lawnmower at Edgbaston.

I look forward to Shelsey's defence of underarm bowling under the direction of G Chapple. Should be interesting to say the least. Just hope it doesn't make me think again. I would have thought making a case for Nadine Dorries as MP of the Year would have been easier!

[Mad for Chelsea]

missed the voting, sorry. not sure much would have changed anyway with my vote given I haven't quite decided on Willis anyway.

I'll make the case for Claire Taylor sometime tomorrow hopefully: Hoggy mentions that she's arguably the greatest batswoman of all time, and that she's the only woman as of yet to be named Wisden cricketer of the year. These of course will be touched upon (and the fact that the runs she made helped England to a few major tournament wins). Another point that will be mentioned is that she gave up her profession to play cricket full-time. As I said, more on that tomorrow.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

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

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

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

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

[Hoggy_Bear]

Can I just begin the debate on Chappell by adressing the 'underarm' incident and comparing it with 'Bodyline'.
Both tactics were legal under the Laws of the day, but both were extremely contraversial and were viewed as being against the spirit of the game. Both had similar intentions, to limit the number of shots available to the batsman.
Of course, it could be argued that the 'underarm' incident removed the possibility of the opponent winning the game, while Bodyline only limited that possibility, but then, at least the underarm delivery wasn't liable to seriously hurt someone, and wasn't a pre-planned, pre-meditated tactic, but a decision taken in reaction to events, in the heat of the moment and, so I believe, subsequently regretted.
I want to make it clear that I have bo qualms about the use of Bodyline. It's just that I don't see that Greg Chappell's instruction to his brother was any more heinous than Bodyline, or any number of other controversial tactics adopted to win cricket matches through the years.

[msp83]

The coaching fiasco and the underarm incident are obvious negatives for me when assessing Chappell's case.
But then his batting was fabulous, many rate him Australia's next best to Bradman. He averaged close to 54 in tests in the era of Holding, Roberts, marshal, Bedi....... A creditable achievement by all means.
His effective medium pace bowling is a positive addition. On first look, something that merits serious consideration is his ODI batting performance. Averaging 40 has to be very impressive in any era of ODI cricket, but the more impressive aspect is his strike rate, 75+ during his day, has to be absolutely brilliant.

[alfie]

Bit disappointed with the last group voting : not the results , after all they are essentially neither here nor there as we are just a bunch of self selecting cricket tragics indulging our opinions , with nothing to offer to reward those we deem worthy
...the debate , rather than the tallying , is what is of interest. (At least that is the way I see it )

No , my disappointment stems from the fact that only seven people voted : we had up to fourteen earlier , if memory serves . Is everyone on holiday ? Or has this thread lost its appeal after the extended pause ? I do hope we get a full crew back on deck soon.

I have one other gripe : I think we have approached the consideration of women candidates the wrong way , and have made a bit of a rod for our own backs ...was going to bring this up later , but now I see two women up next , and it gives me for one a problem of consistency , and I am not sure we can do anything about it ...may try to expand on this later , but if no-one else is concerned I might be better to let it lie ...

[dummy_half]

Further to Alfie's rant, can I make a plea for a very late set of votes to be registered (I was away from Friday until last night).

If so, can I vote:
Hendren: YES. Good to very good test player and great FC player of his era.
Thomson: NO. Maybe for an Ashes HoF (three great series against England), but just a bit short overall and too weak away from Aus.
Willis: YES. For me his career stats and part in Headingley 81 are just enough to puch him over the line.
Titmus: I'm going to say YES almost in spite of myself. Clearly a great and much loved County player and a decent to good Test player, but when you add in the loyalty, love of the game and triumph over adversity, he just has a compelling story.

Will take a look at the new candidates soon.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Bit disappointed with the last group voting : not the results , after all they are essentially neither here nor there as we are just a bunch of self selecting cricket tragics indulging our opinions , with nothing to offer to reward those we deem worthy
...the debate , rather than the tallying , is what is of interest. (At least that is the way I see it )

No , my disappointment stems from the fact that only seven people voted : we had up to fourteen earlier , if memory serves . Is everyone on holiday ? Or has this thread lost its appeal after the extended pause ? I do hope we get a full crew back on deck soon.

I have one other gripe : I think we have approached the consideration of women candidates the wrong way , and have made a bit of a rod for our own backs ...was going to bring this up later , but now I see two women up next , and it gives me for one a problem of consistency , and I am not sure we can do anything about it ...may try to expand on this later , but if no-one else is concerned I might be better to let it lie ...

I'm guilty of not voting last week, I just didn't feel I had enough time to read all the arguments and make a reasoned decision, and didn't want to cheapen the voting by going on instinct. Will try to do better this time around.

Fists has a decent excuse too, though given that he was sharing pics of the Taj Mahal on Twitter while I was getting rained on in London I'm inclined to call him a slacker

[guildfordbat]

Fists has a decent excuse too, though given that he was sharing pics of the Taj Mahal on Twitter ...

Pete - I doubt that's THE Taj Mahal. Far more likely to be a curry house in Birmingham!

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Fists has a decent excuse too, though given that he was sharing pics of the Taj Mahal on Twitter ...

Pete - I doubt that's THE Taj Mahal. Far more likely to be a curry house in Birmingham!

It wasn't raining in the pic he posted though, can't have been in Birmingham

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Also looks as tho Mike S may well have been tied up a bit longer than hoped with the travails of French cricket..... Possibly the notice of the voting deadline may have caught a few people a bit on the hop.

Biltong is reticent about voting on players who he doesnt know much about (never stopped me ) so we may need to keep the flow of South African possibilities.... . Perhaps Fists could also be prevailed upon to cast a proxy vote for Grandad Fists who views are always worth listening to!

[Shelsey93]

Hi all.

Thanks for the feedback.

@alfie I'd suggest a combination of factors effected the lack of voters - a couple of people away, a couple that voted last time only drop in occasionally, a couple of people missed the deadline. I don't think the thread has lost its appeal, although we're not quite hitting the heights of the Larwood and Greenidge debates from last year (perhaps that more reflects that the candidates we have now tend to be borderline, and opinions not as polarised as for some of those earlier ones)

Please make any suggestions about women candidates. Considering them alongside men is in my view fine - after all, we're looking at each candidate individually and I think a female cricketer has as much place in the same list of people as a broadcaster like John Arlott does. However, if others have different views we can look into it.

@dummy_half - Normally I'd be reticent to allow late votes, but given that you are regular contributor and have contributed well to this debate, I think its only right that if everybody else agrees your votes be counted.

@corporal - I can understand that 9am voting deadlines may be a little difficult - essentially the reason for that is because normally I can guarantee I'll have some time to count up the votes and so on during Sunday: if it was on Sunday evening there may be delays in counting as I have to get on the Northern line at 7.15 Monday morning. I think its also better to have a weekend deadline because I figure less people are likely to be busy and miss it. I'll try and make voting deadlines doubly clear from now on.

----

Therefore, as a result of dummy's votes the results have been provisionally amended as such:

Patsy Hendren - 7 Yes, 1 No = 87.5%
Jeff Thomson - 0 Yes, 8 No = 0%
Fred Titmus - 5 Yes, 3 No = 62.5%
Bob Willis - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%

As a result of this Big Bob sneaks into the Hall of Fame. The other results are uneffected.

[Hoggy_Bear]

As a result of this Big Bob sneaks into the Hall of Fame. The other results are uneffected.

Yay

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I have also just noticed an additional fact about Big Bob which I think helps to confirm that he is rightful occupant of at least a place at the lower table within the HoF.

Looking again at the comparisons of all bowlers who have taken 300 wickets in tests he has the highest % of dismissals of batsman 1 -3 and the lowest of batsman number 8 - 11. So, he really was doing his stuff against the best batsmen, and if England struggled during much of this period this was due to lack of back up rather than any fault of Bob. So I think this was an honourable outcome.

[Hoggy_Bear]

That's a fantastic stat Corporal. Why didn't I spot that

Your stats regarding Gibbs abilities in the second innings of matches are also food for thought.

[Shelsey93]

Just to tell you that I'm starting work on the Hall of Fame inductees page.

Unfortunately the standard of the biographies won't be up to Fists's level! In fact, I plan to copy and paste most of them from Wikipedia. But at least the page will be up to date...

EDIT: It appears there is a limit to length of post, which means I'm going to have to have a think about how to organise this page!

[dummy_half]

Shelsey

Thanks - I'll try not to let it happen again (but with an 8 month old daughter, my time is not always my own)

[msp83]

As far as Belinda Clark goes, again I did read about her scoring that 229 and generally being a top performer in the Women's game. Her record is top class in both tests and ODIs. Moreover she continues to be involved with the game even after her playing days and is making a major contribution to the enhancement of the game. I was among the very few who voted for Enid Bakewell and I consiered her overall record, her test record being better than Garry Sobers, I voted yes!!. Seriously though, we have to look at the women's game according to the standards of the game being played there, and when viewed in that light, Clark's record is terrific. She was a good leader as well, leading her side to world cup glory during the course of her career. And her cricinfo profile says she has been the most capped ODI player in the women's game.
I think those are top reasons to consider her case favorably.

[msp83]

On 2 of the 5 nominees I have a very favorable disposition. On Chappell I am 50-50 at the moment. Taylor call will be very much based on the course of the debate. Woolmer would need some strong convincing.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Seriously though, we have to look at the women's game according to the standards of the game being played there, and when viewed in that light, Clark's record is terrific.

Think this is a very important point, and one I tried to raise when Clark was originally discussed.
Players must be evaluated in terms of their peers. For example, WG Grace or Victor Trumper would have test records which, today, would be considered less than mediocre, but their standing amongst their peers was extremely high and so they are both founder members of our HoF. Thus, when evaluating female candidates, we must examine their record and standing solely in the context of the female game IMO, and not be moved to dismiss a female player because their record or standing in the game as a whole is not that great.

[Shelsey93]

I think the female game throws up an interesting debate, which you can look at in a number of ways:

1. Look at each individual era and say that being the best in one era is equally as significant as being the best in another, much in the way that we have often dealt with male cricketers within their context. Following this process Bakewell's achievement in her era match those of Clark in hers and Taylor's in hers. In the women's game I think this is somewhat flawed - the standards, and more pertinently attitudes towards the women's game were quite poor. Even now England and Australia are a long way clear of the rest: one must assume that they were similarly ahead in earlier eras.

2. Accept that the women's game has only become a force which has received serious investment and media attention relatively recently - I'd go as far to say that even until England won the Women's World Cup in '09, televised women's games in this country were more a curiosity than about the cricket. In this case I'd limit the Hall of Fame to those that have either contributed to bringing about this change whilst being excellent players in their own eras (RHF and perhaps Clark, but probably not Bakewell), and those that have made a major contribution to the development of the game within the new era (debatably Taylor).

3. Decide that the inclusion of women's cricket in a Hall of Fame where most candidates come from within the men's game is purely tokenism, and hence reject them. I'd argue that, particularly after the precedent of nominating Arlott, this is a difficult case to make. Whilst the ICC's decision to include Clark, RHF and Bakewell may smell of tokenism, our HoF aims to consider closely the impact individuals have had on the cricketing world as a whole - the women's game has an expanding role within that cricketing world, and so it is only right in my view that some women cricketers are represented where they are deemed worthy enough.

My preference is for the second option, and I reiterate that I think the rejection of RHF was a shame. However, democracy spoke and we have to live with that decision. We judge our candidates individually and so, as guildford has argued in the past, I don't think the absence of one candidate should preclude us from a Yes vote for another.

[alfie]

Seriously though, we have to look at the women's game according to the standards of the game being played there, and when viewed in that light, Clark's record is terrific.

Think this is a very important point, and one I tried to raise when Clark was originally discussed.
Players must be evaluated in terms of their peers. For example, WG Grace or Victor Trumper would have test records which, today, would be considered less than mediocre, but their standing amongst their peers was extremely high and so they are both founder members of our HoF. Thus, when evaluating female candidates, we must examine their record and standing solely in the context of the female game IMO, and not be moved to dismiss a female player because their record or standing in the game as a whole is not that great.

Yes . Msp and Hoggy have raised some of the issues I alluded to in my comments yesterday. I go further though in stating that from my observations ( I have just gone back and re-read the debate on the group containing Heyhoe-Flint) the women really haven't been treated in any way similarly to the normally excellent standards applied to the men. In that group , RH-F was admittedly disadvantaged anyway by being slung in with Larwood , Kanhai , Knott...but just the same the "debate" around her case was not worthy of the name : it consisted of a few posters saying yes they thought she was an influential woman cricketer and should be in , and others saying they didn't think she had done enough apart from playing cricket (which has never impeded good male players !), and finally some people saying essentially they couldn't vote for her because they didn't vote for Clark...but there was virtually nothing about her actual achievements in the game , no anecdotes , no matches recalled...for the obvious reason that nobody really knew anything about women's cricket , except for perhaps the very modern era where games appear on TV ...in short , she was not fairly and completely considered in the way every male candidate , even those from long ago , have been.
Seems to me women candidates are being expected to not only be icons of the game and have excellent figures against whoever they played , but also to have then gone on to do some undefined "extra" service to the game after retirement before they are considered worthy of serious consideration. Some people I know would call this sexism...I would prefer to call it thoughtlessness.
Clark is up for reconsideration and I can see the same issues arising " Can we invite her in while black balling RHF ?" etc...indeed it does seem odd from my angle ; a bit like saying Yes to Bradman but No to Grace...
Even Bakewell - the only other woman so far considered - had a batting average of over sixty ! And it counted for nothing , because we looked down on the standard of her opposition...What happened to judging people against their peers ?

Of course there is no easy answer : clearly womens cricket has not developed at the same pace as the men's game. No-one wants to induct every female cricketer with good figures to ensure similar numbers between the sexes , but surely we cannot seriously rule out every woman before about 1995 on the grounds that we didn't personally see them play and that their exploits are largely unrecorded in mainstream cricket books ?
If the ICC put up RHF and Clark initially I think we should have at least given them some credit for doing so for a reason , other than tokenism , and at least taken a bit more trouble over consideration of their cases.

If we actually do want women in the HoF at all , I think we should be considering them separately , in groups of their own , so that we are actually weighing them against each other , not in some ill-defined relationship as a lesser cousin of the male cricketer.

Is it too late to reconsider something like that ?

(sincere apologies for banging on a bit , but I said I'd go into my concerns in a bit of detail Shutting up now)

[Fists of Fury]

Hmm you make great points, Alfie, but the interest (certainly on my part) is very unlikely to be there. I don't find women's cricket all that interesting to be blunt, and can take it or leave it. Perhaps they'd be better off left out of our debates, given the disproportionate knowledge of posters between them and their male counterparts.

[Shelsey93]

Thanks alfie.

I agree with you that debate has sometimes not been of the same quality (indeed, women's cricket up to the very modern era (really, since T20)) is very difficult to contextualise.

However, I do think that a pretty strong case was made for RHF - albeit perhaps not reinforced strongly enough.

I think that they need to have a little bit extra, as I said in my earlier post, probably stems from a recongnition that women's cricket has a place in the cricketing universe, but, historically speaking, far from an equal one. How you then look at each female cricketer depends on what approach you take.

[Sponsored content]