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

[msp83]

It has to be remembered that it was his pace that made Larwood such a force at international level. Don't think he was a great swinger of the ball or massive seam movement was the key to his international success.
So without his greatest strength, would Larwood have improved on his record a great deal? Perhaps he would have, but it is anybody's guess.......

[Hoggy_Bear]

Couple of unfair accusations being leveled at Larwood in my opinion.

Firstly, I don't think you can hold his short test career against him. Unlike Ranji, it was not of his own doing, but rather because he had been entirely unfairly made a scapegoat for bodyline. It is more in line with the likes of Barry Richards, a test career unfairly cut short. Of course it is impossible to tell how successful he would have been after his injury, but he remained very successful in his first class career, and there are many examples in cricket of former fast bowlers continuing successfully as medium pacers (Lilee, Pollock to name two). It is therefore possible that Larwood could have done the same.

Secondly, I think it is unfair to say "outside bodyline his record is ordinary" given:
1) bodyline consisted of a good chunk of Larwood's career (about a fifth). I suggest if you take away the most successful fifth of any player's career I think they'd end up looking fairly ordinary.
2) Bodyline is really what defined Larwood, both the good and the bad. I think to just say "well let's ignore bodyline" is kind of skirting the issue.

Agree with you to some extent on this Mike.
Certainly don't think the length of Larwood's career can be held against him, for the reasons you've given. However, on the argument that his record outside of the 'Bodyline' series was ordinary, I certainly think there's an important point. In 10 tests against Australia before 'Bodyline' he took 31 wickets at an average of 40. Then, during the 32/3 series he took 33 wickets at 19.5.
Surely the question must be raised, 'How much of that increased effectiveness was down to Larwood own greatness as a bowler, despite that greatness not having manifested itself on the highest stage, at least in statistical terms, prior to that series, and how much was it down to the tactics?'.
The 'Bodyline' series did define him, and it was one of the iconic series of cricket history, but it was just one series. 'Freddie' Flintoff had massive success in another iconic Ashes series, but we wouldn't consider him HoF worthy.
Having said all that, however, as I alluded to earlier in this discussion, the level of admiration for his bowling, from opponents and colleagues alike, is impressive and suggests that his overall figures may be misleading, and that he possibly was an all-time great bowler. He is certainly a legend of the game, no doubt about that. But does being a legend of the game, because of his involvement (and, it must be admitted, great success) in, perhaps, the most famous and iconic test series of all-time, neccessarily make him an all-time great bowler?

[guildfordbat]

It has to be remembered that it was his pace that made Larwood such a force at international level. Don't think he was a great swinger of the ball or massive seam movement was the key to his international success.
So without his greatest strength, would Larwood have improved on his record a great deal? Perhaps he would have, but it is anybody's guess.......

.... however, it is absolutely certain that Larwood was the most iconic bowler in the most iconic Test series. Do we really need to go on?

[Stella]

Larwood is a no for me.

Crowe was a brilliant and graceful batsman who was hindered by knee injuries during the latter stages of his career and Thomson & Lillee in his teens but IMO you either have to be a great batsman either in test or ODI format to get in the HOF.

I genuinely believe he could have been a true great but for his injuries but we will never know.

[msp83]

For Crowe, his impact on NZ cricket is something we have to give a lot of weightage in my view. He was not one from the top most league of batsmanship, but his overall record was pretty good, he was as graceful as they come with the bat in hand, was a superb captain and was very innovative particularly at the ODI level. Along with his pretty decent record, all that has to come into the mix, and at the moment I am closer to a yes for him.

[msp83]

Hello there guildford!,
But iconic bowler in the most iconic series? I doubt whether many Australians would agree with you there!.
Fredye Flintoff's performance in one of the most iconic series in the modern era, as hoggy mentioned, has to be one of the most iconic performances in the history of the game. And unlike the 1932-3 series, the only real bit of controversy was about a frustrated captain doing a bit of name calling after he was run out by a substitute!.

[guildfordbat]

Whilst doing some research on Sir Garfield Sobers (say no more on that now but stick around! ), I came across this list from Cricinfo on the Best Test Batsmen from 1 January 1958 to 31 December 1974 (*qualification: 3,000 runs):

1. Garry Sobers; 79 Tests; 7,360 runs; 62.90 average; 26 100s / 27 50s.

2. Ken Barrington; 80 Tests; 6,754 runs; 59.76 average; 20 100s / 35 50s.

3. Hanif Mohammad; 37 Tests; 3,018 runs; 51.15 average; 10 100 / 11 50s.

4. Doug Walters; 50 Tests; 3,869 runs; 50.90 average; 12 100s / 23 50s.

5. Rohan Kanhai; 74 Tests; 6,021 runs; 49.35 average; 15 100s / 28 50s.

The above goes some way to further demontrate the longevity and impact of Kanhai's Test career. I believe it supports my view (whinge) that he is too often overlooked as a great of his generation and the 1960s.

The four above Kanhai are worth a quick mention. Sobers - a GOAT if ever there was one (can I be any more clear? ). Barrington and Hanif - leading lights for their countries and first ballot inductees to our HoF. Walters - an interesting case; the Australian middle order batsman scored shedloads of runs in not only his own country but almost every part of the globe. The only exception was England where he almost always and immediately came unstuck against our conditions and seamers. A better record in this country and he would have sailed into the the ICC HoF.

*Graeme Pollock sadly failed to make the cut having amassed 2,200 plus runs when the shutters came down on his Test career.

[kwinigolfer]

Doug Walters a 2011 Aussie Cricket HOF inductee - one of a number of Aussie middle order bats who never really produced their best in England, the late O'Neill and Hookes also come to mind.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Doug Walters a 2011 Aussie Cricket HOF inductee

Warwick Armstrong was inducted in 2000

[guildfordbat]

Doug Walters a 2011 Aussie Cricket HOF inductee

Warwick Armstrong was inducted in 2000

Hoggy - The Big Ship should have sailed in first - he was born 66 years before Dougie Walters!

[msp83]

Brian Lara regards Rohan Kanhai as the best coach he had. Interesting bit from this article.
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2011/05/08/let-the-tiger-be/

[msp83]

Another interesting extract from an article on Kanhai. Kanhai's role in making the game a more entertaining one has to be accounted for.
"Kanhai from a very young age broke all the rules of batting. He tended to hit across the line of flight, play a cross bat instead of a straight bat, not always using bat and pad together, moving out of his crease instead of staying at the wicket, falling instead of being on his feet, and always on the lookout for blasting the bowlers. He was unorthodox and uncoached. The cross bat technique he shared with perhaps the greatest batsman of all time – The Don – Don Bradman.
Unlike the purists of the game who got their direction from the great halls and fields of cricket in England, West Indian cricketers before and after Kanhai have sought to make cricket more interesting, exciting, creative and entertaining".
http://www.indocaribbeanworld.com/archives/2012/april_18_2012/arts.htm

[guildfordbat]

Hello there guildford!,
But iconic bowler in the most iconic series? I doubt whether many Australians would agree with you there!.
Fredye Flintoff's performance in one of the most iconic series in the modern era, as hoggy mentioned, has to be one of the most iconic performances in the history of the game. And unlike the 1932-3 series, the only real bit of controversy was about a frustrated captain doing a bit of name calling after he was run out by a substitute!.

''... most iconic bowler in the most iconic of Test series.'' It's obviously a personal view but not one I expected even Larwood's most ardent detractor to disagree with. I certainly don't foresee our successors in eighty years' time debating the merits of Flintoff's Ashes performances.

Btw, the Australians were far quicker to understand and accept Larwood than the England cricket establishment of his time and certain posters today. My post headed '' A bit in support and defence of 'Lol' '' on page 20 of part one of this thread provides some details.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I certainly don't foresee our successors in eighty years' time debating the merits of Flintoff's Ashes performances.

Oh I don't know.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Flintoff's perfomance, and the series in which he acheived it, went on to become legendary in the annals of cricket.
Personally, I believe the 'Bodyline' serise is only legendary because of the controversy it provoked, and would argue that, in terms of a cricketing competition, the 2005 series, (and a number of others), was far superior.

[guildfordbat]

Another interesting extract from an article on Kanhai. Kanhai's role in making the game a more entertaining one has to be accounted for.
"Kanhai from a very young age broke all the rules of batting. He tended to hit across the line of flight, play a cross bat instead of a straight bat, not always using bat and pad together, moving out of his crease instead of staying at the wicket, falling instead of being on his feet, and always on the lookout for blasting the bowlers. He was unorthodox and uncoached. The cross bat technique he shared with perhaps the greatest batsman of all time – The Don – Don Bradman.
Unlike the purists of the game who got their direction from the great halls and fields of cricket in England, West Indian cricketers before and after Kanhai have sought to make cricket more interesting, exciting, creative and entertaining".
http://www.indocaribbeanworld.com/archives/2012/april_18_2012/arts.htm

Msp - thanks for these further details about Kanhai.

Just a bit more about Kanhai the entertainer and a thought as to how he might have performed in T20.

Back in the 1970s, all the counties took part in the John Player League, a 40 over per side match played on a league basis every Sunday throughout the season. In August '71, Warks' home game against Northants was reduced to 19 overs per side due to bad weather delaying the start. Kanhai went in at number three when Warks' first wicket fell in the opening over without a run on the board. Warks finally amassed a winning score of 168-3 off their 19 overs. Of that total, Kanhai made 112 before he was dismissed in the final over.

[guildfordbat]

I certainly don't foresee our successors in eighty years' time debating the merits of Flintoff's Ashes performances.

Oh I don't know.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Flintoff's perfomance, and the series in which he acheived it, went on to become legendary in the annals of cricket.
Personally, I believe the 'Bodyline' serise is only legendary because of the controversy it provoked, and would argue that, in terms of a cricketing competition, the 2005 series, (and a number of others), was far superior.

Hoggy - you may be right about Flintoff although I rather doubt it. If I'm wrong, remind me in eighty years' time and I'll buy you a beer.

More seriously, you do though seem to endorse the main point I was trying to make; ie the 'Bodyline' series is legendary. That is the key factor to me, not the superiority or otherwise of the competition. Bearing in mind we are considering Larwood for our Hall of Fame, shouldn't the most famous player from such a famous series be in it?

PS msp - whilst I'm sure you'll pick it up anyway, I meant to draw particular attention in my last post to the legacy provided by Larwood to Lindwall. A legacy that Lindwall was grateful to receive and readily acknowledge.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Another interesting extract from an article on Kanhai. Kanhai's role in making the game a more entertaining one has to be accounted for.
"Kanhai from a very young age broke all the rules of batting. He tended to hit across the line of flight, play a cross bat instead of a straight bat, not always using bat and pad together, moving out of his crease instead of staying at the wicket, falling instead of being on his feet, and always on the lookout for blasting the bowlers. He was unorthodox and uncoached. The cross bat technique he shared with perhaps the greatest batsman of all time – The Don – Don Bradman.
Unlike the purists of the game who got their direction from the great halls and fields of cricket in England, West Indian cricketers before and after Kanhai have sought to make cricket more interesting, exciting, creative and entertaining".
http://www.indocaribbeanworld.com/archives/2012/april_18_2012/arts.htm

Msp - thanks for these further details about Kanhai.

Just a bit more about Kanhai the entertainer and a thought as to how he might have performed in T20.

Back in the 1970s, all the counties took part in the John Player League, a 40 over per side match played on a league basis every Sunday throughout the season. In August '71, Warks' home game against Northants was reduced to 19 overs per side due to bad weather delaying the start. Kanhai went in at number three when Warks' first wicket fell in the opening over without a run on the board. Warks finally amassed a winning score of 168-3 off their 19 overs. Of that total, Kanhai made 112 before he was dismissed in the final over.

Who says players from 'the old days' wouldn't be able to cope with t/20?

[guildfordbat]

Who says players from 'the old days' wouldn't be able to cope with t/20?

I don't know. My point was how splendid Kanhai would have been in t/20.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Who says players from 'the old days' wouldn't be able to cope with t/20?

I don't know. My point was how splendid Kanhai would have been in t/20.

Yep.
He sure would have.

[msp83]

Hello there guildford!,
But iconic bowler in the most iconic series? I doubt whether many Australians would agree with you there!.
Fredye Flintoff's performance in one of the most iconic series in the modern era, as hoggy mentioned, has to be one of the most iconic performances in the history of the game. And unlike the 1932-3 series, the only real bit of controversy was about a frustrated captain doing a bit of name calling after he was run out by a substitute!.

''... most iconic bowler in the most iconic of Test series.'' It's obviously a personal view but not one I expected even Larwood's most ardent detractor to disagree with. I certainly don't foresee our successors in eighty years' time debating the merits of Flintoff's Ashes performances.

Btw, the Australians were far quicker to understand and accept Larwood than the England cricket establishment of his time and certain posters today. My post headed '' A bit in support and defence of 'Lol' '' on page 20 of part one of this thread provides some details.

The positive impact of the 2005 ashes is something that lives on and I am sure it will do the same for years to come.
The series of the Sydneygate is something that is well remembered in India, and it would also live on for years to come.
Of course Larwood's action was inspirational and that is credit for him. Would that alone get him through with one massive series in his career that otherwise was nothing more than ok? Well, Larwood had pace, perhaps he was as quick or even quicker than any other fast bowler, but after 1933 he had lost out on that asset, and so saying he would have made a world of difference to his record had he been picked is problematic.
And most certainly Larwood was most unfairly victimized by the MCC, and the Australians did play a much more decent and humane role. But we can't be too surprised at the MCC action, after all they were more than willing in trying to dispose off D'Oliveira's services to keep the racest regime happy.
My basic concern with Larwood is that his overall career record isn't special barring one series. It was a remarkable series, I don't think it can be overated when we consider the overall package though.

[alfie]

Some solid arguments each way on Larwood. Forcing me to examine my original "gut feeling" that he was a fairly definite yes.

The issue of his less than spectacular figures in other Ashes series : I think this is partly a result of (a) batsman friendly pitches - look at batting/bowling stats from the relevant period - and partly down to the fact that Australia was pretty strong in batting at the time (chap called Bradman helped a bit) . Ian Peebles records that Larwood actually made a great start in 1928/29 but fell away in the later matches due to "physical and nervous strain" (? The short piece I have doesn't elaborate...)
His amazing success in the Bodyline series should not be marked down too harshly because of the controversial tactics , in my view : he took plenty of his wickets on that tour with normal fields (though of course one might argue the threat of leg theory was always around , and perhaps the batsmen were somewhat shellshocked ) . Certainly he was at the peak of his powers then , and I suspect he would have enjoyed a good measure of success even without Jardine and his tactics...of course we cannot know for certain.
His career was cut short by both injury and politics. How well might he have come back , had he been permitted ? Again , we can't be sure , but it is worth noting his heading the English first class averages in 1936 with 119 wickets at 12.97.
In truth his career was short by modern standards at 21 Tests. But his reputation has received numerous accolades from contemporaries , as noted by several posters above , he was arguably deprived of at least a couple more years of top level cricket by things outside his control , and he is certainly remembered as the archetypal demon fast bowler seventy five years after his playing days ceased. Plus of course the devastating performance in that famous series itself ,with figures unmatched in conditions like that , I would suggest , ever.

Is all this enough to get him in the HoF ? It is for me , though I can understand how some may disagree.

I hope he gets in , if for no other reason than that his place in history is assured. Ask anyone not too deeply interested in cricket to name pre-war Test cricketers and I'll bet his name comes up not too far behind Grace, Hobbs, Bradman etc...

[msp83]

Larwood's first 16 tests, including 3 against South Africa and 2 against the West Indies produced 45 wickets at 35. Even if we account for helpless pitches and stuff, that is certainly on the higher side. I remember we thinking long and hard before taking a call on Maurice Tate, who's overall record, playing in the same era was better than that of Larwood. Tate's bowling average between 1926 and 32 was 30.4 while Larwood averaged 34.8.
A look at Larwood's and Tate's first class record is very suggestive, there was a serious difference in standards between the FC level and the international level, particularly in terms of bowling figures. Perhaps it has to do with the quality of the pitches. Whatever that may be, we have to be careful about making judgements about Larwood's would be effectiveness after 19933 basing it on his FC record.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Larwood's first 16 tests, including 3 against South Africa and 2 against the West Indies produced 45 wickets at 35. Even if we account for helpless pitches and stuff, that is certainly on the higher side. I remember we thinking long and hard before taking a call on Maurice Tate, who's overall record, playing in the same era was better than that of Larwood. Tate's bowling average between 1926 and 32 was 30.4 while Larwood averaged 34.8.

And it could certainly be argued that Tate's acheivement in taking 38 wickets in a losing cause in the 1924/5 Ashes was greater than that of Larwood in 32/3, even if it's not as well remembered.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Must admit that, despite appearences here, and despite my previous 'no' vote, I'm genuinely torn on Larwood.
As both msp and I have asserted, there are definite questions regarding his performance outside of the 'Bodyline' series.
However, those questions must be weighed against the evidence that pitches were a batsman's paradise, on the most part, throughout Larwood's career, his magnificent FC record, and the views of his contemporaries who, almost invariably, praise him as an all-time great.
So, legendary and iconic figure in the history of the game? Undoubtedly.
All-time great bowler? The juries still out for me although, I must admit, the weight of praise heaped upon him by those who saw him is tending to make me think that, despite his mediocre record away from 'Bodyline', he was at the very least, an exceptionally good bowler.
So, is legend status and 'very good bowler' enough for entry to our HoF? At the moment I'm thinking it probably is.

[msp83]

As I said, Larwood had pace, by the look of things among the quickest bowlers the game has seen. Pace as such can hold a serious attraction. There is no doubt he was a good bowler, but at the end of the day you have to really do it. Mark Rampraksh was marked out for greatness, so was Hick Ramps had a good technique, was so intense a character as you could get but there is a great deal missing in his international record. Not quite the right comparison I know, but the point is that despite the enormous skill set Larwood possessed, his international record isn't great even when we look at overall, and outside bodyline, it really is nothing special. Of course it was the batsman's era, but bowlers like Tate achieved more, with a more limited skill set.
All said and done, like Hoggy, I too am not really sure on Larwood, having read some of the articles and views of people like Arlott, I won't surprise myself if I eventually vote for him.
As the deadline is approaching I think we should take a closer look at other candidates. Armstrong has a good case. There are some very strong points for Crowe, his influence and impact on NZ cricket, his innovative captaincy, some fresh ideas that have been part of the process of the game's recent evolution, and of course his batting, which own its on might not see him through.
On Pataudi, I have already put up my case. one of the most influential figures in Indian cricket, a superb captain who molded a strong spin bowling unit that is part of Indian cricketing legacy, a man who overcame terrible disabilities to play international cricket with success, a batsman who produced some daring knocks in rather hopless situations.
As for Kanhai, again I do have a few concerns, but his overall record and his contributions to the game after his playing days and the kind of respect he enjoyed in the cricketing fraternity all make a very strong case.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Agree with msp that all the candidates this time round have strong cases. Crowe was probably the best batsman his country has produced, played well in an era of great bowling and, but for carrying on too long would probably have had a much better overall record.
Kanhai was reknowned as a great batsman among those who saw him, had immense natural talent, was an influential and inspirational coach, and a Warwickshire legend.
Pataudi had a reasonable record but one achieved despite physical handicap. Add in his standing as a captain and as an important figure in the history of Indian cricket and his case looks very good.
Armstrong had a very good test record, an exceptional FC one, was a great captain and a major character during the early years of cricket history. A shoe-in for our HoF surely?

[guildfordbat]

Msp et al - India's greatest triumph that I remember from my schooldays was when they beat England 1-0 in a 3 match Test series played here in summer 1971. The famous spin quartet all toured athough the unlucky Prasanna didn't play a Test. Bedi particularly caught the headlines with his teasing bowling, infectious smile and the continual changing of his coloured turbans.

The interesting thing to me now as regards our HoF is that India were led in that series by Ajit Wadekar and not Tiger Pataudi who didn't tour. I see from Cricinfo that Wadekar took over the captaincy for India's immediately earlier 5 match series away to the West Indies which India also won 1-0 without Pataudi.

Is Wadekar being denied some of the credit due to him or was he merely carrying on the good work of Pataudi? I would also be interested to know why Pataudi didn't tour here in '71 - I note he played a further eight Tests two or three years later, some as captain and some not.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford
According to the Telegraph's obituary of Pataudi, he didn't play cricket from 1970-72, though it doesn't say why.

[guildfordbat]

As regards Crowe, I've nothing against the guy and accept there are definite positives. However, I don't seem to be viewing him as supportively as others here.

I'm conscious that to my mind better middle order batsmen have already been declined without even the opportunity of the repecharge; Graveney and I Chappell particularly refer.

Yes, he was a leading light for New Zealand but would he have had a guaranteed starting place for the other Test nations of that era? Probably some but probably not all. Good that he was, I'm not convinced he so often rescued and transformed New Zealand in the way that Hanif did for Pakistan.

The above isn't to get others to change their YES vote but to flag that I'm not so sure ....

PS Hoggy - thanks for the Telegraph obit update on Pataudi.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Difficult decisions on several candidates....

[msp83]

Msp et al - India's greatest triumph that I remember from my schooldays was when they beat England 1-0 in a 3 match Test series played here in summer 1971. The famous spin quartet all toured athough the unlucky Prasanna didn't play a Test. Bedi particularly caught the headlines with his teasing bowling, infectious smile and the continual changing of his coloured turbans.

The interesting thing to me now as regards our HoF is that India were led in that series by Ajit Wadekar and not Tiger Pataudi who didn't tour. I see from Cricinfo that Wadekar took over the captaincy for India's immediately earlier 5 match series away to the West Indies which India also won 1-0 without Pataudi.

Is Wadekar being denied some of the credit due to him or was he merely carrying on the good work of Pataudi? I would also be interested to know why Pataudi didn't tour here in '71 - I note he played a further eight Tests two or three years later, some as captain and some not.

Guildford, Pataudi had led the side almost for 8 years, molded the side together, led them to their first overseas win in New Zealand and gave a tough fight to every team at home. After having lost a very closely fought to Australia, he was replaced as captain by Wadekar, who inherited a very cohesive unit that was taught the value of winning. Most certainly Wadekar played his part, but most of the players in that side themselves would credit Pataudi and the cultural shift he instilled for the wins in the West Indies and England .
And the emergence of a short young opener was a huge boost for Wadekar it has to be remembered!.
Pataudi made a surprise comeback later and played a few more tests, but like many such comebacks, it didn't really work.

[Mike Selig]

As regards Crowe, I've nothing against the guy and accept there are definite positives. However, I don't seem to be viewing him as supportively as others here.

I'm conscious that to my mind better middle order batsmen have already been declined without even the opportunity of the repecharge; Graveney and I Chappell particularly refer.

Yes, he was a leading light for New Zealand but would he have had a guaranteed starting place for the other Test nations of that era? Probably some but probably not all. Good that he was, I'm not convinced he so often rescued and transformed New Zealand in the way that Hanif did for Pakistan.

The above isn't to get others to change their YES vote but to flag that I'm not so sure ....

PS Hoggy - thanks for the Telegraph obit update on Pataudi.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I think Crowe was a notch above the likes of Graveney and Chappell (Ian) personally, and here's why.

Looking at his record, it is good (overall average of 45 back when that meant something) without being great. However, he was particularly strong against Australia (48) - arguably New Zealand's biggest rivals showing he was up for a challenge, Pakistan (57) who had a good and varied pace attack, and the West Indies (44 against their battery of pace bowlers wasn't too shabby either, although his record in the West Indies is a less than flattering 30, but does include an 188). He struggled a bit on the subcontinent though you have to say.

However there is a strong case to say that he was picked before ready (due perhaps to New Zealand's lack of ressources) and he certainly carried on well past he should. His first season in test cricket gives an average of just 5, and his final two 20 and 16 respectively. If you take away those years, his average is 49.15 (if my calculations are correct, which they probably are), which I think we'd agree was better than very good for the 80s and 90s.

Add to that the fact that he made these runs under a lot of pressure, his innovations as a captain, and his work as an administrator and vision for T20 cricket, and I think Crowe has a significantly stronger case than the likes of Chappell and Graveney.

I must say I remain very unconvinced by the case for Pataudi. Great though his feat of being so successful with one eye was, I don't think that can be central to any case. We're not suggesting (I hope) inducting Trescothick for being so good for so long despite huge mental problems. With that, Pataudi's record is very ordinary, so his inclusion must rely on his effect. And in this regard, I'm not sure bringing India up from whipping boys status to competitive with the odd win (which was all they were at the end of his career) can truly be considered HoF material. We are considering Kanhai partly because he made (or helped make) the West Indies into a great team (the fact that he was a great batsman makes his case an easy one), but would we consider Porterfield under whose leadership I would argue Ireland have evolved very similarly to India under Pataudi?

I haven't got much to add to my previous thoughts on Kanhai or Larwood. I don't think Larwood is clear cut, but in terms of impact on the game he is right up there, and so I think our HoF would be the poorer without him.

Armstrong has a very good case as well, admirably put forward by hoggy. Very good test record for those days, excellent first class one, and plenty of impact. A strange omission by the ICC HoF I have to say.

[msp83]

As regards Crowe, I've nothing against the guy and accept there are definite positives. However, I don't seem to be viewing him as supportively as others here.

I'm conscious that to my mind better middle order batsmen have already been declined without even the opportunity of the repecharge; Graveney and I Chappell particularly refer.

Yes, he was a leading light for New Zealand but would he have had a guaranteed starting place for the other Test nations of that era? Probably some but probably not all. Good that he was, I'm not convinced he so often rescued and transformed New Zealand in the way that Hanif did for Pakistan.

The above isn't to get others to change their YES vote but to flag that I'm not so sure ....

PS Hoggy - thanks for the Telegraph obit update on Pataudi.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I think Crowe was a notch above the likes of Graveney and Chappell (Ian) personally, and here's why.

Looking at his record, it is good (overall average of 45 back when that meant something) without being great. However, he was particularly strong against Australia (48) - arguably New Zealand's biggest rivals showing he was up for a challenge, Pakistan (57) who had a good and varied pace attack, and the West Indies (44 against their battery of pace bowlers wasn't too shabby either, although his record in the West Indies is a less than flattering 30, but does include an 188). He struggled a bit on the subcontinent though you have to say.

However there is a strong case to say that he was picked before ready (due perhaps to New Zealand's lack of ressources) and he certainly carried on well past he should. His first season in test cricket gives an average of just 5, and his final two 20 and 16 respectively. If you take away those years, his average is 49.15 (if my calculations are correct, which they probably are), which I think we'd agree was better than very good for the 80s and 90s.

Add to that the fact that he made these runs under a lot of pressure, his innovations as a captain, and his work as an administrator and vision for T20 cricket, and I think Crowe has a significantly stronger case than the likes of Chappell and Graveney.

I must say I remain very unconvinced by the case for Pataudi. Great though his feat of being so successful with one eye was, I don't think that can be central to any case. We're not suggesting (I hope) inducting Trescothick for being so good for so long despite huge mental problems. With that, Pataudi's record is very ordinary, so his inclusion must rely on his effect. And in this regard, I'm not sure bringing India up from whipping boys status to competitive with the odd win (which was all they were at the end of his career) can truly be considered HoF material. We are considering Kanhai partly because he made (or helped make) the West Indies into a great team (the fact that he was a great batsman makes his case an easy one), but would we consider Porterfield under whose leadership I would argue Ireland have evolved very similarly to India under Pataudi?

I haven't got much to add to my previous thoughts on Kanhai or Larwood. I don't think Larwood is clear cut, but in terms of impact on the game he is right up there, and so I think our HoF would be the poorer without him.

Armstrong has a very good case as well, admirably put forward by hoggy. Very good test record for those days, excellent first class one, and plenty of impact. A strange omission by the ICC HoF I have to say.

Well, the pataudi candidature as we may remember, has a background. We considered Fred Tittmus, he never had a HoF level record, we considered him for his ability to overcome a serious disadvantage, his influence on popular culture in Engaland and so on. We considered Jayasuriya partly for his impact on Sri Lankan cricket. Pataudi's record as captain is not just about the number of wins, it is also about how he converted spin bowling into an attacking, match changing strategy.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Must admit I agree with Mike that Crowe is a notch above the likes of Graveney or Ian Chappell. He has a better record than either of them and acheived that record against attacks which, I would argue, were at least as good as anything faced by those two players, and while under the added pressure of being his teams main batsman, a pressure neither Graveney or Chappelli had to deal with.

[alfie]

Looking at Crowe from Australia I had a generally favourable impression of him , to the point where I am a little surprised his overall stats aren't rather better...Perhaps he did indeed save his best for Australia.
Always thought him a very good if short of great player , and his position as very much New Zealand's best batsman seems to me to go a fair distance towards a place in the HoF. After all some of those home pitches were pretty juicy , and perhaps not much of an advantage for the home team's batsmen...
Not sure that I can think of anything brilliant to advance his cause beyond the fact that he was to NZ batting in his time something akin to Hadlee with the ball , if not quite at the same level in a general international sense. I am inclined to give him a tick for that reason , but I would agree it is a bit of a close decision.

[msp83]

Alfie I think Crowe's captaincy skills needs some credit, and even his role inthe post-playing time needs to be looked into.

[alfie]

As an afterward : I went looking again at Crowes stats , and one figure jumped out.
An average of 66.92 over eight Tests in Australia.

Granted Australian bowling in the mid to late eighties wasn't fantastic (McDermott, Reid , Lawson etc ) but I wonder how many visiting batsmen had a better record ?
Perhaps it is a pity for his sake NZ only ever had three match series in Aus...

[Hoggy_Bear]

On Pataudi, here's a nice obit from the Economist which discusses a number of the issues that have been raised here:

"For some decades before Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi appeared, Indian cricket was often a feudal affair. Royals captained the teams, picking the players out of a sense of sheer entitlement; they installed themselves prominently in the batting order; and after the match the photographs were hung in some trophy room or antechamber of the palace of the Maharajah of X or the Prince of Y, among the wild ox heads and tiger skins.

All the odder, then, that the man who shook up the national game, encouraged players from all regions and classes, made cricket an unmissable part of the lives of teeming, boisterous, firecracker-throwing city crowds, was a prince himself. He was the ninth (and last) Nawab of Pataudi, son of the eighth nawab and the Begum of Bhopal, and a Test cricketer, son of a Test cricketer: the pedigree was as impeccable as the upbringing was lavish, in the manner of the Mughal kings. As captain of India, indulging his love of pranks, he once convinced a team member that Kolkata's white-marble Victoria Memorial was another of his palaces.

His schools included Lockers Park Prep in Hertfordshire, Winchester (captain of cricket), and Oxford, where he was the first Indian to captain the University side. Jermyn Street was his natural habitat, as much as the lumpy outfield at Bombay's Brabourne Stadium; in the 1950s he modelled for Gwalior Suitings. Onfield and off he had an aristocrat's insouciant elegance. His spell in England left him with a range of good bats, a certain reticence, and a fondness for bridge; and also with a yen to see professionalism in the “completely amateur set-up” of the Indian game.

His nickname, “Tiger”, dated from childhood, but seemed to fit his style of play: whether his fierce competitiveness at bat, hooking and driving the ball to dig India out of some hole or another, or his elegant fielding in the covers, racing with easy grace to scoop and return, or his eager crouch in the gully, waiting to destroy. Most princes never rated fielding beside the individual skills of batting or bowling. He made it sharp, and used it to encourage the teamwork that would not just draw matches, but win them. Together with the superb spin-bowlers he promoted—Chandrasekhar, Venkataraghavan, Bedi and Prasanna, their skills honed on India's hard, dry grounds—he built a team that achieved India's first Test series victory abroad, against New Zealand, in 1967-68.

Yet his true heroism sprang from handicap. He had one eye. The right had been lost in a car accident in England in 1960, apparently eclipsing at its outset his cricketing career. But his ambition was undamaged. Within weeks he was in the nets again, practising, and within months he was playing Test cricket against the West Indies, against some of the fastest bowling in the world. More astonishing still, in mid-series he was picked as captain, when Nari Contractor was concussed by a ball. (He was only 21, but said that his experience at Winchester and Oxford meant that “one was not naive”.) He went on to score, over his career, 2,793 Test runs that included six centuries. No one knew how. He explained that in fact he saw two balls, and hit the inside one. With two good eyes, who knows what he might have done.

Building up India
Where he really excelled, however, was as a captain. To lead India was no easy job. Only 15 years after Partition, the scars were still raw. As a Muslim, he felt it: uncles, aunts and cousins had migrated across the border, and he always sighed that India and Pakistan would have made a great team together. As for the Indian team itself, when he inherited it, players kept to their own regional languages, cultures, even food. “Look”, he would tell them, “you are not playing for Delhi, Punjab, Madras, Calcutta or Bombay; you are playing for India. You are Indian.” Before long, the players succumbed to his imperious charm.

He captained India in 40 Tests, and won only nine of them; but it seemed he had won many more. (He regretted never having a great batsman of the likes of Sunil Gavaskar, who arrived as his captaincy ended.) The defeats often had a nobility about them, none more so than his fighting 75 and 85, with a pulled hamstring, against Australia at Melbourne in 1967-68. Of the victories he made, perhaps the most vital predated his spell as captain, when he scored 103 in India's first series defeat of England at Madras, in 1962, and the long colonial hangover was banished from the cricket field.

He kept his princely temperament. The abolition of royal entitlements in 1971 was unfair, he said, and he ran in vain for parliament in protest. Aristocratic languor, critics thought, made him too diffident sometimes on the field. Others recalled his sulks when he was dropped as captain for Ajit Wadekar, in 1971, who went on to lead the team to Test victories against the West Indies and England.

For good or bad he introduced Bollywood glamour to cricket, especially with his marriage to Sharmila Tagore, a glittering film star. He lamented how Indian captains were made idols and then “thrown in the gutter” by the public; the habit took off with him. But his importance went well beyond cricket. Tiger Pataudi persuaded Indians that they could take on any country, on their own turf or not, and win."

[alfie]

Alfie I think Crowe's captaincy skills needs some credit, and even his role inthe post-playing time needs to be looked into.

Agreed , msp. I do rate him as a captain. And captaining NZ is not an easy job , as we've seen recently

Not sure how many points I'd give him for Cricket Max though...

[msp83]

A very good read indeed on Pataudi.

[alfie]

Nice article on "Tiger" Pataudi there , Hoggy

His influence on Indian cricket was certainly enough to bring him into range of HoF status despite a not so stellar set of figures ?

He was a very fine fielder , despite his limited vision , and it is true he seemed to inspire some very energetic fielding among his troops , especially close in to the redoubtable spin quartet. His players clearly worked hard at their fielding , and it is a pity that this particular influence has seemed to somewhat lapse over the years...

I really want to vote yes on Pataudi , but I am still a little undecided. Time to sleep on it.

[guildfordbat]

Well, the pataudi candidature as we may remember, has a background. We considered Fred Tittmus, he never had a HoF level record, we considered him for his ability to overcome a serious disadvantage, his influence on popular culture in Engaland and so on. We considered Jayasuriya partly for his impact on Sri Lankan cricket. Pataudi's record as captain is not just about the number of wins, it is also about how he converted spin bowling into an attacking, match changing strategy.

Msp - hmmm. ''Eventually I can't look past his playing record. No'' - your conclusion on Titmus. Fortunately for you, that doesn't create a precedent for me on Pataudi.
I have to say though that I'm not as convinced as you about Pataudi's spin bowling strategy. He had a spin quartet available ranging from good to very good (Venkat, Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra - probably respectively). As you said early on, the four only played together in a single Test. Venkat often to my mind got selected (with Prasanna usually missing out) because he was the better batsmen rather than there being a total committment to spin bowling. I don't condemn that but wasn't it simply a case of making the best use of the resources available rather than a unique and distinct strategy? In any case, it wasn't as if India had decent seamers at the time who were being left out so Pataudi could pursue the spin pathway.

Mike - I'll look further at Crowe's record. The 'picked too early' aspect (as well as the more common 'going on too long' comment which certainly applies to Cowdrey and Greenidge) is interesting. Both Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson were picked too soon for Australia; their Test averages are clearly very decent anyway but would be much better still without those early matches.
Your comment about Larwood's impact is very pertinent. Ray Lindwall modelled his action on Larwood (''Why shouldn't I copy the very best?'') and sailed into our HoF. The reluctance to admit Lindwall's role model seems strange. I would also emphasise that Larwood's treatment by the England cricket establishment after 1932/33 was shameful. I would hope that in our own small way we could pay our respects to a decent and proud man.

Hoggy - I'm still pondering Armstrong. As always, you present the case well and soundly. Hard to put my finger on but I'm just not so convinced it's as strong as for other Aussies from years gone by that you've championed. Do I have a point or is it simply New Year Blues on my part?

[kwinigolfer]

Not voting but those looking at batsmen in comparison to Tom Graveney might be well advised to give his record closer scrutiny - an example perhaps of a great batsman who was chosen too infrequently early in his career yet who shone when called upon in emergency well after most contemporaries had got their pub licence - 'course, he got his later in life!

47,000 first class runs, 122 centuries

79 Tests with 4,880 runs at 44.3, with 11 tons

And 20-odd of those Tests, with four hundreds, came after the age of 39.

Quite apart from other triumphs, his form against two distinctly different West Indies teams, his 258 in 1957, and his courageous 165 at The Oval in 1966, was extraordinary.
For some reason Graveney's achievements are downplayed in these discussions, but that does disservice to a man who represented the very best of English cricket in the 25 immediate post-WWII years.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hoggy - I'm still pondering Armstrong. As always, you present the case well and soundly. Hard to put my finger on but I'm just not so convinced it's as strong as for other Aussies from years gone by that you've championed. Do I have a point or is it simply New Year Blues on my part?

Don't know if you have a point if you don't know what your point is.
I think the thing, possibly, with Armstrong that might mean that he is not as well known as some others from his era, is that he was not the most stylish of players (a view that was also evident when discussing Clem Hill). There were also, I admit, some question marks over his attitude, which annoyed some opponents and some of his colleagues as well. But, on the other hand, it could be argued that Armstrong did a good deal to strengthen the hand of players in negotiations with their Board, especially in Australia, and that, particularly as captain, he helped pave the way for a more 'professional' attitude within cricket that, in turn, gave rise to batsmen like Ponsford and Bradman, and to tactics like 'Bodyline'. Whatever his faults, there is no doubt that he was hugely popular with the fans. When he was left out of a state match after missing a practice session, up to 8000 people protested outside the MCG.
Just to finish, I'd like to note a couple of quotes which underline the admiration felt for Armstrong bas a player and captain, by both opponents and colleagues.
About his captaincy, Frank Foster, the great Warks. skipper, said, "I honestly think that Australia have got to thank one man, one man only for their success. That man is Warwick Armstrong, probably one of the best captains ever sent to England from Australia". While Jack Gregory described him as "My ideal cricketer".

[msp83]

Well, the pataudi candidature as we may remember, has a background. We considered Fred Tittmus, he never had a HoF level record, we considered him for his ability to overcome a serious disadvantage, his influence on popular culture in Engaland and so on. We considered Jayasuriya partly for his impact on Sri Lankan cricket. Pataudi's record as captain is not just about the number of wins, it is also about how he converted spin bowling into an attacking, match changing strategy.

Msp - hmmm. ''Eventually I can't look past his playing record. No'' - your conclusion on Titmus. Fortunately for you, that doesn't create a precedent for me on Pataudi.
I have to say though that I'm not as convinced as you about Pataudi's spin bowling strategy. He had a spin quartet available ranging from good to very good (Venkat, Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra - probably respectively). As you said early on, the four only played together in a single Test. Venkat often to my mind got selected (with Prasanna usually missing out) because he was the better batsmen rather than there being a total committment to spin bowling. I don't condemn that but wasn't it simply a case of making the best use of the resources available rather than a unique and distinct strategy? In any case, it wasn't as if India had decent seamers at the time who were being left out so Pataudi could pursue the spin pathway.

Mike - I'll look further at Crowe's record. The 'picked too early' aspect (as well as the more common 'going on too long' comment which certainly applies to Cowdrey and Greenidge) is interesting. Both Richie Benaud and Alan Davidson were picked too soon for Australia; their Test averages are clearly very decent anyway but would be much better still without those early matches.
Your comment about Larwood's impact is very pertinent. Ray Lindwall modelled his action on Larwood (''Why shouldn't I copy the very best?'') and sailed into our HoF. The reluctance to admit Lindwall's role model seems strange. I would also emphasise that Larwood's treatment by the England cricket establishment after 1932/33 was shameful. I would hope that in our own small way we could pay our respects to a decent and proud man.

Hoggy - I'm still pondering Armstrong. As always, you present the case well and soundly. Hard to put my finger on but I'm just not so convinced it's as strong as for other Aussies from years gone by that you've championed. Do I have a point or is it simply New Year Blues on my part?

Ah well guildford, I was expecting that first bit!. The new year hasn't come with much of an improvement!.
The question here is, has Pataudi made an impact that would enable us to look pass his not so very good record? I have to say his record wasn't pretty bad though, The likes of Atherton and Hussain averaged not a great deal more than Pataudi did.

[msp83]

Hoggy any more details on Armstrong's role in strengthening the players' hands vs the administrators? I would like to know a bit more on that, find that particularly interesting.

[guildfordbat]

Well, the pataudi candidature as we may remember, has a background. We considered Fred Tittmus, he never had a HoF level record, we considered him for his ability to overcome a serious disadvantage, his influence on popular culture in Engaland and so on. We considered Jayasuriya partly for his impact on Sri Lankan cricket. Pataudi's record as captain is not just about the number of wins, it is also about how he converted spin bowling into an attacking, match changing strategy.

Msp - hmmm. ''Eventually I can't look past his playing record. No'' - your conclusion on Titmus. Fortunately for you, that doesn't create a precedent for me on Pataudi.
I have to say though that I'm not as convinced as you about Pataudi's spin bowling strategy. He had a spin quartet available ranging from good to very good (Venkat, Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra - probably respectively). As you said early on, the four only played together in a single Test. Venkat often to my mind got selected (with Prasanna usually missing out) because he was the better batsmen rather than there being a total committment to spin bowling. I don't condemn that but wasn't it simply a case of making the best use of the resources available rather than a unique and distinct strategy? In any case, it wasn't as if India had decent seamers at the time who were being left out so Pataudi could pursue the spin pathway.

Ah well guildford, I was expecting that first bit!. The new year hasn't come with much of an improvement!.
The question here is, has Pataudi made an impact that would enable us to look pass his not so very good record? I have to say his record wasn't pretty bad though, The likes of Atherton and Hussain averaged not a great deal more than Pataudi did.

Msp - I'm not sure how much comparison to Atherton and Hussain helps Pataudi's case. I would have thought both fall some way short of our HoF.
You haven't answered my question (a rather good one, I thought ) about Pataudi's spin strategy.

To be fair to you and Pataudi, the case certainly has strengths. I'm just not convinced that the sum of its parts adds up to what I require for a HoF member. I have similar concerns in respect of Amstrong (which prompted my earlier feeble post to Hoggy as he delicately and politely pointed out) and Crowe. It would be so much easier if I was dealing with a lunatic nomination from the Corporal for Ian Salisbury!

[Corporalhumblebucket]

It would be so much easier if I was dealing with a lunatic nomination from the Corporal for Ian Salisbury!

Guildford - biding my time on that one. Thinking of putting IS forward. Clearly not one of the absolute HoF top table , but worth a punt - maybe we will be able to fit him in just before start of the cricket season, eg early April...?

In meantime - I do share Kwini's view that Graveney's record was summarily dismissed in the earlier discussions.

It's difficult to turn a blind eye to Pataudi's playing record. I'm inclining towards a negative vote - but his story is a very remarkable one and it does feel a bit churlish on my part. In terms of overcoming adversity, if we were looking for one representative for HoF I think my order from people mentioned on these threads would now be 1) Appleyard, 2) Pataudi, 3) Titmus. (d'Oliveira of course could feature but in a different kind of way.)

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hoggy any more details on Armstrong's role in strengthening the players' hands vs the administrators? I would like to know a bit more on that, find that particularly interesting.

Well, as already noted Armstrong was one of the 6 men who withdrew from the 1912 Ashes tour over the Board's decision to go against the tradition of allowing the players to choose their own manager and, during the 1921 tour, he had a series of running battles with the board appointed manager on behalf of his team. While these actions may not have led directly to greater player power, I think they must have helped, and Armstrong was always reknowned for sticking up for the rights of his players. One concrete advance that can be claimed for Armstrong, however, was the introduction of a rest day before a test.

[Hoggy_Bear]

In terms of overcoming adversity, if we were looking for one representative for HoF I think my order from people mentioned on these threads would now be 1) Appleyard, 2) Pataudi, 3) Titmus. (d'Oliveira of course could feature but in a different kind of way.)

I hope you'll change that 1,2,3 once I've put forward my argument for Athol Rowan later in this process, corporal.

[Sponsored content]