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

[Hoggy_Bear]

A few further quotes and tributes to Charles Macartney.

Clarrie Grimmett called him "One of the truly great players" when naming him as part of his 'World XI from the last two decades' in 1938
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58809583?searchTerm=charlie macartney great&searchLimits=

Grimmett also said of him " If I had an option of bowling against Bradman or Stan McCabe I would chose Bradman every time
I would choose Bradman to bowl against in preference to Charlie Macartney and Wally Hammond too
Technically Mcartney, Hammond and MCcabe were magnificent batsmen
It was Dons greater concentration and determination that compensated for his technical deficiencies
Don massacred bowling that was less than good length , but he did not play really good length, consistent good length, spin bowling well
I would rate Charlie Macartney, Stan Mccabe, Patsy Hendren, George Headley, of the West Indies, Dudley Nourse and Herby Taylor as finer players than Don in a purely technical sense"

And " I remember one wonderful duel I had against Charlie Macartney in 1925-1926
It was just before the 1926 Australian was chosen to go to England
I took 0/165, but Herbie Collins, who captained the 1926 side to England, told me that it was my bowling against Macartney that caused me to be chosen for that tour."'

I also found an unverifiable reminisence on the internet which is quite interesting in this context
"Now this is a 'believe it or not' statement, but I was once driven into the city from Adelaide CC practice (there as a very young lad, not a player) by an old, famous Test cricketer.

I asked him who the best player was who he'd played with, expecting him to say 'Bradman'.

He said 'Charlie McCartney'. Known as the Governor General, I think.

The person I was talking to?

Clarrie Grimmett."

Don Bradman called Macartney "The greatest number 4 batsman ever" (possibly before he saw Tendulkar) and was inspired by Macartney's aggressive batting after having seen him score 170 in 1921. He also included Macartney in his Greatest Aussie Ashes XI.

Of his innings at Leeds in 1926 Plum Warner said:
" He simply pulverised all the bowling with the exception of that of Tate. Such stroke play one can never hope to see again. His timing of the ball was perfection itself, and every sort of stroke came in rapid sucession. It mattered not what length the bowler bowled, runs simply flowed from his bat at an amazing speed. His steel- like wrists and powerful forearms reduced the bowling, always excepting that of Tate, to impotence. No one who saw his innings will ever forget it. Macartney made 100 out of 131 in an hour and twenty minutes. Altogether he was batting for two hours and fifty minutes, and hit twenty- one fours. When he left, the whole ground-and there were 38,000 people present after lunch-stood up to a man and applauded him as no batsman has ever been applauded, and he deserved every cheer, for his was one of the great innings in the history of the game. No Grace, no 'Ranji', no Trumper, no Hobbs, could have surpassed his cricket. He played like one inspired. If there is such a thing as a superman, Macartney as a cricketer was that to-day."

Of Macartney's 133* at Lord's which preceeded that innings, an English critic wrote:
"Everbody at Lord's was talking about Macartney's innings-it was so far above everything we have seen on the cricket field this season. How he plays his shots and where he gets his power from is a question that everybody asks and nobody answers. He is gifted with a rare degree of limb-quickness and sight-keeness and is possesed of an immense belief in himself.His feet are like those of a dancing master. His eyes are like those of a hawk. His confidence is collosal. 'Little Mac' has no respect for reputations or conventions. He doesn't wait to play himself in. He is not dependent upon the loose ball for runs. He thinks in fours."

Finally, (for now) of his innings of 345 against Notts in 1921, scored in just 232 minutes, the cricket writer Sumner Reid said:

"the most destructive innings I ever saw in England or Australia. Not Trumper at his brilliant best, nor even Bradman in his calculated genius, ever performed with more unadulterated, murderous power and masterful technique."

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Verity is a very strong candidate indeed - and not just for his competing against Bradman on pretty much equal terms. For me he is I think likely to be a more clear cut YES candidate than was Underwood.

I had literally never heard of Charlie Macartney before so look forward to learning more. Hoggy - I do note that despite the brave comments about hitting first ball in a test match for six that feat was not actually achieved until 2012. If his late cut was so late as to be almost posthumous perhaps hitting a six off the first ball actually was posthumous

[msp83]

Well, interesting set of candidates for this round.
I really don't like Ricky Ponting, but like it or not, he has been one of the best modern day batsman. He was an average captain, and had some rather concerning character issues. But the quality of his batsmanship and his figures and achievements as captain are in my view, good enough to overcome that.
Have to do some research on Macartney, and that opening case from Hoggy is an interesting one. Have read some interesting stuff about Verity, and on the face of it, his record seems pretty sharp. Packer is someone who played a major part in bringing about some welcome changes to the game and on the face of it, has a strong case.

[msp83]

On last round results. The concern on his record was something I did share to some extend, but I'd say fair enough, the record has to be certainly kept in mind and a significant weightage be given to that particular aspect. Larwood's record too had some concerns attached to it, but fair enough again, at least we are in our own, little way, trying to right the wrongs he was subjected to. Happy to see the other 3 through.

[msp83]

I have my fair share of concerns voting people in based on a small sample size of test cricket, as it has to happen in the case of many of the South African players in the 60s. I would certainly need a lot more than a good record in English county cricket to convince myself. In Barlow's case, there is his coaching record in Bangladesh, he was a highly regarded coach there, able to really reach out to the young players and it was unfortunate for both him and Bangladesh that he couldn't really continue the good work for long due to his illness. But his record needs some convincing, particularly on the bowling front. His cricinfo profile says he was a liberal voice in the (They put it very mildly ) conservative establishment, more on that could help build his case.

[Mike Selig]

[Ponting] was an average captain

You see, I just don't understand this perception. I think it's partly due to Ponting losing 3 ashes series, but partly because he was unfortunate enough to be captain when Australia became less good. It seems that Ponting gets no credit for what he achieved with the great Australian team, and all the blame for what he failed to achieve with a more average team.

There is also the perception that captaining in perhaps a less intuitive/creative way makes you a lesser captain. I'm sure a few people would rate Vaughan highly as captain, but even ignoring that practically every clever tactic which Vaughan seemingly came up with on the field was a result of meticulous planning and principally Fletcher, for me a lot of this is based purely on the fact that Vaughan would do unusual things frequently, and people by default seem to like that.

Ponting's record with the great Aussie side in fact is better than anybody's in the history of the game, better than S. Waugh who also inherited a great side but is for some reason rated very highly (presumably because he retired early enough). In the same way that Waugh took Taylor's side to a new level, Ponting took them to an even higher one, something which you would scarcely believe possible. He won 2 world cups with 100% records, both without key players (Warne and Gillespie in 03, Lee in 07), and I think few would argue that his 2007 side are the most dominant ODI side in the history of the game - in a format which at times can be more of a lottery than test cricket that should count for something. He got a lot out of Shaun Tait in particular in 2007, and used Bracken to good effect. His insistence on picking Symonds for the 2003 WC was a masterstroke. And of course he led from the front. Other achievements of Ricky's include the series win in India (admitedly Gilchrist was captain on the field, Ponting being injured, but it was Ponting's side), and of course the whitewash of England, something Waugh failed to do. The win at Adelaide may have owed a lot to the genius of Warne, but Ponting also marshaled his troups quite brilliantly.

Ponting also enjoyed some successes even when the greats had retired - the Aussies record remained reasonable, and until the last ashes I thought Ponting got as much out of them as he reasonably could have. A series win in South Africa, a whitewash of Pakistan. His captaincy in the 2nd innings at Sydney in that series (where he coaxed a match-winning effort out of Nathan Hauritz) is rated by Benaud as amongst the best he's ever seen. A couple of moments in the "Sydney-gate" test also stand out: bringing on Michael Clarke of course to seal the win, but also Stuart Clark's tactics to Tendulkar, when he brought Gilchrist up to the stumps.

He wasn't as flash as a Vaughan, or even a Clarke, but he was far more effective. I personally would say Ponting was a great captain, not just good, but actually great.

[dummy_half]

A quick comment on Ponting - he hit the finest shot I've ever seen, iirc in the first T20 international England played in Australia. A decent ball from one of our seamers, good to full length just outside off stump, and Punter played perfectly straight through the line with a lofted off drive over wide mid-off (left foot to the pitch and a straight, high follow-through, none of this clearing the left side and swiping). The ball went like an absolute bullet for 6, never getting much above 20ft off the ground - fantastic timing and right out of the middle of the bat.

Regardless of whether he was a great captain or just the captain of a great side, and whether he was a likeable character*, there can be little doubt that his batting ability alone stands him in good stead as an HoF candidate.

* Nothing Ponting did is even close to the Chappell underarm ball, he was just competetive and prone to the occasional whinge when things didn't go his way. If there is a serious criticism of his character and captaincy, it is maybe that the Aussie teams under him sometimes didn't behave very well particularly with regard to the sledging of opponents, and sometimes things got out of hand (Symonds v Harbijan for one).

[Stella]

That was off Sidebottom, Dummy. It was one of the best shots I've seen.

Punter is a massive yes for me.

[msp83]

[Ponting] was an average captain

You see, I just don't understand this perception. I think it's partly due to Ponting losing 3 ashes series, but partly because he was unfortunate enough to be captain when Australia became less good. It seems that Ponting gets no credit for what he achieved with the great Australian team, and all the blame for what he failed to achieve with a more average team.

There is also the perception that captaining in perhaps a less intuitive/creative way makes you a lesser captain. I'm sure a few people would rate Vaughan highly as captain, but even ignoring that practically every clever tactic which Vaughan seemingly came up with on the field was a result of meticulous planning and principally Fletcher, for me a lot of this is based purely on the fact that Vaughan would do unusual things frequently, and people by default seem to like that.

Ponting's record with the great Aussie side in fact is better than anybody's in the history of the game, better than S. Waugh who also inherited a great side but is for some reason rated very highly (presumably because he retired early enough). In the same way that Waugh took Taylor's side to a new level, Ponting took them to an even higher one, something which you would scarcely believe possible. He won 2 world cups with 100% records, both without key players (Warne and Gillespie in 03, Lee in 07), and I think few would argue that his 2007 side are the most dominant ODI side in the history of the game - in a format which at times can be more of a lottery than test cricket that should count for something. He got a lot out of Shaun Tait in particular in 2007, and used Bracken to good effect. His insistence on picking Symonds for the 2003 WC was a masterstroke. And of course he led from the front. Other achievements of Ricky's include the series win in India (admitedly Gilchrist was captain on the field, Ponting being injured, but it was Ponting's side), and of course the whitewash of England, something Waugh failed to do. The win at Adelaide may have owed a lot to the genius of Warne, but Ponting also marshaled his troups quite brilliantly.

Ponting also enjoyed some successes even when the greats had retired - the Aussies record remained reasonable, and until the last ashes I thought Ponting got as much out of them as he reasonably could have. A series win in South Africa, a whitewash of Pakistan. His captaincy in the 2nd innings at Sydney in that series (where he coaxed a match-winning effort out of Nathan Hauritz) is rated by Benaud as amongst the best he's ever seen. A couple of moments in the "Sydney-gate" test also stand out: bringing on Michael Clarke of course to seal the win, but also Stuart Clark's tactics to Tendulkar, when he brought Gilchrist up to the stumps.

He wasn't as flash as a Vaughan, or even a Clarke, but he was far more effective. I personally would say Ponting was a great captain, not just good, but actually great.

Mike, would like to know on what basis you credited most of Vaughan's on field tactics to Fletcher. Didn't really see that spark in Andrew Strauss, Fredye Flintoff or MS Dhoni, all captains who worked with Fletcher.
Now on Ponting, I did say his achievements as captain of a great side are fantastic. But he often lacked the spark on the field, and although he achieved a lot more control over his patterns of behaviour, every now and then there would be something.
As you did say the series win in INdia happened under Gilchrist, not just that the only test Ponting tled them, they lost.
Agree on Simonds 03. And Brett Lee credited Ponting as the captain who managed him the best.
He was not a bad captain, but not a particularly great one. Remember him bowling his ineffective partimers throughout a session in a test Australia needed to win, with all his bowlers fit and effective, with they reducing India to 5 down for not much, all because the captain didn't want a punishment for a slow over rate.

[alfie]

Re the last lot , I am delighted to see Larwood made it this time ,albeit narrowly...Kanhai also , and I am not surprised Armstrong and Crowe got there , though I had wondered if the latter might have had to go through repachage...we may be getting easier on our candidates ? Thought Pataudi might have done s bit better after msp's efforts , but no...Must be a few on holiday still from the number of votes counted.

So a new and diverse lot : think Ponting won't have too much trouble , though my personal preference would be to let the dust settle on players' careers before putting them up for votes. Can't go along with Mike's assessment of him as a "great" captain , but his batting alone does it for me.
Surprised so many people say they hadn't heard of Macartney...perhaps from living in Australia so long I've always thought of him as one of the legends. Hoggy has put up a lot of details already, but I recollect a couple of quotes of his own :Lord's 1926 when he hit Tate's first ball for four and went on to make a century...apparently that ball was actually rather a nasty one to get first up , and Macartney later told Cardus "as soon as I saw that ball I knew that either me or Maurice was for it. So it had to be Maurice."

And the morning of a Test where he came down to breakfast in his hotel , looked out the window at some pleasant June sunshine and reportedly said "lovely day.Cripes I feel sorry for the poor cove who's got to bowl at me today "

You could see he didn't lack confidence.

If his Test figures look good rather than great to modern eyes , I would plead that it wasn't just the runs , it was the way he made them , which from all accounts was something to see. Will it get him in the HoF ? We will have to see.

Consider Barlow and Verity later , but I am going to need a lot of persuading to vote for Kerry Packer...

[Hoggy_Bear]

Whatever Ponting's merit as a captain (and I happen to think he was a very good captain). I don't think that there can be much doubt about his entry to our HoF purely as a player. One of the best 3-4 test batsmen of his generation, pretty decent ODI record and a fantastic fielder. Shoe-in.

[msp83]

Had a look at Macartney's record. Looks like Virender Sehwag's role model!. But that record isn't really earth shattering. Someone like Bil Ponsford hasn't made it to our HoF. The post war era was considered batsman oriented. Other than Maurice Tate, even England didn't have a lot of bowling ammunition. His bowling also doesn't seem like good enough to carry him through.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Had a look at Macartney's record. Looks like Virender Sehwag's role model!. But that record isn't really earth shattering. Someone like Bil Ponsford hasn't made it to our HoF. The post war era was considered batsman oriented. Other than Maurice Tate, even England didn't have a lot of bowling ammunition. His bowling also doesn't seem like good enough to carry him through.

I'd like to point out that, to all intents and purposes, Macartney's career was effectively split into two parts.
Before WWI he was regarded as a bowling all-rounder who had no fixed position in the batting order. Indeed, it wasn't until 1912 that he became established at number 3, due to the withdrawal of the 'Big 6', and in that year he averaged 43 against England and scored over 2000 runs on the tour. Unfortunately that was the last test series he played until 1920, due to the war (which, incidentally meant that he played no test cricket between the ages of 26 and 34).
After WWI, he became mainly a batsman who bowled a bit, established himself at number 3 and averaged 69.55 with 6 centuries.
Even before 1920, however, he was a highly regarded player. It was due to a refusal to allow Clem Hill to pick him for the test team that the famous fist fight ensued between Hill and his fellow selector. Plum Warner chose him as part of his 'World XI' in 1912 and Neville Cardus regarded him very highly as a bowler saying about him in 1940:

"I suppose that Ironmonger was the most dangerous of all Australian slow left-handers; I regret I never saw him play. But he can scarcely have excelled Charles Macartney at the art of vicious, enticing spin, whenever the wicket lent assistance. We are too ready to think of Macartney simply as one of the greatest of batsmen— he was all that, true; also he could bowl on his day with a flight and spin so cunning that he at times reduced the mightiest opposition to impotence. Indeed, I am not certain that Macartney did not once on a time perform one of the most remarkable pieces of bowling in all the annals of Test cricket. At Birmingham in the English season of 1909. England's first innings began in ruin: three wickets fell for 13 and this is how the score-sheet read:—
J. B. Hobbs, l.b.w., b. Macartney 0
A.C. MacLaren, b. Macartney .. .. 5
C. B. Fry, b. Macartney .. .. .. 0
I doubt if any other bowler, living or dead, has obtained the scalps of three such illustrious victims at so slight a cost, and with a swiftness half as dramatic and triumphant."

[msp83]

Cardus is certainly among the significant voices of the game, but He could at times hype it up. Or perhaps we should look at it in the specific historic context.......

[Hoggy_Bear]

What do you mean by specific historic context msp?

[Mike Selig]

Mike, would like to know on what basis you credited most of Vaughan's on field tactics to Fletcher. Didn't really see that spark in Andrew Strauss, Fredye Flintoff or MS Dhoni, all captains who worked with Fletcher.

Talking to people who played at the time. Strauss was never captain under Fletcher was he (Moores and Pietersen, then Strauss and Flower)? Flintoff simply wasn't captaincy material, I doubt he could remember half of Fletcher's thoughts TBH. India under Dhoni play an entirely different brand of cricket than England under Vaughan, so don't think the comparison is valid really.

As you did say the series win in INdia happened under Gilchrist, not just that the only test Ponting tled them, they lost.

But it was Ponting's team. They lost because they couldn't chase down 100, hard to criticise the captain for that. Ponting deserves a lot of credit for Australia's success in India, even if not playing, the team was carrying on from his dynamic.

He was not a bad captain, but not a particularly great one. Remember him bowling his ineffective partimers throughout a session in a test Australia needed to win, with all his bowlers fit and effective, with they reducing India to 5 down for not much, all because the captain didn't want a punishment for a slow over rate.

Actually that was Clarke on the field at that time. Ponting had gone off. I know it was portrayed in the media as Clarke covering so Ponting wouldn't cop a ban, but always felt that was unfair.

[msp83]

Hoggy what I am trying to say is that many of the descriptions could come in a match situation and not so much of an observation after things settle down.......
When it comes to modern players, we often look at their home and away average, type of bowling they were ok with and so on, and even an average in the mid 40s against bowlers like Imran, Akram, Waqar, Kapil, Botham, Ambrose, Walsh, and the likes didn't provide Martin Crowe an automatic entry to the HoF. I doubt someone like a Virender Sehwag would get a straight forward entry despite he being the most distructive test opener in the history of the game with a more than healthy average.

[msp83]

Well, Strauss was captain under Fletcher during the Pakistan series in 06 when Fredye wasn't available. Even Nass Hussein wasn't a vaughan like captain, although fletcher and he, and then fletcher and Vaughan worked well as a team. So I think there are serious inconsistencies there on crediting Fletcher too much.
Again, The credit for the India series win in 04 is more for Ponting, but the stupidity in the later series has to go to Clarke's account? From what I remember, Clarke wasn't in charge for the entire session when the nonsense show was going on.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hoggy what I am trying to say is that many of the descriptions could come in a match situation and not so much of an observation after things settle down.......
When it comes to modern players, we often look at their home and away average, type of bowling they were ok with and so on, and even an average in the mid 40s against bowlers like Imran, Akram, Waqar, Kapil, Botham, Ambrose, Walsh, and the likes didn't provide Martin Crowe an automatic entry to the HoF. I doubt someone like a Virender Sehwag would get a straight forward entry despite he being the most distructive test opener in the history of the game with a more than healthy average.

I see what you're saying msp, that the attacks he batted against after WWI weren't particularly great (I possibly wouldn't say that about the attacks he faced before WWI). And if he'd played destructively and averaged around 50 against those attacks then I'd agree that it probably wasn't enough. But he averaged 70, while playing some of the greatest attacking innings observers had seen, on uncovered pitches, without the benefit of heavy bats and short boundaries.

[Mike Selig]

Ponting is one of my favourite cricketers TBH, love watching him bat, so apologies for going on about things.

On his character issues, I'm with dummy: his reasonably regular shows of dissent did no good to the game and can't be condoned, but we're not talking character flaws of the type of Chappel or even the likes of Boycott and Gooch. In person, he's apparently a really nice guy, with quite a sense of humour (he found the french translation of hit wicket - self-destruct if you're interested - particularly amusing).

One thing which the Australian team under Ponting did was move away from specialist positions in the field to specialist roles. The 3rd test of the ashes whitewash saw McGrath drop Pietersen at long-on; in the following over and for the rest of the series, Symonds was at long-on if long-on was required, and since then almost every team has followed suit. Including France juniors, where for the last 10 overs one poor sod had to run from long-on to long-on every over.

As a batsman of course Ponting has a superb record, but more than that, many of those runs were scored when his team most needed them and he was a big player in more wins (and the odd draw such as Old Trafford) IMO than any other player I've seen. He has 4 tons in the 4th innings of matches, and averages 50 there, quite remarkable. In a team with until recently a strong batting line-up, he was very much the prized wicket - even when on the wane, you knew that he was the guy the opposition most wanted to get out.

I remember his knock in the Champions Trophy semi against england: England had recovered from 100/6 to reach 250odd (Bresnan of all people made 86) and got Tim Paine out (ct behind off Onions) for a duck. Ponting strode out, and everyone knew he was the key wicket. His first 20 runs came in boundaries, 2 trademark pull shots, a couple of cover-drives and a classic straight drive IIRC. He eventually played and missed at one... when into the 90s! One of the best displays of batting I've seen. Watson made a century at the other end, and finished top score, but it was Ponting who made the early running, and looked in control throughout.

Also, how about this for a shot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iml68tIkffA

Finally of course, no mention of Ponting would be complete without talking about his fielding. In the right, in close to the spinners, at slip, terrific outfielder (whilst Waugh was captain) he could do it all. Perhaps the person who hit the stumps with most frequency, but it was his sense of anticipation and spatial awareness which stood out. At the MCG for the last ashes, his broken finger meant he couldn't field in the slips, so spent his time at mid-off or mid-on mostly. Just watching him movement in anticipation was worth the entrance fee on its own, simply brilliant. I learned a lot that day. On day 1 of course, he practiced for a good 5 minutes once everyone else had gone back into the changing rooms, simply having balls hit to him and shying at a set of stumps. No wonder he hit so often.

Another video (lengthy - love the one of prior on 13.40 though):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZruCGBPujPo

[Stella]

TBH, Ponting's name should not be debated. The best number three since Bradman, winning captain of world cup sides and one of the best fielders of all time.

[Mike Selig]

Again, The credit for the India series win in 04 is more for Ponting, but the stupidity in the later series has to go to Clarke's account? From what I remember, Clarke wasn't in charge for the entire session when the nonsense show was going on.

The decision to bowl part-timers for a length of time is a specific moment in the game, so of course the majority of blame lies with the person who had ultimate responsibility for the decision. In this case I think that's Clarke (I could be mistaken) although of course it was done in consultation with the rest of the senior players and management.

I am crediting Ponting for the win in India not for his on-field tactics (although he obviously had an input) but for the general attributes of the team which he and the coach were responsible for building.

The point is very rarely do you see something spontaneous on the field anymore - most of it has been discussed, planned and looked at beforehand. In the Fletcher-Vaughan partnership, a lot of the supposed "intuitive" moments were actually pre-planning for which Fletcher was primarily responsible.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Well, if we're putting up videos here's some footage of Macartney batting during his famous innings at Leeds in 1926.

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/3rd-test-match

Probably doesn't illustrate as much as Mike's videos though.

[Hoggy_Bear]

TBH, Ponting's name should not be debated. The best number three since Bradman, winning captain of world cup sides and one of the best fielders of all time.

Best AUSTRALIAN number three since Bradman, possibly.

[kwinigolfer]

Hedley Verity was born, most appropriately, in Headingley, in 1905.
And, in happier times, no doubt that's where he would prefer to have died, perhaps to be buried beneath the square.

But this is not a perfect world, even for the most gifted, and Captain Verity (1st Battalion, The Green Howards) was to be taken prematurely, in Italy, at the age of 38.

He died in July, 1943, and his family was notified in September - his loss was mourned by Yorkshire cricket for a generation, Brian Sellers reflecting the different course post-war Yorkshire might have taken but for the early morning attack in Sicily by Verity's Battalion on July 19th, 1943.

By that time, Verity was renowned as one of the most skilled slow left-armers of his generation but it wasn't always like that. Young Hedley first made his mark in cricket as a military medium pacer, able to swing the ball both ways, and was a decent lower order batsman (he was later to open the batting in both innings of an Ashes Test).

Despite impressing Yorkshire coach George Hirst (he of 36,000 runs and 2,700 first class wickets) and former England spinner Bobby Peel (the same Bobby Peel who Lord Hawke reportedly sent off the field for being intoxicated!) while playing for Rawdon, he served his pro apprenticeship in the Lancashire Leagues, and not until he switched to spin in his early twenties would success come his way, coming through a Yorkshire trial in 1930, and taking Wilfred Rhodes' place in the line up.

He quickly established his place in the side, taking 64 wickets and leading the national averages in 1930, the same year a young Aussie called Bradman was named a Wisden Cricketer of the Year. England came calling in 1931 and Verity made his Test debut against the New Zealand tourists. In 1931 he took ten wickets in an innings for the first time, and in 1932 took 10 wickets for 10 runs (still(?) the best ten-fer analysis in first class cricket) including a hat-trick and seven in 15 balls against Nottinghamshire before being chosen to tour Australia for the 1932/1933 tour. During Verity's ten years in the team Yorkshire won the County Championship seven times.

The bare bones of his Yorkshire and England careers are:
Test: 40
Bowling: 144 wickets at 24.37, 5 wickets in an innings: 5; 10 in a match: 2.
Batting: 669 runs at 20.90

First Class:
Bowling: 1,956 wickets at 14.90, 5 wickets in an innings 164 times, 10 in a match: 54: Ten wickets in an innings: Twice.
Batting: 5,603 at 18.07 with one century (101)

It is noteworthy that Verity didn't play first class cricket until he was 25, didn't play a Test until 26, so that his cricket career both started late and was terminated early. Nevertheless, and especially given his partial 1930 debut season, his record of 200 wickets per calendar year is astonishing and his career figures in normal circumstances would doubtless have been extraordinary.

Early in his career, Verity was criticised for lack of flight and variation in pace. He thrived, not surprisingly, on sticky wickets - Bradman was lavish in his praise of Verity but could be scornful as well. The Don was humiliated during Verity's jour de force at Lords in 1934 when he took 14 Aussie wickets in one memorable day:
"striking horribly against the spin until he sent the ball straight up like a water spout, and Ames came forward from behind the stumps and took the catch," according to Cardus, as Verity's match-winning figures of 15 for 104 established his legend.
But Bradman held "obtuse ideas about "sticky" wickets: "You might as well expect an Inman (apparently the Steve Davis of his day) to play on a torn table."

Bradman could be magnanimous, however, as well and compared Verity with his Aussie rival:
"I think I knew all about Clarrie (Grimmett), but with Hedley I was never sure. You see, there was no breaking point with him."

Verity was hardly perfect and all the wiles in the world couldn't prevent him, on rare occasion, from being had - Jock Cameron of South Africa hit 30 in a memorable Bramall Lane over, and England's selectors saw fit to exclude him from many a Test line up when a favourable batting track was expected.

The final weeks of the 1939 County season were played out under the gathering clouds of war and, by the time Hedley Verity followed 11 wickets against Hampshire with a 7 for 9 performance against Sussex at Hove, he already carried his military training manual in his pocket. "I wonder if I'll ever play cricket here again," he is said to have observed as he left the field.

John Arlott reflected at the resumption of cricket in 1946 that, "Had there been no war, we should have expected (the similarly deceased Kenneth) Farnes and Verity still to be our outstanding Test match bowlers. Verity, in 1939, showed no signs of weakness." Sadly, we'll never know.

It has been suggested that his final reported words to his men, after being hit in the chest, "Keep going," should be a fitting epitaph.

But perhaps Bradman said it best:
"His whole career exemplified all that was best about cricket."


Hall Of Famer? Maybe.
Remarkable career and life?? For sure.

[Hoggy_Bear]

England's selectors saw fit to exclude him from many a Test line up when a favourable batting track was expected.

Don't know that that's neccessarily true kwini.
After you mentioned this the other night, I took the liberty of looking at Verity's test career and found that England played 53 tests during that period, of which Verity played 40.
The vast majority of the tests he missed were against the 'minnows' of the period, WIndies, New Zealand and India. He only missed 3 or 4 tests at most against the 'big' teams, Australia and South Africa, as far as I can tell.

[guildfordbat]

The vast majority of the tests he missed were against the 'minnows' of the period, WIndies, New Zealand and India.

Any thoughts as to why that would have been, Hoggy?

Can't imagine a rest and rotation policy being in vogue then.

[Hoggy_Bear]

The vast majority of the tests he missed were against the 'minnows' of the period, WIndies, New Zealand and India.

Any thoughts as to why that would have been, Hoggy?

Can't imagine a rest and rotation policy being in vogue then.

Don't know about 'rotation', but weakened teams were often picked against the 'smaller' teams in those days. Maybe players who wouldn't normally be considered for tests against the big-guns were 'rewarded' for good county records with test caps against the 'minnows'. Certainly, I know that 'Tich' Freeman who, it was believed, didn't have what it took to play against the Aussies, played a number of matches against the WIndies, (although he also played a few against South Africa, but even they were seen as being a level below Australia).

[guildfordbat]

The vast majority of the tests he missed were against the 'minnows' of the period, WIndies, New Zealand and India.

Any thoughts as to why that would have been, Hoggy?

Can't imagine a rest and rotation policy being in vogue then.

Don't know about 'rotation', but weakened teams were often picked against the 'smaller' teams in those days. Maybe players who wouldn't normally be considered for tests against the big-guns were 'rewarded' for good county records with test caps against the 'minnows'. Certainly, I know that 'Tich' Freeman who, it was believed, didn't have what it took to play against the Aussies, played a number of matches against the WIndies, (although he also played a few against South Africa, but even they were seen as being a level below Australia).

That's interesting. Thanks, Hoggy.

England were still adopting the 'reward' policy in the early 1970s. Having won the Ashes down under in '70/'71, England then played one Test in New Zealand. As a reward for having been good (non playing) squad members up until then, Bob Taylor and the late Don Wilson were selected to play the Kiwis.

Kwini - many thanks for kicking things off so well with Hedley Verity.

[kwinigolfer]

Hoggy,
I read the opinion that Verity was sometimes omitted on flat tracks in the context of Underwood falling victim to the same policy - very annoyingly I can't uncover the attribution, always a potential weakness in such pieces. So your point is very fair, hopefully until I can cover something more substantive.

As for "rotation" isn't the number of "caps" awarded by our National sports teams just indicative of one continuous "rotation"?


For Verity, I have several tomes reporting cricket of his era but fristratingly few comparisons of the big names - Verity with Freeman, yes, but also with Goddard and Parker. All slightly different bowlers of course, but just respect about each one, rather than critical assessment of their qualities.

[kwinigolfer]

Not sure how I'm going to vote this time around but of two things I'm sure:
Ponting is a big YES! Though agree with misgivings that the body of his career is still warm.

And Packer is an even bigger NO, NO, NO!

Just McCartney, Barlow and Verity to consider then.

Will be very interested in the Barlow debate - a player for whom I had the utmost respect as a Test cricketer, but who tended to polarise opinions and was not a notable success at Derbyshire. Although known as an all-rounder his bowling was seldom much of a factor at Test level, where his batting average was significantly (6 points) higher than his overall first class average.

The ultimate competitor, for good and sometimes not so good.

[guildfordbat]

People can argue the merits of Ponting's captaincy (and seem to be doing so) but I think that's something of a red herring to our Hof membership. Any flaws were fairly minor and his batting overall was supreme. Much as I would have preferred to have the vote six or twelve months on, I can't see me voting anything but YES now.

PS Hope to see you all at the GOAT polling station tomorrow!

[Shelsey93]

I think that Ponting sometimes got a hard time... in particular Botham, Willis and co acted as if he'd just shot someone when he had a heated exchange with an umpire a couple of years ago. Clearly, he could get a little frustrated at times but, in common with Miandad, its more general feistiness than anything more sinister.

Thus, he must surely get in on his record.

There is some debate over Australia's 'best since Bradman'. Personally I'd say its probably not Ponting: Harvey, Border and Greg Chappell all must be on a broadly similar plane, and I'd say its a tick ahead of Ricky.

[msp83]

Pontings batsmanship should easily see him through. The other aspects are just matters to be discussed and concerns to be expressed.

[msp83]

At the moment I am not really sure about Barlow and Macartney, but mostly certainly waiting for biltong to throw more light on Barlow. Many of us had started with a not so sure position on Pollock, Biltong's case made almost a sea change. Would need something similar for Barlow, at least in my case.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just been doing a bit of number crunching with regard to Macartney.
He took over as his country's established number 3 on the 1912 tour of England, after Clem Hill refused to tour as one of the 'Big 6', From that point onwards he played 20 matches (out of the 35 he played overall) with a batting average over 60.
And it's not surprising that he is highly rated as a bowler by English critics of the time as, before he became one of his sides main batsmen, ie before 1912, he played 11 times against England, taking 27 wickets at 21.4.
Know this is a bit arbitrary, but it does give some indication of the two 'halves' of his career.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Verity was hardly perfect and all the wiles in the world couldn't prevent him, on rare occasion, from being had - Jock Cameron of South Africa hit 30 in a memorable Bramall Lane over, and England's selectors saw fit to exclude him from many a Test line up when a favourable batting track was expected.

In context, well worth remembering Verity's career record. His economy rate in tests was 1.88 which is close to the top of the all time list.

[Mike Selig]

People can argue the merits of Ponting's captaincy (and seem to be doing so) but I think that's something of a red herring to our Hof membership. Any flaws were fairly minor and his batting overall was supreme. Much as I would have preferred to have the vote six or twelve months on, I can't see me voting anything but YES now.

It does seem like Ponting will get in, rightly so. However this thread is all about debate and information, so I felt I should argue why in my view one of Ponting's supposed weaknesses (his captaincy) was actually a considerable strength.

I do however agree with the general point about waiting a year or so (and made this point on Dravid, who we were quick to induct, and I wonder whether overall as things stood we were right). Shelsey asks where Ponting will eventually rank amongst Australian batsmen, and I think it is impossible to tell right now, although if you pushed me I would say above Harvey and Border, but below G. Chappell.

PS Hope to see you all at the GOAT polling station tomorrow!

Well I will certainly be there. I have found the GOAT discussions very interesting, but am somewhat frustrated by some closed attitudes on there ("I won't consider x because I haven't heard of him") and in particular the rush to vote before everyone has had their case stated (so people come on, look at the list of names, say "has to be y" even though they haven't taken anytime to consider x or z).

I have to say I am also concerned about some parochial voting from cricket fans. Whilst Bradman rightly got through comfortably, I am not so sure Lara should have been such a clear 2nd place, and Tendulkar nearly got through today also.

[Mike Selig]

Quick thoughts on the others:

Macartney does seem like an interesting cricketer. I am more and more surprised (and embarassed) I hadn't really heard of him.

Verity: seemingly excellent figures. An issue is though that he is constantly rated behind Laker, Lock, Underwood (and I believe Swann when the latter's career is done and dusted) when considering English spinners. On the face of it, he shouldn't be, but is there a reason, or is it purely ignorance? Any outstanding feats we should be aware of? I have stated my belief that for me HoF status is reserved for those showing "excellence and a little extra", my worry is what is the little extra for Verity?

Barlow: awaiting Biltong's case.

Packer: undoubtedly his actions in time and overall have had a tremendous positive impact on the game. We did establish with Rhodes though that being in the right place at the right time was nowhere near enough. I do wonder how many of the changes under Packer were due to him being any kind of visionary, and how many were simply lucky accidents? I suspect a lot were the latter...

[kwinigolfer]

Mike,
I can see that Verity might be rated behind Laker but can't for the life of me see why he should be ranked behind Underwood - there are in fact many similarities in their careers, albeit one half the length of the other.
As for Lock, I'm a great fan, but as an all round cricketer, decent batsman, outstanding close fielder and strategist, not just for his bowling which was inclined to go from sublime to ridiculous.

Verity's signal achievement would be the 1934 Lords Ashes Test which was referred to, fourteen wickets in one day to drag England out of the mire and win the only Test of the Series. Other top class efforts for England and some miracle stuff for Yorks, two ten wicket hauls including the 10/10, and his consistency was extraordinary.

I have no doubt that, had fate not intervene, his record would be more obviously among the all-time greats - clearly held in something between the greatest respect and awe by contemporaries, teammates and opponents alike.

Does everyone now voted in really have "excellence and a little extra"? Not sure that all have shown that more than Verity.

[Hoggy_Bear]

An issue is though that he is constantly rated behind Laker, Lock, Underwood (and I believe Swann when the latter's career is done and dusted) when considering English spinners.

Don't think that's neccessarily the case. Laker yes, Underwood possibly, Lock no, (don't really know about Swann yet).
For example, CMJ lists Verity no. 59 in his Top 100 cricketers, neither Underwood or Lock make the list.
Similarly, a list of 'Top 50 Ashes bowlers' in the 'Telegraph' in 2009 put Verity at no. 9 and Underwood at 25. Lock wasn't on the list.
Lock also was not considered for Cricinfo's all-time spinner slot, with only Lacker, Rhodes, Verity and Underwood (who was chosen for the team), making the shortlist.
So, in terms of retired spinners, I think Verity is ranked firmly in the top 3 Englishmen of all-time, possibly the top 2.

[msp83]

Verity's case is getting stronger through the debates here, and whatever I have read. His test bowling figures in an era dominated by the bat makes for splendid reading.

[Hoggy_Bear]

On Verity Mike.
Excellence? 144 test wickets at under 25, in a batsman dominated era. Nigh on 2000 FC wickets at under 15

Little bit extra? Most test wickets taken in one day (I believe). Most FC wickets taken in one day (Joint record). Best ever FC innings figures. Highly revered character, admired by freind and foe alike. Nemesis of Bradman.

[guildfordbat]

Just quickly following up a couple of points.

On English spinners, at the Oval most of the real old time members tend to side with Kwini and place Lock above Laker.

On the GOAT voting, it's certainly good fun although I do feel it's rather dominated by the modern age and what too many posters saw on tv recently. I think that goes some way to explaining the high number of votes yesterday for a footballer just out of his apprenticeship and the success of several current cricketers. On the cricket front, I've only voted so far for Bradman.

[alfie]

Just quickly following up a couple of points.

On English spinners, at the Oval most of the real old time members tend to side with Kwini and place Lock above Laker.

On the GOAT voting, it's certainly good fun although I do feel it's rather dominated by the modern age and what too many posters saw on tv recently. I think that goes some way to explaining the high number of votes yesterday for a footballer just out of his apprenticeship and the success of several current cricketers. On the cricket front, I've only voted so far for Bradman.

Lock above Laker ?!

Got to be a typo ...


Verity abit before my time , but his figures suggest at least on a par with Underwood. Cut off tragically ( like the almost forgotten Farnes, who my father really rated ) but surely a case to be number two for England , behind only Laker ?

[Shelsey93]

A reminder to come across to the GOAT thread, to stop Sobers being beaten by an ice hockey player!

[guildfordbat]

Just quickly following up a couple of points.

On English spinners, at the Oval most of the real old time members tend to side with Kwini and place Lock above Laker.

On the GOAT voting, it's certainly good fun although I do feel it's rather dominated by the modern age and what too many posters saw on tv recently. I think that goes some way to explaining the high number of votes yesterday for a footballer just out of his apprenticeship and the success of several current cricketers. On the cricket front, I've only voted so far for Bradman.

Lock above Laker ?!

Got to be a typo ...


Verity abit before my time , but his figures suggest at least on a par with Underwood. Cut off tragically ( like the almost forgotten Farnes, who my father really rated ) but surely a case to be number two for England , behind only Laker ?

I never saw Laker or Lock bowl so can't comment as to who was best. Just passing on what three or four of the Oval old boys who still seem to have their marbles say. To be fair, one of their gang disagrees pretty strongly. Their overall view is that there isn't much in it but had Lock bowled better at Manchester in' 56, Laker would never have taken his 19 wickets and established such an immense reputation.

I thought you, Alfie, might have been more of a Lock fan with him spending his later years playing for Western Australia.

Meanwhile, over on the GOAT thread 'King Cricket' seems to be suffering from there having been several cricketers already ... hmmm .... come on chaps, I need your help and, far more importantly, he deserves it!

[guildfordbat]

A reminder to come across to the GOAT thread, to stop Sobers being beaten by an ice hockey player!

Thanks, Shelsey. Wisdom beyond your years!

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - thanks also for your additional comments in support of Sobers.

I did actually play the St Aubrun card in my heading but that was edited out without my knowledge. Might need to raise that if things go to a Judicial Review!

[alfie]

Saw them both , guildford , though was rather young at the time.

Lock was a great close fieldsman , but I wouldn't have thought he could rate with Laker as a bowler. Besides , his action was considered to sometimes infringe the laws as they then stood ( He would pass the modern fifteen degrees bit all right , but things were different then )
They made a fine pair in their time , but I think most people agree on who was the senior partner.

Lock did some good work with WA , no question : he certainly had a fine cricket brain. Would help if he were being considered for HoF , but I think that is unlikely.

[Sponsored content]