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]

as a matter of coincindence I'm currently reading Dennis lillee's 2003 autobiography Menace, and it includes a whole chapter on Packer and WSC.
Lillee argues that WSC stemmed fronm an idea he had. He says that players in the mid-70s in Australia were finding it difficult to juggle the increasing demands of more and more cricket, and the jobs that most of them had to have because the renumeration for playing cricket was not enough to live on. He said that the players had complained to the ACB about the situation but they had done nothing about it.
Lillee, therefore, suggested to his agents the idea of Australia playing matches against a World XI at the beggining and ean of the normal season, with the players retaining most of the gate money. His agent put him in touch with Kerry Packer, who was trying to get cricket n his TV station. Packer said he would finance the operation and suggested three tests and a number of ODIs, scheduled so as not to interfere with the regular season. When they put the idea to the ACB, it was refused and the rest, as they say, is history.
Of WSC's legacy, Lillee states "The fact that cricket is played the way it is today. the advent of full-time professionals, the re-vamping of the game, the greater involvement of the spectators,the added colour was all down to WSC. The most telling factor of all was that the players and administrators started t think more as one, and realised each had their part to play, and they could work together."

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - can I please ask if Eddie Barlow gets a mention in CMJ's Top 100 Cricketers? My guess would be that any initial scribblings made about Eddie won't have found their way into the final book but would appreciate your confirmation or otherwise. Thanks in advance.

I'll answer while I'm here if that's OK. Barlow doesn't make the final 100, and doesn't make the list of all-rounders that CMJ reluctantly left out either.

Charlie Macartney's in the 100 though

Thanks, Hoggy. Only just picked up your reply. Glad it gave you the chance to plug Macartney. No doubt you've got a story lined up for next week to sway the Corporal involving Charlie Boy rescuing a koala from a blazing building or similar!

[Hoggy_Bear]

Shelsey - can I please ask if Eddie Barlow gets a mention in CMJ's Top 100 Cricketers? My guess would be that any initial scribblings made about Eddie won't have found their way into the final book but would appreciate your confirmation or otherwise. Thanks in advance.

I'll answer while I'm here if that's OK. Barlow doesn't make the final 100, and doesn't make the list of all-rounders that CMJ reluctantly left out either.

Charlie Macartney's in the 100 though

Thanks, Hoggy. Only just picked up your reply. Glad it gave you the chance to plug Macartney. No doubt you've got a story lined up for next week to sway the Corporal involving Charlie Boy rescuing a koala from a blazing building or similar!

Nothing quite that dramatic I'm afraid, but I do have a little nugget the Corporal should find interesting

[msp83]

An interesting take there from Lillee on Packer that is, thanks Hoggy.
I have a feeling a lot of outcasteism that characterized Packer's early engagements with cricket still define many people's approach towards him. He was an enterpriser of high quality, and that he did engage with the game with a view to make momey shouldn't surprise people. The engagement produced a serious impact on the game, and influenced the shaping of the last game in the last 3 decades.
It wouldn't have been easy for Packer or the players and others involved to conduct the initial parts of organizing WSC in the most open and transparent way. I won't blame him too much for that, considering the vilification campaign still remain influential.

[Mike Selig]

Some fascinating debate happening. I am dropping in very briefly before a busy week-end (3 flights, if I get them all, to get to 2 training sessions I am running, all starting at 4AM tomorrow morning), but did want to adress the following briefly.

is there evidence that T20 garners sufficient support or interest to stand alone as a sport? Probably not and surely any sport should be designed to prepare participants for the pinnacle of the game? Not sure that T20 does that. But I will change my vote on Packer from No! to Never!

I would have thought that of all the 3 formats T20 is the one which currently generates most revenue and support. But this is besides the point really. I have commented before that setting formats against each-other is a mistake - T20 and test cricket appeal to different publics, and the thought that somehow if we get rid of T20 then all its fans will be forced to follow test cricket is misplaced. All 3 formats (and the indoor one as well, less well-known) have their pluses, their minuses, and are worth supporting in their own way, and none at the expense of the others. IMO.

As to what is the pinnacle of the game, I guess that depends on where you're from. For most Australians and Englishmen it is still the Ashes, for South Africa probably test cricket in general, but other countries (in particular India and also the West Indies) place more emphasis on the ODI format (which, unlike test cricket has a world cup let's not forget) whilst for most of the cricketing countries, test cricket and ODI world cups are such an impossible dream that it is not unreasonable to suggest that qualifying for the T20 WC is the pinnacle as far as they are concerned.

Richie Benaud IMO (again) expresses this entirely correctly when he says (I paraphrase perhaps) that winning a 50 over or T20 World cup should be at the forefront of the objectives for any cricketer who doesn't have the ability or opportunity to play test cricket.

Anyway, back on monday.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Nothing quite that dramatic I'm afraid, but I do have a little nugget the Corporal should find interesting

It will need to be a good one to get a yes vote from me for Macartney.....

[kwinigolfer]

Mike,
I appreciate your positions on this, but my point was in the context of Packer's candidacy for the HOF.
And the ODI World Cup is just one of the staples of cricket that was in place BEFORE Packer.

I'm interested in following the various T20 competitions/World Cups and the accessibility to traditionally smaller cricketing nations, that's great. It spreads the game just as the LLWS and faux WC does for baseball, but does it change the centre of economic power of the game? Let's hope that perhaps it does, but not likely in my lifetime.

Not trying to be obtuse, but altruistic ambitions do not a seachange make.

My observations from thousands of miles away from any action suggest that Test cricket still powers the engine.

[msp83]

Its the ODIs that is the greatest revenue generator of all the formats, and T-20 leagues at the domestic level also attracts lots of investment. That in turn would also help improve the quality of test cricket by helping improve infrastructure and helping test players and first class players earn more.
Those who watched tthe 3rd match of the ongoing India England ODI series would have noted the fabulous new stadium in the home city of the Indian captain, Ranchi. Its not among traditional cricket centers. Jarkhand is a group C team in Ranji Trophy. But they have been able to find the money, and that is pretty much down to tv coverage, and the modern day mode of TV coverage of the game has taken off through Packer.
So there are many direct and indirect influences that Packer has left and I don't think an outright rejection would be fair under any circumstances.

[kwinigolfer]

Very sorry to read Matthew Engel's lovely appreciation of Frank Keating - perhaps not a cricket HOF'er but certainly represented everything best in sports writing. Sad to see him go.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I must admit that I am slightly surprised by the seeming lack of enthusiasm prompted by the candidature of Charlie Macartney. Maybe I've overdone it a bit on the pre-War Australian front . However of all the names I've put up for discussion, Macartney was one of the ones I felt most certain would gain entry to our illustrious hall.
His name is mentioned reverentially in many of the histories I read as a callow youth, when my burgeoning enthusiasm for the game was bolstered by tales of Grace and Trumper, Hobbs and Rhodes, O’Reilly, Barnes, Grimmett and Tate, McCabe and Macartney.
Almost universally acknowledged as Australia’s best, and most brilliant, batsman between the retirement of Trumper and the emergence of Bradman, he is viewed by many observers to have been as unorthodox and scintillating as the former and able to dominate an attack even more forcibly than the latter.
Although his overall figures are, perhaps, not great (though I would argue that they are, in fact, very good), it must be remembered that he began his career, primarily, as a left-arm spinner with potential with the bat (a bit like a certain Barbadian 50 years later ), and fulfilled that role pretty well, particularly against England. It must also be remembered that his career began at an early age (especially for a spin bowler), and that he didn’t play tests between the ages of 26 and 34, usually the prime years of a cricketers career.
This latter fact is all the more telling given that it was at the age of 26, in 1912, that he began to fulfill his potential with the bat. In that dreadfully wet summer he averaged 44 against England, including an innings of 99 described as the best played at Lord’s that season and, in all, scored over 2000 runs at 45. Such was his success that his exploits that season were favourably compared with those of Victor Trumper, during another wet English summer a decade earlier.
Unfortunately, before Macartney was able to build on this, war intervened. However, having served with distinction, Macartney picked up where he’d left off and, if anything, reached even greater heights. After playing in only two tests in the 1920/21 whitewash of England (due to injury) during which he played an innings of 170 which inspired a watching Don Bradman, he toured England in ‘21, and again scored over 2000 runs for the season, including 345 scored in 232 minutes against Notts, to this day the highest score made by an Australian in England and the most runs ever scored by a batsman in one day in FC cricket.
Then, in 1926, while slightly less successful overall (though he still scored 1500+ runs at 53), he scored 473 runs in the test series at 94.6, including three centuries in a row, the middle one of which included one of only 4 instances of a century before lunch on the first day in test history (and the highest score at lunch of those four), and was described by seasoned observers such as Sir Pelham Warner and Patsy Hendren as the greatest innings they had ever seen. (There you go Corporal )
Overall, after being given the settled role of number three batsman in the team in 1912, Macartney scored 1449 runs from 27 innings at an average of 60.37. Against England in the same period, that average goes up to 64.77! And he scored these runs with an attacking audacity and range of shots which caused Neville Cardus to call him “one of the three or four most brilliant stroke players of all time” who “goes down in the game's history side by side with Victor Trumper.”; the editor of Wisden to comment “an individual genius, but not in any way to be copied. He constantly did things that would be quite wrong for an ordinary batsman, but by success justified all his audacities. Except Victor Trumper at his best, no Australian batsman has ever demoralised our bowlers to the same extent.”; and A.G. ‘Johnny’ Moyes to declare “To my mind, Macartney is in the Trumper class, and, therefore, something more than merely a great batsman. He has that touch of genius which takes a man and lifts him above his fellows, and puts him on a pinnacle to which many aspire but few attain.”
But, I hear you say, the bowling attacks he faced were rubbish, and there is some truth in that, especially in 1920/1 in Australia and the 1921 series that immediately followed it. However, Macartney only played in two matches of the 20/21 series and didn't have an outstanding time in 1921. In the 1912 series, when his true skill with the bat first became apparent, he faced Barnes, Foster, Rhodes, Woolley and J.W. Hearne among others, while during his most successful series, 1926, England's bowlers included Tate, Larwood, Geary, Root, Woolley and Rhodes, which, while not the greatest attack in the history of test cricket, is certainly not the worst either.
All-in-all I believe that Macartney is an extremely strong candidate for our HoF. He is a legend of the game, particularly in Australia, where contemporaries often spoke of him in the same breath as Trumper and Bradman as the three best pre-WWII Australian batsmen. While his overall figures are, perhaps, no more than very good, his batting, from 1912 onwards, was extraordinary, no matter who the bowlers were, and he played some of the most audacious attacking innings in the history of the game. Add in the fact that he was also a highly rated bowler and fielder, particularly in his youth, that he missed possibly the prime years of his career to WWI and the 1924/5 Australian season to a rumoured nervous breakdown, and his candidature only becomes stronger IMHO.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Then, in 1926, while slightly less successful overall (though he still scored 1500+ runs at 53), he scored 473 runs in the test series at 94.6, including three centuries in a row, the middle one of which included one of only 4 instances of a century before lunch on the first day in test history (and the highest score at lunch of those four), and was described by seasoned observers such as Sir Pelham Warner and Patsy Hendren as the greatest innings they had ever seen. (There you go Corporal )

Hoggy - a well aimed jab below the guard! Tho I do have to take into account that our Patsy was a well known practical joker As well as a man of generous spirit.

[kwinigolfer]

Can't find much on Charlie Macartney that hasn't already been posted but didn't see this anecdote recalled by Ian Peebles in 1977:

A great virtuoso "in rather more aggressive mould was Charlie Macartney, who loved to late cut full tosses and half volleys. When a young Jack Fingleton walked with him to open the innings of their Sydney club for the first time the 'Governor General' tersely warned him to 'Look out for the first ball'. This injunction Fingo obeyed by making a good way down the track in anticipation of a quick single, and was nigh decapitated when the ball came straight back like a cannon shot. The striker apologised for what was an obvious misunderstanding, saying that what he had meant was that he always liked to hit the first ball straight back at the bowler's head. 'It upsets 'em,' he said."

This was in a Guardian article about "The Unorthodox Brigade" and opens with a Henry Blofeld recollection of (presumably John?) Lever "twice sweeping Jadega backhanded through the slips for four."
Apparently there were similar descriptions of Tim O'Brien doing similar for Middlesex against WG Grace's Cloucestershire, one of which "whistled past the ears of Brother EM Grace, who happened to be standing at slip."

Be that as it may, I'm having a hard time with Barlow, Macartney and Verity. Had previously said I would vote "No!" for Hedley despite my advocacy for him, but the more one reads about him the more one absorbs the respect (awe?) with which he was held by friend and foe alike.

[msp83]

Have a feeling Verity has a pretty decent case, and I haven't really come across any strong argument that could make me think too much about in terms of a no. His figures in what is regarded as a batsman's era are quite brilliant. An average of 24 with the ball, and a stunning economy rate of 1.88 in the Bradman era.
Besides, he averaged 20 with the bat, meaning a handy contributer with the bat at times, and a superb first class record as well.

[Shelsey93]

Sadly no Viv or Marshall in the GOAT wild-card round... instead we have a surfer and 2 mixed-martial artists...

[alfie]

Have been a bit busy lately so just caught up reading this topic...I see guildford thought I might be able to sum up the Australian take on Packer - not sure I am qualified to do so...
It was a long time ago , and Australian attitudes , like English ones , varied quite a lot from fan to fan , and changed over time. I think it is fair to say majority opinion was fairly anti-Packer at first , which was pretty understandable as he had not just picked the eyes out of the team as he did with England , but hijacked the whole Test team ! And since that team had just been well beaten in England a fair slice of blame was also sent Packer's way for disrupting team unity and contributing to that loss.
And of course the first season of WSC then went ahead in direct competition with the official Test series with India , which turned out to be a very close and interesting one , despite the lack of household names in the Australian side. While WSC had a lot of top performers from Australia and other places , including South African stars who were not otherwise going to be seen in Australia for political reasons , there were still many people who valued the traditional Test competition over the new venture. With an Ashes series due the next year general opinion was Packer might be in a bit of trouble...
Then came the night cricket/ coloured gear etc which effectively saved the situation for WSC...it helped that Australia was royally thumped by England in the Ashes 5-1 : there is loyalty to the Baggy Green and then there is wanting to win , usually very dear to the Australian sports fan's heart ; and the prospect of
getting the better rebels back was embraced with delight , and simultaneously changed the attitude to Packer from villain to godfather...when the dust settled and Australia started winning Test matches again the good tended to be remembered , contrary to Shakespeare's Romans , while the evil that had been done was conveniently buried.
Perhaps my cynicism is showing a bit here , but that is how I remember it.

I certainly won't deny many good things came from the revolution that Packer set off , and even if innovations may well have happened in time anyway the man who actually brought them about must still receive his due for doing so. However I do think motive must be considered central to the issue , and here I am just not convinced that Packer was acting in the interests of anyone other than himself , except in an incidental manner. Sure he did a lot for the working conditions of cricketers , but I am not sure he would have done anything so dramatic for them had the ACB agreed to his original plans ...
A significant figure in modern cricket ? Absolutely.

But not a HoF worthy person , at least for me.

[msp83]

Alfie, while what you say about Packer, that he may not have done all that he did to improve the working conditions of the players, had the administrators given in on his original demand. Perhaps yes. But the other side of the story has to be that the working conditions of the players were pathetic, and that's why they went with Packer, causing all the friction, and led to all the crimes against the game that he's said to have done. Had the working conditions of the players been good, not many of the better players would have gone in with Packer. So, I think the so called crimes against the game have to be viewed in a larger perspectives.

[kwinigolfer]

msp,
But conditions for almost ALL professional sportsmen in the mid-seventies "were pathetic" compared to the 21st Century.


Regardless, three difficult votes here and two straightforward:

Ponting: YES!
Verity: Yes!

Packer: NEVER!
Macartney: No!
Barlow: No!

Very sympathetic to yes votes for both Charlie and Eddie but there are several more deserving candidates still on the outside, so first things first.

[msp83]

I don't think Barlow's case is that strong, but guildford had promissed to do some followup, and I am holding on. and I have my reservations on Macartney.
Ponting's got to go through, as for Verity, I see no reason as to why he shouldn't be there either.
Packer is an interesting one, I don't think he has often got a fair deal from the establishment, or even large sections of the supporters of the game. As alfie said, a very significant figure in modern cricket who is certainly due some serious credit, but all that we seem to be geting is a whole range of what ifs and if nots. Haven't taken a call on him as of now though.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I have my reservations on Macartney.

Let me know what they are and I'll try to address them

[msp83]

I have my reservations on Macartney.

Let me know what they are and I'll try to address them

Hogy, think I've already done a lot of that. I have concerns regarding his overall record. Of course I see your point that after 1912 he had a fine record with the bat, he had the WWI in between during what could have been the peak of his career..... I also see he was a batsman who challenged convention.
But then as I said, the bowling he faced up to in the 1920s wasn't all that great, the batsman's era was pretty much on, and most importantly, we have rejected some other major names who's overall record was much better, the likes of Boycott, Ian Chappell.......

[msp83]

And we haven't given a first time pass to Ponsford either.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Msp
I think the thing that lifts Macartney above the likes of Ponsford, (or Chappell or Boycott), is the brilliance of his batting and the way in which he was able to take attacks apart. Non of the palyers you mention have been eulogised in the way that Macartney was.
As for the bowling he faced after becoming a main batsman being weak, as I've pointed out, that's really only true of the 20/21 and 1921 series. Certainly in 1912 he faced a very good English attack, and in 1926 England were, according to a number of contemporary writers, in the middle of a new 'Golden Age'.
Macartney averaged 64 in games against England from 1912 onwards. Only two other Aussies averaged 50+ in that period. Warwick Armstrong, who only played against the weakest English attacks in 20/21 and 1921 (avge 56), and Bill Woodfull who averaged 51 in the 1926 series (when Macartney averaged 94). If that period constituted such a great time for batsman, and if English attacks truly were consistently weak, wouldn't other Australian batsmen also have had huge averages?
Fact is that, from 1912, Macartney scored more runs, at a much higher average, than any other Australian batsman who played regularly throughout that period. And he made those runs in a manner that few batsmen in the history of cricket have matched.
As for his overall figures, I'd argue that they're pretty good. Only two men in test history, who've taken more than one wicket per test, have averaged over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball. Macartney and Aubrey Faulkner and, while Faulkner was the better bowler of the two, I don't think anyone (particularly not contemporaries) would argue that he was as good a batsman as Macartney.
So, post 1912, as a major batsman, he has phenomenal figures which outstrip any of his colleagues (or the likes of Ponsford, Chappell etc), and overall his figures are pretty good, at the very least.
So a great record and an attacking brilliance that has rarely been matched and which has made him a legend of the game. For me that should be enough to get him into the HoF.

[guildfordbat]

As for his overall figures, I'd argue that they're pretty good. Only two men in test history, who've taken more than one wicket per test, have averaged over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball. Macartney and Aubrey Faulkner ...

There has been one other. Eddie Barlow.

For two years after he played his last ever Test in 1970, Eddie Barlow averaged 44.83 with the bat and 29.30 with the ball.

The above includes his 30 Tests for South Africa between 1961 and 1970 and his 5 Tests for Rest of the World against England in summer 1970.

Then in 1972 the ICC reneged on previous assurances and retrospectively withdrew Test status from the Rest of the World series. Those five matches were totally wiped from the record books and no one suffered more than Barlow who had played every game and performed so well. He had taken 20 wickets at 19.8 each including three fivefers and a hat trick. Whilst his batting wasn't at its best (he averaged just under 40 from his nine innings), he still managed two centuries and a seventy odd.

The 1970 Rest of the World series replaced the scheduled tour of this country by South Africa which was cancelled in protest at the apartheid regime. The Rest of the World side were capatained by Garry Sobers who agreed to do so on condition that Test status be granted by the ICC which they duly did at the time. Accordingly, the matches were advertised as Tests, tickets were sold on that basis and spectators watched what they understood were Test matches. Alan Jones of Glamorgan played his only match for England in that series and was given a Test cap and blazer.

The Rest of the World side comprised very fine players from South Africa, West Indies, India, Australia and Pakistan including Barry Richards, Rohan Kanhai, Graeme Pollock, Mushtaq Mohammed, Farouk Engineer, Mike Procter, Peter Pollock, Garth McKenzie and Lance Gibbs as well as Sobers and Barlow. It most certainly was not Sobers plus a couple of has beens and a bunch of kids. The Rest of the World were a top side who took the matches very seriously. They won the series 4-1 although England played well and were unlucky not to emerge with a couple of victories. The cricket played by both teams was of a high quality thoughout a competitive and engrossing series.

The above is intended to show the injustice of Test status being retospectively withdrawn from a splendid series and the consequences, some harsh and some downright nonsensical, for some involved. Alan Jones still has his Test cap and blazer awarded to him for making his Test debut even though he now never played a single Test match. Eddie Barlow now never took a Test match hat trick although thousands witnessed him do so at the time. Whilst the record books at the end of 1970 showed eight Test centuries and 60 Test wickets to Eddie Barlow's name, those figures had reduced to six and 40 by the end of 1972.

The 1970 series sold me and several of my friends a lifetime of cricket interest. Unlike the ICC, I will never turn my back on that Rest of the World side and probably their best player of that summer.

Add to that many stories of Eddie Barlow's infectious enthusiasm, his impressive slip catching, more than decent record for South Africa and, post playing, his coaching in Bangladesh and, even later despite serious illness, in Wales.

Hall of Fame? Maybe not one of our very greatest even when allowing for his Rest of the World performances but I believe one of the most worthy and deserving.

[msp83]

Hoggy, Macartney's style of playing was most certainly attractive. But at the same time someone like Boycott, who put so high a price on his wicket, (perhaps no other batsman in the history of the game would have put such a price on his wicket), has to be equally valuable. And of course he played in different conditions, against a number of quality bowlers. I wasn't around on the Boycott debate, but I would have certainly voted yes for him.
Ian Chappell was a decent batsman and from what I've read, was less naturally gifted, but was really hardworking. And he was a pretty good captain as well.
What about the additional box for Macartney? Anything interesting in terms of his contribution to the game after his playing career?

[Hoggy_Bear]

@Guildford
Must admit that I actually wondered about Barlow and the phanton 'missing' tests of 1970 as I wrote that . I actually think Barlow has a decent case. Not as good as that of Ponting, Verity and Macartney, but still decent.

@msp
As far as I'm aware, Macartney didn't do any coaching after his career had ended, but during it, he can certainly be seen to have helped spread the gospel of cricket. He played in Otago, toured America and Canada in 1913, Singapore and Malaysia in 1927, and India in 1935, when he was almost 50 years old, a tour that saw Australia's first international matches against India.

[alfie]

msp : maybe there isn't an "extra box" for Macartney ...but do we need one ? Record , contemporary opinion ...

Chapell and Boycott were both dismissed (wrongly in my opinion) for what was felt by a majority of contributors to be character flaws. There are no such charges against Macartney , so if all else is equal , isn't he a straight yes ?

[guildfordbat]

Alfie - firstly, hope the knees are behaving after your sixfer.

Secondly, excellent piece the other day on Packer.

With regard to Macartney, msp's comparison was with Ian Chappell and his exclusion from our HoF on cricketing grounds rather than brother Greg's initial exclusion for questionable conduct.

Alfie and Hoggy - I do tend to side with msp about Macartney and feel doubts about his record are justified.

His overall batting average is on the low side for a Hall of Famer and even that was boosted by three centuries in his last four Tests. I'm all for turning a blind eye when a player was picked too young or went on too long but we do seem to have to overlook a lot (almost all of Macartney's pre WW1 Test career) to make a strong case.

Without wishing to dismiss the horrors of world wars and their effects, just a brief mention about implications from a cricketing perspective on HoF nominees. We nearly always say how much more successful a player would have been had war not intervened. I am sure that is nearly always right; certainly Hedley Verity appeared a model of consistency and reliability - I would have fully expected his career to continue on the same successful path had he not been struck down in WWII. However, I am not sure that would have been the case for every single player. One player I feel less confident about is Macartney. Certainly by the high standards of the HoF, Macartney was far from earth shattering up until 1912 and would never have been nominated on that record alone. The lengthy break for WWI effectively divided Macartney's career into two parts and in some ways provided him - in modern parlance - with the opportunity to reinvent his main game from 1920 onwards. Had there been no world war, would Macartney have been persevered with so long and had that opportunity? I don't know and that is really my point.

As a bowler, Macartney's Test average is certainly respectable. However, he hardly took a shedload of Test wickets averaging just one wicket in each innings in which he bowled. I appreciate it's primarily his batting that is the reason for his nomination. I'm just saying that the bowling doesn't do him any harm but equally isn't a particularly strong supporting pillar.

The above isn't intended to be a comprehensive overview of Macartney. As usual Hoggy has presented us with a figure from the distant past who is more than worthy of consideration. I particularly note the supportive views of Macartney's contemporaries. I do though have issues as reflected above.

PS And take this as serious or not as you wish, I wonder if posters who objected to Larwood on 'moral grounds' for attempting to hit the batsman, will take a similar view about Macartney attempting to hit the ball back at the bowler's head?

[kwinigolfer]

I rather thought that was a positive!
Great skill and, presumably, improvisation to adjust in time, every time!, to threaten to knock the bowler's block off.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford
I appreciate your concerns regarding Macartney, and they are difficult to adress. As you point out, how do we know that Macartney would have continued to flourish as a batsman post 1912 if war had not intervened?
All I would say is that 1912 appears to have been something of an epiphany for Macartney in terms of realising the potential with the bat that he was always thought to have. Whether he'd have continued to flourish is difficult to know. What we do know is that, in the cricket that was played from 1912 until his retirement, he was undoubtedly Australia's and, (possibly excepting Jack Hobbs), the world's best batsman.
OK, it took him a while to realise his full potential. But when he did he produced some of the best results and greatest innings in the game's history. To have contemporaries bracket him with Trumper, given the veneration that existed for Victor, shows that they had no doubt as to his standing as an all-time great. For me that's enough to overlook the somewhat modest start to his career and to focus on his years of undoubted greatness.

[guildfordbat]

All I would say is that 1912 appears to have been something of an epiphany for Macartney in terms of realising the potential with the bat that he was always thought to have. Whether he'd have continued to flourish is difficult to know. What we do know is that, in the cricket that was played from 1912 until his retirement, he was undoubtedly Australia's and, (possibly excepting Jack Hobbs), the world's best batsman.

Hoggy - one issue I still have is there wasn't that much Test cricket played by Macartney after the end of WW1 (effectively 1920 for Test purposes) and his retirement in 1927. 9 Tests played between December 1920 and November 1921 and 5 Tests played in England in the summer of 1926.

Was it illness and injury keeping him out from late 1921 until summer 1926? A shame if so. Whatever the answer, I accept one stellar calendar year and one stellar English summer some years later. However, I do feel the period of his post WW1 dominance is in danger of being overegged when that contained over four and a half years when he never played Test cricket.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford
Macartney only missed one series played by Australia, from 1920 to his retirement. The 1924/5 Ashes, when, so it is rumoured, he was suffering from a nervous breakdown.
As for having just 1 stellar year, that's possibly true at test level, but looking at his FC stats shows that post WWI he scored 7461 runs, from 145 innings at an average of 55.68 with 27 centuries.
If you take his FC stats from his 'epiphany' in England in 1912, he scored 11886 runs from 221 innings at 57.42 with 43 100s.
To me that shows a level of consistent excellence which suggests that his success at test level during that period was not merely a flash in the pan.

[Shelsey93]

Voting will close a day later than planned - 9am on Monday.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

In which case....

Similar to Kwini:

Ponting YES - clear cut
Verity YES - clear cut

Packer NO - clear cut - even tho my views on him have mellowed quite a bit over the years.
Barlow NO - strong player but even the fact that he coached a v2 poster isn't quite enough for me.
Macartney - NO - near miss. much as the positive views of Hendren weighed in his favour.

[Leff]

Ponting: YES

Verity: NO
Packer: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO
Barlow: NO
Macartney: NO

[Leff]

I would like to nominate ANIL KUMBLE for one of the future ballots.

Surprised he has not been considered so far.

Played 132 tests, 619 wickets (3rd highest tally in test cricket history) at an average of 29.6 (same as Gibbs), won more test matches for his country than any other bowler (Cricinfo bio says so), took all 10 wickets in an inning.

Has a test century at the Oval (heard he sent a message to Warne as soon as he did)!

[kwinigolfer]

Leff,
He has been.
Go back a few pages and you'll find vigorous debate.

PS:
Hope you're in Phoenix following Phil!

[Leff]

Gibbs got in, but Kumble wasn't worthy?!!

I am in my Fla home this weekend, but following and supporting Phil. He can't lose from this point.

[kwinigolfer]

Hope you're right about Phil

[msp83]

I would like to nominate ANIL KUMBLE for one of the future ballots.

Surprised he has not been considered so far.

Played 132 tests, 619 wickets (3rd highest tally in test cricket history) at an average of 29.6 (same as Gibbs), won more test matches for his country than any other bowler (Cricinfo bio says so), took all 10 wickets in an inning.

Has a test century at the Oval (heard he sent a message to Warne as soon as he did)!

I had put forward Kumble's name, it was considered, and he got in in the first round itself. Nice to see further support for Jumbo though!.

[Leff]

msp, Why did I not see him on the list? I will go back and look again.

[msp83]

Here we go, my votes for this round.
Ricky Ponting yes. Not the most likable character in my view, one of the best batsmen of his generation though.
Kerry Packer yes, perhaps I'll be the only one, and I can understand him not making it, but I hope people would take a more closer look at Packer rather than just outright rejection.
Headly Verity yes. Did a terrific job with the ball in an era where the bat really dominated.
Charley Macartney no. Hoggy made a very interesting case, its doubtless he was a fine player. But I feel he doesn't have the kind of record of the HoF level, particularly considering some of the high profile rejections in the past.
Eddie Barlow no. Was a pretty good player, but not convinced he had done enough to make it to the HoF with his record, and although he's well rated as a coach, he couldn't make much of an impact at the international level as he had his health problems.

[msp83]

msp, Why did I not see him on the list? I will go back and look again.

Perhaps the recent additions haven't been added to the list.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Right, as i'm unlikely to further persuade anyone as to the merits of Charles George Macartney's case at this late stage, I'll add my votes.

Ponting-Yes Great batsman, very good captain, no brainer.

Verity-Yes Very good test record in a period that was not kind to bowlers. Stunning FC stats. Great character.

Macartney-Yes One of the most brilliant attacking batsman of all-time

Barlow-Yes Just. Actually think Barlow's test record is pretty good, especially when you take into account the ROW vs. England series. Add in his coching and the respect for him within South African cricket, and I feel that he's worthy of a place

Packer-No Just. I think Packer did help the development of the game, especially in terms of the treatment of players, but don't think that he particularly intended to develop the game or that he did so to a great enough extent to warrant a place in our hall.

[Shelsey93]

msp, Why did I not see him on the list? I will go back and look again.

I haven't updated the list for a few weeks. Hopefully I'll have time to do it this week, but its a bit labour intensive so no guarantees

[guildfordbat]

My votes.

Edgar Barlow - we know from JDizzle that Eddie was a quiet and unassuming man. I would like to celebrate his successes. As well as his playing success over almost a decade for South Africa and his coaching work for Bangladesh, his performances for the Rest of the World in 1970 were staggering. That 1970 series was truly wonderful and merits representation in our HoF. Eddie Barlow would be the pefect representative. YES.

Charlie Macartney - a good case as ever made by our resident historian. However, for me, his overall record is slightly lacking and his periods of dominance too fragmented. Would still have loved to have watched him. NO.

Kerry Packer - a better debate than I feared. However, too much is still doubtful or unknown and probably always will be. I can't grant admittance on that basis. NO.

Ricky Ponting - an exceptional batsman which certainly qualifies him. I'm not so sold on his captaincy capabilities as Mike and Hoggy but that's irrelevant to my vote. Spats with the likes of Garry Pratt are also a non issue for me and merely reflect a necessary competive edge (very different from an issue with another Aussie posted to death). YES.

Hedley Verity - feel he got an easy ride on this thread. Might have been interesting if someone had chosen to play devil's advocate. That said, his Test and first class records are very good to outstanding. His name also regularly cropped up when I researched the case for Titmus and received more than honourable mentions. A leader in many ways. YES.

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - if not inconvenient for you, might be helpful to extend this voting deadline a bit further and have other ones on a week day when more posters seem to be settled behind keyboards.
Just a thought. Appreciate it's far easier to make a comment than run the show.

[Shelsey93]

Shelsey - if not inconvenient for you, might be helpful to extend this voting deadline a bit further and have other ones on a week day when more posters seem to be settled behind keyboards.
Just a thought. Appreciate it's far easier to make a comment than run the show.

Normally it is easier for me to collate things on a Sunday.

Recently, perhaps because of less exciting candidates and perhaps because a few of us who usually post a lot have been quite busy (and thus unable to do much research for this) the debates haven't been developing quite as I'd have hoped.

However, from past experience two weeks should be enough to have a lot of debate, and get votes in comfortably in time.

Taking what you say into account I won't count up votes until later on tomorrow (about 4pm probably) to allow any stragglers, probably myself included, to get a vote in. Hopefully we can then go forward with some livelier debates from then...

As ever, if anybody has any comments/ ideas please say. It isn't my intention to run this as a dictator!

[alfie]

Better make sure I beat the deadline , wherever it ends up

Ponting ...obvious YES
Verity .... as guildford pointed out , perhaps given an easy ride here...but I think his record and reputation are enough to make him a pretty sound YES
Macartney ...I have already done my best to back up Hoggy on this thread , so no surprise I am voting YES for this legendary Australian entertainer.
Barlow ... Tricky. Perhaps he is a bit borderline , like many others his career at Test level limited by political issues - but his record in his thirty or so Tests was pretty good. I think he would have done pretty well in the modern era : his trademark shot , the deliberate steer over slips heads , shows a readiness to improvise that would surely have made him a success at the shorter forms of the game as well as the five day version. A very handy allrounder , a modern South African pioneer , and as has been mentioned above , a dedicated coach after retirement. Hope he at least makes the repachage...YES

Packer ...made my feelings known already . Not calling him the devil , but still voting NO.

[Shelsey93]

OK. My votes and the results. Sorry for running this terribly for the last two weeks: lack of time, and probably a bit of laziness too. I'll endeavour to get things back on track in the coming set.

Ponting - A pretty routine YES. I think the idea that he is the 'best since Bradman' or even the 'best Australian since Bradman' might need some reassessment, but he gets into the HoF easily.

Verity - I'm going to say NO. I see him as another pre-war domestic superstar, but I think we've already got a fair few of those with even better cases, particularly given that Verity played before the Second World War, where I have serious questions about the standard of the FC game. His Test record is very good, but he only took 5 wickets in an innings 5 times, suggesting he was more Mr. Consistency than Mr. Destruction. That he died in the war is a terrible tragedy, and no doubt robbed him of many wickets. But with a 38 year-old its far too presumptious to just add those to his tally.

Packer - No real convincing case in his favour was built. Don't think he actively sought to change the game, and I'd even contest the notion that the WSC changes were quite as revolutionary as he makes out. NO.

Macartney - Very well built case by Hoggy, and I think he's been harshly treated on here compared to Verity. A YES for a genuine great of his generation.

Barlow - NO. I'd argue that he falls a fair way below HoF level. Of all the South Africans to miss out because of Apartheid, I think his case is less convincing than a few others we're yet to look at: Proctor, van der Bijl etc.

Results:

Ponting - 8 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Verity - 6 Yes, 2 No = 75%
Packer - 1 Yes, 7 No = 12.5%
Macartney - 3 Yes, 5 No = 37.5%
Barlow - 3 Yes, 5 No = 37.5%

So Ponting and Verity through, with the rest missing out.

4 candidates in the next group:

Athol Rowan (nominated by Hoggy_Bear)
Simon Taufel (nominated by Shelsey93)
Mike Procter (nominated by Biltong)
Allan Donald (nominated by Biltong)

[msp83]

Shelsey Verity played after the first world war, and before the 2nd one.
For the fresh round, I start with a favorable position for Allan Donald.
Don't know much about Athol Rowan, holding on for Hoggies case, and I shall do some research at my end.
Simon Taufel has been a superb umpire, and should make an excellent debate. Procter's test career didn't really get going, hugely impressive his start though was.

[Sponsored content]