The v2Forum Cricket Hall of Fame discussion thread - Part 4

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

First topic message reminder :

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

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

FoF's original HoF debate summation:

Spoiler:

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

[kwinigolfer]

Shelsey,
Although I put Verity up for consideration I, too, initially had misgivings - the relative shortness of his career, first class and Test, and his full body of work.
Surprised myself upon doing some more research and eventually felt he more than merited inclusion.
As msp states, and I certainly hope I did earlier, his career was, simplistically, the 1930's and, although he died at 38, his career was abruptly terminated at 34 when he was undoubtedly still on top of his game.
His fine record against Bradman (more Test dismissals of the "Don" than any other bowler, I believe), and the respect with which he was held by teammates and opposition (including Bradman) alike, ultimately persuaded me that he belongs.

PS: Much appreciate your role as the "Curator" of the HOF

[Hoggy_Bear]

Ponting was always going to be a shoe-in, and quite rightly. Glad to see Hedley get in. At least as good a bowler IMHO, as the likes of Underwood, Kumble or Gibbs.
Dissappointed to see Macartney miss out completely, but can understand it. Brilliant, but perhaps not for long enough, unlike someone like Harold Larwood for example. (Sorry, couldn't resist )
Anyway, for this round I've moved on from pre-war Australian's, to an obscure, slightly post-war South African, but one who I feel (and I may be alone in this), demonstrates many qualities that should make him a Hall of Famer.
So, without further ado, let's get this party started:

Athol Rowan
Athol Rowan played virtually his whole career suffering from an injury to his left knee which John Arlott called not only "the heaviest physical handicap any Test player has carried” but also “a psychological check which he had to overcome every time he bowled a ball."
The injury, caused by a mortar explosion during training in WWII, meant that Rowan constantly bowled in pain, was unable to place his full weight on his front foot and often had to bowl in a leg brace in order to support his injured limb. Given this the fact that he managed to have a first-class career at all is amazing. The fact that he managed to take 273 first-class wickets at 23.47 from only 58 matches, Len Hutton’s wicket 11 times (and it should really have been 12) in the 24 test innings that he played against him, and that he was regarded as one of the best off-spinners in the world, is nigh on miraculous.
Originally a seam bowler, the injury caused him to swap to off-spin but he kept something like his seam bowlers grip, with his fingers alongside the seam rather than across it. This enabled him to bowl a little faster than average finger spinners and to extract more bounce, and made his ‘arm’ ball difficult to detect. It didn’t mean he couldn’t spin it though. Jackie McGlew an ex-team mate of Rowan’s and an ex-test captain recalled that on a receptive pitch Rowan could turn the ball sideways. This, allied with his ability to extract bounce, could lead to “times when the ball would turn and kick so sharply at right angles that it was capable of lifting over the left shoulder of a right-hand batsman."
Having said this, Rowan’s test stats, at first glance, are rather unimpressive. Again however, the figures need to be looked at in a bit more context. Throughout his test career, South Africa’s bowling attack was relatively weak with only Rowan and ‘Tufty’ Mann being top class. As the more attacking bowler, this meant that Rowan had to be both spearhead and stock bowler a lot of the time.
His ability as an attacking bowler can be seen in his 5/68 to help win the first test at Trent Bridge in 1951,or his match figures of 15/68 (including 9/19 in the first innings) in the match for Transvaal against the Australians in 1949 (a match in which he further aggravated his injury meaning that he missed the test series against the Aussies which, according to Lindsay Hassett, made South Africa a lot less dangerous prospect).
As a stock bowler his abilities are perhaps best illustrated by his bowling at Port Elizabeth in 1949 where he bowled almost unchanged to record figures of 60-9-167-5, of which his skipper of the time, Dudley Nourse, wrote “It had to be seen to be appreciated. As I called on his reserve of energy he unfailingly gave of his best without ever a murmur.” Another example of Rowan’s ability to keep going came at Leeds in 1947 when, according to Arlott “in an atmosphere like a steam chamber he bowled unrelieved for three and a half hours on that batsman's wicket to yield only 89 runs to Hutton, Washbrook, Charlie Barnett, Bill Edrich and Compton . . . he earned all the five wickets that fell; he took only one.”
His body couldn’t stand up to such punishment for long however. He had endured seven operations on knee and leg when he made his last tour to England in 1951. According to Arlott, he thought he would never get past the second Test, at Lord's, but by packing his knee in a parcel of cotton wool and plaster he made it to the last, at the Oval, where he ensured his place in history when Hutton, sweeping, lobbed up the ball and then swatted at the ball, thinking it might fall on his stumps, as Russell Endean moved round to take the catch. Hutton became the only Test batsman to be given out for obstructing the field. (Thus denying Rowan the chance to take his wicket for the 12th time)
Rowan dismissed Peter May next ball but England won comfortably, Rowan dragged himself off the field "alone and quietly", saying to Arlott as he passed: "I shall never play again."
His replacement was Hugh Tayfield, who went on to become South Africa’s most successful spinner. But many shrewd judges, including Compton, Hassett, McGlew and Hutton (who rated him almost as highly as Laker), thought Rowan at least Tayfield’s equal. John Arlott declared that, at the time of his retirement, Athol Rowan was the best off-spinner in the world.
Brave, determined, stoic, quiet, unassuming and highly skilled. Surely a deserving candidate for entry to our HoF?

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - great start on Athol Rowan. I instinctively warm to his determination and fortitude.

I haven't done any research yet so can I please ask a few things of you now:

* I gather he played a little before WWII and his dreadful injury. How did he get on then?

* Post injury, how on earth did he manage fielding and batting (in particular, running singles)?

* Do you have any of your usual type quotes for this nominee? His courage is not in doubt for me so I don't particularly need anything along those lines. I'm more interested in views on his cricketing ability (appreciate probably not that easy to separate for Rowan). Did others consider he left a legacy for Tayfield? Do you?

* What became of him once he stopped playing?

Thanks.

[alfie]

Must confess I know little about Rowan , apart from his part in the Hutton obstructing the field incident. But Hoggy has stirred my interest here so I'll see if I can dredge anything up.

[Biltong]

Alan Donald.

Alan Donald made his first class debut on 11 March 2004, near enough 8 years before he would make his debut for the Proteas against the West Indies in 1992.

His debut match at first class was a far cry from the performances he would ultimately deliver for South Africa in the test arena. Match figures of 25 overs for a hundred runs and only one wicket would have forgiven the purists to be mislead by the man who would become "White Lightning"

If there was one truth about the man, then it was the fact that during those initial years of South Africa's return they had no real partner for Alan Donald. He often stood alone and ultimately it was also his demise as he was often over bowled, injuries eventually shortened his career, but he will forever be known and loved as South Africa's first ever modern day "paceman"

In a career with many highlights, none stands out more for me than his infamous duel with Mike Atherton in 1998 when he bowled the most memorable spell of fast bowling I have ever witnessed.

In a career of only 72 tests, he has taken 330 wickets at an average of 22.25, a strike rate of 47 including 20 five wicket hauls and three 10 wicket hauls.

Had Donald started his career four years earlier at the age of 24 rather than the age of 28, Donald might have played an additional 30-40 test matches and could have been member of the 500 wicket club.

Donald was Hansie Cronje's go to man, whenever South Africa needed a wicket, Donald would inevitably be the man to deliver. His talents didn't stop at test cricket though, having also played in 164 ODI's taking 272 wickets at an average of 21.78 and a strike rate of 31.4, effectively meaning if donald were to bowl 10 overs, he would get 2 wickets per innings in 9 out of 10 matches.

South Africans still romanticise about Donald, we respect Dale Steyn for his clinical effeciency, but Donald as an icon stands alone.

For me a resounding YEAH.

[Stella]

Goud write up Biltong. A yes from me as well and those ODI stats are something else.

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey,
Although I put Verity up for consideration I, too, initially had misgivings - the relative shortness of his career, first class and Test, and his full body of work.

Kwini - your 'initial misgivings' on Hedley Verity were like tumultuous applause compared to Biltong's assessment of Eddlie Barlow.

Biltong ran poor Eddie's name up the flagpole and then took an axe to that same pole!

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford
Just to go through your points, as best I can.
1)Before WWII, in the 1939-40 season he took 19 wickets at 18.
2)Don't know about quick singles (though he was no mug with the bat), but I do remember a quote from John Arlott which was something along the lines of "Through dedication and hard work, he managed to field with shambling, k-legged speed. But SPEED"
3)A number of quotes can be found regarding his ability. Jackie McGlew said "He was the equal of Hugh Tayfield, especially on a turning pitch where he could spin the ball sideways,"
Len Hutton wrote in his auto biography Fifty Years in Cricket "Athol Rowan, as an off-spinner, was second only to Laker"
Both Denis Compton and Hutton said "They knew which one they prefferred to face", after Hugh Tayfield was brought over as reserve in 1951. And it wasn't Rowan. Denis Compton also said, in one of his autobiographies, how 'Australian like' as a bowler Rowan was.
Regarding Rowan's ability to spin the ball and get bounce from a pitch, an ex club teammate of Rowan's said of him: "At Jeppe [Old Boys] we used to practice on an old concrete tennis court and we would always rather face Neil Adcock than Athol.....If you stood at silly mid-off you could actually hear the ball fizz. It would hit the concrete and sh!t, would it bounce"
4) As far as I know Rowan quit cricket altogether when he retired.
Just two interesting asides:
Apparently Athol Rowan had an extreme phobia of the number 13 and especially Friday 13th when, so it is reported, he would, if possible, spend the entire day in bed.
His record for the Jeppe School 1st XI read:
Innings 12; Not out 5; Highest score 186; Aggregate 1199; Average 171.28
Overs 140.4; maidens 37; Runs 355; Wickets 46; Average 7.71.

[kwinigolfer]

I think Barlow is the most problematic to assess of all the candidates so far.

Difficult to doubt the likelihood that, had he chosen the Proctor/Richards route to financial security by taking his excellence around the World, he would have embellished his credentials. But he didn't, and when he finally came to Derbyshire he was almost of a different generation to those he played with.
The curious disparity between his Test and first-class records was an anomaly I didn't really understand.

Probably more undone by politics than any other candidate to have been considered.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Forgot to add in my last post that Ashley Mallett, in his Greatest Eleven of the 20th Century decides that he want an off-spinner to compliment the chosed leggie (Bill O'Reilly) and narrows the field down to Jim Laker, Hugh Tayfield, Lance Gibbs, Erapally Prassana and Athol Rowan.
While he eventually chooses Laker the inclusion of Rowan in the top 5 off-spinners of the 20th century, by someone who was a pretty good spin bowler himself, is quite a compliment.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - thanks for the extra details. More than useful and much appreciated.

Lots of cricketing and personal pluses for Athol Rowan.

Probably the biggest obstacle to him gaining admittance to our HoF - certainly for me - is his Test bowling average around 38. I'm conscious (and, no doubt, msp will be as well!) that I declined the handicapped Tiger Pataudi due particularly to his playing record. I know it will ultimately be for me alone to make a view on Rowan but do you have any thoughts on that at this early stage?

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

This should be an interesting round, looking forward to reading the debate (though I'm off to New Zealand for 3 weeks holiday next Monday, so I'll apologise in advance in case I don't manage to vote)

Donald I think will be a pretty straightforward YES. Probably Taufel too, though I'd like to read some debate either way.

South Africa's isolation may count against Pollock, and I'm interested to read more about Rowan.

[Biltong]

Shelsey,
Although I put Verity up for consideration I, too, initially had misgivings - the relative shortness of his career, first class and Test, and his full body of work.

Kwini - your 'initial misgivings' on Hedley Verity were like tumultuous applause compared to Biltong's assessment of Eddlie Barlow.

Biltong ran poor Eddie's name up the flagpole and then took an axe to that same pole!

I did, didn't I?

I thought lets get the names out of those South Africans who would have had their careers curtailed by our isolation and then we can analyse and discuss them, unfortunately I feel to have any credibility in my votes I need to be objective about my countrymen, otherwise I am not bringing anything constructive to the debate and after careful consideration Barlow just didn't. Cut it for me.

[guildfordbat]

Biltong - your approach is admirable. I just wish you could have started with someone other than poor Eddlie Barlow.

If it hadn't been for bad luck, Eddie would have had no luck at all! If he had been out in the streets of Pretoria when it was raining soup, you can bet your last rand than Eddie would have been carrying a knife and fork!

Not only did he lose the last years of his Test career due to the apartheid ban but he also had his stats from his best ever Test series shamefully wiped from the record books. Then with a successful coaching career opening up to him, he was struck down by serious illness and was reduced to the role of 'some old bloke' who helped out with the coaching of our own JDizzle in Wales.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hoggy - thanks for the extra details. More than useful and much appreciated.

Lots of cricketing and personal pluses for Athol Rowan.

Probably the biggest obstacle to him gaining admittance to our HoF - certainly for me - is his Test bowling average around 38. I'm conscious (and, no doubt, msp will be as well!) that I declined the handicapped Tiger Pataudi due particularly to his playing record. I know it will ultimately be for me alone to make a view on Rowan but do you have any thoughts on that at this early stage?

Guildford
As I alluded to in my opening argument, when looking at Rowan's record, I think you have to view it in the context of the bowling attack in which he played.
Of course, being a strong cogg in an otherwise weak attack can be beneficial in terms of allowing you to take a higher proportion of wickets, but it also means bowling lots of overs in conditions that are not conducive to your style, a issue that effects spin bowlers even more than seamers IMO. Add in the fact that, while stronger than it's bowling, South Africa's batting was not on a par with Australia or England and you have a situation whereby Rowan bowled a lot more in the first or second innings of a match than he did in the third or fourth. Thus, bowling in the first two innings, he bowled 3774 deliveries taking 34 wickets at 44.11, mainly on wickets which would probably not have suited him in any way, but on 3rd and 4th wicket pitches, which probably offered him more, he only got to bowl 1409 deliveries, taking 20 wickets at 29.2. Again, not stunning figures, but even 3rd and 4th innings pitches didn't always suit him. If, like Tayfield after him, he'd had a Heine or Adcock (or both) to take the shine off the new ball, blasting out a few top order batsmen on the way, and to share the bowling on less responsive pitches, he'd probably have had a much better record.

[msp83]

Have done some early research on Athol Rowan, and Hoggy's case certainly help. A very interesting case I have to say.
But as guildford said, I certainly remember how most of us treated the case of Pataudi, and for that matter my own positon on Fred Titmus. Rowan's average of 38 and a strike rate of 96 are major concerns, as is the rather limited number of test matches he played, although the injuries certainly did their part in it.

[guildfordbat]

Have done some early research on Athol Rowan, and Hoggy's case certainly help. A very interesting case I have to say.
But as guildford said, I certainly remember how most of us treated the case of Pataudi, and for that matter my own positon on Fred Titmus. Rowan's average of 38 and a strike rate of 96 are major concerns, as is the rather limited number of test matches he played, although the injuries certainly did their part in it.

Biltong - this is another way to do it. Play the nice guy and, when no one is looking, give the axe to msp and point him in the direction of the flagpole!

Hoggy - thanks for your last post. A decent answer. I like and appreciate the case although msp has expanded on my concern. Another tricky one.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Hoggy - Good write up for Athol Rowan. Certain comparisons with Pataudi - with figures that were useful but some considerable way short of HoF standing. In Tiger's case I remain astonished at how well he could bat with sight in only one eye. In Rowan's case its more the effect of debilitating pain and restriction on physical prowess - remarkable that a man could show that degree of courage, determination and skill.

It's difficult to say where that would leave my likely vote on him. It seems a bit immaterial - much more important to be keeping the memory alive of his exploits.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - Good write up for Athol Rowan. Certain comparisons with Pataudi - with figures that were useful but some considerable way short of HoF standing. In Tiger's case I remain astonished at how well he could bat with sight in only one eye. In Rowan's case its more the effect of debilitating pain and restriction on physical prowess - remarkable that a man could show that degree of courage, determination and skill.

It's difficult to say where that would leave my likely vote on him. It seems a bit immaterial - much more important to be keeping the memory alive of his exploits.

Evening Corporal - early days but I suspect your final point gives a steer for my vote. Our Hall of Fame shouldn't be just a preserve of outstanding stats.

[kwinigolfer]

Athol Rowan.
Only John Arlott's "Favourite Cricketers" on my bookshelf helps me here, but I found this obit in The Independent, written by Derek Hodgson.

Hoggy has many of the same quotes so apologies for repetition, but the context and perspective makes it worth reading:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-athol-rowan-1149400.html

Regarding Arlott's book, he has 25 little essays about his 25 "favourite cricketers" almost a hall of fame in its own right:
Mead, Brown, Harrison, Shackleton, Marshall, Burden, Sainsbury, White, Richards, Roberts etc.
For Athol Rowan to have earned Arlott's respect on the same lofty pedestal is high praise indeed

[msp83]

On Mike Procter.
His test stats particularly with the ball are brilliant. He had an extended first class career, where his batting record is pretty decent, and bowling record exceptional.
He was an ICC match referee, and a former convener of the South African national selection pannel.
Now the other side is that he had a very short test career, although external factors had everything to do with that. Although his first class record is good, the intensity would be quite different. How did sides such as Rodeasia match up at the first class level, I have not much of an idea.
As an ICC match referee, Procter had to go through some controversial moments, with Oval 2006 and the Sydneygate being the most prominent ones.

[Hoggy_Bear]

From having seen Proctor play, I'd have to put him up there, in terms of talent, with the other great all-rounders of the 70s and 80s, Botham, Imran, Kapil etc. although bowling was, possibly, his stronger suit.
Whether he'd have converted his talent into a successful test career, had he had the opportunity is, as with the case of Barry Richards, a vital question but, as with Richards, I'd argue that he was so talented that I think he would have.
Certainly, his FC stats are pretty stunning. 1400+ wickets at under 20, batting average of 36+ with 48 centuries, while his 7 tests and his time in WSC point to the idea that he'd have coped well enough at the highest level.

[kwinigolfer]

Hoggy
The only thing I'd add to that is the physical, competitive presence that Proctor possessed, even more so than the others you mentioned. There was something about Proctor (as there was coincidentally with Barlow) which warned the opposition "Don't mess with me and my team." Always seemed to be a consummsate team man, never a prima donna.
Lots to debate on this group but I'm anticipating a Yes vote from VT on MP, any action, good, bad or indifferent, he took as an ICC Match official irrelevant for me.

[msp83]

With such a very short test career, I think we have to look at other factors as well, including his stint as ICC match official.
Any idea as to why he was sacked as SA chief selector rather abruptly?

[kwinigolfer]

Must admit, I refute the idea that cricketing credentials might be trumped by coaching or administrative success or failure - Proctor's HOF claim, or that of any other candidate, is as a player and nothing should detract from his accomplishments on the field. Unless it was something that brought the sport into disrepute . . . . .
Surely?

[guildfordbat]

I agree strongly with Hoggy's and Kwini's respective comments about Procter's talent and physical, competitive presence. Certainly someone you would always want on your side.

Re msp's debate with Kwini about other factors. For me, all aspects go into the mix but the weight I give each varies widely.

Meanwhile, one of the world's greatest ever cricketers could do with a bit of support on the GOAT thread - thanks.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Guildford - a mighty tough draw for Sir Garfield! Haven't read through the whole thread yet but noticed you had played one of the trump cards - the strength of French cricket

[Shelsey93]

Since the Hall of Fame series began in 2011, we have moved from bona fide greats of the game (Hammond, Hutton, Trueman), through national heroes (Hanif, Underwood, Crowe), prominent characters (d'Oliveira), hard workers (Titmus, Pataudi) and even to a broadcaster (Arlott). But, perhaps oddly, we haven't yet discussed the only men who are on the field of play throughout a Test Match: the umpires.

Why Taufel?

Given the precedents set by Arlott and others, I can't see many people arguing that no umpire should be inducted simply because they are an umpire. However, some might argue that I'm being a bit 'too modern' in picking Taufel, who retired only this winter, as the first.

Certainly, Dickie Bird is a name which remains entrenched in the cricketing historiography more firmly than any other wearer of the white coat. Meanwhile, David Shepherd was highly regarded, and Bradman saw Frank Chester as 'the greatest umpire'.

However for a few reasons I am in no position to make cases for any of these (indeed, I doubt anybody could make a case for Chester, as umpiring deeds aren't recorded as well as playing achievements). I also have a suspicion that Bird and Shepherd's prominence was as much to do with their characters as their umpiring skills.

Basic info

Simon James Arnold Taufel was first introduced to umpiring at just 20 when a highly promising career as a fast bowler came to an abrupt halt after suffering a back injury.

Unlike many umpires, who are fast-tracked into the first-class game after completing playing careers, he worked his way through the ranks of grade cricket. Nevertheless, his progress was still quick and by 27 he was standing in his first ODI - a game between Australia and Sri Lanka at Sydney in which Adam Gilchrist, whom he'd played alongside in his youth, scored a quick century. A Test debut and promotion to the new Elite panel quickly followed, and he was soon established as the leading umpire in the world game.

In 2004, just over a year after reaching the Elite panel, Taufel was named the ICC's inaugural Umpire of The Year. It was a trophy that he would monopolise for five years, until Aleem Dar - whose umpiring bears a lot of Taufel's hallmarks - was passed the baton.

Due to Australia's dominance of World Cups he missed out of the 2007 final (probably a good job, as the fiasco over the light led to the four that did that match being suspended). But in 2011 he finally got a chance to officiate in a World Cup final.

Professionalisation

A key aspect of Taufel's legacy is the professionalisation of umpiring that took place during his career.

At the start of his career the most prominent officials were still the likes of Bucknor, Shepherd and Koertzen - popular but error prone. By the end of his career the umpires were collectively much better, and had gone some way to changing the profession.

Amongst the most significant changes:

- Taufel would stand at the bowlers end during net sessions, giving him a head start in assessing who might have a no-ball problem, where particular deliveries are likely to pitch etc.
- Up until the last 10 years it was very common for players to systematically be given not-out when padding up on the front foot, even if the ball would have crashed into the stumps. The laws never stipulated that this should happen, and Taufel has been instrumental in making sure that umpires now make the correct decision rather than resting on a flawed convention.
- With the introduction of the DRS, the role of the umpire has changed somewhat. Taufel has been a supporter of that innovation.

That is just an overview, which hopefully can allow some meaningful debate to begin. I'll put some flesh on that bone shortly.

[msp83]

That's a fine start on the Taufel debate. Certainly David Shepherd did make a lasting impression in my mind and he has been an umpiring favorite for me. But Taufel, among the contemporaries, have been very very good. The case for greater professionalization of umpiring is an interesting case in his favor, looking forward to an interesting debate. A pitty his international umpiring career didn't have the kind of longevity that some of the finest umpires had, but then it is to his great credit that he didn't overstay his welcome like, say Bucknor.

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - good start on Simon Taufel. As an aside, didn't know he was a once promising quick bowler.

Both interesting and understandable that you give early mentions to Dickie Bird and David Shepherd. They both umpired with distinction although I doubt that I could be persuaded to give a YES vote to either.

Bird's greatest strength in his early years was probably his perfectionism. However, that became a weakness over time as it grew too far. Bird became increasingly nervous and worried about playing conditions. He sometimes upset crowds and even players by appearing to insist upon near perfect conditions when they 'just wanted to get on with it'.

Shepherd's hopping around on Nelson started off as a slightly amusing small sideshow but seemed to take over as he became a parody of himself. I do hope this wasn't a legacy to Billy Bowden, a truly ghastly example of human exhibitionism who would be better suited to a realty television programme than a cricket field.

Notwithstanding those specific concerns, I have no problem with an umpire joining the HoF. As you suggest, it's probably overdue. To me, the first umpire chosen doesn't necessarily mean the best umpire ever but simply that he's good enough in his own right. Does Taufel cut it on that latter basis? I'll need you to spell things out more (I always likea few quotes from respected voices) but am certainly in a receptive mood. ICC Umpire of the Year for five years must surely count for quite a bit.

I appreciate Taufel could only umpire in the age that he did. However, it would be interesting to hear from you and other posters as to whether modern umpires have it harder or easier than their predecessors in the white coats. Two examples. Does DRS give greater freedom to today's umpires in making a decision or does it put more pressure on them to get it right? Was it easier or harder being a 'home' umpire before 'neutral' umpires appeared on the scene?

[msp83]

I think TV usually make an umpire's life that much more tougher. Old days, you never had all these technology that would expose an umpire's call to such scrutiny. And of course home umpires got away with quite a bit more than the neutrals ever managed.

[msp83]

At the end of the first week of the debates, I am closer to a yes for Donald and Taufel. I have my doubts on Procter, and I would need more on Athol Rowan.

[guildfordbat]

At the end of the first week of the debates, I am closer to a yes for Donald and Taufel. I have my doubts on Procter, and I would need more on Athol Rowan.

Msp - I suspect Hoggy could clinch things for Donald (at least for those of us with a keen interest in the English county game) by giving a Bears' (Warwickshire CCC) perspective. Understandably Biltong has concentrated on Donald's (mighty impressive) performances for South Africa.

As I suggested yesterday and again like you, I'm leaning towards a YES for Taufel but would like to understand more about what it was that set him apart from and ahead of his contemporaries. I'm not disputing it - five times ICC Umpire of the year on the bounce pretty much confirms matter but am keen to learn more. Also, do others think modern umpires have an advantage over their predecessors and, if so, should we impose higher standards for Taufel?

There are probably a lot of good reasons for turning Rowan down (small number of Tests, high bowling average, high strike rate) but do we want a HoF where admittance is dependent upon stats and ignores the greatest elements of character?

Procter will almost certainly get a YES from me, very much based on what I was fortunate enough to see of him. However, I can understand younger posters declining him on the basis of what has been stated here so far. As the proposer, Biltong needs to make his case - or deposit Proccie in his waste bin marked 'Eddie Barlow and Others'.

[msp83]

Well guildford, I doubt whether modern umpires, in the overall scheme of things, has much of an advantage. Of course technology would have played a more significant role in the preparation and that certainly is an advantage that earlier umpires didn't have. But the same technology, as I mentioned above, makes the scrutiny that much more stronger. Another point I would like to put forward for consideration is the kind of competition that is there in international cricket now. The so called spirit of cricket is suffering due to the increased nature of the competition, and we have a great deal less of walkers for example these days. Many of the calls that might just look decent might turn out to be mistakes on the many replays and all the other technology available. With neutral umpires, the level of expectation has also gone up, and that is another thing we have to consider.
So all in all, I would say modern umpires in fact face more pressure, and that makes Taufel's record and the kind of credibility that he had all the more impressive.

[msp83]

On Rowan, I am in agreement with you on stats not being the only aspect that we should consider. I do believe there is space for character. But both the Titmus and Pataudi debates have set some benchmark for us. Titmus had a very long career, had to face significant disability in the latter stages of his career, yet came back to the game and even made an international comeback. I remember you had made the point that he was a considerable influence on aspects of the popular culture. Yet his record wasn't great, and many, including myself thought there isn't enough of a case to overlook that record in favor of the different other factors.
Pataudi was a superb captain, was among the most influential figures in Indian cricket's emergence, he overcame a very serious disability to play the game and do it successfully at the highest level for well over a decade. He had a decent record as a batsman, and reflected many of the fighting qualities as a batsman for his side that had no other real quality batters. But most of us, including yourselves, thought his record isn't good enough so that the other aspects combined, wouldn't merit an entry to the HoF.
Now as we know, Titmus would be up for reconsideration at some stage, and Pataudi didn't even make to that stage.
Rowan demonstrated great courage and character to play the game at the highest stage despite his serious injury problems. But his test career wasn't as extended as those of Titmus or Pataudi. He didn't even play against Australia, or any other side other than England for that matter. His bowling average is fart too high, remember we had a problem with Gibbs' average of 29.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Re umpires I think the pressure is much higher these days. When researching the case for Sir Lancelot Gibbs I was struck by the very small proportion of LBWs dismissals he got. Looks like whole generations of umpires copped out (the batsman took a big stride forward and so must be given benefit of the doubt, no matter how plumb out it looked....)

I'm minded to think that Proctor should be a YES vote. His bowling was incredibly hostile and I am sure that older posters will confirm that he had a dominating physical presence combined with talent that was just made to succeed at the highest test level. I don't think this is just nostalgia.

[Biltong]

Mike Proctor,

You see this is again where it becomes very difficult to assess a player. How strong was the County scene in the seventies? As part of the Mean Machine Transvaal who were simply just awesome at the time, it is difficult for me to assess how great Proctor could have been.

Because that is what we are debating here, at least with Greame Pollock we have a sample size of more than 20 test matches, compare Proctor's start to international cricket with that of Philander, none of us are currently contending that Philander is a hall of famer, even if his stats in his first 7 tests were even more impressive than Proctor's.

At this point I can't in good conscience vote yes for Proctor just because he weren't allowed to play more tests.

It is sad that players such as himself, Barlow and a number of others weren't given the opportunity to really show their true credentials.

But then this is life, isn't it?

[Mike Selig]

Morning all,

Apologies for the absence the previous week - as per usual at this time of year I took a break from my hard studies to hit the slopes on the Alps in suitably snazzy fashion.

On last week's results I am happy to see Ponting through with 100% - I think Benaud says of his captaincy that in time we will recognise it as one of the most extraordinary periods of Australian cricketing history, and I think that's fair enough, although how much he was responsible for that is of course the debate. However just to reiterate he achieved:
- equalling the record for consecutive test wins
- two WCs undefeated
- an Australian summer undefeated in all formats albeit against West Indies and Pakistan once the greats had retired
- ashes whitewash
- win in India
- whitewash in Sri Lanka

That seems pretty extraordinary to me, not matter how good his team was. Anyway, off-topic.

I would have added a YES to Verity, and one to MacCartney (but thankfully my absence wasn't material in either case). I was extremely torn on Packer, which probably would have prevented a YES vote in the end (my usual stance is when I really can't make up my mind then it can't be a YES). And Barlow would have fallen just short.

On this week's candidates briefly (for now):

- Rowan is a name I knew of, but little about. I'll go over Hoggy's case in great detail, but like guildford am weary of inducting someone on sympathy over his plight.

- Donald I am biased in favour of because of his supremely marvelous action. His record measures up reasonably to someone like Waqar in test cricket, but if we're honest there are a couple of negative points, in particular his one-day record was pretty ordinary (and he played a major part in SA no winning the 99 WC - harsh but true), and I am not convinced that had he started at 24 he would have had 500 wickets. Although this is pure speculation, I wonder whether he wasn't actually helped by SA's isolation in that when he made the team he had a good enough understanding of his game and was at his peak, so hit the ground running.

- Proctor seems to be the bowling all-rounder equivalent of Barry Richards (in an entirely different style). The case precedent is there for him to be inducted, and I believe he should be. Wonderful cricketer. Biltong asks how strong the county scene was in the 70s - my belief is plenty strong enough, certainly on a different planet from today (where counties on the whole choose overseas players who are good, but not quite good enough for international cricket so as to have them for the season).

- Tauffel should sail in IMO. First of all, I believe he's comfortably the best umpire of all time (Aleem Dar would be number 2). As with fielding, I believe umpiring standards have increased constantly over time, but also that Tauffel was the first to take umpiring standards to a new level of perfectionism, with his professional approach, as documented by Shelsey (although to be fair I believe Dar was more instrumental in giving LBWs to spinners on the front foot). As well as getting an unbelievable number of decisions right (at his peak) he also managed to go about his business in an entirely non-confrontational and discreet way. Off the field, not afraid to speak up but always in a constructive and non-confrontational manner, usually making much sense.

[guildfordbat]

Welcome back, Mike. Some good comments on the latest batch of candidates.

* I'm rather surprising myself at the moment at being inclined to put Rowan's courage and tolerance of pain above his rather ordinary stats. [Msp - in my view, you should ignore our decision for Pataudi and not regard it as a benchmark if you consider that decision to be wrong; I gave a similar message to Shelsey when he was agonising over later female candidates.]

* Although speculation as you acknowledge, I agree it's not certain that Donald would have started in the same way at 24 as he actually did at 28. To speculate further, things might have initially been a lot less impressive and future opportunities more limited if he had been picked even earlier, at say 19 or 20, way before he was ready. That all said, he probably did enough for my vote in the time he actually did have although I'll look further at your one day concerns.

* Like the late Eddie Barlow, Procter was highly impressive for the Rest of the World in their 1970 series against England and his Test stats suffered harshly when the ICC shamefully wiped those matches from the record books. Procter averaged almost 49 with the bat from his 9 innings; although he had 3 not outs, they were all in the second innings as he guided the RoW to 3 of their victories. He took 15 wickets at under 24 and went at less than 1.7 per over. As stated before, this series was tightly contested and of the highest quality. Take it from me, there were no gimmes for Procter.
The comparison with and case precedent for Barry Richards is very relevant. I agree that the county scene was pretty strong in Procter's time. Some of the best international batsmen were playing season upon season for a regular county side and Procter would have been up against them - Viv Richards, Rohan Kanhai, Alvin Kallicharan, Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Glenn Turner, Jimmy Cook off the top of my head. Admittedly, not all county batsmen were of this calibre but, unlike today, many of the world's best headed here for an English summer and noe relished coming up against Proccie. Like the Corporal, I'm convinced he would have continued to manage the step up to regular Test cricket.

* I wouldn't so much doubt as question Taufel being ''the best umpire of all time''. Who knows? How can you tell? Particularly thinking of some from a much earlier era. I'll write more a bit later - mainly because it interests me and hopefully won't bore you too much. I appreciate Taufel could only umpire in the era he was born into and was remarkably good on many levels.

[kwinigolfer]

One umpire of historical significance who doesn't seem to be mentioned here, Shelsey's remarks excepted, is Frank Chester. A promising young player for Worcs who had accumulated almost 2,000 runs and 81 wickets before being called up to fight in WWI, only to lose his right arm in 1915, at the age of 20, he turned to umpiring.

By all accounts he set the standard for umpiring during his era, between WW's and immediately post WWII.

Doesn't make him a Hall Of Famer, but reinforces any contention that top class umps existed in the days before publicity seekers like Bird and Shepherd.

I'm very comfortable with voting in Simon Taufel but, as I have comprehensively missed his era, am anxious to learn how his widely praised excellence sets him apart from his umpiring ancestors.

NB: What is the deadline on these aspirants?

[msp83]

Welcome back, Mike. Some good comments on the latest batch of candidates.

* I'm rather surprising myself at the moment at being inclined to put Rowan's courage and tolerance of pain above his rather ordinary stats. [Msp - in my view, you should ignore our decision for Pataudi and not regard it as a benchmark if you consider that decision to be wrong; I gave a similar message to Shelsey when he was agonising over later female candidates.]

* Although speculation as you acknowledge, I agree it's not certain that Donald would have started in the same way at 24 as he actually did at 28. To speculate further, things might have initially been a lot less impressive and future opportunities more limited if he had been picked even earlier, at say 19 or 20, way before he was ready. That all said, he probably did enough for my vote in the time he actually did have although I'll look further at your one day concerns.

* Like the late Eddie Barlow, Procter was highly impressive for the Rest of the World in their 1970 series against England and his Test stats suffered harshly when the ICC shamefully wiped those matches from the record books. Procter averaged almost 49 with the bat from his 9 innings; although he had 3 not outs, they were all in the second innings as he guided the RoW to 3 of their victories. He took 15 wickets at under 24 and went at less than 1.7 per over. As stated before, this series was tightly contested and of the highest quality. Take it from me, there were no gimmes for Procter.
The comparison with and case precedent for Barry Richards is very relevant. I agree that the county scene was pretty strong in Procter's time. Some of the best international batsmen were playing season upon season for a regular county side and Procter would have been up against them - Viv Richards, Rohan Kanhai, Alvin Kallicharan, Barry Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Glenn Turner, Jimmy Cook off the top of my head. Admittedly, not all county batsmen were of this calibre but, unlike today, many of the world's best headed here for an English summer and noe relished coming up against Proccie. Like the Corporal, I'm convinced he would have continued to manage the step up to regular Test cricket.

* I wouldn't so much doubt as question Taufel being ''the best umpire of all time''. Who knows? How can you tell? Particularly thinking of some from a much earlier era. I'll write more a bit later - mainly because it interests me and hopefully won't bore you too much. I appreciate Taufel could only umpire in the era he was born into and was remarkably good on many levels.

Guildford, well, I think we certainly need some consistency. Besides, for me the Rowan case is relatively weaker on another front, while both Rowan and Pataudi overcame terrible dificulties to play the game at the highest level and with decent success, there was a lot more going for Tiger. The length of his career, his achievements as captain....... I don't see Rowan as someone who left such a legacy, and coupled with the need for some decent standards of consistency, I find it dificult to go pass my rather strong reservations at this stage. We have almost a week left, and perhaps the debate will provide a great deal more in the coming days.

[guildfordbat]

Msp - I do not dispute the logic of your comments. However, we've both been round the block enough to know that cricket doesn't always mirror logic. Perhaps, a lesson for the Hall of Fame?

I might be trying to fool myself but I do also tend to feel feel you underplay the legacy left to others through Rowan's brave and courageous example. With Rowan in the side, could any bowler decline bowling uphill into the wind and claim ''a tight muscle''?

For me (and it may just be me!), there's a difference between playing 'just' with a disability (eg, Pataudi and Titmus) and also playing in pain.

[msp83]

As the debate on Pataudi had brought out, even sighting the ball was seriously dificult with the kind of disability he had, yet he played, and led his side with distinction. Someone like Andrew Flintoff, or for that matter Denis Compton, had to weather pain consistently throughout their career, although not to the extend of what Rowan seemed to have gone through.

[guildfordbat]

Kwini - I was going to mention Frank Chester. From my reading he was very highly regarded as an umpire as was the Australian George Hele. Hele umpired every Test in the Bodyline series which can't have been easy. His umpiring - not just for that series but over his career - earned praise from both Jardine and Bradman.

In the days before neutral umpires, the men in white coats were generally regarded as 'homers' by the touring side; especially England on their travels. Some may have been self inflicted but problems certainly resulted for the umpires. Gatting's bust up particularly comes to mind. Before that, Illingworth was very scathing of the umpires for the Ashes series down under in 1970/71; strong criticism was voiced about the England bowlers not having a single lbw appeal upheld in the whole six match series. Conversely, some in the England camp were critical of David Constant for being 'too pro the opposition' when India toured here in summer '71.

To get the balance right was obviously difficult. It appears that history and contemporaries at the time viewed Chester and Hele as being amongst the few who sailed the correct path. None of this is to detract from Taufel's possible admittance to our HoF but it is a challenge he never had and makes me question claims that he is the best of all time. As I've stated before, the absence of such a challenge is clearly not down to Taufel (other than his date of birth). The point I'm trying to make - or at least touch on - is that umpires then and now are very different creatures who face(d) different obstacles. I personally find judgments as to past umpiring quality even more difficult than that about cricketers of yesteryear and so will duck out of any 'best ever' decision.

There is clearly far more coverage and scrutiny of international cricket now than in the past. That must increase the pressure (don't like the word but it fits) on today's umpires to get it right. If an umpire in the past made an error, it would be unlikely to be ever found out. That said, the modern umpire has far more support than his predecessors. In terms of people at Tests - match referee, third umpire, reserve umpire (may be wrong but don't remember any of those in the late 1960s and into the '70s). In terms of technology - DRS obviously. Some may consider it at times shows the umpire up but perhaps it gives the umpire confidence to make a decision and a safety net if he commits a howler.

Modern technology also gives additional help to umpires nowadays in ways that didn't use to be possible and reduces at least some of the workload. I remember it being commented on TMS that in the same Test in the 1970s one particular over contained 7 legitimate balls (ie no wides or no-balls) whilst another contained only 5. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for the umpires of that time but it perhaps shows that fundamental errors could fairly easily creep in without the sort of technological backup now provided. Such mistakes wouldn't occur today - not necessarily because Taufel and his like are better at counting but because a similar error would be instantly communicated by a message down an ear piece and also because each ball bowled in every over is now clearly displayed on an electronic scoreboard, allowing the umpires greater concentration on what is going and is really important.

I'm not trying to say that Taufel had it easy or easier than others. These are just a few examples of things being very different over the eras and why I can't judge. What I suspect that Taufel certainly has in common with Chester and Hele is the understanding that two things are vitally important; the game and the players. That is what people come to see. If people come to see umpires at all, it is with the wish that the umpires will allow the game and the players to provide a spectacle. The umpire should never set out to be the spectacle. We should applaud these three umpires for their understanding of that and the calm, clear understated way in which they went about their job.

[kwinigolfer]

I used to love umpiring, always volunteered to go out when others didn't fancy it!

I knew George Hele's name but had never specifically read up anything on him. Thanks for bringing his name in to this debate; interesting that he and Chester seem to be bracketed together in the esteem with which they were held.

Not sure where I'm leaning in this debate, once again the problem for me being that surely we should try to identify the best of an era rather than single one individual out as the best of all time. And that is whether it's a writer or broadcaster, an all-rounder, an umpire, whatever.

I guess the challenge for Taufel is for him to be seen as transcending all other candidates, a la Bradman or Sobers.

Signed,
Puzzled.

[Mike Selig]

Excellent post from guildford, however

but [being a non-neutral umpire] is a challenge [Tauffel] never had

is incorrect. Tauffel regularly officiates in ODIs as a home umpire, but also when he started his test career neutral umpires hadn't yet been introduced (I remember him officiating in an Australia-West Indies test early on in his career).

Part of my point on him being the best of all time is because I believe he made fewer mistakes than anyone else before him. As I said in my opening post, I believe umpiring standards have increased over time, in the sense that fewer and fewer mistakes are being made. Part of this is down to increased professionalism and understanding of the game (like players, umpires now analyse matches and players, so they know which bowlers are more likely to get LBWs due to bounce, angle, etc.). A lot of this professionalism was driven by Tauffel.

[guildfordbat]

Thanks, Mike. I thought the introduction of neutral umpires was earlier. My apologies for the error.

I understand your belief that umpiring standards have increased over time and follow your reasoning. I just feel that as it cannot be proven how many (or how few) mistakes umpires like Chester and Hele made, then we cannot automatically dismiss claims that they were the best. It is probably also only fair that any judgment on these earlier umpires takes account of the lack of technological analysis that was available to them.

As stated before, none of this detracts from Taufel's case. I would though just emphasise that if, as likely, he gets a YES vote from me, it'll be because he was a supremely good (or similar term) umpire rather than necessarily the best ever.

[alfie]

I can see Mike is very keen on the Taufel case ... and he makes a good argument for him.
But the assertion that Taufel is "comfortably the best umpire of all time" is just that - an assertion ; unprovable , and based on , firstly Mike's opinion that he is the best of his own era (fair enough) , but also the assumption that this modern group of umpires with which Mike is familiar is superior to the older ones he never saw...not sure this is something we should automatically accept.
It is true modern umpires have some advantages over their predecessors : greater professionalism of course , the capacity to view all sorts of analysis of the game ...and in the case of the elite panel the chance to umpire all over the world in different conditions...one might indeed expect a higher standard. But all the advantages of modern science is not generally thought to have yet produced a better batsman than Bradman , so ...
Umpiring is certainly different today , at least at the top level. The DRS has seen to that. There was no Hawkeye to second guess lbw calls in the sixties , for example. There is also no way of measuring the accuracy of decisions in bygone days , so no way of comparing the "strike rates" of a Bird with a Dar.
Must also say I think the issue of giving front foot lbw decisions is something of a red herring : the advent of TV analysis showed that many previously ignored appeals were in fact perfectly justified , and so umpires are now much more ready to uphold them (they also have the safety net of the referral system to help them hereabouts) so the present day batsman is much more likely to be dismissed in this manner. Some umpires - and I agree Taufel and Dar are both among them - are more often accurate than others in these matters ; but since umpires of previous times , without the benefit of close TV and computer tracking , generally agreed that the benefit of doubt to the batsman was the best way to deal with such decisions , it would seem rather unfair to compare their choices adversely with today's "fashion".

But hey , I am nitpicking really...do I agree Taufel is - or was - an excellent umpire ? Well yes I do , though I am not sure he is so much a standout in the field as to make him an automatic choice as the token umpire in the hall of fame.
In other words I have been a bit long winded but ended up close to Kwinigolfer in my stance on this one : still undecided. I think I would have preferred to let Taufel be retired a bit longer so we can compare the stuff written about him by retired players with what they have said about others...

[msp83]

I can see Mike is very keen on the Taufel case ... and he makes a good argument for him.
But the assertion that Taufel is "comfortably the best umpire of all time" is just that - an assertion ; unprovable , and based on , firstly Mike's opinion that he is the best of his own era (fair enough) , but also the assumption that this modern group of umpires with which Mike is familiar is superior to the older ones he never saw...not sure this is something we should automatically accept.
It is true modern umpires have some advantages over their predecessors : greater professionalism of course , the capacity to view all sorts of analysis of the game ...and in the case of the elite panel the chance to umpire all over the world in different conditions...one might indeed expect a higher standard. But all the advantages of modern science is not generally thought to have yet produced a better batsman than Bradman , so ...
Umpiring is certainly different today , at least at the top level. The DRS has seen to that. There was no Hawkeye to second guess lbw calls in the sixties , for example. There is also no way of measuring the accuracy of decisions in bygone days , so no way of comparing the "strike rates" of a Bird with a Dar.
Must also say I think the issue of giving front foot lbw decisions is something of a red herring : the advent of TV analysis showed that many previously ignored appeals were in fact perfectly justified , and so umpires are now much more ready to uphold them (they also have the safety net of the referral system to help them hereabouts) so the present day batsman is much more likely to be dismissed in this manner. Some umpires - and I agree Taufel and Dar are both among them - are more often accurate than others in these matters ; but since umpires of previous times , without the benefit of close TV and computer tracking , generally agreed that the benefit of doubt to the batsman was the best way to deal with such decisions , it would seem rather unfair to compare their choices adversely with today's "fashion".

But hey , I am nitpicking really...do I agree Taufel is - or was - an excellent umpire ? Well yes I do , though I am not sure he is so much a standout in the field as to make him an automatic choice as the token umpire in the hall of fame.
In other words I have been a bit long winded but ended up close to Kwinigolfer in my stance on this one : still undecided. I think I would have preferred to let Taufel be retired a bit longer so we can compare the stuff written about him by retired players with what they have said about others...

Whether Taufel is the best ever umpire is something we can't even have a reasonable debate on, as unlike batting or bowling stats, there is no way to make a stat based analysis, and the absence of technology makes it very dificult to assess the quality of umpiring standards across eras.
But Taufel has been a very very good umpire, and among the modern umpires, he has a certain standing among players and even followers of the game. I have my doubts on him being the chief proponent of the greater move towards frontfoot LBWs. While alfie's point that technology has brought greater facilitation aof analysis and hence a case for more frontfoot LBWs developed has certain merits, I remember even after technology was introduced, umpires often gave batters not out on frontfoot LBWs even when the decision should have been in the bowler's favor. It was umpire Aleem Dar who really started the process of being fairer to the bowler, and Taufel in my view, quickly caught up. Even today, not all umpires are showing the same level of courage with regard to such decisions.

[alfie]

I suspect you are right , msp , re the latter points.

Of course this does open up another question (though rather tangential to the HoF debate). ie , "being fairer to the bowler".
Consider : under the drs - as long as India aren't playing - it doesn't matter that some umpires are more courageous than others with lbw calls as the fielding team can always review the decision...except that of course it does , because that half-a-ball umpires call margin built in because we aren't ready to believe Hawkeye is quite infallible means that that it makes a huge difference whether the standing umpire has the confidence to say "out" or not. So in fact the team lucky enough to strike the pads at Mr Dar's end has an advantage over the one who gets turned down by Mr Davis , say...in the old days they all said not out , so wasn't that actually fairer ? Even if technically wrong...

OK I am just being a bit mischievous here but there is an argument I think that consistency rather than - unattainable - perfection would actually be the better target of the whole drs system.

I have no idea how to achieve this

[Sponsored content]