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

[guildfordbat]

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...

Alfie - very much agree with that. I mentioned the other day that I would like to read a few quotes from respected voices in praise of Taufel prior to voting. Hopefully that is possible ....

[msp83]

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

I certainly can't provide a defense or sensible explanation for the BCCI stands on the DRS, as I am in the camp, with majority of cricket followers in this country that thinks that the DRS should be part of the system.
I am also in the camp that thinks that even if perfection can't be achieved, there is scope for significant improvement in the DRS, and news on real time snicko is something that gives me more hope. I also think the other boards aren't taking a strong stand on the issue, and thus, they too have their fair share of responsibility. Lets see whether India won't really tour if the ICC executive decides to vote in favor of the host country having the right to make a call on DRS.

[msp83]

Guildford, perhaps you could have a look at this.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/585690.html

[msp83]

Taufel being invited for the MCC spirit of cricket lecture this year, the first umpire to be invited for the same, is indicative of the kind of respect that he gets.

[guildfordbat]

Guildford, perhaps you could have a look at this.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/585690.html

Thanks, msp. Good stuff and duly noted even if the reference to the possibility of him having eaten a horse is apparently far from unique. According to current reports in the British news, horsemeat seems to be in all our foodstuffs!

[msp83]

Guildford, perhaps you could have a look at this.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/585690.html

Thanks, msp. Good stuff and duly noted even if the reference to the possibility of him having eaten a horse is apparently far from unique. According to current reports in the British news, horsemeat seems to be in all our foodstuffs!

Oh yes, I've been reading stuff about the changing English food habits!!.

[Mike Selig]

I agree it is almost impossible to verify or disprove my claim that umpiring standards in general have been on a continuous upward curve. It is simply "gut feeling", much as I detest the term. Having said that, perhaps it is besides the point. It has long been established that the only sensible measure of a player/official is by comparison to his peers rather than any attempt at absolute comparisons across eras, which can be fun, but ultimately futile.

What can be compared of course is the impact a player or official had on his era. I side with msp that the main driver behind the now frequent LBWs given to spinners when the batsmen pad up on the front foot is not really Tauffel, but Dar, alongside it has to be said Darrel Hair who was possibly ahead of Dar even in this (whatever his other faults were).

Where I do think Tauffel in general stands above his peers is not in what he doesn't get wrong, but what he gets right. I have never seen an umpire so frequently give something out which live looked wrong only to be proven right by the replays. A couple of examples:

1) left-arm over the wicket bowlers to right-handers, or vice-versa. The usual wisdom is that the ball has to swing (usually quite a bit) to gain an LBW. But if the bowler gets close to the stumps, or has a slingy action, or bowls full, this is clearly nonsense. Just think of a right arm over the wicket bowler bowling to a right-handed batsman, pitching the ball on off or middle-and-off: how often does the ball miss the leg-stump? Not that often clearly, so same with left-handers, the ball pitching in line with leg or middle-and-leg will usually hit the wickets. Tauffel is probably the only umpire I know who consistently gets this right, e.g.:
* Oram to Strauss LBW off full-length ball which didn't swing
* more importantly, Riaz to Shewag (and Dhoni) in the WC semi-final (back to that later).

2) Recognising which bowlers and which pitches yield "tennis ball bounce" (so the ball is often on its way back down as it passes the stumps) and thus you can give LBWs on the front foot even if it hits the knee-roll or above. Favourite example being Gayle out to Ashwin on the sweep in an IPL match, big stride, hit on the roll, but side-on replays show ball had almost reached its peak height and Hawk-eye confirms would have hit the stumps a couple of inches from the top. Brilliant decision.

A lot of this comes down to preparation, and tauffel was genuinely ahead of the game here, with attending net sessions, comparing notes with colleagues, players and coaches, looking over video analysis, etc.

Whilst I appreciate a lot of this is a product of his time, and not available to others before him, I genuinely think that it takes someone special to realise the potential these tools could be, and now more and more umpires are doing it, with the effect (IMO) that the umpiring standards we see nowadays are genuinely the best I've ever seen.

Added to that his willingness to speak up sensibly on several issues (wasn't there a controversial light thingy where he gave a terrific interview in the middle of a game - now that was classy) - I know for a fact his voice commands respect in all quarters at the ICC, as shown by his invitation to give the upcoming MCC lecture.

For his vision, determination and overall quality, I think Tauffel is very worthy of HoF status.

As a final point, his performance in the WC semi-final (2011, India vs Pakistan in India, does it get much bigger than that) is one of the greatest I've seen from anyone on a cricket field. A few of his decisions that day were simply remarkable, the equivalent of a fielder taking 4 or 5 breathtaking catches. When Umar Gul challenged another entirely correct LBW decision late in the game, Tauffel allowed himself a smile as he raised his finger for the second time - a rare onfield show of emotion, but one which said a lot, he was simply pleased to have done his job correctly, again.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Been a bit busy for a few days. Some fantastic debate going on about Taufel.
On Rowan, it looks like he may well fall victim to 'sympathy fatigue', which I can understand to an extent. If his candidature had come before those of Fred Titmus or The Nawab of Pataudi maybe he'd have been looked on more kindly.
I would just like to point out in his defence, that John Arlott will have known of, and indeed have seen, both Titmus and Pataudi, as well as others such as Colin Milburn, yet he still called Rowan's damaged leg the greatest physical handicap faced by a test player. As for Rowan's legacy, I have read it argued that, without Rowan's example, and the competition which he constituted, Hugh Tayfield may not have gone on to become South Africa's most successful spinner ever.
Of course, that may not be completely true, but there is something in the argument, I believe. Rowan's standing as one of the great off-spinners shortly after the second world war, must surely have inspired Tayfield to match and, if possible, overtake him as his country's premium spin bowler. The fact that they never got to bowl in tandem, due to Rowan's injury, must have been a cause for disappointment for all cricket fans at the time.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - whilst I believe there are valid reasons (essentially his cricketing performance) to exclude Athol Rowan, he's really struck a chord with me and caught my attention. I feel entranced by his story.

Before your last post, I had already picked up John Arlott's support of Rowan. In my view, Arlott had an uncanny knack of picking out the good guy and wanting to walk alongside him; literally in Rowan's case as he limped from the field at the end of his last Test.

That also reminded me of Arlott being the only one who went to the ship to wish Harold Larwood well as he sailed off to Australia and permanent exile.

Basil D'Oliveira would never have come to this country let alone played Test cricket if it had not been for the welcoming hand held out by Arlott.

I suspect there may be a difference concerning Rowan and the others you mention relating to a 'sympathy' factor. I have enormous sympathy for 'Tiger' Pataudi. Even more for Ollie Milburn - don't forget that his eye that retained sight after the car crash still suffered permanent damage. Sympathy too for Titmus and respect for his return to the game; Titmus is a little different (have to say that as I proposed him and there's still another bite of the cherry to come!) as there was so much quirkiness to his case.

As for Rowan, obviously I have sympathy. However, what I have far more is admiration for his courage to withstand continual pain (something that did not afflict the others mentioned as far as I know). The brave example set by Rowan is highly impressive and I hope all reflect on that before voting.

[Leff]

My votes:

Allan Donald - YES

Athol Rowan - NO. I could name half a dozen with superior skills in that trade.

Simon Taufel - NO. Not convinced that umpires belong in HoF. They are there to follow and enforce rules.

Mike Procter - NO. Not enough data at the highest level of the sport.

[kwinigolfer]

"Athol Rowan - NO. I could name half a dozen with superior skills in that trade."
But no-one with more guts and courage.


I'm probably going to vote No on Athol Rowan also but, at the risk of some repetition, I'll pass on some Arlott observations:

"In Hutton's (first) 24 completed Test innings against South Africa after the war, his wicket fell eleven times to Athol Rowan."
(We set great store in Verity's record against Bradman - Rowan's against Hutton is superior, and should be even better as he got no credit for the Out - Obstructing the field, when Hutton interfered with Endean's inevitable catch off Rowan's bowling.)
Rowan also exhibited unsuspected speed of mind and efectiveness in the field, with Hutton again the victim:
Rowan "produced a racingly fast dive - pick-up and throw-in merged into one action - to hit the stumps and run out Hutton."

Arlott points out that Rowan "played more first-class matches in England than in the Union: thus, of his 273 wickets, he took 155 in England, while of the 273, 180 were of English batsmen."

During the SAF Tour of England in 1947, Rowan was the only member of the touring party to take 100 wickets and also scored 600 runs: "A good enough batsman to have been labelled an all-rounder if he had not been so great a bowler."

In one of the early candidates for greatest match of the post-war era, Transvaal vs Hassett's 49/50 Australians in Johnannesburg, Rowan took 9 for 19 against a line-up that included Morris, Loxton, Harvey, Miller and Archer. Then he followed up with 6 for 45 and scored 46 runs for once out, before "his knee collapsed under him at the crease". He was unable to play further until the 1951 Tour of England.

Despite his knee being in such poor shape that Tayfield was summoned from SA to take his place, Rowan managed to get himself fit enough to play in the First Test at Trent Bridge. He proceeded to take "five English wickets in their decisive second innings (as) South Africa won their first Test Match for sixteen years."

Upon leaving the field at the conclusion of the Oval's Fifth and final Test, which South Africa, inspired by Athol Rowan, should arguably have won, he offered:
"I shall never play again."

And, sadly, that was that.


But, as we have seen in Pataudi and Titmus debates, this Hall is for cricketing achievement and not courage.

There is no doubt that Rowan's ability, his presence even, was held in awe by team-mates and opposition alike and we will never know what greater heights his expoits might have reached.

In reflecting that "we will never know", I will vote No on Rowan but with grave misgiving and a stronger feeling than ever that our Hall would be more complete if it contained a wing for exceptional achievement (of whatever ingredient, though courage or disbility would be one); Rowan would surely be in the inaugural class.

[guildfordbat]

But, as we have seen in Pataudi and Titmus debates, this Hall is for cricketing achievement and not courage.

There is no doubt that Rowan's ability, his presence even, was held in awe by team-mates and opposition alike and we will never know what greater heights his expoits might have reached.

In reflecting that "we will never know", I will vote No on Rowan but with grave misgiving and a stronger feeling than ever that our Hall would be more complete if it contained a wing for exceptional achievement (of whatever ingredient, though courage or disbility would be one); Rowan would surely be in the inaugural class.

Kwini - interesting post as always. However, please don't overlook that it is our Hall. It should be whatever we want it to be with a membership to match.

I vote YES on Athol Rowan.

[kwinigolfer]

"it is our Hall."

Yes, but in that case it would be good to see some parameters of what constitutes exceptional circumstances.

I feel that some icons miss out despite exceptional contributions or imapct, and that may be the overcoming of adversity. And I'm one of the naysayers in such cases; I'm thinking of Pataudi, Ranji, Constantine, Rowan and, as it happens, Freddie Titmus. Larwood, D'Oliviera and Verity could also be considered in such company for various reasons.


Regardless, my votes on this slate of candidates:
Donald: Yes
Proctor: Yes
Rowan: No (as discussed)
Taufel: No - just don't feel sufficient time has elapsed since his retirement to assess his impact. Feel sure he would be an excellent addition when his career can be judged in the context of his generation.

[guildfordbat]

Not sure when votes to need to be in by but as I'm satisfied on all the candidates and am away next week for a few days, now seems a good time.

Athol Rowan - on pure stats a weak or even very weak case. However, testimony from others as supplied by Hoggy and Kwini is supportive of considerable ability. What is not in question is his courage and brave example. On the understanding and desire for this to be a Hall of Fame rather than a House of Stats, Rowan makes it. YES.

Mike Procter - Leff says 'not enough data at the highest level of the sport' to justify inclusion. The argument is understandable but has been raised and thrown out before, particularly in the case of Barry Richards. The best data for me is what I saw. Procter was a magnificent attacking cricketer with skill and fight in abundance. Absolutely splendid for Gloucs over many seasons when the County Championship was of a much higher standard than today. Always the 'go to' player with the ball. Admittedly over a very short time but highly impressive Test bowling stats for South Africa and match winning all round performances for the Rest of the World in the 'missing' Tests. I'm convinced Procter would not only have coped but excelled in a continuing Test environment. YES.

Allan Donald - also impacted by South Africa's ban from international cricket but far less so than Procter. We can only speculate what might have been if he had started earlier. However, he did a lot once things did get underway. As you would expect, a fine statistical case made by Biltong. Also like Procter, very much the 'go to' bowler which probably dampened his fitness and effectiveness in later years. Always willing and determined - I note his Cricinfo profile refers to him playing for Warks 'with distinction' which backs up my own immediate thoughts on his time in the English game. As you would again probably expect, I wouldn't quite put him on a level with the West Indian fast bowling greats but not that much behind. YES.

Simon Taufel - unlike Leff, I'm comfortable with umpires being in the HoF but, like writers and broadcasters, they have to be supremely good. My instinctive view is that Taufel was. He always seemed to go about matters in a quiet, understated meticulous way which brought respect from players. My only possible concern, as expressed already by Alfie and Kwini, has been that we're being too quick to judge him. However, details and examples supplied by msp and Mike enable me to stop fretting on that aspect. In voting for Taufel, I wish to make clear that, whilst I rate him extremely highly, I cannot place him as the greatest umpire ever. I believe it would be wrong to attempt to give that title to anyone. The umpires of yesteryears operated in a very different environment and we have too little information about them to pass a judgment. I suspect Taufel would agree. YES.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Donald - YES
Procter YES (have just had another quick look at his 4 wickets in 5 balls v Hampshire - more than enough to dispel any doubts if I had had any - which I haven't)
Rowen - NO - but I have learned a lot about him

Taufel - I am a probable yes - an excellent case has been made. Would have been interesting to have more opinions from prominent figures in the game as to whether he was at least the best umpire of modern times. Voted 5 times in a row as ICC umpire of the year sounds like a strong endorsement. Is this a meaningful and worthwhile accolade? It's not one of those votes where people vote on party lines etc..?

[Shelsey93]

I have again found myself busy this last fortnight. All I can do is apologise for my lack of input.

The deadline is tomorrow. I will set it for 6pm (to allow anyone who isn't on tonight to vote).

Anyway, some votes:

Athol Rowan - Hoggy has delivered the enlightening story of a cricketer I knew nothing of. Certainly, it shows tremendous courage to have fought against the pain he was suffering. Nonetheless, Hoggy is correct to suggest that there is a degree of 'sympathy fatigue' after Titmus, Pataudi (and in a different way Verity). In any case I don't believe his validity as a Hall of Famer to have sound cricketing grounds behind it as either Titmus or Pataudi. Guildford is correct to suggest that we shouldn't just look at stats, but when setting such a high bar in terms of playing ability it is difficult to include somebody without a combination of playing ability, sympathy and that bit extra. NO.

Mike Procter - Following the Richards precedent I'm very happy to include him. 48 FC 100s and over 1400 wickets. And showed that he could do it at the highest level when he did get the chance (particularly with the ball). Controversies as a Match Referee are irrelevant in the context of looking at him as a player. It also hasn't really been mentioned that he was coach of SA on return from isolation. YES.

Allan Donald - Still always mentioned among the better bowlers of the 1990s, and his stats support that. 'That' spell to Atherton seems to be constantly referenced, although that isn't good enough to get him in in itself. Overall, however, his record and reputation combine to get him in. YES.

Simon Taufel - For general background see my first post, and the much appreciated posts from Mike.

Some additional supporting articles:

A comparison to Bird and Shepherd published in The Hindu: http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/simon-taufel-a-true-cricket-hero/article3992118.ece.

A recent interview with Taufel, in which he talks about the role of the modern umpire: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/591383.html

I had hoped to find some quotes from players but, alas, with his career so recently complete and few modern players autobiographies on my shelves, its proved tough.

As guildford said at some point though, winning Umpire of the Year 5 times must count for something. And I do feel that the umpire is under-represented and that Taufel is the best (and at this stage perhaps only) viable candidate to fill that void. After all, we need somebody to keep Lillee and Miandad apart, and to ensure that WG doesn't give himself not out!

A YES.

---

A point about umpiring that occurred to me the other day which isn't entirely related to Taufel's case:

It strikes me as strange that batsmen often cite their eyesight as a reason for a drop in form in their late 30s. Yet most umpires haven't started by then. Surely umpires must also have issues with their eyesight which make it difficult to be effective when older.

I'm not saying that all umpires should retire at 40. But the job must be difficult in your 60s, and on that logic you'd think an umpire would be at their best around their 30s.

Anyway, just a random thought really.

[Shelsey93]

Corporal,

The Umpire of the Year is nominated by the 10 Test captains, and the 7-man panel of ICC Match Referees.

There could be an element of party line to it, but that should be an endorsement of sorts from the players.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Shelsey - thanks. That for me confirms a YES vote......

[guildfordbat]

As guildford said at some point though, winning Umpire of the Year 5 times must count for something. And I do feel that the umpire is under-represented and that Taufel is the best (and at this stage perhaps only) viable candidate to fill that void. After all, we need somebody to keep Lillee and Miandad apart, and to ensure that WG doesn't give himself not out!

A YES.

---

A point about umpiring that occurred to me the other day which isn't entirely related to Taufel's case:

It strikes me as strange that batsmen often cite their eyesight as a reason for a drop in form in their late 30s. Yet most umpires haven't started by then. Surely umpires must also have issues with their eyesight which make it difficult to be effective when older.

I'm not saying that all umpires should retire at 40. But the job must be difficult in your 60s, and on that logic you'd think an umpire would be at their best around their 30s.

Anyway, just a random thought really.

Shelsey - yes indeed, winning Umpire of the year 5 times must count for something. I should have flagged that again when voting YES for Simon Taufel.

Whilst batsmen do 'often cite their eyesight as a reason for a drop in form in their late 30s', I suspect it's actually more to do with a lessening in their powers of reaction to what they see. Following the flight of a bouncer from the non-striker's end may still be quite possible whilst ducking out of its way (let alone hooking it for four) far more problematic.

Interestingly perhaps, I've heard more than one umpire state how important hearing is to their role. I'm friendly with a member at the Oval who gave up umpiring at a decent level (Ryeman Surrey League) when his hearing started to go.

When doing research on Fred Titmus, I read how important Dickie Bird regarded good hearing for an umpire. As an aside, Dickie told of Fred being pretty deaf in his later years of playing. If ever (and it wasn't often!), a catch was missed behind the stumps by John Murray off his bowling when Dickie was umpiring, Fred would check with Dickie that there had been a nick before proceeding to give the keeper a rollocking!

[kwinigolfer]

Shelsey,
No umpiring after the age of 40?

From my advanced age I'm not sure that the judgement I have gained in the decades since my 40th birthday is that disposable. Sure there should be medical tests to examine accuity of hearing, sight and judgement, but to dismiss older candidates with otherwise impeccable credentials hardly seems quite right.

Fortunately, my hearing was tested recently and found to be "exquisite". To be dismissed "at a stroke" in the manner you imply suggests that some consider experience to be wasted on the experienced.

Wonder how many times Frank Chester won Umpire Of The Year Award? You have convinced me that my No (for the time being) for Taufel was the correct vote.

[msp83]

My Votes.
Athol Rowan no. Well, he certainly was a man of courage, and him playing cricket at the highest level despite his injuries is something of great credit. But the eventual record I don't think match the high standards we set for.
Mike Procter no. I have an uneasy feeling the South African players who missed out during the boycott period are getting a rather easy ryde. They never played quality spin in testing circumstances, they never played the quality pacers from the West Indies in an international environment, and some like Procter didn't even have any extended test career. We have seen with the likes of Thomson that a fine start can come to a grinding halt at the highest level. Too many doubts there for me. Procter might have become one of the finest all-rounders in the world, and I am willing to reconsider this vote if it comes to a 2nd round.
Allan Donald yes. No questions there, one of South Africa's best ever bowlers, has a fine record, and was a man of impact across conditions. Was involved in some absorbing passages of the game that has now become part of the very fabric of cricket. Has also been making significant contributions in a coaching role with South Africa, England and New Zealand.
Simon Taufel yes. One of the most respected umpires of the modern times, arguably the best of his time, someone who strove for greater professionalization of umpiring.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Vote time
Athol Rowan-Like Guildford, I believe our HoF should look beyond stats alone and, in exceptional circumstances, reward those who, through guts, determination and character, have enriched the game. For me Athol Rowan is one such- Yes

Mike Proctor-While, as MSP points out, there will always be a doubt as to whether Proctor would have fulfilled his tremendous talent on the international stage, having seen him play I feel that, as in the case of his compatriot Barry Richards, that doubt is minimal. Fantastic FC record, and performed on the few occassions he did face top class 'international' opponents-Yes

Allan Donald-One of the great fast bowlers of all-time, so good, in fact, that I'd probably chose him in an all-time Warks. XI-Yes

Simon Taufel-I have no qualms about umpires being included in our HoF and Taufel seems to be one of, if not the, best ever.-Yes

[alfie]

Afraid I feel very indecisive on this lot. Donald seems to me an obvious YES , but the others all have plus and minus points , well brought out I think in the debates. I can see why people sometimes feel like abstaining from the vote , but no , I will choose.
Rowan a NO , at the risk of seeming hard hearted. The record just isn't quite there for me , so while I salute his courage I won't put him where Pataudi couldn't go.
Proctor did what he could with the few chances he had ...like Richards we have to do some assuming here , but what I saw of him says the assumption wouldn't be misplaced. YES.
Taufel ...the hardest , because he is the first umpire we have considered. Will there be others ? Undoubtedly an excellent umpire as the honours bestowed on him , and the regard in which he is held , not least among posters here , show.
But I am not sure I am ready to take him in a first ballot...a NO , though I might be persuaded to change that in a repachage.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Shelsey
I know I may be accussed of greediness , but I believe there are only three candidates up for discussion over the coming fortnight, and I wondered if I might be able to propose a couple more, in order to give us a bit more to debate.
Both are Australian (don't really know why I keep proposing Australians, just that I feel there are a number of Aussies who deserve consideration), and both are, IMHO, somewhat overlooked when talking about great players.
They are:
Bill Johnston
Bobby Simpson

Of course, if you have other plans then that's fine by me, but maybe we could discuss these two at some point?

[msp83]

I hope Tony Greig is in the list of to be considered.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Shelsey
.... I feel there are a number of Aussies who deserve consideration), and both are, IMHO, somewhat overlooked when talking about great players....Bobby Simpson

I recall the opening partnership of Simpson and Bill Lawry batting for what seemed like an eternity against England. At the time they seemed completely immovable... But perhaps better not launch into a premature debate!

[kwinigolfer]

Towny Grigg is already in the Towny Grigg Hall Of Fame.

[Mike Selig]

Evening all,

Away the week-end running a coaching course in the south west of France (Eymet - for MfC's info and anyone who knows it; not far from Montbazillac which is well-known for its (mostly sweet) wines).

Some interesting decisions with the voting. I am a bit concerned Donald has had an easy ride of things because he is a strong candidate on paper. I'm as big a fan as Donald as anyone I believe (what an action), but I'm a bit uneasy.

My personal view on Tauffel is he is being nominated as
a) an outstanding umpire
b) for want of a better phrase "services" to umpiring, with driving standards forwards.

With that in mind I am somewhat surprised to see his candidacy so well received compared to what I would have thought were similar cases for Rhodes (Jonty) and Woolmer, whoom I view as good and as influential in their respective fields (no pun intended) as Tauffel was (with the added caveat that it is harder to judge Tauffel's influence from so close). It is slightly disingenuous, because there were other factors involved for Woolmer (the Cronje issue) and Rhodes (people weren't willing, wrongly IMO, to separate Rhodes the fielder and pioneer from Rhodes the cricketer), but I do think it says something about us as a board and our experience of cricket that we seemingly value umpires higher than coaches and fielding (to oversimplify somewhat).

In any case, guildford is entirely correct that we should not as individuals be bound by our collective previous decisions, so I won't lose too much sleep over it, but I find it interesting.

Shelsey talks about eye-sight, but the eyes play a much different role in playing and umpiring. When batting it is all about early judgement and anticipation - the best batsmen can pick the length of the ball from just before the ball leaves the bowler's hand, and when that starts to go, you start to move comparatively later, and so you're more hurried on your shot. With umpiring, "all" you need is to see what happens 23 or so metres away perfectly, the predictive element is based on what you see rather than what you perceive is going to happen. Guildford is right in that it is not only your eyesight which goes, but your hand-eye as well.

There have been quite a few comparisons between Proctor and Barry Richards, and rightly so IMO. Both had their careers unfairly cut short, both were brilliant in that very short time, and simply magnificent at the highest level(s) available to them.

So there we are for the votes:
Donald - YES, with the caveat that he was an average ODI bowler (and I wonder if his figures were reversed how many would be prepared to include him).
Tauffel - YES, for the reasons detailed above and in previous posts.
Proctor - YES, as per the comparison with Richards.
Rowan - regretfully NO, much as I admire the man. His cricketing achievements just don't stack up for me.

As a final point, I would personally feel very uncomfortable debating Tony Grieg so soon after his tragic demise - I think I and others would find it far too difficult to look back on facts objectively. Whilst I have nothing against debating Grieg (it would be interesting - his record is perhaps surprisingly good, and he had a colourfull life), I do think we should wait a while.

[Shelsey93]

I agree on Greig. I sort of put him to the end of the list hoping more would come in ahead of him. Thus, I don't plan to do that debate yet.

Results and info about the next stage tomorrow.

[Shelsey93]

Results:

Allan Donald - 9 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Rowan - 3 Yes, 6 No = 33.3%
Taufel - 6 Yes, 3 No = 66.6%
Procter - 6 Yes, 3 No = 66.6%

So, Donald through, Rowan out, and the others in the Rep. I think Donald's got a bit of an easy ride to be honest.

OK.

The next group will consist of four names:

Hugh Tayfield (Biltong)
Makhaya Ntini (Biltong)
Charlie Turner (please see this thread: https://www.606v2.com/t39834-charlie-the-terror-turner)
Bill Johnston (Hoggy_Bear)

I'll save Simpson for the batch following this, for which some more nominees are also welcome. The Home Page will be updated today.

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - Can I respectfully ask for a recount please .I thought the votes were 7-2 in favour of Procter.

[Shelsey93]

Yes. Apologies for that error. Also, I think I gave an extra YES to Rowan.

So Procter actually gets inducted narrowly.

I also have a proposal for a couple of weeks time - Sir Wes Hall.

[guildfordbat]

Thanks, Shelsey.

Sir Wes Hall is an excellent proposal. Make sure you play the middle name card!

Shame about Rowan but can understand others concluding that there simply weren't enough cricketing successes.

I'm sure Taufel will get in at a later stage. Some obviously felt now was just too soon - can understand that as well.

You and Mike still appear to have some reservations about Donald, albeit they didn't prevent YES votes. Mike particularly referred to his One Day performances. There may be particular matches (I've forgotten or never knew about) which cause concern but his general ODI record is still impressive per Cricinfo details. 272 ODI wickets at under 22 each with a strike rate just over 31 and an economy rate of 4.15.

I disagree with msp about the South Africans of the apartheid ban years getting 'an easy ride'. I believe we only have 3 to date: Graeme Pollock whom I would have pushed to be in our inaugural 30 if I'd had my wits about me at the time; Barry Richards who was subject to considerable debate; and now Mike Procter. Eddie Barlow missed out altogether. I'm sure others would have been debated by now if their Test careers had continued (eg Denis Lindsay) or even been allowed to start (eg Jimmy Cook).

Look forward to the debate on the latest four (athough I'm away from tomorrow until the weekend). Johnston particularly interests me - was he merely a support act not only to another bowler but a bowling partnership (Lindwall and Miller)? Or was he a star in his own right? Over to you Hoggy ....

[msp83]

Thanks, Shelsey.

Sir Wes Hall is an excellent proposal. Make sure you play the middle name card!

Shame about Rowan but can understand others concluding that there simply weren't enough cricketing successes.

I'm sure Taufel will get in at a later stage. Some obviously felt now was just too soon - can understand that as well.

You and Mike still appear to have some reservations about Donald, albeit they didn't prevent YES votes. Mike particularly referred to his One Day performances. There may be particular matches (I've forgotten or never knew about) which cause concern but his general ODI record is still impressive per Cricinfo details. 272 ODI wickets at under 22 each with a strike rate just over 31 and an economy rate of 4.15.

I disagree with msp about the South Africans of the apartheid ban years getting 'an easy ride'. I believe we only have 3 to date: Graeme Pollock whom I would have pushed to be in our inaugural 30 if I'd had my wits about me at the time; Barry Richards who was subject to considerable debate; and now Mike Procter. Eddie Barlow missed out altogether. I'm sure others would have been debated by now if their Test careers had continued (eg Denis Lindsay) or even been allowed to start (eg Jimmy Cook).

Look forward to the debate on the latest four (athough I'm away from tomorrow until the weekend). Johnston particularly interests me - was he merely a support act not only to another bowler but a bowling partnership (Lindwall and Miller)? Or was he a star in his own right? Over to you Hoggy ....

Guildford, my point is that the isolation era players are not often subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as happenes in the case of some proven performers. Someone like Anil Kumble, for example, many of us had concerns about his away record, or with Lance Gibbs despite him ending up as the top wicket taker in test cricket by the time he was done, we had concerns about his average.
But at the same time, the South African players, in the barbarian era, who never played India, Pakistan or the West Indies home or away, never are subjected to such rigorous scrutiny. We all know these sides presented significant and diverse challenges for a cricketer, whether that is facing up to absolute quality pace and bounce, swing, conventional and otherwise, and serious quality spin in testing circumstances. Of course it can be argued that its not the fault of the players. While to some extend that is valid, I am not sure how much can they be morally absolved either.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Look forward to the debate on the latest four (athough I'm away from tomorrow until the weekend). Johnston particularly interests me - was he merely a support act not only to another bowler but a bowling partnership (Lindwall and Miller)? Or was he a star in his own right? Over to you Hoggy ....

Thhanks for the intro Guildford.
Glad to see that Donald and Proctor got in. Sad to see Rowan didn't, although I knew that that was the likely outcome.
Anyway, onto this week and William Arras Johnston:

Bill Johnston


‘Big’ Bill Johnston is, IMO, a seriously underrated cricketer.
Usually remembered as being simply a back-up to Lindwall and Miller he, (much like the similarly underrated Max Walker), was far more than that. In 40 tests, with a mixture of left-arm fast-medium and finger-spin, he took 160 wickets at 23.91. During the 1948 ‘Invincibles’ tour of England he was the leading FC wicket-taker and joint leading Test wicket taker with Lindwall, feats which led Wisden to name him one of their cricketers of the year and to state that, "no Australian made a greater personal contribution to the playing success of the 1948 side" . Regarded by Bradman as Australia's greatest-ever left-arm bowler, in 1951–52 Johnston became the fastest bowler to reach the milestone of 100 Test wickets at that point in time, averaging less than nineteen for those wickets. By the end of that season, he had played 24 Tests and contributed 111 wickets. Australia won nineteen and lost only two of these Tests. Unfortunately, however, a knee injury suffered in 1953 forced him to remodel his bowling action, and he became less effective, before eventually retiring after aggravating the injury in 1955.
Born in 1922 in Victoria, Johnston was originally a slow left-armer but, when he emerged from the RAAF, former Australian captain Jack Ryder advised him to bowl quicker, advice soon reiterated by Don Bradman, who wanted more pace on the 1948 Ashes tour. So Johnston used his height and strength, together with his looseness of limb, to turn himself into a left-arm bowler of immense variety, able to swing the ball at a brisk fast-medium pace, occasionally explode into short episodes of real speed, bowl a bouncer as vicious as anyone in the world, and, when the conditions were right, reach back to the spin of his youth, each variety delivered with probing accuracy.
Johnston used these abilities, along with a great reserve of stamina, to turn himself into the perfect foil for Lindwall and Miller, able to bowl long spells in order to give the faster bowlers a rest, without allowing the batsmen one. Certainly, he could be a devastating bowler in his own right as his figures suggest. He began his career by taking 16 wickets in 4 tests against India and forcing his way into the squad for the 1948 Ashes. Then in the first test at Nottingham, he gave notice of his talents, taking 5 wickets for 36 in England’s first innings as they were bowled out for 165 before, in the absence of an injured Lindwall, bowling 59 overs to take 4/147 in the second.
The South African’s were next to feel the power of Johnston’s arm. Despite a car accident early in the tour of 1949-50, which left Johnston with what he described as "a nine-iron divot in the top of my skull", he returned after two months out to take 6/44 in South Africa’s 2nd innings to seal an Australian victory in the first test. In each of the next three Australian home series, against England, West Indies and South Africa, he was Australia’s leading wicket taker. Then, however, in 1953, he seriously twisted his knee and was never the same again. Eventually his form dropped so much that he was ditched by Australia, and he slipped quietly into retirement.
In his pomp, however, there can be little doubt of his greatness. Former Test opener Jack Moroney once declared: "Bill Johnston could do things with a cricket ball that were beyond normal human beings.", while Neil Harvey called him "one of the best all-round bowlers in the history of cricket" and said that "He was one of the best bowlers I ever came across. I saw him bowl to some of the best batsmen in the world and knock them over."
Harvey also said of Johnston that his ability to bowl with both the new and old ball was “unprecedented - not many blokes could bowl the new ball as well as Bill Johnston and then when the shine came off come back and bowl his finger-spinners," and that "In 1947-48 we thought we were playing with 13 players - we reckoned Bradman was worth two and Bill Johnston was worth two."
Yet despite possession of a mean bouncer, (his Victorian and Australian team-mate, Ian Johnson, said of him: "He was not quite as fast [as Lindwall and Miller] but fast enough, and he had the ability to make a bumper fly from a really awkward length"), Johnston was a well-liked and genial individual. Bill O’Reilly said of him that "As a bowler he has one failing - he hasn't a temper." This didn’t seem to bother his team-mates though. Harvey recalled that, "His happiness spread itself through the team.", while Bill Brown said Johnston was the most popular member of the Australian team amongst his fellow players. "He had that lovely personality that everybody liked," Brown said.
His personality also made him the ideal team-man who, according to Jack Fingleton, “ never stopped smiling, never shirked a job no matter how tough it was.” and who was, as a consequence “ the ideal tourist and a captain’s dream”.
Bill Johnston. Versatile, effective, underrated, genial genius. Surely a worthy candidate for entry to our HoF?

[kwinigolfer]

No comment from Shelsey I see following my reply to his age-ism complaint!
No problem Shelsey - you'll be forty soon enough!!

As for this lot, I'm not about to spend too much time researching the credentials of a couple of guys who their home country clearly doesn't rate, namely Charlie Turner (intriguing though a first glance at his history is) and Bill Johnston (who I just remember at the very tail end of his career).

The Aussies rated 35 candidates more strongly before Charlie Turner reached their Hall Of Fame; Bill Johnston still hasn't got there.

First glance suggests Bobby Simpson to be a marginal candidate, but will have to bone up on his career as coach and administrator. Apart from his other impressive credentials I seem to recall him being a fantastic close fielder, right up there in the (pander to Surrey) Mickey Stewart, Tony Lock class, or if you prefer Arthur Milton and Peter Sainsbury (pandering to moi).

Edit: First glance suggests I wasn't paying attention.

And I'll need a lot of convincing about Hugh Tayfield who I saw play (11 for 144, and 35 bowled by the all-time great Butch White) at Southampton. His feat of being responsible for all ten wickets in a Test innings, if not unique, is certainly noteworthy. Have to get John on the celestial phone about this lot.

Don't know enough about Ntini, some reading ahead.


PS: I wish we could have presented a more powerful case for Mike Proctor; I for one have no question about his place in our Hall. Just unfortunate that his greatness should somehow be seen as inferior to that of Pollock and Richards rather than equal to them, but in a different way. An injustice that he hasn't yet reached the ICC Hall.

[Shelsey93]

Ha, I did see that Kwini! Nothing against people in their 40s and 50s (Or of any age if they're good enough) umpiring: merely a passing thought of mine that batsmen retire at 40 citing eyesight, but umpires continue to 60+ (or at club level, even 90 from time to time!)!

[Biltong]

Results:

Allan Donald - 9 Yes, 0 No = 100%
Rowan - 3 Yes, 6 No = 33.3%
Taufel - 6 Yes, 3 No = 66.6%
Procter - 6 Yes, 3 No = 66.6%

So, Donald through, Rowan out, and the others in the Rep. I think Donald's got a bit of an easy ride to be honest.

OK.

The next group will consist of four names:

Hugh Tayfield (Biltong)
Makhaya Ntini (Biltong)
Charlie Turner (please see this thread: https://www.606v2.com/t39834-charlie-the-terror-turner)
Bill Johnston (Hoggy_Bear)

I'll save Simpson for the batch following this, for which some more nominees are also welcome. The Home Page will be updated today.

It is about time that Some South African get an easy ride.

I must say I don't think Proctor should be there, but then if majority says yes, then he is in, at least it helps to bolster the numbers for SA.

[Biltong]

Oh, just by the way, thanks for all your hard work Shelsey, I don't vote on those I know nothing about, but it is a very interesting and worthwhile thread this.

[guildfordbat]

....

I disagree with msp about the South Africans of the apartheid ban years getting 'an easy ride'. I believe we only have 3 to date: Graeme Pollock whom I would have pushed to be in our inaugural 30 if I'd had my wits about me at the time; Barry Richards who was subject to considerable debate; and now Mike Procter. Eddie Barlow missed out altogether. I'm sure others would have been debated by now if their Test careers had continued (eg Denis Lindsay) or even been allowed to start (eg Jimmy Cook). ....

Guildford, my point is that the isolation era players are not often subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as happenes in the case of some proven performers. Someone like Anil Kumble, for example, many of us had concerns about his away record, or with Lance Gibbs despite him ending up as the top wicket taker in test cricket by the time he was done, we had concerns about his average.
But at the same time, the South African players, in the barbarian era, who never played India, Pakistan or the West Indies home or away, never are subjected to such rigorous scrutiny. We all know these sides presented significant and diverse challenges for a cricketer, whether that is facing up to absolute quality pace and bounce, swing, conventional and otherwise, and serious quality spin in testing circumstances. Of course it can be argued that its not the fault of the players. While to some extend that is valid, I am not sure how much can they be morally absolved either.

Msp - I understand (most of) your argument. Just feel that Pollock, Richards and Procter are the wrong people to pick a fight with about it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to pick a fight with Procter even over the phone!

PS On a more serious note, I didn't like you appearing to suggest that the South African cricketers were somehow responsible for their Government's actions and thus in part 'morally' to blame. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood.
Did you know Richards led a 'walk off' in protest at the apartheid regime? I don't know about Pollock's and Procter's views and actions one way or the other. Please be aware that I abhorred apartheid then and now. I don't necessarily say that the cricketing ban because of it was wrong but I do have enormous sympathy for those caught up in it. At the same time as the British Government was placing bans on cricketers, it was encouraging all sorts of trade with South Africa. The stench of hypocrisy is not pleasant. Rant over.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - good start on Johnston. Good middle name as well! I'll review properly at the week-end.

Kwini - do agree with you that more could have been done to show Procter's worth. At least some of his brilliance remains available on YouTube.
The Aussies not rating Johnston and Turner doesn't by itself mean we shouldn't.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just another couple of factoids regarding Johnston (which I believe are correct, although I haven't checked rigorously).
1)Johnston is the last Australian to have taken 100+ wickets in an English season (1948)
2)Johnston is the only Australian, other than Bradman, to have averaged 100+ with the bat over the course of an entire English season (1953)

[kwinigolfer]

Hoggy,
Ref: 2)That's a beauty which I now recall (not the actual performances you understand, but the stat!).


guildford,
You're correct of course, but it does remind one of so many other candidates we've overlooked.

And on that note, Shelsey, if you allow me some time to get my sh1t together on an opening argument, I'd like to propose Zaheer Abbas for future consideration. Like Verity, I'm not sure on him myself yet, but if grace and style count for anything, and in the certain knowledge that the miserable Miandad somehow broke in to our Hall, I'll open the batting for Zaheer.

[msp83]

....

I disagree with msp about the South Africans of the apartheid ban years getting 'an easy ride'. I believe we only have 3 to date: Graeme Pollock whom I would have pushed to be in our inaugural 30 if I'd had my wits about me at the time; Barry Richards who was subject to considerable debate; and now Mike Procter. Eddie Barlow missed out altogether. I'm sure others would have been debated by now if their Test careers had continued (eg Denis Lindsay) or even been allowed to start (eg Jimmy Cook). ....

Guildford, my point is that the isolation era players are not often subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as happenes in the case of some proven performers. Someone like Anil Kumble, for example, many of us had concerns about his away record, or with Lance Gibbs despite him ending up as the top wicket taker in test cricket by the time he was done, we had concerns about his average.
But at the same time, the South African players, in the barbarian era, who never played India, Pakistan or the West Indies home or away, never are subjected to such rigorous scrutiny. We all know these sides presented significant and diverse challenges for a cricketer, whether that is facing up to absolute quality pace and bounce, swing, conventional and otherwise, and serious quality spin in testing circumstances. Of course it can be argued that its not the fault of the players. While to some extend that is valid, I am not sure how much can they be morally absolved either.

Msp - I understand (most of) your argument. Just feel that Pollock, Richards and Procter are the wrong people to pick a fight with about it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to pick a fight with Procter even over the phone!

PS On a more serious note, I didn't like you appearing to suggest that the South African cricketers were somehow responsible for their Government's actions and thus in part 'morally' to blame. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood.
Did you know Richards led a 'walk off' in protest at the apartheid regime? I don't know about Pollock's and Procter's views and actions one way or the other. Please be aware that I abhorred apartheid then and now. I don't necessarily say that the cricketing ban because of it was wrong but I do have enormous sympathy for those caught up in it. At the same time as the British Government was placing bans on cricketers, it was encouraging all sorts of trade with South Africa. The stench of hypocrisy is not pleasant. Rant over.

Guildford, my hint about the cricketers not being entirely free from some amount of moral responsibility is not exactly player specific. I have read about Richards leading a walkout in 1970-71, and I think Procter too was part of the same. My point though, is a bit different, what I am trying to say is that the colour specific cricketing systems existed in South Africa during that time, and the cricket establishment reflected the social divisions of the times. My readings about the politicws of South African cricket of the times suggests that Ali Bacher started concerted efforts at bringing together cricketers from different social background only in the isolation era. Credit to him for the effort, but at the same time it also points to the fact that such innitiatives could, should have been taken by others even earlier. Of course India did play a significant role in mobilizing international public opinion against the obnoxious regime, and the different socio political backgrounds would also influence opinion formation.
The sporting boycott denied many, but as Mike Procter, one of the victims of the same suggests, a test career is nothing before the suffering of millions, and eventually, the international isolation did make a contribution in pushing for change and inclusion.

[msp83]

Makhaya Ntini is one player in the list I have watched, and I have aead a bit about Hugh Tayfield. Both of them, I think have a pretty decent case. South Africa and spin bowling usually do not sit well, but Tayfield had a brilliant record. Ntini had a fine record, was a match winner on his day, covered up well for the attack in the period after Donald left the seen and Steyn arrived, he was a man of character, and an inspiration to the new fabric of a rebuilding society.

[Mike Selig]

I agree partly with Hoggy's assessment of Bill Johnston - a tremendous player and an integral cog in the wheel of one of the greatest sides of all time. His tremendous unwavering accuracy meant that there was no let-up for the batting side once Lindwall and Miller had finished their first spell.

There is a good book by a guy called Marks (not of the Vic variety) about australian cricketing stories, and which ends with him picking a combined XI from the 1948 and 2001 Australian ashes sides and he picks Johnston as part of his bowling attack, alongside Warne, McGrath, Lindwall and Miller who pick themselves, thus ahead of the likes of Gillespie (who bowled quite brilliantly in 2001), Lee, Toshack, etc. I would tend to agree.

I am not sure however that Johnston is the greatest left-armer of all time - I would put certainly Wasim Akram but also Alan Davidson ahead of him.

And here is my main concern with Johnston. Good though he was, there are many better from Australia (McGrath, Lillee, Lindwall of course, then Miller, Davidson, Spofforth at least). This in itself won't disqualify him from HoF status, and his role with the "invincibles" in 1948 secures that outstanding career feat that could get him in there.

I have however a worry that Johnston may have been made into a better player by playing in such a good side. A bit like Damien Martyn, to use a modern analogy. Martyn was a tremendous player, but I always felt he'd have been less successful playing for a lesser side, not because he stacked his career by scoring easy runs when the hard work had already been done (Martyn scored some fantastic hundreds or near hundreds coming in when his team was in trouble - I can think of a 142 against Pakistan at the MCG sharing a huge stand with Dizzy Gillespie to get Australia up to parity on first innings (they then rolled Pakistan over for 150odd in the 2nd dig) and an 89 not out or so against New Zealand when Vettori was causing all sorts of trouble), but because he was the kind of guy who rubbed off a winning atmosphere and used it to raise his own game to the standards of those around him. In other words, I ask whether Johnston was a key component of the great Aussie side, or whether he was made a better player by being part of it, dragged up to their level by their efforts.

With the likes of say Andy Roberts, I felt he played his own part in the great West Indian quartet, and found I was unwilling to separate the efforts of the team from each of its components. Not sure such is the case with Johnston.

With Ntini, I suspect he is mainly being nominated for his inspirational effect on South African youngsters (his record is fine, but no more IMO). With that in mind, personally I think it is far too early to tell, although the signs are good, but am willing to be convinced if a good case is made, and relevant examples given.

Tayfield and Turner I know next to nothing about (beyond that until recently Tayfield held most of the SA bowling records) - research required.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I ask whether Johnston was a key component of the great Aussie side, or whether he was made a better player by being part of it, dragged up to their level by their efforts.

That's virtually impossible to answer Mike. You could say the same of any of the bowlers. would Lindwall and Miller have been as good if they hadn't had Johnston to do the hard yards, while keeping the pressure on?
I would say though, that the fact that Johnston took as many or more wickets than either Lindwall or Miller in virtually every series in which they bowled together shows that he was an integral part of that team. Certainly, Len Hutton put Johnston alongside Lindwall and Miller, writing, "Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and Bill Johnston, thoroughbreds all, fused their differing talents and characters into the most formidable bowling combination it was my lot to face.."

[Pal Joey]

The Aussies rated 35 candidates more strongly before Charlie Turner reached their Hall Of Fame; Bill Johnston still hasn't got there.

kwini,

After the initial 10 Hall of Famers were named in 1996, we have only had 2 inductees every year since - save for 3 in 2000 and only 1 in 2009 and 2012 respectively. We are being drip-fed; you might say, with the majority of players being from the post war era since that 1st batch of 10 were inducted.

Don't worry. We'll get Bill in there shortly. There is so much cricketing talent to consider here in Australia as I am sure you're aware!

All good things take time, remember?


Thanks for including Charlie Turner in this group of nominees, Shelsey.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Talking of Turner, don't know if Linebreaker wanted to put together a case, but there's a Cricinfo article celebrating Turner's election to the Aussie HoF which does a pretty good job:

Charlie Turner is to be inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame today.

Between 1887 and 1895, in 17 Tests, all against England, Turner took 101 wickets at an average of 16.53. That places him top of the all-time Australian Test bowling averages (among bowlers who have taken at least 50 wickets).

Known as The Terror, Turner's average of 16.53 is head and shoulders among those who have taken 100 wickets for Australia; his nearest rival is Alan Davidson, with 20.53.

In terms of economy rate, he stands a fraction ahead (1.93) of Bill O'Reilly on 1.94. On strike rate he tops again, with 51.2, a shade ahead of Glenn McGrath. Also, on highest number of wickets per Test - 5.94 - his nearest rival is O'Reilly with 5.33.

Turner took his first 50 Test wickets in a record six matches. He was the first Australian bowler to capture 100 Test wickets, and remains the only one to take 100 wickets in an Australian season.

Turner's figures are on par with those of SF Barnes (189 wickets at 16.43), and only bettered by George Lohmann's (112 wickets at 10.75). Lohmann, though, had the benefit of a series against a very weak South African side. Turner and Lohmann played against each other on many occasions and were always considered equals.

Sporting Life once wrote a typical Turner victim had been "skittled by a sonnet", reflecting the opinion of England captain Archie MacLaren, who described Turner's bowling as "poetry in motion".

Sir Stanley Jackson, another England captain and an excellent judge, wrote in Wisden, "I always regarded Charles Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against."

In Australia, for most of his first-class playing career, Turner was compared to Fred Spofforth, Australia's first great bowler. Australian opening batsman Alec Bannerman, who played with both, reckoned Turner "could turn the ball on a good wicket better than Spofforth and for this reason met with more success on Australian wickets, and equally as great success on English ones".

In 33 Years of Cricket Frank Iredale argued that Charlie faced a "harder task" than Spofforth, with fewer rabbits to bowl against, and improved wickets due to the liberal use of Bulli soil in Australia. Iredale concluded that "on all wickets, good and bad, and on English and Australian, Turner was the greatest bowler we ever produced".

Turner opened the bowling, delivering right-arm medium-pace with a low, square-on action off about seven yards. In 1888, at the Woolwich Arsenal, his delivery speed was measured at 55mph. He described himself as a fingerspinner, and was renowned for being able to bring the ball back sharply into a right-hand batsman. His great variety - his yorker was a feared delivery - was his strength.

He may have bowled like an English professional, but Turner batted like an Australian amateur. A dasher, he only scored two first-class centuries, but was good enough to open for Australia on occasion.

Turner was born in Bathurst on November 16, 1862. The Turners had arrived from England in 1842 as free settlers. They were farmers from Hertfordshire. After a few years they were drawn to Bathurst by gold. Turner's mother's side traced their origins to convicts and soldiers on the second and third Fleets.

His grandfather and father kept hotels. It was in one of those that Turner discovered he could impart vicious spin on a billiard ball, which he went on to apply to a cricket ball. He had the benefit of very strong hands and fingers; it was said that he could crush an orange to pulp between his first and second fingers.

Turner came to the fore in December 1881, against Shaw and Shrewsbury's All-England XI. The 19-year-old came on as first change for 22 of Bathurst and finished with 7 for 33. In the All-England second innings Charlie claimed all ten wickets for 36. The local papers hailed him as the new Spofforth.

In July 1882, Charlie married Sarah Emily Matthews - known as Em. The couple moved to Sydney the following year, where Turner had a job at the Australian Joint Stock Bank. Tragically Em died in childbirth soon after, leaving Turner devastated.

It was not until January 1887, in Sydney that he made his Test debut. He took 6 for 15, bowling unchanged with Jack Ferris, as England collapsed for 45. It was Spofforth's last Test. One great bowler departed, another emerged.

Turner and Ferris - the Terror and the Fiend - were the first great Australian opening bowling partnership. They must also rank as the smallest opening bowling combination in Test history: Turner was 5ft 9 and Ferris only 5ft 5.

Turner was a certainty for the 1888 tour of England. In the Lord's Test match he took 5 for 27 and 5 for 36, helping Australia win their first Test in England since the victory at The Oval in 1882. It was also their first-ever victory at Lord's.

On that tour Turner played in 39 matches, missing only one, and bowled a total of 10,359 deliveries, taking 314 wickets at an average of 11.38. In matches now deemed first-class, he took 283 wickets at 11.68. He also became the first bowler to take 250 wickets in an English season.

He toured again in 1890 and 1893, with success, although the latter was a very acrimonious tour, one that Turner described as "the most unpleasant and unsatisfactory trip to the old country that I have ever undertaken". He singled out George Giffen as "a difficult man… when a man is too conceited and plays for himself instead of his side he does a lot of harm".

The 1894-95 Test series in Australia was Turner's last. With the series tied at two games apiece, the scene was set for the decisive fifth Test in Melbourne. In the Sydney Test in February 1895, Turner had taken 3 for 18 and 4 for 33.

The cricket world was shocked when he was dropped from the side: fellow selectors Giffen and Jack Blackham voted him out. Australia lost the Melbourne Test and the series. Andrew Stoddart, the England captain, said the decision to drop Turner was vital to England's success.

Turner never played for Australia again, although there were desperate last-minute efforts to get him to tour England in 1896. His import business, selling cricket goods, failed in the economic depression of the 1890s. One of the reasons Arthur Shrewsbury claimed Turner would not tour in 1896 was that he owed money in England.

In late 1896, Turner launched a magazine - Australian Cricket - A Weekly Record of the Game. In January 1897, after 18 issues, the publishers pulled the plug.
Turner and his second wife, Harriett Emmy, and their daughter moved to Gympie, a gold mining town in Queensland, where he set up as a sharebroker. He played for a combined Queensland-NSW side against the 1897-98 England tourists with little success. By 1901, he and his family were back in Sydney, and he eventually found employment at the Government Savings Bank, where he worked until he was forced to retire in 1931. Fellow employees recalled "CTB" as "a kind gentleman".

In the 1920s Turner also wrote about cricket for the Sun newspaper in Sydney. He covered the Adelaide Test in 1921 and reconciled with Giffen.

In the mid-1920s Turner made some of the first-ever radio broadcasts about cricket. He was also at the nets to see the first appearances in Sydney of Don Bradman and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly recalled that while others told him he had to change his grip, Turner urged him to ignore that advice.

Following his retirement Turner and Edith, his third wife (his second wife had died in 1909), lived in Manly in Sydney. Turner died on January 1, 1944, aged 81. After his cremation his ashes sat unclaimed on a shelf at the undertaker's for 25 years before being returned to Bathurst due to the efforts of cricket writers David Frith and Jack Gunning. Ten years later the remains were buried at the Bathurst sports ground, where a small plaque marks the spot.

In life, Turner was a quiet, modest man. His recognition has been long overdue.

[Hoggy_Bear]

As for Tayfield, I reckon he's another who has a strong case. 170 wickets from 37 tests at 25.9. More wickets per test than either Laker or Gibbs. Lower average than Gibbs or Kumble. Great economy rate (he once bowled 137 consecutive deliveries without conceeding a run against England), but also the ability to run through teams (14 5fers in only 61 innings). South Africa's most successful spin bowler ever.

[Sponsored content]