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

[Pal Joey]

You've put together a very good case for Turner there, Hoggy. Thanks mate.

[Biltong]

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.

Good stats those.

[dummy_half]

"he once bowled 137 consecutive deliveries without conceeding a run against England"

Didn't know that he bowled to Boycott and Tavare...

[kwinigolfer]

I still like Tayfield's ten dismissals in an England Test innings . . . . almost up there with the Bill Johnston batting stat.

[msp83]

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.

I am sure Biltong will soon put up his case for Ntini. But I think its not just about his inspirational impact alone. He has more test wickets than even the likes of Waqar Younis and Allan Donald. He has won matches for his team in different conditions, has an impressive economy rate in ODIs, and has taken 10 wickets in a test match 4 times and has 18 5 wicket hauls as well. Even in ODIs, he has managed to tike 5 or more wickets 4 times, and he was Graeme Smith's go to man on flat tracks during his peak.
The inspirational aspect should be a big part of the case for him, but his record should also be a very significant part of it.

[Mike Selig]

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.."

I don't think it's impossible to answer, although a lot harder without having seen the players involved. I gave the Damien Martyn example, but Brad Hogg would be another - whilst he was playing for Australia he was statistically the 2nd best spinner around in the ODI format (after Murali) but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that translated his ability correctly (although again he was a very good player).

One helpful guide would be how those players got on as part of sides without quite as much quality. In Johnston's case it seems injury rather than anything else slowed him down.

Anyway, not saying I've anything against him, just raising a cause of concern for me.

[Mike Selig]

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.

I am sure Biltong will soon put up his case for Ntini. But I think its not just about his inspirational impact alone. He has more test wickets than even the likes of Waqar Younis and Allan Donald. He has won matches for his team in different conditions, has an impressive economy rate in ODIs, and has taken 10 wickets in a test match 4 times and has 18 5 wicket hauls as well. Even in ODIs, he has managed to tike 5 or more wickets 4 times, and he was Graeme Smith's go to man on flat tracks during his peak.
The inspirational aspect should be a big part of the case for him, but his record should also be a very significant part of it.

Played quite a few more tests than the likes of Waqar and Donald, so not sure how relevant that is. His record is good, but on its own would IMO leave him quite a bit short of HoF status on its own.
Whilst I'm at it, I have one other concerns about Ntini and that is that I felt that once he lost his nip, he became really rather pedestrian, and teams saw him as a fairly good scoring opportunity. I had this concern with Waqar, but he was so good in his prime that I didn't pay much attention to it. I consider the ability to adapt to a loss of ability an important aspect of a cricketer, and am not sure Ntini adapted that well.

[dummy_half]

Gree with Mike's comment that at face value Ntini falls some way short of HoF level based on his playing record. A very good international player (stats are at least equal to any of his contemporaries from England), but not a great one. If he is to be a YES from me (if I actually remember to vote this time), there has to be something added to his case beyond the purely playing side - I assume this would have to be his importance as the first black South African Test player.

My problem with this is that we don't really know yet how much of a legacy that will turn out to be - will there be a host of black SA cricketers coming through, or will they tend to stick to football and leave the traditional 'white' South African sports (rugby, cricket, shooting your girlfriend as a potential intruder) largely to the whites bar the occasional presence?

[msp83]

Ntini's emergance certainly opened up South African cricket beyond the rather limited social group to which the game was confined earlier. I believe it has certainly proved to the coloured people that they can also take to the game and do as well as anyone else. Moreover, and more significantly, Ntini had become a darling of South African sport sport lovers, across all social boundaries, and he has been regarded as a lot more than just a cricketer by even those who are not that closely associated with the game. That would have been an inspiration for all coloured cricketers, not just from the blacks alone. The likes of Hashim Amla, Vernon Philander and even Ashwell Prince have all left their mark on South African cricket. I believe Ntini's success and his acceptance into the South African cricketing fabric played a major role in opening up the possibilities for these cricketers to come through. It has to be remembered that even in the Barbarian days South Africa had some seriously tallented coloured cricketers, but the never had the opportunity. Ntini really was the new face of the inclusive cricket of the Rainbow Nation. And like Basil D'Oliveira, that symbolic significance needs to be acknowledged.

[Biltong]

Considering that Mkaya Ntini was only "discovered" at the age of 15 by a development officer he had a rather rapid rise through the ranks of junior cricket in SA. I don't think many will deny the fact that he was perhaps given special treatment two years later when he was selected to tour England with the SA U19's but his potential showed much promise and CSA were trying their level best to develop cricket in the previously non participatory population.

Ntini made his first-class debut in November 1995 against an England XI where he claimed two wickets in England's only innings as Border were beaten comprehensively.
In his debut first class sason, Ntini claimed 17 wickets at an average of 37.05. His best performance in an innings came against Free State, when he claimed three wickets and conceded 49 runs (3/49) during his 17 overs. He once again toured with the national Under-19s in March and April 1996, touring India where he played three youth Tests, and one of the three ODIs. After claiming five wickets in the first Test, and none in the second, he displayed his talent in the third match, taking 6/53 in the first innings and 3/48 in the second innings.

During Ntini's career he took 390 wickets in 190 innings of test cricket. His strike rate of 53.4 stacks up with most recognised fast bowlers and although his average just a tad over 28 is not comparable to the greatest fast bowlers in history, he comfortably sits in the company of modern day averages.

If you look at the period of 19 March 1998 to 30 December 2009 at his retirement from international cricket, he has taken the fifth most wickets during that time, the only seam bowler who took more wicket than Ntini was Glen McGrath.

Ntini is still the only South African who has taken 10 wickets in a match at Lords, he was always one of the fittest and most enthusiastic players on the field of play, in most cases Ntini would not ride on the bus after a day's play, but rather run back to the hotel. His commitment was never in question and the pride he had to represent his nation in a sport not usually played by his community was inspiring to kids of all ages.

Ntini had weaknesses as a bowler, he struggled to adapt his length in foreign conditions and had no swing, no slower ball, just straight up and down with good bounce.

Will Ntini leave a legacy in South African cricket?

Currently he is second on the alltime list for South African bowlers, Steyn is sure to go past him, other than that we will have to a long wait before Philander or Morkel hauls him in.

The biggest issue for Ntini is that CSA use him in the right manner, his inspiration for his community is not in the dark halls of CSA head office as a selector, but rather on the training ground where he can inspire and coach.

Why should Ntini be in the hall of fame?

For a decade he was second only to McGrath in the number of wicket taken amongst seam bowlers.

For any youngster to attain the successes from his background and considering that he only started playing cricket at an age when our kids would have had 5-6 years of coaching under their belts should be an inspiring story.

Ntini will never make the top ten all time greatest list in international bowlers, but he was good enough to lead an SA attack for more than a decade, Graeme Smith relied on Ntini's superior fitness to do the extra graft, never refusing to answer his captains call, and ultimately learnt more from cricket and his teammates than any of us would ever know.

Ntini comes from a rural area, a place most of us would never have experienced, where a simple thing like deodorant wasn't on the menu.

[msp83]

That is an excellent case biltong. Besides the obvious inspirational aspect, biltong's case again reflects my point, that Ntini's record shouldn't just be dismissed just like that.

[msp83]

I am very uncomfortable with people dismissing player's longevity. If Anil Kumble picked up 619 wickets it is because he played for 19 years. If Ntini picked close to 400 test wickets, it was because he played 101 tests. Playing so much of cricket successfully at the highest level for so long itself is a testament to a player's ability, to remain fit enough and good enough to be selected for so long and so many matches. Someone who played 5 tests can make it on the bases of presumptions of excellent as well as a good FC record, but if someone playes over 100 tests and maintain decent levels of quality, then we have to set super high levels of expectations. And I find bowlers are being subjected to more such rigorous scrutiny.
Ntini's average, while not at all bad, (it still is under 30 in this bloody batsmen's era), as biltong pointed out, his strike rate is pretty good, and as for impact on particular matches, his fifors and tenfors are quite indicative. While he led the attack during substantial parts of his career, South Africa always have possessed a decent bowling unit. Donald and Pollock were going strong during Ntini's early days, towards the end he had Steyn and Morkel for company. Big Jack has always been there. So Ntini's big wicket hauls can't be attributed to him being the only real quality bowler, not that I would agree with such an attribution entirely in the case of any bowler for that matter.

[msp83]

The adaptability argument is an interesting one. It is certainly true that Ntini's record in this regard isn't the greatest. He was never in the Waqar Younis league as a bowler, and hence the comparison doesn't even gets off the ground, Ntini averaged almost 4 runs more for each of his 102 wickets in the last couple of years of his career compared to his overall career record.
He wasn't a bowler who swung it much, never had a good slower ball, the pace and bounce were his best friends. As age caught up with him, the pace went down and his effectiveness too suffered. While this could count against Ntini the bowler, I would like to look at it a bit differently. Despite not having a lot of variation in his armor, Ntini was good enough to pick up 390 test wickets as well as 266 ODI wickets, many a time blasting through batting lineups. Without possessing some of the skill levels of fine fast bowlers, Ntini managed to achieve a fine record by remaining super fit, and that requires serious commitment, and I think we should credit him for that.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just don't know that Ntini cuts the mustard.
While his record is good, it is not outstanding for a fast bowler, even given the fact that he bowled in a period which favoured batsmen (how much was that down to a lack of top class bowlers?), and he doesn't appear to have much in the way of added extras.
Of course, he was the first black player to represent SA, but that was always going to happen, and he may have inspired other black South Africans to take up the game but, as in the cases of Ranji or George Headley, was he proactive in inspiring thers, or is it simply the natural reaction of seeing smeone of your own race doing well in an area that has previously been closed?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

"he once bowled 137 consecutive deliveries without conceeding a run against England"

Didn't know that he bowled to Boycott and Tavare...

Or Trevor Bailey.....

[Leff]

....or Bolus and Barrington facing a bowler by name Nadkarni.

See Nadkarni's bowling figures in the first inning of this match:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62939.html

[kwinigolfer]

Blimey Leff,
I remember Nadkarni and Borde etc etc.
Not the most spirited run chase to try and secure victory, 2.77 runs an over with plenty of wickets in hand.

wikipedia reports that, later in life, Bolus opened after-dinner speeches with the words:
"For those who saw me bat, let me apologise."

No need, I saw hours of Henry Horton at his most obdurate!

[Pal Joey]

So he was good at containing the batsman you might say.

Brilliant figures.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Bizarre tactics by England in second innings - held back Barrington far too long

Also mysterious is why Micky Stewart came in at no 10 in the first innings...

[kwinigolfer]

Corporal,
Are you on the Night's march from Surrey?

Wonder if Stewart was injured, he was down for #10 in the Second Innings also? 15 runs in 80+ balls in the First Innings, then was stumped. Bizarro to say the least!

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Hi Kwini - just a spot of nocturnal manoeuvres

Perhaps Stewart being played as a specialist close in fielder Guildford should have quoted this in support of Titmus candidature for HoF. "Deservedly took his place in England batting line up several places ahead of Micky Stewart...."

[Leff]

I ran a search for best economy rate among bowlers taking at least 50 wickets. Trevor Goddard showed up at the top just ahead of Nadkarni. When considering bowling average as well, I thought the most impressive figures were those of Bert Ironmonger and George Lohmann, both died young.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=economy_rate;qualmin1=50;qualval1=wickets;template=results;type=bowling

[kwinigolfer]

Corporal - Ah, the memories of Titmus climbing the batting order, one toe at a time.


Can of worms you've opened there, Leff!
What with Trevor Goddard on top and Turner and even Bill Johnston figuring impressively.

Regarding Bill Johnston I read through one of Benaud's tomes expecting to see some ringing endorsement of one-time teammate Johnston, but nothing especially flattering except the motivational factor of Miller being called to S.Africa as a medical replacement for our Bill, only for Bill to make a rapid recovery from injuries incurred and promptly bowl out of his skin!

[Leff]

Kwini, That was quite an impressive performance by England drawing all 5 test matches in India, with Cowdrey giving an admirable demonstration of how to blunt spinners with pads, Titmus bagging 27 wickets, and Nadkarni managing only 9 wickets (he was the best Indian batsman, if you used batting average as the measure) despite having the best economy rate.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesAnalysis.asp?SeriesCode=0139&Scope=All

Was Barrington dropped after the first test, or he had diarrhoea for 2 consecutive months after that stellar performance?

Kudos to MJK Smith for that sedative/hypnotic series!

[msp83]

Just don't know that Ntini cuts the mustard.
While his record is good, it is not outstanding for a fast bowler, even given the fact that he bowled in a period which favoured batsmen (how much was that down to a lack of top class bowlers?), and he doesn't appear to have much in the way of added extras.
Of course, he was the first black player to represent SA, but that was always going to happen, and he may have inspired other black South Africans to take up the game but, as in the cases of Ranji or George Headley, was he proactive in inspiring thers, or is it simply the natural reaction of seeing smeone of your own race doing well in an area that has previously been closed?

Ntini's inspirational role is largely active rather than passive. and it is highly valued by South African cricket.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/516385.html

[msp83]

Also see this.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/content/story/496094.html
on what Ntini means to an average cricket lover.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/content/story/495866.html
On why Ntini was the very pioneer South African cricket needed.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/485075.html

[msp83]

The cricket administrators in South Africa place Ntini at a pedestal, and they should have their reasons.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/485026.html

[msp83]

Makhaya Ntini emerged out of poverty, deprivation and prejudice to become one of the very good fast bowlers the game the game has seen, and the best role model for emerging cricketers in the Rainbow Nation. He satarted from nothingness, and besides a superfit body, it was his terrific spirit that allowed to carry on despite the odds heavily stacked against him.
Perhaps another black African cricketer would have emerged, but it was Ntini's success, his tenacity and commitment that gave him the stature that he has in South Africa today, not merely the fact that he was the first Black cricketer to play for the country. Had he failed, noone would have bothered, and in fact that might have strengthened existing prejudice further.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/439265.html

[Hoggy_Bear]

Some interesting stuff there msp, which shows that Ntini was a hugely popular and inspirational cricketer, something for which he should gain immense credit.
Still don't see that he conciously used his cricket career to raise the profile of black peole in the same way as Learie Constantine, for instance but, as I said during discussions of George Headley and Ranji, I think simply being a good example is very important, and Ntini certainly seems to have fulfilled that criteria.
Still don't know that that's enough to get over my doubts about his record, but it's certainly something to think about.

[dummy_half]

Let me just clarify something from my earlier post -
Ntini was clearly a very good player, and his background and development (as detailed by Bilt) are certainly interesting and raise the question of how good could he have been if developed within the system from a younger age.

However, the significance of his role as SAs first black Test player cannot be judged yet - we need to see if there will be many more quality players coming through, or if (as with Chester Williams for the Springboks), he is the first of a handful only, many of whom only make the team for 'quota' reasons.

For this reason, I think his possible inclusion into the HoF is very premature. Perhaps in 20 years we'll be able to look back and say he was a very important player, and be able to add a considerable legacy to his very good (but not genuinely outstanding) playing record.

[guildfordbat]

Some very good debate while I've been away even if it has come to a temporary halt. Just a few early thoughts.

An interesting point of concern raised by Mike about Johnston. I get the impression that he was a very ordinary tailend batsman (ignoring his freakish average of 100 one summer which was apparently contrived at the end). If that's correct, it might tend to support the view that his bowling was up there with that of Lindwall and Miller. If his bowling hadn't been so good, wouldn't the Aussie selectors have tried a supporting bowler who was better with the willow?

Tayfield was to all intents and purposes before my time. I've often heard him described as South Africa's greatest spinner but never been sure how much of an accolade that was. Champion weight lifter of Lilliput comes to mind. In the land of the blind, the one eyed is king and all that. However, his stats are pretty damn impressive and suggests that's an overly harsh judgment.
Does anyone know if home pitches were tailored for Tayfield?

Johnston and Tayfield played Test cicket for - I think - 7 and 11 years respectively. Reasonably impressive for both bowling styles but not fantastically so.

I tend to share reservations about Ntini with a few here. His figures are better than I expected although I still struggle to put him on the same level as the best before and since. As for his role now and any cultural legacy, I find it too soon to judge. I'll continue to listen but it's only fair to say I'll need some convincing.

As for Turner, I really need to do some work ....

[Hoggy_Bear]

An interesting point of concern raised by Mike about Johnston. I get the impression that he was a very ordinary tailend batsman (ignoring his freakish average of 100 one summer which was apparently contrived at the end). If that's correct, it might tend to support the view that his bowling was up there with that of Lindwall and Miller. If his bowling hadn't been so good, wouldn't the Aussie selectors have tried a supporting bowler who was better with the willow?

Tayfield was to all intents and purposes before my time. I've often heard him described as South Africa's greatest spinner but never been sure how much of an accolade that was. Champion weight lifter of Lilliput comes to mind. In the land of the blind, the one eyed is king and all that. However, his stats are pretty damn impressive and suggests that's an overly harsh judgment.
Does anyone know if home pitches were tailored for Tayfield?

Johnston and Tayfield played Test cicket for - I think - 7 and 11 years respectively. Reasonably impressive for both bowling styles but not fantastically so.

In support of Johnson, I agree with Mike that it's possible that he was simply the benficiary of bowling with great's in the form of Lindwall and Miller but, as has been suggested, it's virtually impossible to know whether that was the case unless you actually saw them all bowl. It might well be the case that Lindwall and Miller benefitted from bowling with Johnston. As you point out, Johnston didn't bring much to the party in terms of batting or fielding so, if his bowling hadn't been top notch, surely someone else would have had a go? I do find it a little difficult to believe that a man who regularly took more wickets than Lindwall or Miller (though, admitedly he bowl for longer periods than they did), was not a great bowler in his own right.
as to the longevity, or otherwise, of his career, I would point out that it may well have been shortened at the beginning by WWII, and was curtailed at the end by injury, although he was 33 by then anyway.

[msp83]

When we talk about longevity, I am reminded of a general tendency to undervalue the likes of Courtney Walsh and Anil Kumble, people putting their achievements down to just an extended career. Johnston has good stats, but unlike the above mentioned, he couldn't sustain it for that long. This is not a criticism of Johnston, just pointing out, we should be able to appreciate a great deal more the kind of glorious cricketers that the likes of Kumble and Walsh were, rather then putting them down for withstanding the rigours and demands of international cricket so successfully for so long.

[guildfordbat]

When we talk about longevity, I am reminded of a general tendency to undervalue the likes of Courtney Walsh and Anil Kumble, people putting their achievements down to just an extended career. Johnston has good stats, but unlike the above mentioned, he couldn't sustain it for that long. This is not a criticism of Johnston, just pointing out, we should be able to appreciate a great deal more the kind of glorious cricketers that the likes of Kumble and Walsh were, rather then putting them down for withstanding the rigours and demands of international cricket so successfully for so long.

Msp - I'm glad to see you are a convert to longevity and look forward to your YES vote when Fred Titmus comes round again.

You do actually touch on a potential concern for me about Johnston.

He played nine Test series in total; four against England and the remaining five against India, West Indies and South Africa. In six of those series, he very commendably averaged under 24 (and sometimes considerably lower) each time. However, in the other three series towards the end of his career he averaged 35, 49 and 94.

As Hoggy has flagged, injury was no doubt playing its part in those later series. Incidentally, he did not bat or bowl in his final two Tests in the West Indies (that's odd, Hoggy??). I have no desire to mark Johnston down due to injury but I think it's been well established that sympathy votes are in mighty short supply on this board.

I'm also conscious of my normal preference to judge players in the round over their entire career (where Johnston still impresses with a Test average just under 24) rather than highlighting the odd - almost inevitable - failure.

However, for a supporting act like Johnston (and, as most will know, I'm generally very warm to support acts), I do feel a particularly high level of consistency should be expected. I wonder whether it was highly and regularly enough supplied by Johnston.

[Hoggy_Bear]

However, for a supporting act like Johnston (and, as most will know, I'm generally very warm to support acts), I do feel a particularly high level of consistency should be expected. I wonder whether it was highly and regularly enough supplied by Johnston.

Guildford, you are correct in saying that injury played it's part in those three poor(er) seiries. In the 1953 Ashes in which he averaged 49 for just 7 wickets, he was severly hampered by the knee injury sustained early in the tour, which required him to have surgery after the 2nd test. Meanwhile, in the 1954-55 series, he injured his knee again while fielding during the 3rd test, and was therefore unable to bat or bowl in that match and, when brought back for the 5th test after a month off, aggravated the injury while attempting a catch early on the first day, which ruled him out of that match as well.
So, in reality, it could be said that only the 52/3 series (and, possibly, the first couple of matches of the WIndies tour), can be classed as being 'poor', and even then he took 21 wickets in the series, and his average (35) was inflated due to having to bowl large amounts of overs in the 4th and 5th tests because of injury to both Lindwall and Miller.
Personally, I reckon only 1 'poor' series, (in which injury didn't play a part), out of the 9 series he played, is pretty consistent, especially when you consider that in 6 of those series he averaged under 24 and, even in the one series when not injured in which he averaged more, he was still Australia's leading wicket taker.

[kwinigolfer]

Like one or two others, Maurice Tate for one, Bill Johnston's career didn't really get going until he was almost 26 years old, partly due to military service during the WWII and partly because he fancied himself as a spinner.

And sixty years ago, very few pace bowlers were successful deep in to their thirties anyway, especially if behind the likes of Lindwall and Miller (and then Alan Davidson) in the pecking order.

Would certainly not penalise him because his career was relatively short without understanding the mitigating factors.

Still not really sure why his performances are so much less rhapsodised over than those of Lindwall and Miller, but that is the way history treats him. But contemporary writers seldom paint him as much more than a most excellent supporting act. Fair or harsh?

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - thanks for your response on Bill Johnston.

Whilst I have your attention, I'll push my luck and seek further guidance concerning Charlie Turner.

The main issue I have is similar in a way to the difficulties I had (and still have) concerning female cricketers. My starting point is one of profound ignorance. Test cricket around the start of the twentieth century - like female cricket at all times - is something I know very little about.

I can judge such cricketers in part by a statistical comparison with their peers. Turner stands up there, albeit not at the highest peak of George Lohmann.

However, that is only part of the challenge before a candidate can get a YES vote from me. I also want to be satisfied as to the quality of the opposition against whom such stats were achieved. Any steer as to how good Turner's opponents were during this era would be much appreciated. The glowing write ups about Turner seem to concentrate on his figures and not the batsmen he dismissed.

Also, do you have any views on pitch conditions at this time and how much they would have helped Turner.

Queries directed to Hoggy in view of his knowledge of the game's history but comments appreciated from all, thanks.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Still not really sure why his performances are so much less rhapsodised over than those of Lindwall and Miller, but that is the way history treats him. But contemporary writers seldom paint him as much more than a most excellent supporting act. Fair or harsh?

Don't know about contemporary writers but, as I pointed out, his colleagues and opponents certainly saw him as as much a part of the bowling attack as Lindwall and Miller.
As for being less rhapsodised, I think that always tends to happen when you have fast bowlers, and especially a pair of fast bowlers, operating. Particularly if they're as charismatic as Lindwall and Miller.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I can judge such cricketers in part by a statistical comparison with their peers. Turner stands up there, albeit not at the highest peak of George Lohmann.

However, that is only part of the challenge before a candidate can get a YES vote from me. I also want to be satisfied as to the quality of the opposition against whom such stats were achieved. Any steer as to how good Turner's opponents were during this era would be much appreciated. The glowing write ups about Turner seem to concentrate on his figures and not the batsmen he dismissed.

Also, do you have any views on pitch conditions at this time and how much they would have helped Turner.

Queries directed to Hoggy in view of his knowledge of the game's history but comments appreciated from all, thanks.

Well Guildford, it's difficult to say exactly how good the batting was overall in those days, but I would point out that Turner bowled against some legendary English batsmen including WG, Arthur Shrewsbury, Bobby Abel, William Gunn, AC McLaren and the Hon FS Jackson.

[guildfordbat]

Thanks again, Hoggy.

Certainly very recognisable names although, apart from WG, I don't believe any as yet are in our Hall of Fame. That shouln't preclude entry to Turner but was he so good as to leapfrog them all?

Perhaps he was. Even if he wasn't, perhaps it doesn't matter.

Clearly it's not Turner's fault but just feel there are a lot of unknowns about him and consequently his candidacy. Any views on the pitches he bowled on and the help that gave him?

[msp83]

Shane Bond is not in the list of people to be considered for our HoF as of now. But I would like to ask one question, would you hold an injury ravaged career against him in case we consider him even though his stats are terrific when he played?

[Hoggy_Bear]

Thanks again, Hoggy.

Certainly very recognisable names although, apart from WG, I don't believe any as yet are in our Hall of Fame.

Give me time Guildford

On a more serious note, from what I've read, I think pitches certainly improved from the 1880s onwards, particularly the ones used for tests. That doesn't mean to say, of course, that the pitches Turner bowled on were batsmen's paradises and obviously they were uncovered and threw up the occasional 'stickey dog', but they probably weren't as bad as they had been a decade or so before.
Indeed, it's interesting to speculate on the state of pitches around this time. Pitch preparation had begun to be taken more seriously around the 1860s/70s with the rise of WG, and the introduction of overarm bowling, and by the 1880s the results of that were beginning to show, from what I can gather.
Now, while I'm not saying that pitches were as good as they were to become by the 1920s and 30s, many of those preparing the pitches for Hammond, Macartney and Bradman, would possibly have started there careers in the 1890s and might well have used techniques learnt then.
So, if those techniques could produce the roads of the inter-war years, maybe the pitches of the late-Victorian era weren't all that bad at all.
Anyway, that's simply speculation, and I'm sure pitches DID improve from the 1880s and 90s to the 1920s/30s, but maybe not by as much as we might imagine?

[guildfordbat]

Shane Bond is not in the list of people to be considered for our HoF as of now. But I would like to ask one question, would you hold an injury ravaged career against him in case we consider him even though his stats are terrific when he played?

I believe I've been consistent in saying that all things go into the mix for me. The weight attached to each item may well vary for different individuals.

In Bond's case - as per your intro for him - I would want to see how brilliant his stats were and how short his career was.

I don't look to automatically ditch a candidate because his career doesn't have longevity but equally I can't give credit to someone for longevity when his career was short (whatever 'short' may mean).

The reason for shortness of career would also be a factor. I would be more sympathetic to injury being the cause than the player choosing to appear on a reality tv programme as per Philip Tufnell.

Another example. I was a very strong supporter of Lance Gibbs in this process. His longevity in finally overtaking Trueman's record of Test wickets was a key factor for me. If Gibbs had been forced by injury to give up the game when he was only half way to that figure, I would almost certainly have expressed great sympathy and admiration for him whilst voting NO. My reason being that he wouldn't have reached the milestone concerned and would still have been some way well off it.

I think that's the best explanation I can give you for my vote. It's right because it's my vote!

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - many thanks for your 'pitch' comments re Turner. Appreciated.

I did suspect some of those English names were on your 'to do' list!

[msp83]

Bill Johnston's overall stats look good. There certainly is a good case for him based on his bowling average.
But then there are concerns. Of course the point that Mike made, about his stats influenced by the company he had, and it is someting that we can't really measure.
But his relatively short test career is a matter of concern for me. 160 wickets from 4 test means 4 wickets per match. An average of 23.9 is pretty good, a strike rate of 69 is nothing special.
Another fast bowler in the present list, Makhaya Ntini makes for interesting comparison. Ntini averages just under 4 wickets per test matches, of course has 230 wickets more than Johnston managed as he staied fit enough and good enough to play 61 additional matches. Johnston has a better average a 5 run advantage, Ntini has a much better strike rate, a 16 ball difference for each of their wickets. Bill Johnston took no 10 wicket haul in his 40 test career, Ntini took 4 of them, including one at the HQ and another one, 13-132, on a docile and helpless track at Port-of-Spain.
Many of us think Ntini's stats are nothing more than very good.

[guildfordbat]

Another fast bowler in the present list, Makhaya Ntini makes for interesting comparison. Ntini averages just under 4 wickets per test matches, of course has 230 wickets more than Johnston managed as he staied fit enough and good enough to play 61 additional matches....

It clearly wasn't just a case of Ntini staying fit enough and good enough to play 61 Tests more than Johnston. As well as there being masses more Test cricket played than in Johnston's era, Ntini wasn't inconvenienced by a delay to his Test career due to a world war.

There's a case to be heard for Ntini but I'm not sure that Johnston is the right comparator.

[kwinigolfer]

Hoggy,
I'm not on one side or the other on Johnston, just trying to be devil's advocate whilst pointing out some mitigation for some of his implied negatives.
Trying hard to be convinced about his credentials . . . .

[msp83]

Johnston made his test debut at the age of 25. That's not too old an age to make a test debut. We don't know whether he was ready enough or good enough to be selected for Australia at an earlier age. Many of the established cricketers lost valuable years of test cricket, don't think Johnston has such a clearcut case in this regard.

[Mike Selig]

A couple have mentioned that if Johnston wasn't a good enough bowler Australia would have picked someone with more strings to his bow (batting and fielding) which seems to me to be a very modern way of thinking.

Comparisons of Johnston and Ntini's strike rates (and indeed overall figures) are misleading, because they are both representative of their eras. The sensible comparison is to see how they measure against their contempories, and Ntini has quite a few ahead of him.

I'm not against Ntini as such - msp has highlighted how highly thought of he is in cricketing circles, and what a positive effect he's had on South African cricket. Of course part of that was being the right person at the right time, but as with Rhodes I think Ntini deserves most of the credit. My concern echoes Dummy though - I am not sure we have enough distance to tell exactly what his effect will be in the medium-to-long term: whilst it's fantastic to see guys like Amla and Philander coming through and being picked on merit, is it climate or merely weather? I would personally like to see Ntini placed on the repechage list so we could discuss him again later when we'll have more info.

[guildfordbat]

A couple have mentioned that if Johnston wasn't a good enough bowler Australia would have picked someone with more strings to his bow (batting and fielding) which seems to me to be a very modern way of thinking.

Mike - agree that more strings to the bow would have more priority today but not so sure it's that much of a modern way of thinking.

When India toured here in 1971 (admittedly getting on for 20 years after Johnston's time but still more than 40 years ago) with their potential quartet of spinners, I remember Venkat being preferred to Prasanna on account of his batting and fielding rather than his bowling which was generally considered weaker.

I'm sure there are quite a few other examples down the years.

[Sponsored content]