The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread

[Shelsey93]

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/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1
https://www.606v2.com/t21577-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-2#831213
https://www.606v2.com/t28256-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-3
https://www.606v2.com/t37142-the-v2forum-cricket-hall-of-fame-discussion-thread-part-4#1671498



Right, voting for the current round will close on Sunday - 10am.

Here are my votes:

Charlie Turner - Clearly Australia's stand-out bowler of the pre-World War I era. Yes, he may have had financial issues. But they don't really influence my perception of him as a cricket. He left Tests slightly early but was at an age by which many bowlers of later eras were worn out by. It must also be considered that a tour then consisted of months on a boat so playing international cricket too often was never going to help you financially (amateur game of course). YES

Bill Johnston - I said earlier that he was certainly a serious candidate. But sadly I can't quite find it in me to vote Yes for him. Firstly, he had a few too many poor series. Secondly, he seems very much to have been the third man in a top notch attack. To get in as an unsung hero he probably needed to have played a few more than 40 Tests.

Hugh Tayfield - Very similar sentiments to those I had with Johnston. Of course, it is in Tayfield's favour that he's SA best spinner. But I don't think he was a great - more of an important cog in a decent team. Has probably suffered from not having someone champion his case. NO

Makhaya Ntini - A very good bowler on his day, but it wasn't always his day and he wasn't in the class of a lot of his contemporaries and near contemporaries. His role as an icon is indisputable, but isn't sufficient to get him in the Hall in my view. Only time can tell if he can make a difference. NO

[Hoggy_Bear]

Ok Votes

Charlie Turner-Great figures, but I agree with Msp that the brevity of his career allied with the idea that that brevity may well have been as much his choice as due to circumstance, rules him out-No

Bill Johnston-Personally don't see how someone who was, consistently, the leading wicket taker for his country, can be viewed as simply a support bowler. As for him having too many bad series (sorry Shelsey, but I had to answer that), he had 3 series out of 9 in which he averaged over 24. In two of those he suffered an injury and in the other he still took more wickets than any other Australian. Two thirds of the series he bowled he averaged under 24. In 6 of thse 9 series he was Australia's leading wicket taker. In all he took 160 wickets at under 24. Far more than simply a support bowler, as Len Hutton and numerous of his colleagues would attest-Yes

Hugh Tayfield-South Africa's most successful spinner, and pretty damn good figures-Yes

Makhaya Ntini-While, like msp, I give Ntini a lot of credit for rising from humble beginnings to become SA's first black player, like others I think it's a little early to judge his impact in that regard. Maybe we should discuss him again in 20 years or so.-No

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I am a late convert to Bill Johnston - so YES to him and also to Tayfield. NO to the others - reluctantly. I think point has been made that Johnston not well served by historical recall - seems he's unfairly marked down....

[guildfordbat]

To confirm my votes and thoughts.

Turner - incredibly difficult to assess someone from so long ago. Uncertainties about so many things, in particular the quality of the pitches and the opposition (the latter presents a slight similarity for me in assessing female nominees). Certainly impressive figures and a lot made of them being the best for an Australian and some way ahead of the next best, Alan Davidson. However, Turner is more than the same distance behind England's George Lohmann and not quite of the same standard (admittedly exceptionally high) of Sydney Barnes. He was also beaten (just) to the milestone achievement of first to 100 Test wickets by John Berry. Throw into the mix a slightly short career and the very decent case for him is outweighed by the doubts and uncertainties. NO.

Johnston - clearly extremely capable but a relatively short career and I don't see enough evidence of him stepping up to deliver stand out performances to put him on a par with Lindwall and Miller. Like Shelsey, I don't detect any sense of excitement about him. NO.

Ntini - well argued caseby msp but my doubts (at least for the necade) already well documented. NO.

Tafyfied - like Alfie, I wonder if I'm being overly generous but feel there's just enough there. Close but he gets iin for me. YES.

[kwinigolfer]

No's across the board for me . . . . . . .

[Shelsey93]

Scores will be tallied up in the morning... if the computer at uni co-operates I also hope to get the Homepage up to date.

Also, what do people think going forward? Shall we pause here until October? Or shall we try and squeeze one more batch in?

[guildfordbat]

Shelsey - I'm happy to take part in another debate now if you and others want but am conscious we've been struggling for posts and posters in recent times. Some merit therefore in pausing now until October with a recruitment drive in September. Would be good to get some of the old regulars (Fists, Mad for Chelsea, JDizzle etc) back plus some new blood.

[JDizzle]

I'm off for Easter now, so I've got some (more) time on my hands so I'll try and contribute some more if there is another batch ready to go. But don't start one just for me if no-one else is knocking about.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I'd be up to discuss another group but, of course, it's dependant on who else is of the same mind.

[msp83]

I too, am up for another round, but if the level of response is at the level of the last round, I'd rather opt for a restart in October, and as Guildford says, we could try and get some of the old regulars back in, and look for some new contributers as well.

[Shelsey93]

Charlie Turner - 1 Yes, 6 No = 14.3%
Bill Johnston - 2 Yes, 5 No = 28.6%
Hugh Tayfield - 5 Yes, 2 No = 71.4%
Makhaya Ntini - 2 Yes, 5 No = 28.6%

Only Tayfield progresses to the repecharge.

Keep the thoughts coming in on whether to go with another round. I'll decide later this afternoon or tomorrow.

[kwinigolfer]

Very interesting result on Hugh Tayfield, can certainly see that his credentials match up with one or two HOF members, but not to some who have yet to be inducted by us. Looks about right then.

I can continue with debate this spring, probably have more time while there's still snow on the ground than in the autumn.

[guildfordbat]

JDizzle's availability now (which I hadn't expected) plus the positive responses from those who have already replied makes me think one more batch before our summer siesta would be worthwhile.

[Mike Selig]

I apologise for my recent absence. The last week I was sick (real flu, not just man flu) and essentially spent the first 3 days in bed sleeping fitfully. Then the rest of the week was spent catching up with work, as I am currently on a 2 week break (which feels earned for once). On Saturday there was a cricket meeting which I also had to prepare for, and Sunday was taken up by coaching.

I have now got a couple of weeks off, so keen to debate one more round before summer hibernation.

For what it's worth on last week's candidates I would have voted NO to all but Johnson, who would have been a borderline YES, with the caveat that I would actually have wanted to debate Ntini at a future date when we could see more clearly what legacy he left on the game. It seems my votes wouldn't have changed anything, but perhaps my debating would have, so once again apologies.

I will be a better forum contributor in the future.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Ditto re going for one more round.... - especially if another round includes a few likely to excite passion / controversy....

[Shelsey93]

OK. One more round it is.

Three candidates up for discussion now:

Sir Wes Hall (Shelsey93)
Bobby Simpson (Hoggy_Bear)
Monty Noble (Shelsey93)

We can accomodate another if anyone has any suggestions!

[msp83]

The cases for the candidates are to be made, but I feel Bob Simpson has a particularly good case. One of Australia's tough opening batsmen, he has a pretty decent but not outstanding batting record.. But besides that, he has 71 wickets from 62 matches, and he has been the first modernday coach who had some serious success under his guidance.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I'll try and post a brief case for Simpson a bit later.

[JDizzle]

Not too mention Simpson being easily the best slip fielder of his generation and probably one of the best of all time. I think he also has at least three Test 200's so my initial thoughts are his case looks pretty good with the added gambit of his coaching especially.

[Hoggy_Bear]

OK, a brief outline of the case for Bobby Simpson, although a number of points have already been touched on by msp and JDizzle

Bobby Simpson

Bobby Simpson is another cricketer whose achievements, both on and off the field are, IMHO, often overlooked. Indeed it would be possible to build a reasonable case for election to our HoF on the basis of both his playing, and post playing, career. As a player, his average of 46.8 would place him at the margins of our HoF, but closer analysis of his batting statistics suggests an even stronger case. At the time of his first retirement, in 1968 at the relatively early age of 32, his average was 48.6 and, when he opened the batting, as he did on 70 occasions, he averaged a very impressive 55.51.
As a batsman, he was a strong cutter and driver, but eschewed the hook and was adept at manoeuvring the ball into gaps in field and taking quick singles. With Bill Lawry, he formed one of the great opening partnerships in cricket history. They batted 64 times together, scoring 3600 runs at 59, with 9 century partnerships, including one of 382 at Bridgetown in 1965 that remains the Aussie record for the first wicket.
Almost amazingly, given these more than reasonable batting stats, Simpson didn’t score his first test match century until his 30th match, despite having already scored 40 FC centuries by that time. When he did score one, however, it was a doozy. A mammoth 311 which ensured the draw that meant Australia would retain the Ashes in 1964.
Yet Simpson the player was more than just a very good batsman. As a leg-spin bowler he was skilful enough to be classed, at worst, as a very good back-up and, at best, as a true all-rounder. He was also one of the best slip-fielders of his, and possibly any, generation, (as this clip illustrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuDuBAKp1xQ), and his skills as a leader were regarded highly enough for him to be appointed Australian captain, on Richie Benaud’s retirement despite, at that stage, a relatively mediocre test record, and the competing claims of other players.
Indeed, such was the regard for his captaincy, that almost 10 years after his retirement he was recalled, at the age of 41 and despite not having played FC cricket for almost a decade, to take charge of an Aussie side shorn of its stars due to WSC. Initially, he did well, scoring two centuries and averaging over 50 against India’s spinners. In the next series, however, he struggled against the West Indies pacemen, as is to be expected of a 42 year old, and slipped back into retirement.
Again, though, he was to return to take charge of an Australian side at a low ebb, this time as coach. When he took over, Australia had won only 3 of their previous 22 tests and had not won a series for two years. Though Simpson initially struggled to alter this pattern, the turning point came when Australia managed to win the 1987 World Cup (curse you Mike Gatting’s reverse sweep ). This was the launch pad of the Australian juggernaut that was to crush all before it over the next twenty years. During Simpson’s time as coach, Australia won the Ashes three times in a row, defeated New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka at home and, eventually, the West Indies away, establishing themselves as the best team in the world. The team that he coached, much like the team that he captained, reflected many of his own traits, an emphasis on fitness and effectiveness, and an almost fanatical desire to win.
He also coached in England, at Leicestershire and Lancashire and, while it might be argued that his style was less effective at county level, Jonathon Agnew, for one, saw Simpson’s stint at Leicester as the basis of the county’s successes in the late 1990s. Simpson also coached Holland to qualification for the 2007 World Cup.
How innovative Simpson was as a coach is debatable. Certainly he has criticised what he saw as the overuse of computers by some coaches and has emphasised the teaching of fundamentals, but there is no doubt about how successful his methods were, especially with Australia.
Of course, his career has not been without controversy. As both captain and coach he was accused of promoting drab, win at all costs cricket, but it must be remembered that the teams that he took over were lacking the talent and flair of some of their predecessors . He was also sued by Ian Meckiff after accusing him of being a chucker in his autobiography.
Despite these controversies, however, there can be little doubt of the importance of his career, as both player and coach, in the history of Australian cricket. Over the course of 4 decades Bobby Simpson proved himself to be, IMHO, both a great player and a great coach, whose runs, wicket and catches, leadership, determination and willingness to take charge in difficult times, were of immense value to his national team. For me, he is an outstanding candidate for our HoF.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I remember hearing commentary on radio as Simpson was dismissed for 311. Seemed like he had been batting for eternity. Very strong opening partnerships with the limpet like Bill Lawry.

[Shelsey93]

Sir Wes Hall to follow, but first Monty Noble.

Montague Alfred Noble's Test batting and bowling figures do not hint at a particularly special cricketer when taken on their own - 30 with the bat and 25 with the ball. However, he was a terrific all-rounder who played first-class cricket for 27 years and Tests for 11 between 1898 and 1909. Plum Warner says that 'determination was a distinct feature of his cricket'.

Wisden Cricketers Almanack described him as the 'greatest all-round cricketer produced by Australia'. Sadly no date or writer are given by Cricinfo, but reference is made to Wilfred Rhodes with Rhodes' figures incomplete, suggesting it was written some time in the 1920s.

As well as being a terrific batsman and bowler, Noble is described as having been a great fielder in Wisden and by Sir Pelham Warner as having been a 'magnificent' point fielder. In addition, he was Australian captain between 1903 and 1909, winning 8 Ashes Tests, losing 5 and drawing 2. This included leading his country to a 4-1 Ashes victory in 1907-08, a 2-1 win in 1909, as well as to a 3-2 to defeat in 1903-04. He didn't captain in 1905. Wisden suggests that his greatest skill as a captain was to 'block a batsman's favourite strokes'. This seems obvious at international level today, but might not have been so back in the first decade of the twentieth century.

Up until 1977 just 18 players had taken 100 wickets and scored 1000 runs in Test cricket. Noble got their fastest, beating Sobers, Benaud, Greig and Sobers among others. Clearly, he was not a batsman in the quality of Sobers. But as an all-round package he's right up there among cricketers that played before the Imran/ Botham/ Kapil era.

Batsman

As a batsman, Noble is described by Wisden as 'a batsman of rare style and execution without any signs of weakness'. He was 'versatile[...], var[ying] his methods according to the needs of the occasion'. In particular, he was a very patient player, although he did have the full range of strokes.

He made 7 first-class double hundreds and reached three-figures 37 times. Like many all-rounders his conversion was relatively poor - in Tests he scored just 1 100 but 16 50s. In first-class cricket he added 66 50s to his hundreds.

Bowler

Bowling a mix of offies and medium pace, Noble was known as being extremely accurate, and made use of what Warner describes as 'swerve' and variation in pace. He often took the new ball, and took 9 5 wicket hauls in Tests.

Captain

Plum Warner, a direct contemporary of Noble who would have played against him in each series in which he was captain, reserves high praise for the way Noble led Australia. He describes him as the greatest of four superb Australian captains of the past twenty years (up to 1922):

'Noble's policy was to have an outer as well as an inner ring of fieldsmen, so that if the ball got past the in-fieldsman there were men on the boundary to save the four. Occasionally the chance of a catch near in was missed by the wider distribution of fieldsmen, but it was tantilizing to batsmen to see a four under ordinary circumstances turned into a single or at most a couple, and to get runs at anything like a first rate was a matter of the greatest difficulty.'

Wisden credit Noble with choosing to bowl first at Lord's in 1909 despite favourable batting conditions, sensing 'unrest' in the England camp. Australia won the match by 9 wickets and the series 2-1.

Defining Moments

Noble batted for eight and a half hours during the Old Trafford Test of 1899, making 60* and 89. His 89 took him 320 minutes. As you'd imagine this three day match was drawn! But having come to the crease at 14-3 he did a terrific job. After the first innings not out, Australia had to follow on. So as not to break the momentum he was sent out to open and lasted for the best part of 5 hours.

In January 1902 at Melbourne he took 7-17 and 6-60, single-handedly bringing about a superb victory after SF Barnes had rolled Australia for 112 on the first morning.

On the 1902 tour of England, Noble scored 1416 runs and took 98 wickets. Against Sussex at Hove he made 284, putting on 428 with Warwick Armstrong. In a tight Ashes series, Noble's 11 wickets at Sheffield were key to Australia's success.

Retirement

There are no controversies to speak of in Noble's retirement. He continued playing for NSW and for grade team Paddington after WWI, qualified as a dentist and lectured and wrote on cricket. He is described as having been 'a generous winner and a generous loser' by Warner.

Fittingly, he entered the Australian Hall of Fame along with Bobby Simpson in 2006 - http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/235980.html

Conclusion

There appears to be relatively little written about Monty Noble on the Internet. However, I think he has a terrific claim to join the Hall of Fame. Not only was he one of the great all-rounders before WW2, but he also captained his side to two Ashes wins, and played a key hand in a number of Australian successes during his time. He comes across as having been an all-round good guy to boot!

[msp83]

While we are at it, I would like to nominate Vinoo Mankad for consideration at some point.

[Shelsey93]

Msp, if you can make a case in the next couple of days there is space in this batch. If not it will be after the English cricket season (October).

[msp83]

As the debates haven't picked up momentum as yet, and as I am a touch caught up with stuff, I think we can put Vinoo Mankad for the next round when things restart.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Looking forward to the debate on Wes Hall - a colourful character who did plenty beyond the cricket field. Hope it doesnt steal Shelsey's thunder too much - but you have got to like Wes' sense of humour...

"You think my run up was long. Now you should hear my speeches."
—Wes Hall, after his appointment as a Senator

[Hoggy_Bear]

Looking forward to the debate on Wes Hall - a colourful character who did plenty beyond the cricket field. Hope it doesnt steal Shelsey's thunder too much - but you have got to like Wes' sense of humour...

"You think my run up was long. Now you should hear my speeches."
—Wes Hall, after his appointment as a Senator

Apparently, after hitting Bob Simpson in the unmentionables, Hall said to him "Man, if you can use my flat tonight, you've got it"
In fact, Simpson said that, after facing Hall, he had three measures of quick bowling "fast, very fast and....OH SH!T". Hall, of course, was in the latter category.

[Mike Selig]

"You think my run up was long. Now you should hear my speeches."
—Wes Hall, after his appointment as a Senator

That is a brilliant quote.

Sir Wes Hall is of course the stuff of legends. My dad saw him bowl at the MCG when he was at his peak and still swears today that him running in from the sightscreen remains the most impressive sight he's ever seen in cricket.

Wes Hall has of course a lot going for him:
- overall a very good record, although not quite up with the best of his generation (Trueman and Davidson).
- Played his part in the tied test with (I think) 9 wickets and bowled the final over.
- Once bowled for over 3 hours straight against England, including breaking Colin Cowdrey's arm

I think in terms of impact, he has a good-to-very good case.

I worry a bit about how short his career was: 10 years or so is reasonable, but he retired at 31 which suggests he wasn't able/willing to adapt to any loss of pace.

Simpson for me is a marginal at the moment. His playing record is very good, but not extraordinary (although he was an extraordinary fielder) - but certainly better than the likes of the "good but not quite good enough" brigade such as Ian Chappell, David Gower, Tom Graveney. I suspect he is more in the Boycott category, without the same character flaws.

I have to admit to some reservations about his coaching. The word is he was tough, uncompromising to the point of stubborn. He was almost certainly the right coach at the right time for Australia, and his role in taking them back to the top of the world shouldn't be overlooked (and his tough approach, although not appreciated at the time, may well have helped Leicestershire in the long run). However as a coach he lacked flexibility, and isn't in the same class as the likes of Woolmer, A. Flower or Kirsten. I wonder how he would have fared in the modern game - I suspect he would have found these days of players earning big money, loads of support staff, etc. fairly difficult.

Don't know enough about Noble - more research required.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Mike
While I appreciate your argument that Simpson wasn't the most flexible of coaches, surely his success as a coach can only add to his case, despite the fact that he might not have been the greatest in that role ever?
After all, as you have already said, he would be on the margins of selection for our HoF on the basis of his playing career alone. Add in the fact that he turned Australia from one of the worst to the best team in the world during his time as coach there, and surely that gives him a very strong case indeed?

[guildfordbat]

I agree with Mike that Sir Wes Hall has ''a lot going for him''. He probably also has a slightly unfair advantage from me in that I never saw him but respected elders did and their admiration for him continues to shape my views.

In terms of impact and in addition to the highlights confirmed by Mike, I would also flag that Hall was the first West Indian to take a Test hat trick, against Pakistan. He must have been an inspiration to the West Indian quicks of the '70s and '80s who so dominated world cricket.

I understand Mike raising the relative shortness of Hall's career as a concern. From my reading, he was pretty much burnt out from his almost non-stop ferocious pace bowling at home and abroad over a decade. His body had also suffered from two car crashes (although I don't know to what extent). Tony Cozier wrote, ''his attitude to driving was much the same as to his bowling''.

It also needs to be borne in mind that Hall's time was way before fitness coaches. Fitness conditioning was not a known term and that whole subject was not taken seriously. [Around this era, the burly Northants and England batsman Colin Milburn would buy himself a secret lift on a milk float when his county went on their pre-season cross country runs!]

I accept that Hall would have been a greater bowler if he had adapted to a lessening of his pace. However, I feel he did enough on the pitch and certainly off it after playing, embracing cricket administration, politics and the church. I was particularly taken by reading that he established a cricket youth league in Trinidad. I do believe he has served the game and us, its supporters, well.

I'll throw in one more Hall quote I came across. He was regarded as an entertaining and hard hitting batsman but not particularly proficient. He scored one first class century in his career and that was on the West Indies' tour of England in 1963 against Cambridge Unversity. However, Hall has never downplayed that achievement and has apparently remarked on more than one occasion, ''Ah, but it wasn't any old hundred, it was against the intelligentsia.''

In contrast to Hall, Simpson suffers from the disadvantage of my actually having seen him a bit, at least on tv in his later years and when he was well past his best. I'll try to be fairer and assess him over the whole of his career, including his time as a coach if that aids his cause.

My starting point is to think of him in ''Ian Chappell'' terms. A very good player but maybe just a little short of our Hall of Fame. Possibly his catching can push him over the line. I don't believe his bowling can.

One issue I have - and I believe from earlier reading that this relates to his career as a whole, not just the tailend that I saw glimses of - is that he was a turgid and unentertaining batsman. [That certainly applies to his regular opening partner Bill Lawry - please tell me if I'm unfairly tarring Simpson with the same brush.] I'm a great admirer of batsmen ''gutsing it out'' when required but don't believe it should be the adopted norm.

I find it difficult to assess Simpson as a coach. I take on board Mike's doubts as to how he would have done in the modern game but do wonder how fair that is. He could only coach in the era that he was in and had some (I don't really know how much at this stage) success in it. Would perhaps some modern day coaches praised today for their flexibility have been regarded as ''too nice and easy going'' in an earlier era?

By way of some analogy, Bill Shankly has long been regarded by many, including myself, as a great football manager. However, I have serious doubts that he would have fared nearly so well in that game today. It seems unjust if that means he is no longer a great manager.

I know nothing of Noble but see that Shelsey has provided a typically thorough overview and case. I now need to review that and do it justice.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford
While I would probably agree with your assessment that Simpson was not the most attractive of batsmen, surely we must locate him in the context of his era? As we have discussed before, test cricket in the 50s/60s was highly attritional. 'Gutsing it out' and playing grinding, attritional cricket during that period did not count against the likes of Barrington or Gibbs. Why should it count against Simpson?

[guildfordbat]

Guildford
While I would probably agree with your assessment that Simpson was not the most attractive of batsmen, surely we must locate him in the context of his era? As we have discussed before, test cricket in the 50s/60s was highly attritional. 'Gutsing it out' and playing grinding, attritional cricket during that period did not count against the likes of Barrington or Gibbs. Why should it count against Simpson?

Hoggy - you overlook that Barrington played for Surrey, the county of my home, and Gibbs played for Warks, the county of my birth.

Possibly of slightly more relevance is that from memory Barrington ended up with with a Test average of about 10 higher than Simpson whilst Gibbs took around 240 more wickets. Sure, their play was attritional but it was also highly effective. I am not for a moment suggesting Simpson was ineffective but am querying whether his effect was lessened by being too attritional.

For me, entertainment is one of the many factors that comes into the mix in determining whether a candidate gets into the HoF. In a rather harsh and unfair way, I suspect spectators admired Barrington going about his craft so splendidly and actually found it entertaining. However, those just a notch below were more likely to be viewed as - dare I say it - a bit boring. I'm probably reflecting here some of my earliest thoughts and memories of Test cricket. You might choose to treat them as childish prejudices.

[Mike Selig]

Mike
While I appreciate your argument that Simpson wasn't the most flexible of coaches, surely his success as a coach can only add to his case, despite the fact that he might not have been the greatest in that role ever?
After all, as you have already said, he would be on the margins of selection for our HoF on the basis of his playing career alone. Add in the fact that he turned Australia from one of the worst to the best team in the world during his time as coach there, and surely that gives him a very strong case indeed?

I would tend to agree. His success as a coach adds to his value, rather than any limitations he had as a coach detracting from it. It doesn't though necessarily constitute a central part of his candidacy - it is more of a "useful bonus" if that makes sense.

[Shelsey93]

Rev. Sir Wesley Winfield "Wes" Hall

In 2008, Wisden named Hall as one of the five best players never to have been made a cricketer of the year, and got leading writers to write long essays on them*. His essay was written by Tony Cozier. In the opening paragraph Cozier writes that he was 'the embodiment of West Indies fast bowling'. Given that he pre-dated the other fast bowlers whose names we are so familiar, that must add something to his case. It is true that there had been earlier pace bowlers. However, as Cozier points out, Hall revived an art which had rather disappeared from the Caribbean since the days of Learie Constantine.

Oddly, Hall started out as a wicket-keeper at schoolboy cricket! Despite his height he never bowled competitively until leaving school. On that occasion he took six wickets and made a meteoric rise to the West Indian Test team for the 1957 tour of England, having played 1 first-class game. After a slow start in international cricket, he made a breakthrough in Asia, taking 46 wickets across 8 Tests in India and Pakistan in 1958-59 including a hat-trick. From then on he led the WI attack.

Defining moments

Hall was the star of the Tied Test in 1960-61.

In the WI first innings, he made 50 batting number 10, putting on a crucial 84 run partnership with Alexander. He was reasonably expensive in the Australian 1st innings, but still took 4 wickets. He was again involved in an important partnership - 31 - for the 10th wicket in the WI second innings. All this left Australia needing 233 to win.

Hall took four wickets early on - Bobby Simpson, Neil Harvey, Norm O'Neill and Les Favell. Australia were reduced to 57-5, but Davidson and Benaud put on a big stand. Davidson was run out for 80 at 226-7 with victory almost assured. But Hall then bowled a sensational final over (his 17th eight-ball over of the day), removing Benaud for 52 and contributing to panic which saw the last two wickets fall to run outs.

Here is Wisden's description of this final over:

'The first ball hit Grout on the thigh and a leg-bye resulted; from the second Benuad gave a catch at the wicket as he swung mightily. Meckiff played the third back to the bowler, but when the fourth went through to the wicket-keeper, the batsmen scampered a run. Hall missing a chance to run out Meckiff as the wicketkeeper threw the ball to him. Grout hit the fifth ball high into the air, Hall attempted to take the catch himself, but the ball bounced out, and another run had been gained. Meckiff hit the sixth ball high and to leg, but Hunte cut off the boundary as the batsmen turned for a third run which would have given Australia victory. Hunte threw in superbly, low and fast, and Grout was run out by a foot. So Kline came into face the last two balls with the scores level. He played the seventh ball of the over towards square leg and Meckiff, backing up well, raced down the wicket, only to be out when Solomon again threw down the wicket with only the width of his stump as his target. So ended a match in which both sides had striven throughout for victory with no thought of safety first.

Its probably reasonable, considering the pressure of the situation, to call this the greatest over of all time.

At Lord's in 1963 Hall bowled unchanged for three hours. The match was drawn with England 6 short of victory, and Colin Cowdrey at the crease - his arm in plaster after being hit by Hall earlier on.

Post-cricket career

After cricket Hall has held a number of roles, both within and outside the sport:

- Manager of a youth league in Trinidad
- West Indies selector
- President of the WICB
- Tour manager
- Member of the Barbados Parliament. Tourism Minister for 10 years
- Member of the board of directors for the Stanford 20/20
- Minister of the Christian Pentecostal Church.

*For those not aware what that entails, each year Wisden pick five players who had an impact on the previous English cricket season. Players cannot be selected twice, and there are usually a mix of county, England and touring team players.'

[msp83]

Simpson as a coach may or may not have adapted to the contemporary circumstances of coaching. But what he surely did was to make the outfit under him a real tough one. The youngsters like Steve Waugh were given real backing, and he stayed in the job for a pretty long period. The side that was placed under his tutelage was a pretty average one to start with, by the time he left, Australia was back up as one of the very best sides in world cricket.
The likes of Shane Warne were using technological enhancements such as video analysis in the early 90s itself, and Simpson was still in charge. Perhaps he would have adapted. But he was never a laptop coach, and I for one, don't see that as a problem, after all the results are there to back him up and his position on technology was never one of blanket rejection.

[msp83]

And I think Simpson's bowling in fact strengthen his case. He averaged more than a wicket per match, and that is better than parttime.

[msp83]

While Wes Hall has a lot going for him, I do have a concern.
If you look at the last 5 years of his test career where he played more than half of his 48 test long career, you could see that his bowling average is seriously high at 33.27. 76 wickets from 25 tests across 5 years, an early retirement from test cricket, all point towards serious inconsistencies in the latter half of his career.

[msp83]

Was Wes Hall, like Jeff Thomson whom we unanimously rejected, another fast bowler who created serious terror in the batsman's mind in the early half of his career and then failed to adapt to the changing circumstances and lost his effectiveness?

[JDizzle]

I can see the parallel you draw between Thomson and Hall msp, but whilst I missed the Thomson debate so I plead some ignorance if this was covered then; Hall has several things that Thomson doesn't. One of those things would be a defining performance in the Tied Test which can be tied to him from now on whilst Thomson has a period of extended quality but not one defining moment that I can think of? Also I think that hall's post cricketing career has to be taken into account and I feel it would be interesting to know what impact Hall had on inspiring the next, golden generations of Windies fast bowling. Certainly he has done a lot as well as this outside of playing which count strongly for his case IMO.

[Mike Selig]

Very good write-up Shelsey, although I would take issue with a couple of minor details.

Hall was the star of the Tied Test in 1960-61.

Not sure what Davidson would say about this.

Its probably reasonable, considering the pressure of the situation, to call this the greatest over of all time.

Do you mean the greatest as in the most exciting, or the greatest as in the best ever bowled? I can see an argument for the former, but there have surely been overs bowled with more comprehensive demonstration of skill (Holding to Boycott springs to mind immediately).

[Shelsey93]

I suppose in terms of both the two factors above. Clearly there have been other incredible overs. But, given the pressure he was under, Hall's must be right up there.

Davidson clearly has a case to be the star of the tied Test, but had they given Man of the Match awards out in those days I'm sure it would have gone to Hall: winning side etc.

[kwinigolfer]

I love those accounts of the Tied Test . . . . and a reminder that Joey Solomon was another of the (at that time) trail-blazing super fielders.

Actually saw Wes Hall play in the first first-class game I ever saw; I think it's fair to say that Wes Hall was the first great specialist West Indies fast bowler, all fire and menace. Terrific in partnership with Charlie Griffith and probably would have been an equally fearsome threat with Roy Gilchrist if Gilchrist hadn't self-destructed.

Father figure it seemed even when he was still in his mid-twenties, an elder statesman of those great teams before his time.

I'll have to give serious thought to how great a bowler he really was, but his impact on West Indies cricket is undeniable. Very close to the HOF, but certainly not a no-brainer.


Shelsey,
Who were the other "best four cricketers" not to be Cricketer of the Year.


Bobby Simpson also very close but as a batsman and expert slip in my book, would question the importance of his bowling regardless of statistics.

Am off to read up on Mr.Noble.

[Shelsey93]

Kwini,

the other four were Abdul Qadir, Bishan Bedi, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Jeff Thomson. I'd argue that Hall was the greatest of the five.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Hall almost gets into the HoF just by virtue of his sense of humour:

"You think my run up was long. Now you should hear my speeches."
—Wes Hall, after his appointment as a Senator

Apparently, after hitting Bob Simpson in the unmentionables, Hall said to him "Man, if you can use my flat tonight, you've got it"

He scored one first class century in his career and that was on the West Indies' tour of England in 1963 against Cambridge Unversity. However, Hall has never downplayed that achievement and has apparently remarked on more than one occasion, ''Ah, but it wasn't any old hundred, it was against the intelligentsia.''

[msp83]

If you read the description of that last over of that famous test, I doubt whether you could actually call it it the greatest over. Hall had a couple of chances to run the batsman out and take a catch but he failed.
It eventually was a superb test match, and has historical significance. I believe that eventual outcome rather than the specifics of Hall's performance impressive though it was, would certainly shape perceptions far more.
I don't think his role in that particular test is enough to offset Five years of relative mediocrity, when we consider that very good bowlers like Jeff Thomson and Makhaya Ntini have missed out due to the very high standards that we have set for our HoF. Bowling real quick is flashy, but I think I would need a lot more than flash to vote someone into the HoF. Someone like a Waqar had that, he could bowl fast, he remained effective for a longer time, and even when he lost his pace, he managed a pretty decent record. Some like Shaun Pollock managed to scale high points of consistency for a much longer time without the element of flair and flash.

[Shelsey93]

This should be required viewing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDY5RdDRJ1I

Featuring the last over, and Hall's reflections

[guildfordbat]

Kwini,

the other four were Abdul Qadir, Bishan Bedi, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Jeff Thomson. I'd argue that Hall was the greatest of the five.

Strongly agree.

Being ''the first'' is very significant to me. Hall is widely regarded as being the first - variously described as ''the originator'' and ''the pioneer'' - of the great West Indian pacemen and providing the legacy to those that followed. That is one of the aspects that for me sets him apart from and above the likes of Thomson and Ntini.

I'll try to dig out a few quotes over the weekend.

[msp83]

Kwini,

the other four were Abdul Qadir, Bishan Bedi, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Jeff Thomson. I'd argue that Hall was the greatest of the five.

Strongly agree.

Being ''the first'' is very significant to me. Hall is widely regarded as being the first - variously described as ''the originator'' and ''the pioneer'' - of the great West Indian pacemen and providing the legacy to those that followed. That is one of the aspects that for me sets him apart from and above the likes of Thomson and Ntini.

I'll try to dig out a few quotes over the weekend.

Guildford, Ntini was the first Black African cricketer who played for South Africa!.

[kwinigolfer]

Shelsey,
Thanks,
Very interesting.
Strange that bowlers dominate that list . . . . . .

[Hoggy_Bear]

Must admit I'm not convinced by Hall's case. 192 wickets at 26.3 is good but not great. Add in the fact that his record against Australia and England is mediocre, that his record overall is bolstered by a large number of wickets at a low average against the relatively weak India and Pakistan of the time, and the fact that his form fell off quite dramatically during the second half of his career, and there have to be question's about his suitability for a place in our HoF IMO.

[Sponsored content]