The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread

[Shelsey93]

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/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

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I do see Hall as a trail blazer for the generation of world class Windies quicks that followed. (Hall IMHO was clearly better than any possible candidate for that role) I recognise that, overall, there is a degree of subjectivity about the case for Hall. But there is a case for saying that the single greatest cricketing phenomenon in the latter part of the twentieth century was the Windies quickie. I reckenon that Hall did a good deal to pave the way for that.

[msp83]

While the lack of fitness regime is a valid point, we have to balance it out with a significant tailing off of Hall in the latter half of his career. We have to remember that Fred Trueman also bowled fast, and he sustained his excellence for a longer period, and has the best record for a fast bowler up to that era. Alan Davidson is another contemporary of Hall, who I believe was a better bowler.
While the 1970s and 80s saw a number of fine fast bowlers, Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Lillee, Croft, Thomson, Willlis, Botham, Imran......., my understanding is that the strong fitness support system is a more recent development. In fact Bob Simpson was appointed as the first full time coach of Australia in the mid 1980s and it took more time for the kind of modern support system to really emerge.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Corporal,
I think it is fair to give Hall some credit for inspiring the next generation of fast-bowlers, but I do think there's the question of pro-activity. How much, if indeed at all, was that Hall's intent? It wasn't as if he was trying to do anything particularly innovative.
Thing is that, to me, I feel that you could find a number of players who were inspired by good players of previous generations, especially ones as visually impressive as Hall, but there seems to be a lot more weight being given to Hall's 'inspiration' factor than to others. There may be good reason for that, and alfie (I believe) did allude to some quotes from later players saying how Hall had inspired them, which would be interesting to read but, personally, I don't really see that inspiring the next generation is that great a filip for a case, or that it particularly unique to Hall.

[msp83]

Again, having read a bit of the WI cricket history, I think they had a bit of a gap in the supply of real fast bowlers after Hall and Griffith. In fact for the next 7 years or so after they both played their last tests, WI didn't have a great deal of real quick bowlers. After the losses against Australia where real pace played a significant role in their undoing, Clive Lloyd did make a concerted effort at finding some real quick bowlers. I would say the likes of Lillee and Thomson have also made a seminal contribution to the sudden surge, as the losses were taken hard, and we all know what the game meant for the region's history and a sense of the collective.

[msp83]

Corporal,
I think it is fair to give Hall some credit for inspiring the next generation of fast-bowlers, but I do think there's the question of pro-activity. How much, if indeed at all, was that Hall's intent? It wasn't as if he was trying to do anything particularly innovative.
Thing is that, to me, I feel that you could find a number of players who were inspired by good players of previous generations, especially ones as visually impressive as Hall, but there seems to be a lot more weight being given to Hall's 'inspiration' factor than to others. There may be good reason for that, and alfie (I believe) did allude to some quotes from later players saying how Hall had inspired them, which would be interesting to read but, personally, I don't really see that inspiring the next generation is that great a filip for a case, or that it particularly unique to Hall.

And I remember this one line of argument for not considering Ranji's role in the development of Indian cricket as a major factor for his candidature.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Again, having read a bit of the WI cricket history, I think they had a bit of a gap in the supply of real fast bowlers after Hall and Griffith. In fact for the next 7 years or so after they both played their last tests, WI didn't have a great deal of real quick bowlers. After the losses against Australia where real pace played a significant role in their undoing, Clive Lloyd did make a concerted effort at finding some real quick bowlers. I would say the likes of Lillee and Thomson have also made a seminal contribution to the sudden surge, as the losses were taken hard, and we all know what the game meant for the region's history and a sense of the collective.

Think you've got a point here about Lloyd, msp.
As the corporal quite rightly pointed out, the phenomenon of West Indies fast bowling was an important part of cricket history but, IMO the phenomenon was not that they had a number of good fast-bowlers, it was the fact that they used 4 of them at a time. That was, so I believe, almost exclusively down to Lloyd. Now, of course, Wes Hall may well have inspired some of the individual bowlers, but the true inspiration for the phenomenon of West Indies fast bowling in the 70s and 80s can surely be found in 'Bodyline', or the emphasis on pace under Hutton during the 54/55 Ashes. Lloyd just took it a step or two further.
Again, as I've said, it could be argued that Hall inspired fast-bowling in the West Indies, thereby giving Lloyd the means to execute his plan, but I do think that, while there may be something in that reasoning, it's a little bit too tenuous a link to be able to give too much of the credit for Lloyd's tactic to Hall.

[msp83]

By the way, how much more before the post autosplits? Is it time for the next part to be put in place?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

And I remember this one line of argument for not considering Ranji's role in the development of Indian cricket as a major factor for his candidature.

MSP - but since I voted for Ranji I am not constrained by comparisons with him

[msp83]

And I remember this one line of argument for not considering Ranji's role in the development of Indian cricket as a major factor for his candidature.

MSP - but since I voted for Ranji I am not constrained by comparisons with him

Fair enough Corporal.
It was a general reference from my side.

[Mike Selig]

Again, having read a bit of the WI cricket history, I think they had a bit of a gap in the supply of real fast bowlers after Hall and Griffith. In fact for the next 7 years or so after they both played their last tests, WI didn't have a great deal of real quick bowlers.

Surely this proves the point? Hall would have inspired a generation of fast bowlers as they were learning their cricket, so at the age of 8-12 or so... By the time he retired they'd have been what, 14-18 so a few years still before they'd be ready for test cricket.

However the point about Lloyd's influence, and Hoggy's point are well made.

[guildfordbat]

Again, having read a bit of the WI cricket history, I think they had a bit of a gap in the supply of real fast bowlers after Hall and Griffith. In fact for the next 7 years or so after they both played their last tests, WI didn't have a great deal of real quick bowlers.

Surely this proves the point? Hall would have inspired a generation of fast bowlers as they were learning their cricket, so at the age of 8-12 or so... By the time he retired they'd have been what, 14-18 so a few years still before they'd be ready for test cricket.

However the point about Lloyd's influence, and Hoggy's point are well made.

From memory, Clive Lloyd decided to ''fight fire with fire'' after the mauling the West Indies suffered to the express pace of Australia's Lillee and Thomson.

Lloyd was an excellent leader and is often under rated on these boards when ''the greatest captains'' are discussed. Definitely innovative and with the ability to provide a common purpose to players from disparate backgrounds. However, he was fortunate to have such an abundance of real quicks coming through to replace the likes of Bernard Julien and Vanburn Holder who were somewhat pedestrian in comparison. Not only did Lloyd often have the Hall of Fame quartet of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Marshall to call and rely upon but many others in reserve (Wayne Daniel, Colin Croft, Sylvester Clarke, Patrick Patterson and Tony Gray to name a few). Clarke spent several seasons with Surrey and many members at the Oval today still insist he's the fastest bowler they've ever seen (quicker even than Waqar), yet he hardly got a look in at that great West Indies side.

As Mike suggests, the inspiration of these true pacemen would not have come a year or two before their Test debuts but in childhood as they learned the game and their love of it. I do not believe you can discount their childhood years and the height of Hall's success as coincidences of time. Certainly there were other West Indian fast bowlers of his era and before but, as the Corporal says, none had anything like as much impact. That was one of the aspects I was trying to convey in the quotations about Hall supplied yesterday. [Msp - thank you for your gracious response in your immediate post following mine.]

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

Hi all,

While I was off-line over the long weekend the board software very kindly archived off the 1st 1000 posts on this incarnation of the thread. I've moved the archived thread over to the Roll of honour section, and pasted in all the rules & past discussion links etc etc into the new OP on this version. I did a wee tidy up of the links/old thread titles too.

And at least the board software picked a good post for the new OP

[Hoggy_Bear]

If anyone could provide a few quotes from later WIndies bowlers about the extent to which Hall influenced their careers, I'd be much obliged.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - as the eminent cricket writer John Woodcock has stated, fast bowlers are often a silent breed who, ''FST excepted ... let their bowling do the talking''.

That may be a partial reason at least why I've found it tricky to come up with a few quotes as you requested. I guess you had a similar difficulty which prompted the query.

I have though come up with something I find both interesting and relevant from former West Indian paceman Colin Croft.

Before immediately going further, it's probably worth emphasising the credentials of Croft. Some of these certainly surprised me as I tended to think of him as not much more than a bit part player during the West Indies' glory years. I'll let Mike Selvey (cricket journalist and former England and Middlesex seamer) correct that impression.

Having written of Croft's ''volatility and enthusiasm'' causing trouble at times during his career, Selvey continues, ''He was a fine bowler though and in 27 [Test] matches he managed 125 wickets - a remarkable haul in a side laden with high-class pacemen where the spoils tended to be shared. Best of all came in his second match where at Port-of-Spain he laid waste to the Pakistan batting with 8 for 29, still the best figures by a West Indian fast bowler.'' I was pretty amazed to discover upon checking that Croft's average, economy rate and strike rate are all superior to those of Michael Holding.

Following his retirement from playing, Croft qualified as an airline pilot and later joined the commentary circuit. This all suggests he has some credibility and wits about him.

Anyway, in a series of articles in the closing weeks of 1999 Croft selected an imaginary 16 man West Indian touring party from the twentieth century to play any team in any conditions in the twenty-first century.

As with his approach to the whole squad, Croft was incredibly thorough in considering which four (he had already decided on four) fast bowlers to select. He wrote (coincidentally just a few days after Malcolm Marshall's death which explains the particular early reference to him), ''There are two people, fast bowlers, whose very poise when they were playing actually epitomized fast bowling. These two guys have stood out, along with Malcolm Marshall, as being the best of those ''real'' fast bowlers that we have produced. There has been many. Charlie Griffith, Wes Hall, Michael Roberts, Wayne Daniel, Sylvester Clarke, Malcolm Marshall, Patrick Patterson, Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Keith Boyce, Vanburn Holder, Norbert Philip, Winston Davis, Kenny Benjamin, Winston Benjamin, Uton Dowe, Grayson Shillingford, Joel Garner, Roy Gilchrist, Tony Gray, Lester King, John Trim, Ian Bishop and, I suppose, Colin Croft, along with some of the new, present guys.''

Ok, Hoggy, if you're still awake, what Croft writes immediately next should make you sit up, ''Wesley Winfield Hall is probably the first fast bowler anyone would select in his or her ''all [time] West Indies cricket team''. The man was a tremendous force, a bowler of really devastating pace and presence. Many a fable, or fact, has been attributed to the pace and career of Wes Hall, ''larger than life'' even. There was no stopping the man with the gold cross on the gold chain around his neck. I actually once saw Wes stop a Test game for some considerable time, at Bourda in Guyana, in 1965 against Australia, while he looked for the chain which had become detached.''

Croft continues, ''Wes Hall played in 48 Tests and got 192 wickets at 26.38 runs per wicket ... In these days of playing at least two Test series per year, Wes probably would have ended up with over 300 wickets. He was seldom injured in the prime of his career.''

Hoggy, I believe what Croft writes next is particularly significant to your query - not only the influence (implied at least) and impact (unquestionably) upon Croft himself but also upon countless other fast bowlers ''around the world'' through the demonstration of his action in fast bowling and coaching films:
''From both personal sight and films, his run in was as organized as those more recently mentioned for their fluency, Michael Holding and Dennis Lillee. The absolutely straight right arm, the swing of the body in the classic ''side-on'' delivery action is still used in some fast bowling training and coaching films around the world. Wes Hall in full flight was really something to behold, a very scary sight indeed for a batsman. With his compatriot, Charlie Griffith, Wes created havoc in the 60's.''

Croft then proceded to emphasise that Hall was far from being ''a rabbit'' with the bat (two Test fifties) and went on to list his post playing roles and achievements. He concluded, ''He, incidentally, has the unenviable task of being the Pastor in charge of Malcolm Marshall's funeral this coming weekend. I do not envy him at all. I also doubt that anyone will envy him his position in this team.''

No doubt, Hoggy, you will inform me that Brett Lee was a fellow Pastor at Marshall's funeral.

Anyway, sorry to bang on but I think that's a pretty good reference from a pretty good source. For anyone wondering, the second fast bowler named in Croft's 16 man squad was Holding*, followed by Marshall* and Joel Garner*. The other twelve were Gordon Greenidge*, Desmond Haynes, Conrad Hunte, Roy Fredericks, Jeffrey Dujon, Jackie Hendricks, Viv Richards*, Garry Sobers*, Everton Weekes*, Lance Gibbs*, George Headley* and captain Clive Lloyd*. [Before anyone asks - yes, Larry Gomes got an honourable mention! ]
The 10 * denote current Hall of Fame members. I believe we should now make it 11.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Thanks for replying guildford.
Must admit that I'm still struggling to get past the problems with Hall's stats, but this and your earlier post, allied with my own research have, at least, given me pause for thought.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Guildford - an excellent contribution..... While the following is a good deal less specific than the points you raise I think it is also worth mentioning that at the time of his knighthood he was referred to widely as ".. the legendary West Indies fast bowler, who inspired successive generations of great Caribbean pace men,..."

[guildfordbat]

Corporal - that's a very good point, thanks. I suspect there's a danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. The quotation you supplied draws attention to the inspiration of Hall that many of us regard as obvious.

Hoggy - I struggle to see why you're still struggling with Hall's stats. As Mike flagegd earlier, they're not stand out brilliant for the Hall of Fame but they're also not so inferior as to dismiss him. From memory, there are several similarities with various members including Roberts and Willis.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Corporal - that's a very good point, thanks. I suspect there's a danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. The quotation you supplied draws attention to the inspiration of Hall that many of us regard as obvious.

Hoggy - I struggle to see why you're still struggling with Hall's stats. As Mike flagegd earlier, they're not stand out brilliant for the Hall of Fame but they're also not so inferior as to dismiss him. From memory, there are several similarities with various members including Roberts and Willis.

Guildford
His overall stats are decent.
The problem's are that those stats are hugely bolstered by a large number of wickets taken early in his career against what can only be described as weak batting line ups, his failure to ever really dominate against Australia or England, and the fact that in the last 6 years of his career (25 tests) he only took 76 wickets at 33, and only 1 5fer.
In reality, then, he was only really successful during the first 4 year of his career and, even then, only really dominated against India and Pakistan.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - I believe Hall's stats need to be taken in the round, particularly when allied to the testimonies of English and Australian opponents as to his impact.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hoggy - I believe Hall's stats need to be taken in the round, particularly when allied to the testimonies of English and Australian opponents as to his impact.

I don't see why.
We've closely examined the stats of virtually everyone we've discussed so far in order to determine whether they were effective against the best opponents and effective for a reasonable length of time. Many of those players also had testimonies from friend and foe alike regarding their impact and greatness. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same in this case. And when we do, serious questions arise, for me at least.
Of course, not everyone I've voted for has had stellar stats (and I haven't decided to vote no to Hall definitely as yet), but most of those had significant 'extras' which, in my view, lifted them above their less than stellar stats. Hall's impact and influence on later bowlers is definitely an extra. How significant an extra is what I've got to think about.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - I believe Hall's stats need to be taken in the round, particularly when allied to the testimonies of English and Australian opponents as to his impact.

I don't see why.
We've closely examined the stats of virtually everyone we've discussed so far in order to determine whether they were effective against the best opponents and effective for a reasonable length of time. Many of those players also had testimonies from friend and foe alike regarding their impact and greatness. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same in this case. And when we do, serious questions arise, for me at least.
Of course, not everyone I've voted for has had stellar stats (and I haven't decided to vote no to Hall definitely as yet), but most of those had significant 'extras' which, in my view, lifted them above their less than stellar stats. Hall's impact and influence on later bowlers is definitely an extra. How significant an extra is what I've got to think about.

For me this remains a Hall of Fame and not a forensic study of stats. I don't believe I can add to comments already made by myself and others.

[msp83]

Hoggy - I believe Hall's stats need to be taken in the round, particularly when allied to the testimonies of English and Australian opponents as to his impact.

I don't see why.
We've closely examined the stats of virtually everyone we've discussed so far in order to determine whether they were effective against the best opponents and effective for a reasonable length of time. Many of those players also had testimonies from friend and foe alike regarding their impact and greatness. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same in this case. And when we do, serious questions arise, for me at least.
Of course, not everyone I've voted for has had stellar stats (and I haven't decided to vote no to Hall definitely as yet), but most of those had significant 'extras' which, in my view, lifted them above their less than stellar stats. Hall's impact and influence on later bowlers is definitely an extra. How significant an extra is what I've got to think about.

Absolutely agree with Hoggy.
A player like Makhaya Ntini was rejected only in the last round despite him taking close to 400 test wickets at less an average less than 29 even though he had a lot of impact performances in his batg, despite him being the most popular sports person in South Africa, despite all the extras his background and success brought on to the table.
While I do find some merit in the argument that Ntini's cricketing impact on the marginalized community has to be assessed in due course of time, I also is a firm believer that Hall's impact on the West Indies pace package of later days at best is a passive one, and is just one among a number of other factors where I would rank Lloyd's contributions a great deal higher.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hoggy - I believe Hall's stats need to be taken in the round, particularly when allied to the testimonies of English and Australian opponents as to his impact.

I don't see why.
We've closely examined the stats of virtually everyone we've discussed so far in order to determine whether they were effective against the best opponents and effective for a reasonable length of time. Many of those players also had testimonies from friend and foe alike regarding their impact and greatness. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same in this case. And when we do, serious questions arise, for me at least.
Of course, not everyone I've voted for has had stellar stats (and I haven't decided to vote no to Hall definitely as yet), but most of those had significant 'extras' which, in my view, lifted them above their less than stellar stats. Hall's impact and influence on later bowlers is definitely an extra. How significant an extra is what I've got to think about.

For me this remains a Hall of Fame and not a forensic study of stats. I don't believe I can add to comments already made by myself and others.

Which is why I say that, for me, a player must be judged on both stats and/or 'extras'. For me Hall's stats are not good enough to get him into our HoF on their own. I've, therefore, got to decide in Hall's 'extras' make up for the shortfall in his stats. As I say I'm undecided at the moment, but am considering the comments on this board and doing a bit of my own research.

[kwinigolfer]

Have looked through all the literature I have covering the Bobby Simpson era and it is striking how little one learns about Simpson the man, his personality, his character, his influence. And that is also how memory serves, a very talented efficient opener, a useful bowler, a close fielder on a par with anyone in history. But nothing much more than that. Even from the Aussies.

Partner-in-crime Bill Lawry always comes across in articles and reports of the time just how we recall, stolid, obdurate, efficient but somehow of more stature than Simpson who one always feels was a superior cricketer.

Whereas Wes Hall comes across as larger than life, a presence respected thru'out the cricketing world. An image indelibly imprinted on anyone and everyone who saw him.

Based upon their respective statistics and longevity one would almost expect it to be the other way around.

What is it about Simpson's personality that earns him only grudging respect, not much more than acknowledgement really? His competitiveness was legendary but was he more than that, a pr1ck to friend and foe alike?

"Legend" is a word way over-used, especially it seems to me in the modern British press, but Wes Hall will always be considered a legend of West Indies cricket, if not World cricket.
But Bobby Simpson will never attain such standing.

Nothing pro Hall intended, or con Simpson. Just trying to figure out why a cricketer with such apparent credentials remains such an enigma.

There has to be more to Simpson; otherwise he'll just be another Aussie whose Dad played for Stenhousemuir!

[guildfordbat]

Kwini - I can't answer that but I agree with the question. I think you know what I mean.

My personal summary assessment of Simpson at this point is that he caught most things at slip but has never caught my interest. I noticed that Mike referred to his candidacy as ''marginal'' early on when this batch was announced. That summed up my initial thoughts for him on a good day. Possibly it has something to do with him being perceived to be in the shadow of Lawry who himself was anything but an entertainer. That's the best I can do. As you suggest, very hard to explain.

[msp83]

An interesting observation there from Kwini on Simpson. Haven't really seen Simpson play, so I can't say whether it is due to the absence of that element of flashiness in his cricket that is behind this attitude. Shaun Pollock too, had to encounter a similar problem in my view. I remember most of us had started out on a close to no position when his candidature came up. Had it not been for biltong's excellent case presented in his favor, even some superb stats would have been overlooked just because he wasn't that type of cricketer who would usually create that instent attraction.

[msp83]

Anyways, as for Simpson, I feel he has an impressive column of extras.
He came out of retirement to help his side when it was going through a real crisis. Even at 40+, he was very much up for a fight.
Then there is the coaching part. He wasn't the quintessential modern coach as such, but he was an early trailblazer, and he has got pretty impressive results under his tutelage.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Must admit that I was also quite surprised by the lack of comment on Simpson's playing career when I was researching his case, but I would just like to put up a few comments on him as a player from John Arlott's pen portrait in 100 Greatest Batsmen, along with some comments about his captaincy during the 1964 Ashes from C.L.R. James.
Arlott wrote of him that he was "a physically compact, highly accomplished batsman with a penchant for high scores", and that he was "Neat on his feet and a correct stroke player....A brilliant square-cutter and driver, he rarely hookedbut moved out of the line of the short-pitched ball, preferring not to hazard his wicket; on the other hand he exploited the pull shot with immense profit".
As a bowler, Arlott states that "He spun the leg-break and googly well, and would probably have bowled more at test level if his career had not coincided with Benaud's"
On his fielding Arlott writes that "Many good batsmen-including Len Hutton-were amazed by the catches he made off them; he never seemed to hurry, yet his certainty was extraordinary", and that "Those who watched him will never forget the masterly ease of his slip-catching".
Finally Arlott says "He was a pleasant, personable cricketer and a captain with genuine feeling for his players".
On the subject of his capataincy C.L.R. James wrote, in 1964, that "If these two sides [England and Australia] were lacking in dazzling players, at least one of them gave a striking example that could be appreciated by all, the function of a captain in building a side. Simpson is small but well built, and very present in the field. Very obviously from the beginning of the season he set himself to make the best use of some not very promising material. He Succeeded remarkably." James also noted "the team spirit which Simpson not only built up but embodied" and that "Simpson was always doing something and seemed to know always what he was doing. His 311 at Leeds was not a masterpiece of batting, but he had a job to do as batsman and as captain, and he did it."
(Incidentally, there's quite a funny quote in this report, when James says "Symbolical of what is not only depressing in itself, but the cause of depression in other men, was the batting of Lawry")
When looking at Simpson I think you've got to look at the all-round package. An accomplished batsman, a masterful fielder, a good captain and a very good support bowler (he doesn't make CMJs 100, but CMJ mentions him among the all-rounders he has reluctantly left out). Add in his willingness to take over in times of crisis, his role as the first ever full-time national coach, and the success he enjoyed in that role, and you have a very strong case IMHO.

[Hoggy_Bear]

And here is an interesting article emphasising the 'all-round' nature of Simpson's career.

http://www.cricketcountry.com/cricket-articles/Bobby-Simpson-the-man-who-was-Australia-s-savior-in-many-roles/22679

[alfie]

I saw Simpson play , both in his earlier incarnation and when he returned briefly to assist Packer-ravaged Australia ; and I would have to concur that he was perhaps not the most exciting of batsmen to watch. Main memory is of a solid player , but no shots are imprinted on my memory ( though some slip catches are ! ) The stats will say he was pretty good but perhaps won't get him in on their own , and I can't add any extra marks for style , though that may be fading memory on my part.
Do think though his return to aid his country in a time of need , followed by his rather successful coaching stint , has to be a serious plus factor. I am actually tending to a yes.

Still very much sold on Hall and hope we can yet convince Hoggy and msp...

[Corporalhumblebucket]

My recollection (formed by radio commentary) was that Simpson was a better batsman than Lawrie - or at the very least he seemed the one most likely to make a really big score. He seems borderline.

I would like to see Rev Wesley Hall in the HoF. I know it is distorting what MSP had in mind, but "passive" in terms of his impact is not a descriptor that sits easily with Hall.

[kwinigolfer]

Corporal, alfie, Hoggy, guildford,
Don't you think all those comments rather sum Simpson up - when I was reading what others had to say about him, that he was "damned with faint praise". All testaments could be effusive but no-one chooses to be, except with regard to his close catching, about which there can never be any question.

Whereas Wes Hall is almost the exact opposite.

By the way, have been very impressed with testimonials for Noble - doesn't mean a YES but clearly close.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Kwini
I haven't seen Hall play, other than on a few clips of him bowling, and I admit that the testimonies about him are impressive. However, as with some other 'legendary' figures we've discussed during this process, I'm struggling to reconcile the testimonies with the reality of his figures, which are not those of a great bowler.
My thought is that Hall LOOKED exactly how a fast-bowler should, big, strong, athletic, and that he bowled quickly and aggressivly, and that this is why he made such a great impact on those who saw him. Certainly, for me, it's difficult to see that it was his wicket taking that impressed because, other than the tied test, there weren't many times that he dominated the best batsmen and, after 1963, there weren't many times that he dominated any batsmen.
Now, I'm aware that figures aren't everything (before Guildford accuses me of carrying out just a forensic study of stats ), and that, as with other bowlers, Hall might have 'taken wickets' for those bowling at the other end but, really, I would expect a 'great' bowler to have troubled top batsman more and not to have gone into decline after only 4 years.
As I say, though, the testimonies and other 'extras' are impressive, and are making me think about my final decision, but I would be interested in any opinions as to why Hall, if he were a great bowler, only averaged under 30 in two out of the seven series he played against England and Australia, and only took 4 5fers in 58 attempts against those 2 teams.

[Shelsey93]

Exceptional debate this time. Here are my votes - deadline tomorrow evening:

Wes Hall - Having proposed Hall, I must admit I did have and continue to have some doubts about his candidacy. His stats are not quite those of a Hall of Famer, his career was relatively short and statistically he prospered more v Ind and Pak than v Eng and Aus. That said, I will not be performing 'a Biltong' on him. Going full circle to where we started with this debate the reasons for this are as follows:

1. His reliability at the crucial moments of tight Test matches. Most notably the Tied Test, but that was not a one off. The first Tied Test is part of cricketing folklore and, along with Alan Davidson, Hall was the central protagonist. Davidson has been in the HoF for about 18 months now - its time that Hall was recognised.

2. Hall's is a name that has transcended the past. If you ask most cricketing fans below the age of, say, 55 if they're familiar with Alan Davidson I suspect the answer would be No. But many would be familiar with Hall. I am reluctant to employ the 'trailblazer' card - Headley, Lloyd, Constantine, Roberts and Worrell have all been proposed on similar grounds in the past and to be honest, in Hall's case, I think its slightly tenuous.

3. That long list of things Hall has done in the game post-retirement. Not all of them cricket, but quite a few were. It has escaped our discussions that he served as President of the WICB, and often managed West Indies tours.

YES

Monty Noble - I have outlined his case a few pages back. However, I think that the key points need reiterating:

1. Regarded as the greatest all-rounder of the pre-WWI era.

2. Successful Australian captain, credited with innovative (if defensive) field settings.

3. Excellent fielder.

4. Outstanding patience and some key contributions to Ashes wins with both bat and ball.

YES

Bobby Simpson - The most difficult case for me to judge. My instinct is that as a Test player he falls short - recognising the danger of comparisons, I struggle to see how Cowdrey, Boycott and Gooch can be turned down but Simpson accepted without having lowered the barrier. Good of him to make a comeback during WSC, but I'm not sure that's a HoF-worthy achievement. I also tend to see his leg-spin as slightly by-the-by: it demonstrates his utility as a cricketer, but doesn't really help him get into the HoF.

The question thus turns to whether his coaching, added to his batting, can get him in. The case is very strong. There was certainly an upturn in Australia's fortunes from his appointment and, such was his success, that everyone had a coach within a few years. He also guided the Netherlands to the 2007 World Cup. I'd really like to hear what some Australian players thought of Simpson. However, the best quote I can find is from Geoff Marsh who says: 'he was probably the best cricket coach I've ever seen'.

Overall, he just gets over the line - YES

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - in my "quotes post" last Monday, I commented on possible reasons for Hall's career being relatively short. Hall's apparent modern day nemesis msp was kind enough to commend those comments. I believe they have at least some relevance to your latest query.

I would also make the point that India and Pakistan (containing the near world great Hanif Mohammad) were not poor just because they were poor but because Hall was so great against them. Although certainly not of the quality of England and Australia for which weighting does need to be given, Hall's triumphs against them still properly belong in the mix.

[msp83]

My votes.
Bob Simpson yes. The entire package as such gets him through in my view, as player alone he may not make it, but as player and the first full-time coach of an international side who had lots of success, he makes it.
Monty Noble yes, among the best all-rounders in the preWWI era.
Wes Hall no. He certainly was a pretty good bowler, one of the early successful West Indies fast bowlers who left an impression on those who watched. But at the end of the day, I am not convinced his stats and consistency match up to the level that we have set for the HoF, and I really don't see a great deal of impactful extras that could get him through.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford,
India at that time were a weak batting team, particularly against pace. In the 58/9 series against them Roy Gilchrist topped the averages, taking 26 wickets in 4 tests compared to Hall's 30 in 5.
In the three test series against Pakistan, Mohammad only played once and scored a century (bowled Smith).

[Hoggy_Bear]

Indeed, having had another look at that Pakistan vs. WIndies series, the real bowling star was Fazal Mahmood, a player I did think about proposing for discussion for our HoF. Maybe in the winter.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - I haven't reviewed Hall's stats with your forensic studiousness but I thought in three series against India and Pakistan he emerged each time with an average below 18.

Slightly disappointed not to get responses to the main thrusts of my recent posts in response to what I thought were your principal queries.

[Hoggy_Bear]

''His energy astonishing, his stamina inexhaustible, his speed awesome, from the first ball to the last.'' - The Times cricket report of Hall's performance in the Lord's Test of 1963. As the similarity has been suggested, I would be interested to see reports of David Gower's astonishing energy and inexhaustible stamina. Comment: a large element of Hall's success and his continuing popularity is that he always gave everything to the cause. Sadly this ultimately proved his undoing as he became burnt out at a relatively young age. Before condemning Hall for this, we need to consider the circumstances of that time. As mentioned before, no fitness coaches in this era to provide support and assistance for Hall. The subject of fitness conditioning was unknown and still some years away. Unlike the Windies' teams of a decade and more later, there was no abundance of fast bowlers to provide bowling back up. Gilchrist came and went like the uncontrollable meteor he was, leaving Hall and Griffith - especially the ever willing Hall - to bowl over after over in all conditions and on all surfaces. Money of course was then far from plentiful in the sport. This led to Hall playing - with staggering success (as I say, he always gave his best) - for home sides in both England and Australia. In England, he played in the traditionally tough Lancashire League for Accrington in 1960, '61 and '62 taking respectively 100, 106 and 123 wickets. In Australia, he played Sheffield Shield cricket for Queensland in the 1961-62 and 1962-63 seasons. He made a major contribution in helping Queensland punch above their weight and reach the runners-up spot in both seasons. He was Queensland's leading wicket taker both times, taking 43 wickets first time out (second only to Benaud in that season's tournament) and 33 the next year. Brilliant returns which belong in the mix when assessing both his overall impact and the relative shortness of his Test career.

Wouldn’t want to disappoint Guildford, I take it this is the section of your previous post that you’re alluding to?
Thing is, that as msp has, I believe, already said, nobody had fitness coaches or regimes until the mid-1980s, yet plenty of fast-bowlers managed to maintain their effectiveness for much longer than Hall did.
As for Hall burning himself out by bowling over after over, is that actually true?
A quick bit of number crunching (which you know I enjoy ), shows that Hall averaged 18.87 over per innings during the course of his test career and, during those first 5 years in which he was most successful, 19.98.
By contrast, Jeff Thomson, a player who also had great impact as a fast bowler but who faded in the second half of his career, averaged 19.5 overs per innings overall, and 20.92 overs during his most successful period (1972-78)
Fred Trueman averaged 19.91 over the course of his entire career. Statham 20.74. And even Charlie Griffith averaged 18.77, only a tenth of an over less per innings than Hall. So, while there 1 or 2 high profile cases where Hall bowled extremely long spells, it is not the case that he generally bowled excessively in comparison to other fast men, most of whom also bowled on surfaces around the world and a number of whom bowled just as many overs (and probably more) in FC competitions when they weren’t playing for their countries.
As for his exploits with Queensland and in the Lancashire league, while I’m not trying to denigrate them, they do tend to fall into a pattern of a bowler whose pace made him a difficult prospect for batsmen of a slightly lower level, but who didn’t have the same effectiveness against top batsmen. Perhaps this can be explained, to some extent, by a comment on Hall from Len Hutton, who said that “I never felt Wes Hall was quite sure where he was pitching the ball”.
Finally, I just want to say that I’m not arguing against Hall out of any sort of perverse dislike of the man or anything like that. He is a greatly renowned figure in the game as your quotes and my own research have shown. It’s just that for me, on his bowling record alone, he does not meet the requirements for our HoF. Does the renown in which he is held, his influence on other bowlers and his post cricket career make up for that? Probably not quite IMO, but I’m still thinking about it.

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - you are clearly more than entitled to base your judgment on whatever criteria you choose. However, it would have been preferable to know the emphasis you appear to be giving to the stats in your last post before I went to the time and trouble of supplying my ''Croft post'' in response to your earlier post.

No expectation for you to agree with the ''Croft post'' but it was personally disappointing for it to be virtually ignored and just prompt further queries on Hall's stats to which you already had the answers.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Sorry guildford, but I did, and still do, acknowledge that your 'Croft' post, along with your earlier post of quotes, both of which pertain to the renown with which Hall is viewed, have given me a great deal to mull over when deciding if Hall's 'extras' are enough to counterbalance what I see as a deficiency in his figures (although, to be fair, I probably didn't acknowledge the 'Croft' post specifically).
I'm not, neccessarily, emphasising stats. I'm just trying to outline why, for me, the stats by themselves are not enough in this case. Of course that has been the case with a number of other candidates as well, some of whom I've voted for, some of whom I've voted against. In the cases where I voted no, I didn't think that the additional qualities pertaining to that particular case made up for the fact that those players were not, statistically, what I would view as 'greats' and, obviously, the opposite is true where I voted yes.
Maybe I do place too great an emphasis on 'effectiveness' rather than 'excitement', but that's probably just me. While I do like aggresive batsmen and ferocious fast-bowlers, I'm a bit of a sucker for players grinding it out and overcoming the odds so, while I'd probably prefer to watch Victor Trumper on the telly, I'd probably feel more of a connection with Clem Hill.
Anyway, I've got 'til tommorow to further consider Hall's case (has it really been two weeks since this discussion started), and I'd like to thank you for all the information you've supplied, although I'm not guaranteeing that I'll vote in the way you would like me to.

[guildfordbat]

Anyway, I've got 'til tommorow to further consider Hall's case (has it really been two weeks since this discussion started), and I'd like to thank you for all the information you've supplied, although I'm not guaranteeing that I'll vote in the way you would like me to.

Hoggy - I genuinely don't mind if posters vote differently to me but certainly feel strongly that all aspects presented need to be considered. I got a bit stroppy on the Knott debate - not because a certain poster was wrong (although he was! ) but because he was ignoring fundamental points.

We both undoubtedly agree that the impact of Hall at the time and half a century later is a factor. To me it is a massive, massive one. I accept you are fully entitled to weigh it differently and would always defend your right to do so. However, I remain very surprised that you might.

[kwinigolfer]

Don't honestly feel comparison between Hall and Thomson, or Hall and Griffith are valid.

Thomson almost always second fiddle to Lillee, seldom a force by himself.
And Griffith also riding shotgun to Hall who was the leader.
Not to mention that Charlie Griffith had a highly suspect action (described by alfie I think as a "chucker").

Very much doubt that Len Hutton ever faced Wes Hall so was never in the firing line . . . . . . . Contemporary opponents of Hall always had the greatest respect for Sir Wes, even when being battered black and blue.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Leaving the Hall debate on one side for a moment, I would just like to add a few words regarding Robert Baddeley Simpson, for anyone who might be wavering about which way to vote for him. To me Simpson's career, taken as a whole, is one of the most striking examples of successful service to the cricketing fortunes of a country in the annals of the sport's history. When Australia needed an opening batsman, Simpson transformed himself into one of the most effective in their history. When Benaud was injured and they needed someone to bowl spin, Simpson did so, so well that a number of commentators, including CMJ, saw him as an all-rounder. When Benaud, Harvey and Davidson retired and Australia needed someone to lead a young and, it must be said, not very talented team, Simpson took up the reigns, retained the Ashes and built a team of great spirit, averaging 60 himself while captain.
10 years after his retirement, when Australia, shorn of its WSC players, needed a guiding hand, Simpson again stepped into the breach, winning a series against India in which he personally averaged over 50, despite being 41 years of age and not having played even first-class cricket for almost a decade. Then, when Australia's fortunes were possibly at their lowest ebb ever, Simpson again stepped in, becoming the first to hold a position which is now seen as de rigeur, and building a side that was to go on to dominate world cricket for two decades.
Not only, then, was Simpson a top class batsman, a superlative fielder, a pretty decent bowler, and a respected captain, he was also one of the greatest servants any country in the history of cricket has had. For all of those reasons, I feel he deserves a place in our HoF.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Don't honestly feel comparison between Hall and Thomson, or Hall and Griffith are valid.

Thomson almost always second fiddle to Lillee, seldom a force by himself.
And Griffith also riding shotgun to Hall who was the leader.
Not to mention that Charlie Griffith had a highly suspect action (described by alfie I think as a "chucker").

Wasn't really comparing Hall with those other bowlers kwini, other than to see whether Hall truly bowled a great deal more overs on average than other quickies, which he didn't.

[guildfordbat]

Ho hum.

Far from convinced on Simpson. Identify a lot with the ''damn with faint praise'' post yesterday from Kwini and the opening elements of Shelsey's voting post (even though it ended with a Yes) today.

For me, there's not anything sufficiently standoutish in his case and the overall package has too many parts which are just ok or less.

Certainly a supreme slip catcher. However, as the Corporal will testify, so was Graham Roope (England and Surrey) and he's a very lengthy march away from the Hall of Fame.

From there the case for Simpson starts to wobble for me.

A decent batting average but nearly always achieved in first gear. Like Hoggy, I'm a great admirer of those who can grind it out (with my man love for Gomes, how could I be anything else!). However, such batting needs to be undertaken when required by the needs of the game rather than being the expected norm.

I'm very surprised that Simpson's bowling is used to support claims of him being an all rounder. In a round of stats, worth flagging that he needed to bowl in 84 Test innings to achieve his 71 wickets and at an average in excess of 42.

As a captain, his record is far from spectacular and definitely inferior to that of his first predecessor Richie Benaud. Simpson lost as many Tests (12) as he won. Another 15 were drawn - unlike the excitement of Test captaincy associated with the likes of Benaud and Sobers, I suspect Simpson was not looking to gamble on turning a draw into a win or a defeat. Yes, he merits credit for returning to captain the national side when ravaged by World Series Cricket although, like Shelsey, I don't consider that especially HoF worthy. Perhaps also worth noting - as far as I'm aware - that Packer had no need of him.

Credit as well for his coaching roles but his work there still seems a long way off someone like Woolmer and is insufficient to get him near let alone over my line.

To end with an echo of Kwini's post as referred to at outset - the Australia Hall of Fame seems a natural home for Simpson, not our Hall of Fame.

[kwinigolfer]

When is the deadline for voting on this group?
Three undecideds for me at this point.

[guildfordbat]

Kwini - Shelsey stated Sunday (UK) evening although I hope he might let it slip into Monday if one or two of the regulars are away for the week-end. As always, it will be good to get their valuable input - plus possibly more votes for Hall!

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just one more thing I'd like to throw into the debate (and I know it's a statistic but even so), Bobby Simpson has the highest average when opening the batting of any Australian who has done so 20 or more times.
Higher than Ponsford, Hayden, Lawry, Morris. Indeed, in the whole of cricket history only Sutcliffe, Hutton, Hobbs and Bruce Mitchell, among those players who've opened the batting 20+ times, have higher averages when doing so than Simpson.

[Sponsored content]