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

[guildfordbat]

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.

That backs up my view that he belongs in the Australia Hall of Fame. I'm not convinced it elevates him higher.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Fair enough guildford.
I'm just trying to give an indication of his standing as a batsman. I do think that his record opening the batting, plus his FC record show an outstanding player.
Of course, you are right to say that, possibly, he was too defensive too often. And, indeed he was accussed of that as captain. But you must remember that the team he inherited from Benaud did not have Harvey, Davidson or Benaud in it and that, for much of his first stint as captain, he and Lawry were the mainstays of the batting line-up.The fact that Simpson averaged over 60 with the bat in that period shows that, while he may not have been the most exciting of batsman, he was very effective (there's that word again) at scoring runs when needed. The reason Australia didn't win more tests with Simpson as captain is probably down to their bowling during that time which, outside of Garth Mackenzie and, possibly, Neil Hawke, was lacking in any real quality.

[guildfordbat]

My votes.

Sir Wes Hall - extensively documented. The leading name of fast bowlers in the leading nation of fast bowlers. I can always get things wrong but can countless team mates, opponents and experts from the last half century and more? I don't think so. Shelsey also makes a good point about Hall's post playing roles. Unquestionably YES.

Bob Simpson - covered by my earlier post today. Lots of bits but they just don't add up to enough of a HoF case for me. A very clear NO.

Monty Noble - probably merited more discussion. As stated in my vote on Charlie Turner, I find it incredibly difficult to assess players from this era. Too many unknowns. Not least the quality of opponents and pitch conditions - at least, the latter should be balanced out to an extent for Noble by him being an allrounder. Not knowing the player, I have to rely on stats more than I would like. Noble's Test bowling average of 25 clearly isn't bad but is vastly inferior to those of Turner, Lohmann and Barnes from around his era. Even allowing for him being an allrounder rather than an out and out bowler, the considerable difference causes me to doubt Noble's HoF bowling credentials. A first class career batting average of almost 41 which fell to just over 30 in his 73 Test innings causes concerns in that area as well and awakens memories of the rejected Frank Woolley. That said, clearly viewed in high regard by contemporaries. Noticeable praise also given to his captaincy and fielding. However, for a candidate from a time I don't know, I really need him to clearly stand out. Noble just doesn't do that enough for me. A sympathetic NO.

PS to Shelsey for the wonderful expression ''performing a Biltong''.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Hoggy is playing a blinder....

[Hoggy_Bear]

Thanks corporal. It's always nice to be appreciated

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just one more thing on Bobby Simpson, my last, promise . Much has been made of his, possibly, dour, unattractive batting. Wisden, however, seem not to agree with that assessment:

"Simpson's stance is easy and his style attractive, the result of a change of technique in the late 1950's when he turned from playing too square-on to side-on. Simpson found that it made all the difference to him in dealing effectively with the in-dipper and going-away balls as he describes them. More strongly built than most people suppose -- he stands 5' 10½" and weights 13 stone -- Simpson excels most when attacking.

The flashing straight-drive and devastating square-cut shows him at his best and these strokes, as well as the on-drive perfectly taken off his toes, are examples of power and elegance which never fail to evoke admiration."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/154551.html

[kwinigolfer]

That's fair, Hoggy, Simpson was always far more attractive to watch than Lawry, always kept the scoreboard moving; Lawry was almost a roadblock.

Having said that, I would discount any suggestion of all-rounder credentials, his bowling being occasional despite the 71 wicket haul. Average vs:
England: 16 wickets at 52
West Indies: 18 @ 47
S.Africa: 13 @ 41
Only good record was against India where he took 23 wickets in 11 Tests at 25.

[alfie]

Better nip in and vote now in case I don't get online Sunday...

Hall ...a YES from me should surprise nobody. I see him as the archetypal West Indian fast bowler.

Noble ...perhaps if I were not away from my books I might have convinced myself , but as it is , like guildford , I can't quite see him as standing out enough , so a NO.

Simpson...faint praise abounds - I remember him more as an accumulator , albeit an effective one , and his captaincy was more Strauss than Brearley perhaps , but his coaching - and arguably role model as coach status ? - swings it for me. YES

[kwinigolfer]

And I'd better vote now also, as my head tomorrow may be in San Antonio:

Hall: Yes: Borderline playing credentials but everything else is a massive plus.

Simpson: No: There needs to be something more than his batting record and fielding accomplishments. I completely discount his bowling and his captaincy and don't see anything extra-special in his coaching. There's something in Simpson's character or personality that doesn't quite sit right. Tributes and testimony that one might expect to be effusive tend to be anything but. Almost as if the people one would expect to praise him turn their head with a "no comment". There's an element of doubt there and I'm not giving him the benefit of it.

Noble: No: Clearly one of the first fine all-rounders, but his batting at the highest level was not exceptional (one ton in 42 matches) and would not have made it as a bowler alone. Credited with good captaincy and apparently an entertaining writer and commentator of the game, but not enough for me.

[Mike Selig]

Extension asked for me please... Coaching this week-end.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I know I said that I had posted my last post about Simpson last night, but seeing as Mike has asked for an extension, I'd just like to share this snippet from Sunil Gavaskar:
http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/52109/

Which includes this interesting view:
"When asked to name the best opening pairs of all time, he [Gavaskar] rated the Australian pairs of Bobby Simpson and Bill Lawry along with Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer as the best ever."

Just for reference, it should be noted that Simpson and Lawry have the second best average (60.94) of any opening partnership which has scored more than 3000 test runs together.

I'd also like to point people toward this comment by Hanif Mohammad in an interview, when asked to name his top openers:

"Hutton, Bobby Simpson and Sunil Gavaskar"

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=836.0;wap2

Finally, while only a statistical blog, this is quite interesting:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/614124.html

My only wish is that I'd dug all this up a little earlier.

[msp83]

Very interesting info there on Simpson, thanks Hoggy.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Right. Don't know if Mike's request for an extension has been granted so I'm going to get my votes in.

Simpson-Perhaps he would not gain entry to our HoF on the basis of any of the individual parts of his career (although I think he comes very close as a batsman), but add them all together, throw in the idea that he was one of Australian cricket's greatest ever servants and top it off with his part in originating the role of full-time national coach, and the legacy he left from that role ie. probably the most successful team in cricket history, and I think he deserves a place- Yes


Noble-I do know from what I've read about cricket that Noble is quite highly regarded in Australia, but like a few others on here he strikes me as falling a little short of our HoF standard. However, I honestly don't think that he's been discussed enough to really make a judgement, so I'm going to vote tactically in the hope he might make a repachage-Yes

Hall-The really difficult decision of the week for me. Hall is a legendary figure, with glowing testimonies from friend and foe alike. Also a really great character. And yet, when I looked at his figures I didn't see those of a great bowler. I know that he had a big impact during his time as a bowler, and that he influenced a number of bowlers who followed him. However, reading a number of quotes I did get the feeling that, a little like the case of Frank Woolley, there was a question of style over substance. Hall looked like a great fast bowler, big, strong, athletic, and bowled the way great fast bowlers are supposed to. Quickly and aggressivly. Of course the sight of him bowling inspired those watching. Add in his exteme likeability, and you have a legendary character. But a great bowler? No. Not for me. Good, but not great.
The question then became, did his character and the way he inspired others make up for the fact that he wasn't quite a good enough bowler to get into the HoF on the merits of that alone. For me, again, that had to be a no.
While it is true that he inspired future cricketers, that was simply a by-product of his play, not something he proactively set out to acheive. Many players, including the aforementioned Woolley, have surely done similar. Other players, such as Jeff Thomson, have also made a great impact initially, but have then, like Hall, faded during the latter part of their career.
All-in-all then, I'm afraid that I have to say no to Hall. No

[Corporalhumblebucket]

The votes cast from the barracks are as follows:

Hall - YES. Recognise that he is a borderline candidate and some valid points have been made by those voting against. Fair to say there is a stronger element of subjectivity - gut feeling - than in many of my votes. But I think he has a place as the first genuine high class Windies fast bowler who paved the way for a succession of quicks who dominated the game. A larger than life figure who continued to contribute to the game long after he retired.

Simpson YES. Was thinking of voting no but a strong case has been put, especially by Hoggy. On top of his batting, an outstanding slip fielder as well as groundbreaking coach.

Noble No . With some reluctance - but for whatever reason his case hasn't quite grabbed me....

[guildfordbat]

Guess Mike has ben hit harder by Margaret Thatcher's death than we expected.

[Shelsey93]

As we are now taking our summer break we can wait a couple of days for Mike/ anybody else who hasn't voted yet.

[Mike Selig]

Guess Mike has ben hit harder by Margaret Thatcher's death than we expected.

Apologies. Coaching Thursday, Saturday and Sunday, then travel and coaching afterword up until now.

Whilst I realise guildford's comment was made probably quite tongue in cheek, I do feel I should say that although it is probably no secret what I make of certain aspects of Thatcher's rule, I absolutely abhor the "death parties" which have been had in various parts of the country. I don't see that the passing of an old lady who served her country with devotion (whatever her other faults) should ever be cause for celebration.

With that over, let me get to the more serious matter of cricket.

Hall: an emphatic YES, although the reservations of Hoggy and msp are well understood. Ultimately my decision may seem inconsistent with other decisions I've taken, but I have often said consistency is an unreasonable aspiration, and I am happy that Hall fits my criteria of "excellent and a little extra, with no significant enough black marks". Rightfully a legend of a game, and I do believe his impact, albeit passive perhaps, is obvious with the benefit of hindsight.

Simpson: a tough one. A very fine opening batsman and fantastic slip catcher. A decent leg-spin bowler. The perfect coach for Australia at that time, although I don't think his methods did anything significant to help move coaching along (but granted this is not a negative, it is just an absence of positive). And yet... Simpson is not one of those names who captures the imagination (if anything, Lawry's obdurateness makes him more famous than his probably better opening counterpart). There is the feeling here that something is lacking. On the other hand, when discussing the likes of Gibbs, we pointed out in his favour that cricket played at that time was at times attritional, but that it was unreasonable to hold that against Gibbs, who did all that was asked of him. It seems unfair to therefore hold Simpson's style, also a product of the times against him.

In the end though I can't ignore my doubts. Simpson was a very good cricketer, and has a lot of mini-extras in his favour, but his candidacy overall lacks that outstanding contribution or feat to push him into HoF worthy material. A somewhat reluctant NO, which may change in the fullness of time.

Noble: somewhat unfairly perhaps the debate has very much concentrated on the other two cricketers this time around. This has left Noble somewhat left out. In any case, the impression I get is that he is somewhat short of HoF status in quality: in particular being the 6th best medium pace bowler someone has faced is no great achievement, and his bowling figures aren't extraordinary by any means; neither is his batting, although his average is very healthy for his era. Whilst statistics don't tell the whole story, there is no real legend attached to the name in the way that there was for the likes of Armstrong etc. A fairly easy NO, although it seems a bit unfair we haven't spent more time debating him.

[guildfordbat]

Mike - to emphasise, my comment was entirely tongue in cheek. I would never for a moment associate you with the grotesquely tacky ''death parties'' which, to my mind, say far more about the celebrants than the deceased. You are a man of strong views but also one of clear decency. I wouldn't have wasted an intended joke on someone I thought other than that. Homily over.

As to the Hall of Fame, we're remarkably similar in our assessments of these three candidates. The young rebel, in fact, has rightly been a lot more diplomatic than me in rejecting Simpson. In giving my reasons for a NO vote and stressing that the individual parts of his case didn't make him HoF worthy (for me), I probably didn't make clear that I too still regard him as ''a very good cricketer''.

Shelsey - several of us have commented that Noble merited more debate. I'm pretty sure he won't automatically qualify for the HoF. Even if he doesn't obtain the usually required percentage of votes for the repechage, I for one - and as someone who voted NO - have no problem if he comes back for another go later in the year. I actually think that would be fairer.

[Shelsey93]

The problem with Noble - and I do think he's Hall of Fame worthy, as shown by my vote - is that literally hardly anything has been written about him on the net!

Some might say that that's an indicator that he doesn't merit a HoF place - I don't agree. I believe he's undervalued. But unless anyone has any hidden gems in their libraries I think we'll struggle to add much more evidence to what we already have. I've already quoted verbatim Plum Warner's thoughts and linked to the 2 or 3 articles that are kicking around.

Some time soon (probably about this time next year) we will have well and truly exhausted all reasonable new additions. At that point I think it might be appropriate to look back on our inductees and revisit a few that we might have erred on (Rachel Heyhoe-Flint remains a prominent example in my mind).

---

Anyway, on with the results:

Hall - 7 Yes, 2 No = 77.8%
Noble - 3 Yes, 6 No = 33.3%
Simpson - 5 Yes, 4 No = 55.6%

Hall is inducted to the Hall...

Simpson in the Repecharge and Noble missing out.

[Shelsey93]

Thanks to everyone for their contributions in this session - informative, divisive, engaging and ultimately terrific fun through the long winter months once again

I think it would be fair to say that the quality of the debate hasn't quite reached the level that it did at times last winter. However, an exceptionally high standard had been set and it is perhaps understandable that without so many cricketers whose names/ stories are etched in cricketing history we couldn't quite match it. Nonetheless, for certain candidates - most recently Hall - the contributions were superb from all sides.

Although the Hall is now fairly full we still have a few notables to look at next year - those who found themselves in the Repecharge this time round as well as the late Tony Greig, anybody else who might be nominated and quite possibly Sachin Tendulkar.

I must apologise for being a little slack in recent months. In particular, the Hall of Fame Homepage remains incomplete - something I'll try and sort out this week.

I'm sure everybody will now be looking forward to the resumption in October.

In the meantime I hope that the contributors to this thread will stick their nose onto the county boards from time to time.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Shelsey - many thanks for overseeing the proceedings in this session. Agree that we've seen a few quiet periods, interspersed with some excellent debates.

Between now and October I'll be looking for a suitable disguise with which to help smuggle Frank Wooley past the security guards and claim his rightful place in the HoF.

[msp83]

I wasn't part of these debates last season, but I must say this section has been the one that I enjoyed the most ever since I joined in. The debates have been mostly terrific and informative.
Think I have argued my cases, both for and against with all the passion, and have done my bit to doing proper research, and presenting the points. There have been one major disappointment , the one I felt real bad was the downright rejection of of Makhaya Ntini. When we take a relook at candidates and inductees, I hope we might have an opportunity to have a relook. Most of us felt his impact on the social class would take time, yet we rejected him even without providing for a repecharge.
Perhaps we all need to spend some time trying to get a few more contributors by the time we reopens. That would not only help enhance the debates here, but also give the cricket section greater life as well.
Shelsey, I do have a nomination pending, that of Vinoo Mankad.

[msp83]

A big well done to shelsey for conducting this thread so well, and thanks a lot Guildford, for directing me towards this thread.

[alfie]

Yes well done Shelsey , doing a fine job with this excellent debate thread !

As a means of "redressing wrongs " (?) I have a suggestion : when we resume in October perhaps each contributor could be allowed to nominate one candidate who has been rejected in the past , ie not even making a repechage , for further consideration. Presumably the proposer would then make a case , etc etc...
We could require a seconder , if you like , to ensure it is worth proceeding.

A chance for guildford to put Cowdrey up again ? (Don't think Gomes has been considered )

[msp83]

Waiting for that Gomes case.
Off late Guildford has become a bit more flashy though!.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Yes well done Shelsey , doing a fine job with this excellent debate thread !

As a means of "redressing wrongs " (?) I have a suggestion : when we resume in October perhaps each contributor could be allowed to nominate one candidate who has been rejected in the past , ie not even making a repechage , for further consideration. Presumably the proposer would then make a case , etc etc...
We could require a seconder , if you like , to ensure it is worth proceeding.

A chance for guildford to put Cowdrey up again ? (Don't think Gomes has been considered )

Good idea alfie.
I can think of one or two candidates who were, I believe, slightly badly done by in previous discussions. Not saying who yet though.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Waiting for that Gomes case.

Guildford's been biding his time - probably hoping to make use of a spot of grade drift in the standards - or to nominate Gomes for the one slot for the most under-rated cricketer of all time....

[Shelsey93]

Yes well done Shelsey , doing a fine job with this excellent debate thread !

As a means of "redressing wrongs " (?) I have a suggestion : when we resume in October perhaps each contributor could be allowed to nominate one candidate who has been rejected in the past , ie not even making a repechage , for further consideration. Presumably the proposer would then make a case , etc etc...
We could require a seconder , if you like , to ensure it is worth proceeding.

A chance for guildford to put Cowdrey up again ? (Don't think Gomes has been considered )

What a good idea alfie Seems a very fair way to do things.

[guildfordbat]

A splendid suggestion from Alfie and many thanks to Shelsey from me as well.

As everyone is so keen on Gomes, perhaps we should award him honorary membership now.

With regard to the Corporal's comment about my nominating Gomes as the most under-rated cricketer of all time, I would flag that support for him in some parts of the West Indies is still so great that it makes me look like a casual follower.

Maybe some time, just may be. Some posters might have an issue with Gomes' complete stats and so I would probably need to fit his nomination in with Hoggy's fortnight holiday!

Msp - ''Off late ... become a bit more flashy!'' ??
Glad you've enjoyed this thread, thought you would. Your contributions have been excellent even though many of your final votes have been wrong!

[kwinigolfer]

Great job Shelsey

Surprised that Hall made it in this week, but for me each vote could have gone the other way.

Love alfie's idea of dealing with those who have been turned down, great idea.

And will be interested in guildford's testimony on Gomes (and it looks as if he's already warming up) - it will have to be rivetting stuff to dispel the image of LG sending me to sleep in the Lords seventies sunshine.

I've been surprised (probably we all have) at some of those who have been admitted in to the HOF, and just as much by some that have missed out. Before my time, and not to pick on the Aussies, but I was surprised to find that both Benaud and Davidson were in as players, though Richie's extra-curricular stuff since then is more than HOF worthy. Davo I'm not so sure about!

I'll be glad to help the Corporal smuggle Woolley into the HOF barracks.

Cheers All, I'm off to Augusta, in a cyber sort of way. Come and join me! The Golf board gets a bad press but there's great debate there too!!

[Mike Selig]

I echo the thanks to Shelsey for his work on this thread. There have been some quality debates, and it's been great to have msp on board also.

I too like alfie's suggestion of revisiting people who have been hard done by. The nature of the debates means that we tend to concentrate on 2 or 3 candidates; in some bunches this hasn't mattered so much, because they've been one or two clear-cut cases; in others, all the candidates have had their pluses and minuses, and as a result the person left out hasn't really had a fair bite of the cherry. Alfie's suggestion is an excellent way (IMO) to remedy this injustice.

[Shelsey93]

Dickie Bird has named an all-time XI - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/10002282/Dickie-Bird-names-his-greatest-all-time-Test-XI-in-pictures.html?frame=2539636.

Clearly he is biased towards the 60s, 70s and 80s which is fine but should have been made clear.

That said, I'm sure a few of the posters on here will be pleased to see Barry Richards and Lance Gibbs named in his XI.

[guildfordbat]

Dickie Bird has named an all-time XI - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/10002282/Dickie-Bird-names-his-greatest-all-time-Test-XI-in-pictures.html?frame=2539636.

Clearly he is biased towards the 60s, 70s and 80s which is fine but should have been made clear.

That said, I'm sure a few of the posters on here will be pleased to see Barry Richards and Lance Gibbs named in his XI.

Thanks for that, Shelsey. I guess it's meant to be a balanced XI of the greatest players he saw.

Noticeably no Botham. Edged out by Sobers and Imran Khan. Maybe Dickie has got that right - he's seen more cricket in his time than all of us.

Surprised no place for at least one of Holding (was it Bird who coined the name ''Whispering Death''?) or Marshall. Gibbs clearly made a big impression.

As for Barry Richards, I believe it's very significant that incredibly few who actually saw him ever dispute his place in this sort of line up.


Changing tack, I had the great good fortune to meet and chat for a few minutes at the Oval yesterday with Sir Trevor McDonald.

He was chosen as Surrey's President at the club's AGM earlier in the week when he delivered a wonderfully humourous and informative acceptance speech. His knowledge of cricket - particularly both Surrey and the West Indies - was surprisingly (to my mind) very considerable and certainly impressive. I was particularly taken by him quoting a couple of times off the top of his head from the works of the great West Indian writer CLR James.

Anyway, I mentioned to him yesterday what a lovely speech it was and - cunningly - slipped in that I too admired CLR James and earlier West Indian teams including the one that played in perhaps the greatest match of all, the Tied Test. Sir Trevor needed no further encouragement; he went straight into an account of the last ball as told to him in person by - wait for it, see where this is going! - Wes Hall. Even though I knew the story of Hall asking skipper Worrell what to do and being told not to bowl a no ball if he ever wanted to go home, I couldn't stop Sir Trevor telling it and didn't want to!

Sir Trevor added that Hall was living nearby when he (McDonald) was in the West Indies interviewing various past players for the biography he was then writing about VIv Richards. Hall put back this work by his insistence on Sir Trevor joining him and others for many drinks each evening rather than writing up his notes!

Sir Trevor summed him up, ''Wes Hall is a great, great, great, great man.'' I appreciate a quick conversation with a writer and broadcaster does nothing to overcome the concerns that some raised about Hall during the recent HoF debate. However, it did strongly reinforce the respect that continues to be held for Hall by all who have seen him play (as McDonald did, he too mentioned the swinging gold medallion) and the iconic figure that he is for so many.

I would add that Sir Trevor is at least a delightful, delightful man.

[Mike Selig]

I think it's a solid XI if (as I suspect) we're talking "best possible XI made up of players I saw (whilst umpiring)". Certainly I don't think many would quibble with the choice of top 6 and wicket-keeper (if we allow current players then of course Gilchrist and the triumvirate of Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar would come into the mix, but I would still have no major issues with the batsmen picked).

The bowling is probably a bit more controversial: whilst Gibbs was no doubt a tremendous bowler, it's hard to see how he gets in ahead of Murali (did Dickie Bird ever umpire him? possible not) whatever the merits of the latter's action. In any case I am not sure you need 2 spinners here, Sobers can bowl some spin if necessary. Regarding the seamers, Imran Khan and Lillee were great bowlers, but would not make my top 4 personally (they would both be in the top 10 though) - McGrath, Marshall, Holding, Wasim Akram since you ask, so here is probably where I would disagree most strongly. If you did want a 2nd all-rounder at 8, then I agree with Imran over Botham - just (Botham would probably bat 7 ahead of Knott if picked).

[Hoggy_Bear]

I think it's a solid XI if (as I suspect) we're talking "best possible XI made up of players I saw (whilst umpiring)". Certainly I don't think many would quibble with the choice of top 6 and wicket-keeper (if we allow current players then of course Gilchrist and the triumvirate of Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar would come into the mix, but I would still have no major issues with the batsmen picked).

The bowling is probably a bit more controversial: whilst Gibbs was no doubt a tremendous bowler, it's hard to see how he gets in ahead of Murali (did Dickie Bird ever umpire him? possible not) whatever the merits of the latter's action. In any case I am not sure you need 2 spinners here, Sobers can bowl some spin if necessary. Regarding the seamers, Imran Khan and Lillee were great bowlers, but would not make my top 4 personally (they would both be in the top 10 though) - McGrath, Marshall, Holding, Wasim Akram since you ask, so here is probably where I would disagree most strongly. If you did want a 2nd all-rounder at 8, then I agree with Imran over Botham - just (Botham would probably bat 7 ahead of Knott if picked).

Not knocking Dickie, but I'm pretty sure that, when we were discussing Derek Underwood, I found a video in which he said that (IIRC) Abdul Qadir, Shane Warne and Underwood were the best three spinners he'd ever umpired.
Like most of us, though, I suppose he's likely to chose different players at different times. Certainly, if you asked me to name an all-time XI one day and then do so again a couple of months later, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few differences.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Guildford - excellent feedback from Sir T M!

[kwinigolfer]

Great stuff about TM, guildford.

Bird's team short one really fast, menacing bowler for me, Marshall or Roberts; or Butch White perhaps?

Mike Denness obits remind one of what was a really good Kent team, not just two great County openers, but Asif Iqbal, Knott, Underwood, Cowdrey I suppose, Shepherd, Julien, Woolmer, Graham Johnson, Alan Ealham; and David Sayer who, like Butch White, could be as fast as any English bowler on his day.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Kwini - that was indeed an excellent team. Norman Graham would have featured in the fast bowling line up, I recall.

[kwinigolfer]

Yup, knew I'd forgotten someone; probably another seamer also.

Loved watching Asif Iqbal bat and field - beautiful player.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Yup, knew I'd forgotten someone; probably another seamer also.

Loved watching Asif Iqbal bat and field - beautiful player.

Maybe John Dye?

[guildfordbat]

I remembered Norman Graham's name but not really the player and so looked to see what Espn cricinfo had to say. Glad I did!

His profile starts off praising him as ''a very tall fast-medium bowler who was a tough proposition on any pitch offering bounce'' but finshes with, ''He was a genuine No.11 and one of the rare breed who finished with more wickets than first-class runs, and his ground fielding was of the entertainingly poor, but at 6'8'' that was understandable.''

From his 189 matches, he commendably took 614 wickets at a little over 22 each but managed just 404 runs at an average under 4.

One of the Kent seamers to slightly overlap with Norman Graham and then follow in many ways in his footsteps, whom I remember better, was Kevin Jarvis. From his 260 matches, Jarvis took 674 wickets at a bit over 29 each but managed just 403 runs (1 less than Graham!), also at an average under 4.

Appreciate this thread was established for different reasons but don't feel we should begrudge two pros who gave a lot to our game getting a brief mention here. Making me feel very old, I noticed that Jarvis is 60 this coming week whilst Graham is 70 next month.

[kwinigolfer]

guildford, Corporal,


You must be in pretty good nick, guildford, if you need Jarvis or Graham to tell you your age.
I just have to look in the mirror.

This was all just an excuse really to remind oneself that David Sayer was always noted as one of the world's fastest bowlers in his day (or perhaps on his day). Proof positive that speed was not, and is not, everything!

[guildfordbat]

Waiting for that Gomes case.  

Guildford's been biding his time - probably hoping to make use of a spot of grade drift in the standards - or to nominate Gomes for the one slot for the most under-rated cricketer of all time....

And a happy birthday today to Hilary Angelo Gomes as he in typical fashion  quietly and largely unnoticed advances to 60 not out ....

[guildfordbat]

Read a lovely book on my recent holiday which I would recommend to all who frequent this part of the cricket section - ''The Trundlers'' by Harry Pearson. Apparently it was winner of the MCC Book of the Year whilst the author may be known to some being a regular sports columnist for The Guardian.

Fully lives up to its billing of being a warm, affectionate and humourous tribute to medium pace bowlers throughout history.

Some of our inductees are well covered. Loads of praise and respect for Syd Barnes and Maurice Tate. A bit as well for Alec Bedser plus a fair bit of p*ss taking.

[msp83]

We are close to the end of October. Perhaps its time to resume?

[Mike Selig]

I believe it is.

With Shelsey more and more occupied with his work for deep extra cover, we need somebody to take over the job of setting deadlines and coordinating votes etc. If no one else wants to I would be happy to do so at least for a while (as a warning, I have a wedding - not my own - coming up in 10 days, so may not be so free around then).

The suggestion last time was for everybody to put forward a candidate who they felt had been hard done by to go over again.

There are also the last batch's repechage candidates to sort through.

From memory msp had suggested debating Mankad also. Other suggestions are welcome but should be limited to 2 per poster so as to maintain a reasonable number. Obviously we shall shortly have to add a certain SRT to the list.

Ideally each round should feature a repechage candidate, a "hard done by" one and a new one altogether.

Any thoughts or comments welcome.

[guildfordbat]

A timely suggestion from msp and a generous offer from Mike.

A couple of ideas which might help kick things off again although only if they don't take up too much time (probably looking at Mike here):

1. A brief article on the main Cricket section directing posters to this thread and saying what it's all about. It would be good to attract some new blood and also see the return of some old cyber friends.

2. This may be a lot easier to ask than do BUT - Any chance of a list of all past candidates showing what category (inducted / repecharge / rejected) they are now in? The last category would be particularly helpful in remembering and then deciding who has been ''hard done by''.

As regards further candidates, I recall being volunteered to make the case for Larry Gomes. I would also be happy to give his fellow West Indian Desmond Haynes a shout. I've read a bit recently about Vijay Merchant - if I'm not tredding on msp's toes, there might be a case to be made there too. I know msp was keen to canvass Tony Greig at the appropriate time and that has probably now arrived. There could also be some interesting debate for the recently retired trio of Jones, Harmison and Hoggard (super mini tribute to Hoggy this week on the main section from King Carlos).

As regards the repecharge, I have Titmus there. I suspect I wore down fellow posters so much going on about my other nominations that they gave up the argument and voted ''Yes''!

[msp83]

We could certainly do with some more posters, not only on this thread, but also on the cricket section as such. Perhaps we should all try and get our cricketing discussion friends involved over here. I did mention Vijay Merchant in the course of the discussions somewhere. Would be very happy if Guildford could make a case for him. Vinu Mankad and Tony Greig are already in there from my side.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Read a lovely book ... Fully lives up to its billing of being a warm, affectionate and humourous tribute to medium pace bowlers throughout history.

Only some of whom were military medium ....

Some interesting characters around for HoF consideration.  But could be a bit of a challenge as there could be several recent retirees who are shoe ins and others mentioned who realistically only get in if we lower the bar a little bit.  I remained disappointed that Frank Woolley missed out - but I fear there may be limited mileage in flogging that one too much further as I recall he more or less lost his deposit.  

[Hoggy_Bear]

I remained disappointed that Frank Woolley missed out - but I fear there may be limited mileage in flogging that one too much further as I recall he more or less lost his deposit.  

Don't know about that Corporal. I, for one, would certainly reconsider my opposition to Woolley. Not saying I'd definitely change my views but I do think I was a bit harsh on him first time round.

[Sponsored content]