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

[Hoggy_Bear]

If we are going to resurrect this thread, I'd like to propose Fazal Mahmood and Aubrey Faulkner for discussion, if that's OK.

[kwinigolfer]

It is shocking to look at the ICC HOF Members and reflect that only two South Africans are included.
We've considered several more and elected Shaun Pollock (and D'Oliviera of course), but that still smells of under-representation.
Would hope that Mike Proctor, at least, might receive support for reconsideration.

[guildfordbat]

It is shocking to look at the ICC HOF Members and reflect that only two South Africans are included.
We've considered several more and elected Shaun Pollock (and D'Oliviera of course), but that still smells of under-representation.
Would hope that Mike Proctor, at least, might receive support for reconsideration.

I would certainly push for Procter to be successful when his time comes again in the repecharge. A magnificent cricketer in terms of both natural ability and consistent application who is too often overlooked today. By chance, I flagged some of his exploits on the ''Wisden Best Test Side'' a bit earlier today.

[guildfordbat]

If we are going to resurrect this thread, I'd like to propose Fazal Mahmood and Aubrey Faulkner for discussion, if that's OK.

Fine with me, Hoggy.

[Mike Selig]

Evening all,

I am in the middle of drawing up lists as to who has made the HoF and how, who has been eliminated at which stage, and who is still in the repechage.

However I keep getting distracted and reading some of the excellent debates we had earlier, which means this process is taking longer than strictly is necessary.

If you stay with me, I promise to have something up over the week-end.

In the meantime, others should be free to post fresh nominations. I believe we have some from Hoggy, msp and Kwini so far. I have a couple up my sleeve, but am tactically waiting to see if anybody else nominates them... don't want to use up those nominations too soon  

[Mike Selig]

As promised then, here are the relevant lists:

Founder members:

Wasim Akram; Curtley Ambrose; Sydney Barnes; Richie Benaud; Alan Border; Ian Botham; Don Bradman; Kapil Dev; Andy Flower; Sunil Gavaskar; Adam Gilchrist; W.G. Grace; Richard Hadlee; Jack Hobbs; Michael Holding; Imran Khan; Jim Laker; Brian Lara; Dennis Lillee; Clive Lloyd; Malcolm Marshall; Glenn McGrath; Keith Miller; Muttiah Muralitharan; Bill O'Reilly; Viv Richards; Garfield Sobers; Victor Trumper; Shane Warne; Frank Worrell.

Round 1 inductees:
Les Ames; John Arlott; Warwick Armstrong; Ken Barrington; Alec Bedser; Dennis Compton; Martin Crowe; Alan Davidson; Basil D'Oliveira; Allan Donald; Rahul Dravid; Joel Garner; Clarrie Grimmett; Wes Hall; Wally Hammond; George Headley; Patsy Hendren; Len Hutton; Alan Knott; Anil Kumble; Ray Lindwall; Peter May; Stan McCabe; Javed Miandad; Hanif Mohammed; Graeme Pollock; Shaun Pollock; Ricky Ponting; Mike Proctor; Wilfred Rhodes; Barry Richards; Andy Roberts; Fred Spofforth; Brian Statham; Herbert Sutcliffe; Maurice Tate; Fred Trueman; Derek Underwood; Headley Verity; Clyde Walcott; Courtney Walsh; Steve Waugh; Everton Weekes; Bob Willis; Waqar Younis

Round 2 (after repechage):
Greg Chappell; Belinda Clark; Lance Gibbs; Gordon Greenidge; Neil Harvey; Rohan Kanhai; Harold Larwood;

Rejected round 1:
Enid Bakewell; Eddie Barlow; Bishan Bedi; Geoffrey Boycott; Ian Chappell; Learie Constantine; Colin Cowdrey; Graham Gooch, Tom Graveney, David Gower; Rachel Heyhoe-Flint; Bill Johnston; Charles Macartney; Rodney Marsh; Monty Noble; Makhaya Ntini; Kerry Packer; Nawab of Pataudi; KS Ranitsinhji; Jonty Rhodes; Athol Rowan;  Jeff Thomson; Charlie Turner; Frank Woolley; Bob Woolmer

Awaiting repechage:
Clem Hill; Bill Ponsford; Sanath Jayasuriya; Fred Titmus; Clare Taylor; Arthur Morris; Simon Tauffel; Hugh Tayfield; Bob Simpson;

The whole thing strikes me as almost entirely sensible. I think the list emphasises though that who a candidate happens to be up "against" does make a difference: for example that Kanhai or Harvey had to go through repechage whilst Crowe (for all his undoubted qualities) did not strikes me as a bit odd.

I feel a bit sorry that some candidates like Thomson and dare I say it Packer were rejected so comprehensively. I have no qualms with them being rejected, but Thomson got not positive votes and Packer just the 1 which strikes me as a trifle unfair.

Suggestions for moving this forward.
Because of the nature of debate, and having to debate 4 or 5 candidates at once, debate has often concentrated on the 2 or 3 most interesting candidates, with the consequence that sometimes someone has been dropped without really being discussed enough, or at times got through with minimal examination (Donald, Garner, Davidson spring to mind particularly here).

It was suggested that each member should be able to nominate someone who had been eliminated in round 1 if they felt he (or she) hadn't received a fair crack of the whip. I think it is important to emphasise here that it is probably not worth going over candidates who you supported strongly but didn't make it unless you have new elements to add; for example, I am disappointed that Rhodes and Woolmer were eliminated, but in both cases they were debated extensively, so I'm not sure that going over the debates again would change much, unless simply by wearing people down...

On the other hand people like Monty Noble and I would say Rodney Marsh barely got debated, partly because there was a lot of very good debate over the other candidates in their bunch. Perhaps such people are worth revisiting.

Apart from that we have the repechage candidates to go over again, and any new suggestions of which there have been a few. I would like to add Michael Bevan, who I think is worth discussing. Of course we shall shortly have to go through the process of inducting a certain SRT upon retirement.

Thoughts or comments welcome.

[Hoggy_Bear]

All seems very reasonable Mike.
One suggestion I would make, if everyone was amenable would be to discuss fewer candidates over a shorter time frame. Perhaps 3 names each week instead of 5 a fortnight.
This might help with a couple problems, the one you noted about candidates being ignored because of discussion of others. Difficult to ignore a name when you're only discussing 3. And it would alleviate some of the 'slack' period which often happened in previous discussions.
Of course others might not agree, but I thought I'd suggest it.

[msp83]

Great work Mike!.
Not too sure one week will be enough time for the discussions to really warm-up, though I like the idea of 3 candidates.......

[Mike Selig]

I like the idea of having fewer candidates per round so we can debate all of them.

Not so sure about limiting the time to 1 week, partly for entirely selfish reasons in that I know there will be the odd week where I will be very busy and thus unable to contribute much (at all?). I guess 1 week is long enough if everyone spends quite a bit of time here, but that seems to me at least a slightly unreasonable requirement. What do others think?

[kwinigolfer]

Great job Mike,
One week a short period of time but, to cope with absences for those busy or travelling, it would be good for a pm reminder to at least have a butcher's at the debate and elicit a vote. Too many times last year there were fewer votes than normal and that can skew the numbers.

Looking at your summary, for which many thanks, it is a curiosity that every West Indian submitted for consideration has been elected, eventually (altho' I had thought we'd debated Learie Constantine once?). I have theories as to why that might be, but interested in any other observations about the voting so far.

[Mike Selig]

You are right, we did debate and narrowly reject Learie Constantine. This was in the first batch of "post ICC HoF members" debates, and, I am fairly sure (given that the debate afterwards was the Clem Hill and Jayasuriya batch), the only omission from my list, which has now been modified.

Many thanks for the correction, and apologies for the error.

[guildfordbat]

Mike - yes, an excellent job. Thanks.

Don't have strong views on one week or two. I would though flag that if we move to one week, those making a case for a particular candidate will need to be ready from the off.

I do think it's important for each candidate to be championed by at least one poster. It's not enough that the candidate is 'interesting'. I remember Thomson having no backing at outset and so it's probably unsurprising that he sank without trace. Suspect it was similar for Marsh. Poor Eddlie Barlow was treated even more dreadfully by this board (tallying with how much he was often treated in life). Nominated by our old mucker Biltong who promptly turned round and said he had no place in our Hall! I've no issue with a championing poster being persuaded by other posters to have a change of mind but please wait for at least one post!

Do also feel that the thread would be enhanced by more posters. That could also have a bearing on candidate numbers and time allowed for voting.

Final point should we move to one week. With some people being away at weekends, probably best to have the voting period ending mid-week rather than on a Sunday; it can be frustrating having votes given too quickly and that would be more likely to be the case if votes were being cast on a Friday (before posters went away) after only 4 or 5 days of discussion.

As for Kwini's point about the consistency of West Indians being elected, I do believe a part of this is that several of their candidates had to stand or fall together, and we ruled that they stood. Particularly thinking here of the three Ws and the pace quartet (believe I flagged that at the time re Anderson Roberts). This probably makes our dismissal of Thomson seem all the harsher. Sure, Lillee was the steak but wasn't Thommo the chips that go alongside?

[Hoggy_Bear]

Perhaps the best way to do it (and this is merely a suggestion), would be to debate 3 candidates for 10/11 days, starting perhaps on a Sunday and finishing on a Wednesday, then announce who the next candidates will be and allow the time 'til the following Sunday for people to research/prepare cases and for stragglers to get votes in for the previous group?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Thanks Mike.  I think that for practical reasons, to encourage maximum participation, as well as out of consideration for Mike it will make sense to allow a bit longer than a week  - maybe something along lines of Hoggy's suggestion sounds like a good idea.

I don't think I could claim that the case for Frank Woolley did not get a good airing. Not sure that I would have many if any new points to make.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

PS as a long time adherent of TMS I was wondering about either of CMJ or Bill Frindall. But maybe that is down to nostalgia and affection for idiosyncratic Englishmen who were passionate about cricket and were taken away too soon!

[msp83]

I think its better to stick to 2 weeks but reduce the candidates to 3, 2 new, one repechage or extraordinary reconsideration.......

[skyeman]

Hi guys, great to have this going again. How about ZERO voting until three days from the end of the allotted time frame for the particular nominees discussion to allow for more rigorous discussion and perhaps decision changing votes time. All too often the last time that this thread was up and running, a couple of posters voted straight away and would never change their vote no matter how much work and effort went into the (cases for) by they're fellow posters.

[Mike Selig]

I quite like Hoggy's suggestion of Saturday (or Sunday) to Weds say, with a couple of extra days for stragglers to vote.

I agree with skyeman re voting too early. Suggest we have it as a guideline rather than absolute rule in case of exceptions needing to be made.

If we are more or less all agreed, can I suggest we start this up again properly next week-end? In the meantime please keep suggestions of names or potential improvements coming...

I would like to see Rod Marsh debated again, and have Michael Bevan as a suggestion.
With apologies to Hoggy for nominating another modern player, I would also like to see Saqlain Mustaq discussed.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Yep all seems fair enough to me Mike.
Even the nominating of all these modern types.

[Hoggy_Bear]

And can I just add that, if we're going to have another look at players who, perhaps, didn't receive the debate that they possibly deserved, Monty Noble would be the one who sticks out in my mind.

[msp83]

On the general introduction/invite thread, I could see Kingraf putting up Garry Kirsten's name. Just wanted to say I second that.

[msp83]

Are we restarting this week?

[Mike Selig]

Apologies, as I think I mentioned earlier I was away all of last week first for a wedding, then to finish my level 4 (successfully I hasten to add).

We shall start at the week-end, and I promise to be a better host from now on (there are as far as I know no more weddings until August, and having done my level 4, there are not that many more coaching courses available to me...)

[Hoggy_Bear]

Fair enough Mike, and congratulations.

[msp83]

Congratulations Mike!.
Also looking forward to the relaunch.

[Mike Selig]

Right. It is time everyone. We shall now relaunch the HoF nominating process.

The people up for debate this week are:
- Michael Bevan (new - nominated by myself)
- Tony Greig (new - nominated by msp)
- Clem Hill (repechage - originally nominated by Hoggy)

For the new nominees, whoever nominated them should make an initial case. I shall make the case for Bevan either this evening or tomorrow.

For the repechage candidate, people may want to look over the previous debate; if someone wishes to summarise the main points made, that would be grand.

The debate will run until next Wednesday. Late votes are permitted until Saturday, but no further debate should happen after Wednesday.

Before we start a reminder of our "house rules".

The purpose of this thread is to debate and educate. Far more important than any final decision as to whether somebody eventually makes the cut or not is discussing the careers and impact of the nominees, debating points and finding out new information. In particular:
- there should be no rush to vote. Indeed I strongly suggest people leave voting at least until next week, unless there is a very good reason not to;
- you are expected to engage in debate on specific points raised. Simply repeating the same points ad infinum without taking any notice of what the other side is saying is not debating.
- I should also stress that it is meant to be fun. People shouldn't feel under pressure to do unreasonable amount of research or spend unreasonable time on this thread. Usually reading through the comments should be enough for people to make up their mind.
- don't be daunted if you feel less knowledgeable than others on here. There is always somewhere someone more knowledgeable than oneself. Moreover, this thread is the perfect remedy to that, we are all here to learn something; we value everybody's contribution (provided they adhere to the above principles).

Happy debating!

[msp83]

Well, glad we are starting off at now. Can't we really go back to the 2 weeks period? I think I'd need a little bit of time to put together the case for Tony G. So that it self should take at least a couple of days though I hope to get the debates going before that, and then week of debating may not gbe quite enough. And it might take a bit of time to get the thread really warmed-up.
Mike, Please do have a reconsideration.

[msp83]

Discussions up to Satterday after next, voting perhaps 3-4 days down the line as some of us prefer voting in week days could be a good idea in my view.

[Mike Selig]

As msp has asked nicely, I think we should carry on debating this time until Saturday, particularly as he says because it may take a while for things to get going again. Depending on how things go this round, we may reconsider what happens next round.

IN the meantime I should outline my case for Bevan: I understand this case shall prove unpopular amongst our "test cricket snobs" and I fully expect it to be unsuccessful but I like the challenge.

We have inducted several people who weren't great test cricketers, so that Bevan's test record is really decidedly ordinary (although his bowling record is actually pretty good, so much so that at times he played primarily as a second spinner really) shouldn't in itself invalidate his case.

What Bevan is being nominated as is a combination of two things:
- a great of the ODI format
- the first exponent of the finishing role.

In support of his case is that he was also a tremendous fielder (particularly in the outfield), a more than useful bowler, and played so many fantastic rescue innings. Indeed the Bevan legend was born with one such innings, at the MCG against a great West Indian side where Bevan engineered a fantastic comeback (thanks to good support from Warne and Reiffel) before finishing it with a boundary off the last ball (bowled by Roger Harper) to win the game. Since then there have been numerous further examples, including of course the 2 famous efforts in the 2003 WC (against England then New Zealand).

It is as the first real inventor of the finishing role that Bevan's case is arguably strongest. You could argue (and IMO you would be correct) that the likes of Dhoni and Hussey have since surpassed him with their ability not only to keep the scoreboard ticking over, but also play the big big shots. However, that is ignoring the important matter of context: Dhoni and Hussey have benefited from heavier bats, shorter outfields and of course the preponderance of the T20 format which have all aided big hitting.

What Bevan introduced and what remains the template even today though is the concept of keeping the run-rate manageable before finishing the game off. What has changed is of course the definition of "manageable" - in Bevan's day it was 6-7 an over whereas now it is 8-12 (depending on the number of overs left). That the role of finisher has since evolved should not necessarily be counted against Bevan, and indeed you would argue that had he not introduced such a role we may not have had the Dhonis and Husseys of today.

Bevan's average, aided by many not outs, was an unheard of at the time 53. His average in successful run chases rises to 86 (albeit with more than half his innings of not outs, not that that should count against him; after all being not out when your side wins is surely worth more than getting out before you cross the line), interestingly enough with a lower overall strike rate, suggesting that he adapted himself to the situation accordingly.

The short of it is that Bevan was the first batsman to really dissect a run chase. Whilst others since have equaled him and arguably surpassed his abilities, that shouldn't take that away from him. For his impact on the way an ODI chase is approached, Bevan IMO deserves a place in our HoF.

[msp83]

Thanks Mike.
I've put together the basic's of my case for Greig and put that up soon and I hope to add more as the debate develops.

[msp83]

Anthony William Greig
Tony Greig is often identified with Packer and World Series Cricket so much so that many tend to forget that he was one of the finest all-rounders the game has seen. He averaged over 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball in 58 test matches. He was usually an attacking batsman with a style of his own that challenged many of the conventions of the game, his backlift was quite noticeable. He could bowl fast medium as well as offspin. He won matches for England with both bat and ball. It is very significant to note that “Among men to have played at least 25 Tests, only Greig, Aubrey Faulkner and Jacques Kallis have averaged 40 or more with the bat and
33 or fewer with the ball”.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/644079.html
As a captain, Greig had his achievements that we have to consider. The win in India is foremost in this regard. As his cricinfo profile observes, Greig left a professionalized and close knit outfit for his successor.
The other aspect of Greig that we have to look at is the charming personality that Greig had. When he led England in India, he showed himself to be a master of public relations management and had won over the Indian crowd though India lost the series. This series win happened in the 1970s. But Greig could still find lots of love and attention as a commentator in these lands. He was much loved as a commentator in India(I’ve come across a few people who’d love to mimic Greig on commentary). He had a unique style of commentary that touched a code with people often. He was highly respected in Australia as a commentator, was much loved in Sri Lanka and was well accepted in India. He came originally from South Africa and played for England.
The ‘grovel’ statement wasn’t his finest moment, and his move to the Packer cricket was so badly received in many sectors in England. The first was a mistake from Greig, but by the 5th test of that series, Greig himself groveled on the field as England were at the wrong end of a 3-0 hiding and I’d consider that as more meaningful than any other apology.
And as for him shifting to Packer, I had put up my case for Packer himself in the course of our debats. The establishment that led the way in castigating and declaring Greig and others as outcaste had to take a lot of responsibility in letting a situation develop where players had to take such a call. And I believe WSC has done a lot of good to the game and along with Packer, as one of the pioneers and key figures, Greig deserves a lot of credit.
Greig the player, the captain, the charmer, the commentator and revolutionary would be a worthy addition to our HoF I believe.

[msp83]

While Australia had Bevan, it has to be remembered that India had Ajay Jadeja and England had Neil Fairbrother. Beven was much better than those 2, but their roles too have to be kept in mind.

[msp83]

And, while I follow all formats of the game particularly tests and ODIs and can understand the need to acknowledge Bevan's contribution to the ODI format, I am not too sure his poor test record can be altogether ignored. My position, as I mentioned on the debate on Greg Chappell, is that we have to look at a nominee as an entire package. We should then look at whether the strongpoints are sufficient to overcome the not so strong points.
Bevan does have a strong case as a great of the ODI format though.

[msp83]

This was what Richi Benaud said during an ECB origanized memorial service for Greig.
"Players in those days were fine men who had
families, wives, children and mortgages," he said. Then - after one of those characteristic pauses - "never forget the mortgage." Pre-Packer, Benaud said, "players were paid peanuts and were treated with minimal respect if they asked for more. Tony felt strongly that there should be a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. If I had to choose one word to sum him up, it would be 'strong'. If two, it would be 'very strong'. "
A lot more interesting stuff on Greig here.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/645025.html

[Hoggy_Bear]

Some interesting stuff already on these candidates. Good to see this thread up and running again. I'll dig out the case I originally posted on Clem Hill and re-post it as a bit of a reminder later.
One question I would ask about Bevan is a similar to ones I raised about Harold Larwood and Sanath Jayasuriya ie. how much was the development of the role of 'finisher' down to Bevan himself and how much was it simply a case of the captain/coach coming up with the role and picking the person whose skill set best fitted it?
Of course, even in the latter case Bevan would deserve great credit for fulfilling the role as superbly as he did but, IMO, it would do him even greater credit if there was some evidence that the role was his idea, to some extent at least.

[msp83]

On what Greig meant to Sri Lanka cricket. Don't think anyone else has achieved such a stature as commentator.......
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/599038.html

[msp83]

David Tossell, Greig's biographer, points out in a cricinfo article
"His best performances were reserved for overseas tours, many of which are lost to cricket history due to the lack of TV coverage. On four consecutive tours- India (1972-73), West Indies (1973-74), Australia (1974-75) and India (1976-77) - Greig was
England's outstanding player, proving himself Test cricket's pre-eminent allrounder".
There is more here. On how he was a champion for players.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/598987.html

[guildfordbat]

Mike - thanks for all your work in getting this show back on the road. Congratulations as well on the level 4 coaching.  

I hope Bevan doesn't suffer too much from ''snobbery'' on my part. I do admit though to a relative ignorance of ODI cricket during his peak time. Promise to follow postings here carefully and read up elsewhere.

Greig is someone I start off knowing a lot more about. Whether that helps his cause here or not, I genuinely am unsure. Compelling Wisden obituary supplied by msp; particularly intigued by one of the quotes from Underwood (I'll return to that in the next few days). As a complete aside, the photo of Greig shows umpire Tom Spencer just behind him - a perfect illustration of how an English umpire was perceived when I was a boy.

As regards Clem Hill, can you, Mike, or Hoggy give a pointer please as to where to easily locate our previous discussions.

[Hoggy_Bear]

As promised earlier I'll just post my original intro to the life and career of Hill as a bit of a reminder for people:

Clem Hill

“Sir Clement of the flashing blade,
the pride and joy of Adelaide”

Though somewhat overshadowed by Victor Trumper, Clem Hill was a hugely consistent batsman who scored more runs in tests, at a better average, than his more famous contemporary. A childhood prodigy (he scored 360, then the highest score ever made in Australia, during a school match when he was 16), Hill was a gritty left-hander with a somewhat awkward looking, stooped stance. He was, however, a superb player of fast bowling able to pull “with surprising certainty”, according to Arlott, “even from outside the off-stump” and whose “Brilliant square and late cutting” made him, according to Wisden “delightful to watch”. In addition “in defence his style claimed admiration while his patience was unlimited”. Such was his skill against pace that it is reported Tom Richardson, Surrey and England fast-bowler, once remarked to him, “You make me feel I took up fast bowling for your benefit.”
At the time of his international retirement he was the leading run scorer in test cricket with 3,412 runs at 39.21, a record he held for twelve years until he was overtaken by Jack Hobbs. He was also the first man to score 1,000 test runs in a calendar year, a feat which was not equalled for 45 years, and he was the only Australian to score 17,000+ first class runs before the introduction of covered wickets.
Among his notable test innings were his 188 against England in Melbourne in 1898 (when he was still less than 21 years old) which helped lift Australia from 58/6 to a position from which they won the match, his 135 in partnership with Trumper (who made the same score coming in at 6), at Lord’s in 1899 and his 160 at Adelaide in 1908. This last innings was scored in between bouts of throwing up on the wicket after he’d been in bed with gastric flu for three days and England were well on their way to victory. Afterwards dubbed “Clem ‘Ill” by the press, he batted for 5 hours 19 minutes, pulling Australia from the mire of 180 for 7 with a record eighth wicket partnership of 243 (still the Australian record) with Queensland’s Roger Hartigan. England were beaten by 245 runs.
Hill also had scores of 96, 99, 98 and 97 (the last three in consecutive innings) against England, as well as his 4 hundreds. He is, as far as I’m aware, the only Australian batsman to be dismissed twice in Tests for the traditional Australian unlucky score of 87.
As well as being a great batsman, Hill was also an extremely good fielder who once, during a match at Leeds during the 1902 tour of England, threw a ball from near the boundary which knocked down the stumps at one end and rebounded to hit the stumps at the other. During the same tour at Old Trafford, Hill made a catch that Wisden claimed "will never be forgotten by [those present]". A Dick Lilley hit to square leg looked likely to clear the boundary. Hill himself said he raced 25 yards (23 m) for it with a view simply to save a boundary. In the event, he ran round 'close to the boundary' from his position at long on, aided by the wind seemingly holding up the ball to take the catch low down in front of the pavilion in his outstretched hands; one that Wisden said "few fieldsmen would have thought worth attempting".
As a personality Hill was regarded as honest and straightforward, traits which made him popular with his fellow players, but which may have contributed to his eventual retirement from test cricket which followed a stand-up brawl with one of his fellow selectors and his refusal, along with five others, to tour England in 1912. He is, however, still highly regarded in Australia, as is shown by the fact that he was elected to the Australian HoF in 2005, and that, in 2003, the South Australian Cricket Association named the new southern grandstand at the Adelaide Oval the "Clem Hill Stand" in recognition of his contribution to South Australian cricket.
During the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th century, Clem Hill was the most successful and consistent batsman in the world. While others, like his fellow Aussie Trumper, may have been more stylish or spectacular, if you wanted someone to bat for your life, Hill, the early 20th century’s answer to Allan Border, would, in all likelihood, have been your man.


Guildford, this and the rest of our first-time musings on Hill can be found here:
https://www.606v2.com/t28256p100-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-3

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - thanks for the Clem Hill info and pointer. I'll follow up further once reviewed.

[guildfordbat]

David Tossell, Greig's biographer, points out in a cricinfo article
"His best performances were reserved for overseas tours, many of which are lost to cricket history due to the lack of TV coverage. On four consecutive tours- India (1972-73), West Indies (1973-74), Australia (1974-75) and India (1976-77) - Greig was
England's outstanding player, proving himself Test cricket's pre-eminent allrounder".
There is more here. On how he was a champion for players.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/598987.html

Msp - I was actually going to make this very point on your and Greig's behalf.  

I recall a year or so back a couple of posters (think it was Hoggy and Dummy) discussing Greig's Test averages and my being surprised that they were so impressive. I suspect many cricket followers in England of my generation and even earlier would be similarly surprised.

Greig's Test averages owe a lot (although not everything) to his performances abroad. Whilst we were aware of the Test scores from overseas and sometimes able to hear radio commentaries during this time, there was minimal detailed analysis to feed on and savour. Furthermore, with no film footage available, the English tv broadcasters were generally reluctant to make much reference to Greig's overseas triumphs when covering home Tests in following seasons. Accordingly, Greig's overseas success never quite got the recognition in England that it deserved and failed to make the impression that would be all too evident today.

[Mike Selig]

Greig is a very interesting case I think. There is no doubt that he has left his mark on the game in numerous ways.

I think msp is right to highlight just how good a cricketer he was. Because of all the talk about how he was a character etc. this can sometimes be somewhat forgotten. Whilst of course msp is a bit disingenuous in picking the exact combination of statistics which leaves Greig closest to the top of the pile (and in doing so makes an interesting case for Aubrey Faulkner, who will be discussed soon, but excludes the likes of Sobers and Miller, who I think most here would agree were better all-rounders than Greig) it does drive home an important point. Certainly I think Greig would be close to the top 10 of all-rounders.

That in itself I would argue probably places him more in the "very good" than "great" category, and so for admission to our HoF we must look for more. Of course what makes Greig such an interesting candidate is that there is more, loads of it.

We have his excellent and lengthy commentary career. Whilst he could be a tad virulent and IMO populist at times, there is no doubt that Greig as a commentator resonated with cricket fans around the world: not afraid to call it as it is, giving credit where it's due, and with a good balance of banter to go with things. That he is or rather was well regarded all around the world is testament to that.

Then there are notable achievements as a player and captain. A few captaincy masterstrokes during WSC are still remembered.

Finally we have his role in WSC. Msp is right to point out that he was a big driving force behind it, and I am interested in how the debate on this goes. I agree with msp that cricket is better for WSC (that players now earn a secure living has to be a good thing whatever everything else), but when we were discussing Packer I expressed concerns about his motives and his method. There is evidence that Greig acted in some way as the world's first player representative, and for that he should surely be commended; however doubts about motives surely should apply to him, and you could certainly argue that his primary interest was purely selfish (i.e. earning more money).

The "grovel" comment on the whole I am willing to not attach much importance to. Sure it was fairly crass, insensitive, possibly offensive and maybe downright silly, but it was at the end of the day just a comment, it didn't reflect any more sinister values, and we all say silly things. It was a misguided attempt to mentally intimidate the opposition, an backfired quite severely.

Another issue which maybe is worth raising is that of sportsmanship. Greig was the one after all to encourage his players not to walk. I wonder how much importance should be attached to that. Whilst today it is accepted practice not to walk (until you get away with one like Broad, and then for some strange reason all hell breaks loose), old-timers swear, and I have no reason to doubt them on this, that there was a time when it wasn't. Is cricket worse for this, and does Greig bear any responsibility? It's not something which bothers me unduly I have to say, but it is only fair to raise it.

[Hoggy_Bear]

One more thing that shouldn't be overlooked with regard to Greig was that he was a very fine fielder, especially at slip. 87 catches in 58 matches is pretty good going.

[guildfordbat]

Greig is a very interesting case I think ....

Finally we have his role in WSC. Msp is right to point out that he was a big driving force behind it, and I am interested in how the debate on this goes. I agree with msp that cricket is better for WSC (that players now earn a secure living has to be a good thing whatever everything else), but when we were discussing Packer I expressed concerns about his motives and his method. There is evidence that Greig acted in some way as the world's first player representative, and for that he should surely be commended; however doubts about motives surely should apply to him, and you could certainly argue that his primary interest was purely selfish (i.e. earning more money).

The "grovel" comment on the whole I am willing to not attach much importance to. Sure it was fairly crass, insensitive, possibly offensive and maybe downright silly, but it was at the end of the day just a comment, it didn't reflect any more sinister values, and we all say silly things. It was a misguided attempt to mentally intimidate the opposition, an backfired quite severely.

Another issue which maybe is worth raising is that of sportsmanship. Greig was the one after all to encourage his players not to walk. I wonder how much importance should be attached to that. Whilst today it is accepted practice not to walk (until you get away with one like Broad, and then for some strange reason all hell breaks loose), old-timers swear, and I have no reason to doubt them on this, that there was a time when it wasn't. Is cricket worse for this, and does Greig bear any responsibility? It's not something which bothers me unduly I have to say, but it is only fair to raise it.

Oh yes, a very interesting one already. Just to concentrate on the points above:

WSC - very difficult for me to reach a judgment on this apect. I agree that Greig's 'primary interest was purely selfish' but am not convinced it was predominantly about 'earning more money', at least not in the short term. My understanding - and I vaguely recall Greig being interviewed on this - is that Greig was worried that he was unqualified to earn a living after playing cricket and how he would provide for his family. Compared to today, it should be noted that there were then very few media and other cricket openings, even for recent international captains. What motivated Greig and what he successfully held out for was 'a job for life' with Packer's organisation. Clearly he was concentrating upon personal interest here but I find it (and his motivation) somewhat understandable without necessarily condoning it. What irked me and many at the time was the way in which Greig went about his recruitment business for WSC as Packer's first lieutenant whilst still captain of England. Particularly by the standards of the day, that was then seen as underhand and, at best, shabby. Yes, things needed shaking up and there have been many improvements since. However, it still seems wrong that for a time he chose to run with the fox and the hounds.

'Grovel' - personally I go along with Mike although it should be recognised that some were highly offended by what they perceived in Greig's remark. It still burns inside Viv Richards as shown by his comments in 'Fire in Babylon'.

Not Walking - I didn't know that Greig had encouraged his players not to walk but it doesn't especially surprise me. I don't say that in any overly critical way of Greig's sportsmanship (or lack of it). More, that it just seems pretty typical of him to bring out into the open and acknowledge something which had quietly been going on for years. As far as I'm aware, Australians have been notorious for not walking since the first ever snick behind. I've also even heard it suggested that the archetypal English walker Cowdrey only did so in order that he could once in a while trick an umpire into giving him 'not out' on more important occasions when he stayed rooted to the crease even though he knew he was 'out'. Walking and not walking is mired in controversy and I would be highly reluctant to single out Greig under this heading.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Not Walking - I didn't know that Greig had encouraged his players not to walk but it doesn't especially surprise me. I don't say that in any overly critical way of Greig's sportsmanship (or lack of it). More, that it just seems pretty typical of him to bring out into the open and acknowledge something which had quietly been going on for years. As far as I'm aware, Australians have been notorious for not walking since the first ever snick behind.

Well, in our discussion of Warwick Armstrong I noted that he was, perhaps, the first Aussie captain to advocate not walking, and that was in 1921!!

[msp83]

Sir Geoffrey B claims that he has always been a walker, but only afterh the umpire put his finger up!.

[guildfordbat]

Sir Geoffrey B claims that he has always been a walker, but only afterh the umpire put his finger up!.

 

[guildfordbat]

It is as the first real inventor of the finishing role that Bevan's case is arguably strongest. You could argue (and IMO you would be correct) that the likes of Dhoni and Hussey have since surpassed him with their ability not only to keep the scoreboard ticking over, but also play the big big shots. However, that is ignoring the important matter of context: Dhoni and Hussey have benefited from heavier bats, shorter outfields and of course the preponderance of the T20 format which have all aided big hitting.

What Bevan introduced and what remains the template even today though is the concept of keeping the run-rate manageable before finishing the game off. What has changed is of course the definition of "manageable" - in Bevan's day it was 6-7 an over whereas now it is 8-12 (depending on the number of overs left). That the role of finisher has since evolved should not necessarily be counted against Bevan, and indeed you would argue that had he not introduced such a role we may not have had the Dhonis and Husseys of today.

Bevan's average, aided by many not outs, was an unheard of at the time 53. His average in successful run chases rises to 86 (albeit with more than half his innings of not outs, not that that should count against him; after all being not out when your side wins is surely worth more than getting out before you cross the line), interestingly enough with a lower overall strike rate, suggesting that he adapted himself to the situation accordingly.

Mike - I've read a suggestion that whilst Bevan was excellent in pursuing a run chase, he caused concern amongst some of his ODI team mates by not putting his foot firmly enough on the gas when Australia were batting first, the implication being he was overly concerned about protecting his own wicket. Malicious tittle tattle or any merit in that?

[msp83]

While I agree that Bevan was the first extraordinary finisher in the ODI game, I doubt whether he really was the pioneer of the role. As I said, Neil Fairbrother looked for the single on every given opportunity, ran between the wickets as if his life depended on getting to the other end, played the chip or even a big hit at times that got the boundary to keep things under control and averaged 39 for England in ODIs and had a strike rate of 72, not much different from that of Bevan, though his career ended a few years earlier.
Before he self-destructed, Ajay Jadeja, who started out as an opener, had evolved into a good finisher in ODIs and when Yuvraj Singh emerged in 2000, he was regarded as Jadeja's successor in the finisher role and then MS Dhoni emerged in 2004. Jadeja too, ran like hell between the wickets, and looked for the single on every opportunity, and if anything, he could produce more big shots than either Bevan or Fairbrother could. Jadeja's emergence as a finisher started with that unforgettable attack on no less a bowler than Waqar Younus, and unlike Bevan, Jadeja was very good at finishing off an innings when batting first as well. We should also note that Jadeja played his last ODI in 2000.
An interesting coincidence is that Michael Bevan, Neil Fairbrother and Ajay Jadeja all where very successful ODI players who couldn't have similar success in test cricket. Bevan and Jadeja's First Class records are very good and Fairbrother too has a decent FC record.

[kwinigolfer]

Hello Chaps/Chappesses,
 
Will try to contribute as best I can. Michael Bevan a bit of a toughie for me as the International one-day game only really began to flourish when I was in the cricketing twilight zone (OK, the US) with no internet or newspapers, let alone broadcast services.
 
Have commented in the past on Messrs Greig and Hill and will endeavour to do so again.
 
Kudos to all of you who make this a compelling series of threads. Thank you.

[Sponsored content]