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]

Well done on starting up the thread again.  Much to ponder with Tony Greig - I hadn't realised quite how popular he was in Sri Lanka! There's just a touch of Sobers about the way he suddenly turned up a match winning performance with a different style of bowling.  As a long time advocate of Ken Barrington I can also appreciate the significance of Greig's achievements on overseas tours.  Like Guildford I can recall the dismay at the time it emerged that Greig had been recruiting for Packer while he was England captain. That left a very bad taste in the mouth.

[kwinigolfer]

I have a question regarding Michael Bevan's candidacy.
To somewhat gratuitously quote msp:
"Bevan (was) a very successful ODI player who couldn't have similar success in Test cricket."
If Test cricket is not to be the Gold Standard by which Hall Of Fame candidates are to be judged, what is?
How about First Class Cricket before ODI's? A purely rhetorical question, but surely worth asking.
To name but one cricketer whose credentials have been debated extensively: Sir Freddie Titmus, a very solid Test player, a wonderful first class cricketer spanning the decades, as fine a servant to the game as cricket has ever been endowed with. By his Test record alone, perhaps falling short; by his full body of work, one to be seriously reckoned with.

I'm a bit suspicious of elevating cricketers whose credentials are borne of the one day game.

I can also agree with the Corporal that I similarly have a bad taste in my mouth regarding Tony Greig's history of self-serving opportunism, a relentless thread thru'out his carrer.

[msp83]

But there were greater 'opportunists', who's actions might be even more debatable from a moral standard point of view, yet gladly embraced by the establishment.
ODI cricket is international cricket, the pressure and demands of playing in different conditions against usually a higher quality attack is much more than is the case in first class cricket. So ODI cricket over First Class cricket for me. But as I said, my point of view is that Bevan's poor test record can't be swept under the carpet, what we have to see is whether his terrific ODI record is good enough to overcome the not so good record in ODIs. Bevan's fielding and bowling too should come into the mix as supportive material for his case, and if he has done any work as coach or administrator, then that should also be considered.

[Shelsey93]

It had managed to pass me by that the thread had been re-started. Thanks to Mike et al. for taking it on and I'll try and catch up when I have a moment!

[dummy_half]

Good to see this thread back up and running.

Greig is certainly an intersting candidate - from the generation of players before I was aware of the game, but (prior to this thread) I wasn't aware that he had such an outstanding record. Hall of Fame worthy when viewed in the whole (i.e. including his importance to increased professionalism and work as a commentator, and with a [minor] black mark for giving the Windies their team talk with the 'grovel' comment)? Not sure, but will certainly be paying attention to the debate.

Bevan I certainly know a lot more about. Already some serious positives raised (such as how well he performed in winning run chases), but weighed against his relative failure as a Test player and the suspicion that he was sometimes a selfish batsman, playing for his average. I think though, based on our assessment of other candidates like Jayasuriya, I'm going to almost ignore the Test issue and consider whether he merits a HoF place because of his undoubted excellence in ODI cricket.

Hill - Need to recap the previous discussion. My recollection is that I had him falling just a little short before, but given that the HoF goalposts have probably moved slightly since, and the possibility of other persuasive arguments, I'm in a 'wait and see' position.

[msp83]

Dummy, I can understand the possibility of valuing Bevan's ODI record and that being possibly good enough to overlook his poor test record. But I don't think the comparison with Sanath Jayasuriya is quite fitting there though. Jayasuriya hasn't been a great test player, but he certainly is among the better test players that his country has produced he was a good test player. Jayasuriya has a test triple hundred, and his 213 against England and the 254 against Pakistan are great test knocks.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Hill - Need to recap the previous discussion. My recollection is that I had him falling just a little short before, but given that the HoF goalposts have probably moved slightly since, and the possibility of other persuasive arguments, I'm in a 'wait and see' position.

One point about Hill that was barely touched on in our previous discussion, IIRC, was his FC record.
Of course, compared to English batsmen of the time his record is not great but, as I pointed out in my intro, he was the only Australian to score more than 17000 FC runs before the advent of covered pitches, and only one other Aussie who debuted before the end of the 19th century had a higher average in Sheffield Shield matches (a certain Monty Noble). Add in his role as captain of South Australia and this makes him a major figure in Australian domestic cricket as well as international cricket.
Of course his domestic record is not the main plank of his candidature but I do think it adds something to it.
Hill was also the last of a breed of Australian captain who enjoyed almost autonomous control over tours to England. This doesn't add anything to his candidature but it's still pretty interesting IMO. (It also gives a bit more in depth description of Hill's tussle with Peter Macallister and the background to it)

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/december/1361228552/malcolm-knox/nose

[guildfordbat]

But there were greater 'opportunists', who's actions might be even more debatable from a moral standard point of view, yet gladly embraced by the establishment.
ODI cricket is international cricket, the pressure and demands of playing in different conditions against usually a higher quality attack is much more than is the case in first class cricket. So ODI cricket over First Class cricket for me. But as I said, my point of view is that Bevan's poor test record can't be swept under the carpet, what we have to see is whether his terrific ODI record is good enough to overcome the not so good record in ODIs. Bevan's fielding and bowling too should come into the mix as supportive material for his case, and if he has done any work as coach or administrator, then that should also be considered.

I would emphasise that Greig's 'opportunism' and, in particular, recruitment for Packer whilst England captain was condemned not just by 'the establishment' but by the ordinary cricket watching and following public. If Greig is to be judged by the standards of the time that these actions occurred, his nomination could be in trouble. However and to be fair, large involvement with Packer has not prevented the likes of Benaud, Lloyd and G Chappell entering our Hall.

Re: Bevan and whether his Test record goes into the mix. For me, the aim is for all aspects to go into the mix. However, I may deliberately choose to give the same aspect a different weighting for a different candidate. By way of example, I voted YES for Jonty Rhodes primarily on account of his impact on fielding; his Test average of 35 with 3 centuries would have been viewed by me as insufficient for many candidates but not such a significant weakness so as to exclude him. However, if his batting stats had been noticeably lower, my scales would have leaned towards NO, notwithstanding the strength of the fielding case upon which his candidacy had been built. Applying this rationale, I can't ignore Bevan's Test record although that doesn't automatically mean his nomination fails. Also, and again to be fair, Bevan's first class record as a whole comes into my mix (albeit I attribute more significance to Tests than county or state matches); in this regard, I note this comment from a cricinfo article: 'he scored Sheffield Shield runs by the bagful'.

I remember being fairly taken with Hill when we last discussed him. I'll try to refresh my memory and post a bit about him tomorrow.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just to add on Hill. I came across an article in The Referee, a Sydney sporting newspaper, from 1917, contemplating whether Warren Bardsley or Clem Hill should be chosen as a left-hander for a world's best XI and, in choosing Hill the correspondent wrote:

"My reason for preferring Hill to Bardsley is not one of figures. It is that when they are in the midst of a hard fight Hill is a more aggressive fighter. Bardsley is a splendid man at a pinch - one of the best Australia have produced. But Hill is a superman at a pinch: a man who has demonstrated that while no position is too bad for him to fight himself and his side out of, he is not content to do it by defence, watchfulness, and waiting for the lose balls. He is one of the few batsmen who have been able to take hold of the bowling, as it were, by the scruff of the neck, when it has been apparently invincible, and hit it all over the field, notwithstanding the fact, plain to everyone, that if he were to go down cheaply the side would go down with him. Clem Hill was a great player from the tip of his toes to the crown of his head, and he was greatest when he had to fight.

Interesting stuff?

[guildfordbat]

Hoggy - thanks for that comparison between Warren Bardsley and Clem Hill. Good stuff. A fighter - like that.

As regards Greig, do you recall all the reaction when his involvement with Packer first came to light or were you just a bear cub then?  

[Mike Selig]

If Test cricket is not to be the Gold Standard by which Hall Of Fame candidates are to be judged, what is?
How about First Class Cricket before ODI's? A purely rhetorical question, but surely worth asking.
[...]
I'm a bit suspicious of elevating cricketers whose credentials are borne of the one day game.

Kwini and all (because kwini is far from the only poster to have voiced similar concerns),

It is a tough question to answer, but let me attempt to do so by saying how I see things.

I have commented in the past both on here and on other threads that I believe at times we on this board place test cricket on too high a pedestal. That it is the format which provides the sternest test (pardon the pun) of a player's technique and stamina is not in doubt; but there are other formats, and the view that test cricket is the only format (and this leads to the view that it must be preserved at all costs, even if at the expense of other formats) which matters is not something I agree with.

In general, this view of putting the various formats of the game in competition with one another is not something I agree with, and I believe is a false dichotomy (or trichotomy, possibly tetrachotomy now). At international level we have 3 formats, all with their challenges, difficulties. I have been lucky enough to coach the two shorter formats at international youth level, and trust me they are challenging games: the occasionally derided T20 is challenging by the pace at which everything happens, and the need to constantly be alert even between balls; tactics are more prevalent than you think, but in some sense harder because you have less time to think, and innovations borne from the T20 format are surely a good addition to cricket.

There has been some fantastic test cricket played over the years. There has also been and still is some fantastic cricket outside the test arena. There have also been periods of history where test cricket has been relatively poor - I am thinking of the time during WSC (very apt) and just after WWI (for obvious reasons) in particular. There have been times where first class cricket has been as much if not more of a challenge than test cricket. There have been times where the best international sides haven't played test cricket for political reasons.

With regards to this HoF the precedent is there to show that test cricket isn't necessarily the gold standard. People like Patsy Hendren, Basil D'Oliveira were inducted mainly for other reasons. Simon Tauffel has made the repechage - here is someone who hasn't played test cricket. Rhodes and Bob Woolmer were strongly considered (although ultimately rejected by narrow margins) in spite of test records which were at the very best decent. Barry Richards didn't play much test cricket, but was inducted easily enough based on how great a player he was. For Rohan Kanhair, for me his supporting role in the ODI final in 75 played a major part in my ultimate yes vote. John Arlott was another inducted... I hope in time that we will consider Bart King, who never played test cricket for reasons beyond his control (namely his nationality). I believe that when Dhoni hangs up his gloves we will induct him fairly comfortably mainly for his ODI prowesses.

The more general point is that cricket has an incredibly rich, diverse and interesting history (and the claim to the first international sporting match in USA vs Canada back in 1844 in New York...). To limit our HoF to those who have played and excelled at one particular (if ever changing) format of the game seems to me misguided and not to reflect this diversity - for me the HoF is a place for those who have left a remarkably positive mark on the game, in whatever way, in whatever format.

How this sits with Bevan is at the moment unclear. It is noticeable that of all the players I mentioned had a decent enough test record, which whilst taken occasionally as a minus, is nothing like the minus it is in Bevan's case. The great Frank Woolley was rejected solely on his test record and the difference between it and his first class record.

Bevan however is not being nominated only as a cricketer, but also because of the impact he has had on the ODI game as arguably the first exponent of the finisher role. He was also a great of the ODI format, and that should be considered.

Ultimately it is your decision what standards you apply, and judge the candidates by. You shouldn't feel bound by precedent (I have commented in the past, when Wes Hall was compared to virtually every cricketer who had ever existed, that in comparison lay the road to madness) although possibly you should try to be consistent with your own previous votes.

Whatever the case, everybody should read the arguments carefully and make up their own minds.

To name but one cricketer whose credentials have been debated extensively: Sir Freddie Titmus, a very solid Test player, a wonderful first class cricketer spanning the decades, as fine a servant to the game as cricket has ever been endowed with. By his Test record alone, perhaps falling short; by his full body of work, one to be seriously reckoned with.

Guildford will be pleased. Titmus is in the repechage I believe and will be considered sometime this winter.

[guildfordbat]

...
Ultimately it is your decision what standards you apply, and judge the candidates by. You shouldn't feel bound by precedent (I have commented in the past, when Wes Hall was compared to virtually every cricketer who had ever existed, that in comparison lay the road to madness) although possibly you should try to be consistent with your own previous votes.

Whatever the case, everybody should read the arguments carefully and make up their own minds.

To name but one cricketer whose credentials have been debated extensively: Sir Freddie Titmus, a very solid Test player, a wonderful first class cricketer spanning the decades, as fine a servant to the game as cricket has ever been endowed with. By his Test record alone, perhaps falling short; by his full body of work, one to be seriously reckoned with.

Guildford will be pleased. Titmus is in the repechage I believe and will be considered sometime this winter.

Mike - a well set out and explained case. My attempt to adhere to consistency is what I was trying to show in bringing up my past considerations for Jonty Rhodes when now turning to Michael Bevan.

Pleased indeed by Kwini's appraisal.

[msp83]

But there were greater 'opportunists', who's actions might be even more debatable from a moral standard point of view, yet gladly embraced by the establishment.
ODI cricket is international cricket, the pressure and demands of playing in different conditions against usually a higher quality attack is much more than is the case in first class cricket. So ODI cricket over First Class cricket for me. But as I said, my point of view is that Bevan's poor test record can't be swept under the carpet, what we have to see is whether his terrific ODI record is good enough to overcome the not so good record in ODIs. Bevan's fielding and bowling too should come into the mix as supportive material for his case, and if he has done any work as coach or administrator, then that should also be considered.

I would emphasise that Greig's 'opportunism' and, in particular, recruitment for Packer whilst England captain was condemned not just by 'the establishment' but by the ordinary cricket watching and following public. If Greig is to be judged by the standards of the time that these actions occurred, his nomination could be in trouble. However and to be fair, large involvement with Packer has not prevented the likes of Benaud, Lloyd and G Chappell entering our Hall.

Re: Bevan and whether his Test record goes into the mix. For me, the aim is for all aspects to go into the mix. However, I may deliberately choose to give the same aspect a different weighting for a different candidate. By way of example, I voted YES for Jonty Rhodes primarily on account of his impact on fielding; his Test average of 35 with 3 centuries would have been viewed by me as insufficient for many candidates but not such a significant weakness so as to exclude him. However, if his batting stats had been noticeably lower, my scales would have leaned towards NO, notwithstanding the strength of the fielding case upon which his candidacy had been built. Applying this rationale, I can't ignore Bevan's Test record although that doesn't automatically mean his nomination fails. Also, and again to be fair, Bevan's first class record as a whole comes into my mix (albeit I attribute more significance to Tests than county or state matches); in this regard, I note this comment from a cricinfo article: 'he scored Sheffield Shield runs by the bagful'.

I remember being fairly taken with Hill when we last discussed him. I'll try to refresh my memory and post a bit about him tomorrow.

Guildford, this is an extract from an article by Rob Steen.
"Despite having orchestrated unsanctioned tours of apartheid South Africa and gleefully pocketing oodles of what many would describe
as blood money, acts that did considerably more to blacken their country's name, Mike Gatting, Graham Gooch and David Graveney were all re-clutched to
the establishment bosom and appointed to high-ranking posts. Geoff Boycott hasn't fared too badly either. Knott, John Snow, Derek Underwood, Dennis Amiss
and Bob Woolmer also signed up for World Series Cricket, but none incurred a fraction of the invective hurled at Greig. Hell, Underwood, a rebel on both
counts, was even elected MCC President"
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/513569.html

[msp83]

Steen wonders whether Greig's South African roots played a part in his victimization? It may or may not have been the case. But the other important point from the article is that how establishment media-men like Robin Marlar helped ordinary people in England to internalize the negative views on Greig.
Guildford, you mentioned that Greig's action during the WSC had created negative feelings not only within the establishment, but also among the ordinary people.
The rebel tours to South Africa may not have been roundly condemned by all sections of the English public, but elsewhere in the world, there were very sharp reactions. There was a lot of hurt and anger in the West Indies, the WI rebel tourists were never quite forgiven by the public there, there was lot of negative feeling in India. I just finished reading David Gower's book 'The Endangered Species', in which he mentions that Graeme Gooch didn't tour in India in 84 because of the possible public reactions to his misadventure earlier.
Unlike the rebel tours, the WSC did the game of cricket a lot of good, and the moral baggage associated with was far, far less. We have almost adopted a policy of general amnesty to the rebel tourists, but when it comes to Tony Greig and WSC, there has to be a reluctance?
Here is an article on the English rebel tour of 1990.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/448028.html

[msp83]

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.

The point of that very telling stat on Greig is not suggest that he was better than Sobers or Miller, but suggest that he's quite worthy of being talked about in conversations involving Flintoff and Botham among England's greatest all-rounders, and he can fit in on discussions about fine all-rounders the game has seen, involving Sobers, Miller, Imran, Dev, Hadlee.......

[msp83]

Mike, I mentioned AJay Jadeja and Neil Fairbrother as players who performed the finisher role for their respective sides, and both were contemporaries of Bevan. In that context, is it fair to suggest that Bevan was the exponent of the finisher role in ODI cricket? He may have been the most successful of the 3, but I don't think it is fair to give the credit exclusively to Bevan.

[guildfordbat]

Guildford, this is an extract from an article by Rob Steen.
"Despite having orchestrated unsanctioned tours of apartheid South Africa and gleefully pocketing oodles of what many would describe
as blood money, acts that did considerably more to blacken their country's name, Mike Gatting, Graham Gooch and David Graveney were all re-clutched to
the establishment bosom and appointed to high-ranking posts. Geoff Boycott hasn't fared too badly either. Knott, John Snow, Derek Underwood, Dennis Amiss
and Bob Woolmer also signed up for World Series Cricket, but none incurred a fraction of the invective hurled at Greig. Hell, Underwood, a rebel on both
counts, was even elected MCC President"
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/513569.html

Msp - that's an interesting article from Rob Steen, thanks. I'm actually quite well disposed towards Greig but do think it important that all matters be considered.

Steen does across to me as wanting to have it a bit too much his and Greig's way. He refers to Greig being known to millions today almost solely as a result of 'his over-exciteable commentary'. He's keen to also flag Greig's admirable playing record and sets that out - that's entirely fair. However, whilst also referring to the animosity generated towards Greig as a result of his association with Packer, he makes no proper attempt to explain it. The closest he comes is probably in supplying a comment from John Thicknesse which is ruined in its effectiveness by ending on a rather pompous and racist note. Whilst not condoning that for a moment, I do feel though there is merit in the first part of Thicknesse's assertion that Greig 'traded the national captaincy for Packer's dollars'; I believe that's how things were perceived by the public (never mind the establishment) at the time and what so upset them / us.

Rightly or wrongly, cricket tours to South Africa were generally not then viewed with overwhelming concern by the public. You need to appreciate that, despite sporting bans, the British Government at the same time still permitted and indeed encouraged many types of trade with South Africa; I think the Corporal referred to such cricketers being 'foot soldiers caught up in someone else's war' or similar. Not trying to make light of this (nor, I know, was the Corporal). Just an attempt to put it into context. A different concern from that applying to Greig although I take your implied point that the Hall of Fame would be a pretty lonely place if it was only for those without a hint of sin.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Guildford
Undoubtedly there was a great deal of animosity toward Greig both from the cricket establishment and cricket supporters. Far more, as you correctly point out, than was directed at members of rebel tours.
I do wonder, however, how much of that animosity was generated by the fact that Greig and Packer were challenging the cricket establishment while rebel tours were possibly, in some cases, viewed more kindly. The press may simply have echoed the anger of the cricket establishment in it's reporting of Greig's involvement in Packer and, as we know, press coverage can often influence public opinion. That is not to say, of course, that many cricket supporters weren't genuinely angry at Greig's actions, but maybe that anger was stoked by the press coverage rather more than anger directed at rebel tourists?
Certainly, I think Greig has a pretty good case as a candidate here. His playing career has been discussed already, but I would just like to point out that, as a batsman, he scored runs against all types of attack and, often, on his opponents home turf. He was also able to operate at sometimes underrated levels in two different styles as a bowler and was a very good, if not great, slip fielder.
His commentary role doesn't really add much to his case IMO, but it certainly doesn't detract from it, so it comes down to the question of whether Greig's role in WSC did more good than harm. At the moment I'm probably in the mind that it did and that, allied with his playing record, is edging me toward a tentative yes. But I was only very young (11) when Greig went to WSC, so can't really remember how great the furore was, so any input will be welcomed.

[kwinigolfer]

Re: Towny Grigg:
Just to follow on from the John Thicknesse/guildford comments, I would add that the Packer/Gregg/etc actions also served to undermine Test cricket, at least in England and Australia for two or three years.


Much appreciate Mike Selig's dissertation regarding Michael Bevan and excellence at the various types of cricket which was not necessarily repeated in the Test arena:
Before voting for Michael Bevan, then, I would respectfully ask if Bevan is the leading exponent of the one-day game among those whose Test careers were undistinguished by comparison? If not, should there be another candidate to take precedence?
Knowing that, or at least seeing his career in that perspective, would be instructive.  

PS: Frank Woolley was the leading player (apart from Philip Mead and Derek Shackleton of course) that I had in mind regarding disparity between Test and First Class stats! But I was a strong advocate of Woolley, so Titmus was my Trojan Horse, albeit with toe deprivation. Sorry guildford!!

[msp83]

Guildford, I understand there was anger at the way Greig went over to Packer's side. Hoggy's points in the above post are very important in this context, but I would like to draw your attention to another point I was trying to make in my earlier post. If there was less anger on the rebel tours among sections of the English public, I would say it wasn't a universal phenomenon. There was a great deal of anger in the West Indies both at the establishment and public level regarding the rebel tours, far more than any anger regarding the WSC if at all there was any. Remember a test match between England and the West Indies was to be cancelled because Robin Jackman, who had close links with South Africa at that point was in the England squad? Same was the case in India, not many had a problem with the WSC, but a great many had issues with the rebel tours. And very very importantly, the majority of the South African population regarded the rebel tours as an act of betrayal, and if there was relative peace in initial tours, it was pretty much down to administrative highhandedness as was made pretty clear in the 1990 English rebel tour.
Sections of English public may have had more issues with the WSC and Greig than with the rebel tour, but in my view, that was far from being representative of public perceptions elsewhere in the cricketing world.

[guildfordbat]

Guildford, I understand there was anger at the way Greig went over to Packer's side. Hoggy's points in the above post are very important in this context, but I would like to draw your attention to another point I was trying to make in my earlier post. If there was less anger on the rebel tours among sections of the English public, I would say it wasn't a universal phenomenon. There was a great deal of anger in the West Indies both at the establishment and public level regarding the rebel tours, far more than any anger regarding the WSC if at all there was any. Remember a test match between England and the West Indies was to be cancelled because Robin Jackman, who had close links with South Africa at that point was in the England squad? Same was the case in India, not many had a problem with the WSC, but a great many had issues with the rebel tours. And very very importantly, the majority of the South African population regarded the rebel tours as an act of betrayal, and if there was relative peace in initial tours, it was pretty much down to administrative highhandedness as was made pretty clear in the 1990 English rebel tour.
Sections of English public may have had more issues with the WSC and Greig than with the rebel tour, but in my view, that was far from being representative of public perceptions elsewhere in the cricketing world.

Msp - fair enough. I can't and wouldn't want to argue with that although feel we're getting a bit away from the main topic.

Hoggy is right that the British press certainly stoked things. 'World Series Cricket' was not a term they commonly used in their aggressive and rather snooty coverage. Far more, 'the Packer Circus' and, with regard to the innovative coloured clothing, 'Pajama Cricket'. The subsequent failure to provide reports of the World Series matches meant the public were largely unaware of what a decent product this was and allowed the wound to fester.

The above though does not mean that the public were wrong to be angry at Greig's underhand actions. Kwini states that Greig undermined Test cricket. That is a serious charge.

[msp83]

Greig was not the only English cricketer who signed up with Packer. He might have playd a major role in getting many others to sign up, but he wasn't dealing with 10 year olds was he?
And when rebels like Gooch and Gatting willingly traded away 3 years of international cricket for the tainted money from South Africa, weren't they turning their back on test cricket? Gooch, Gatting, Underwood, these are major names........ And if WSC undermined test cricket in England and Australia for a couple of years, the establishment too has to share the blame as they were primarily responsible for letting a situation develop where players would join Packer mainly for financial security.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Kwini states that Greig undermined Test cricket. That is a serious charge.

It certainly is.
But could it not be argued that, by treating players and their welfare as dismissively as many players from the period say they did, national boards were already undermining Test cricket to some extent? Certainly, from reading Dennis Lillee's autobiography, for example (and I'm aware that he isn't a completely unbiased commentator on this issue), it appears that, in Australia at least, there was a crisis brewing with regard to player payments and conditions which would have led to a schism sooner or later. WSC just happened to be the vehicle but, if the boards had acted sooner, maybe it would never have happened.

[guildfordbat]

...
But could it not be argued that, by treating players and their welfare as dismissively as many players from the period say they did, national boards were already undermining Test cricket to some extent?

I think it could and msp suggests very similar in his post immediately above. Whether or not that justifies or excuses the actions of the then England captain (Greig's role as national captain has some significance here to me) remains to be seen.

[alfie]

Popping in . Bit guilty not contributing to this yet . Pleading very heavy work pressure at present , which is leaving me frankly too tired to give these matters the attention they deserve.
Briefly though I am surprisingly impressed by Mike's case for Bevan. I say surprisingly , because I am definitely one of those Test Match Snobs  
Not saying case closed yet , mind ; but having been in Australia for much of Bevan's career I saw a fair bit of him in action. And his closing skills were extraordinary , if not perhaps unique or groundbreaking as some think. His Test efforts were pretty ordinary , let us not mince words , but does that matter ? This is Hall of Fame , not Test Match Hall of Fame.
One could argue that what he did , while skillful , was a bit soft compared to the task of others : coming in when the good bowlers were resting , not much pressure put on him early...knock it around , while the fielding captain continued to think , game under control ...and then a whirlwind finish , perfectly timed to steal it from under their noses...If he did it , once , or twice , you might say a bit lucky , etc...but he made a career of it.
Is it enough ? Considering.

Greig was a damn good player. A real competitor , at his best when his team were up against it. His figures were even better than I'd remembered , and are surely a sound base for admission. (Though for me , perhaps unlike most , his commentary is a minus. I thought he was rubbish. Frequently innaccurate , too exciteable...only good for a comedy routine with Bill Lawry ...matter of taste I guess)
The elephant in the room is of course WSC. And his role ...is betrayal of his employers too harsh a word? Still thinking about that.

Will keep reading . Also look at Hill. When does this run to ?

[guildfordbat]

... This is Hall of Fame , not Test Match Hall of Fame.

I take that as another YES vote for Titmus in the repecharge.  

[Corporalhumblebucket]

... This is Hall of Fame , not Test Match Hall of Fame.

I take that as another YES vote for Titmus in the repecharge.  

And is that rumbling sound Frank Woolley shifting in his resting place?  

"I came across an article in The Referee, a Sydney sporting newspaper, from 1917,".......

Have a mental image of Hoggy thumbing through vast mounds of early 20th century newspapers in his study to unearth his gems. Impressive research!

[Hoggy_Bear]

Have a mental image of Hoggy thumbing through vast mounds of early 20th century newspapers in his study to unearth his gems. Impressive research!

Mainly use the internet now. Had enough of thumbing through newspapers for my PhD.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Just a couple more nuggets about Hill that my incessant research has uncovered.
Writing in 1959 A.G. 'Johnny' Moyes, the famous Australian cricket writer, placed Hill alongside Bradman, Trumper and Charlie Macartney as Australia'a 4 greatest ever batsmen, describing him as "a superb player, the finest left-hander ever … shortish, thickset, powerful … swift on his feet, a master of attack and of defence."
Meanwhile I have found a lovely description from Neville Cardus of Hill's famous running catch at Old Trafford in 1902:
"Lilley lashed his bat about like a man distraught. Rhodes is his companion now, and stands on guard ever so cool. eight runs will do it, 'There goes four of them!' affirms the red-hot crowd as Lilley accomplishes a grand drive into the deep. 'Well hit, sir!' shouts our parson. 'Nothing like taking your courage in both hands against these Australian fellows. Well hit, sir!' Clem Hill is seen running along the boundary's edge as though the fiend were after him. Trying to save the four, is he? - even from as certain a boundary hit as this! Extraordinary men, Australians; never give anything away. Hill, in fact, saved the boundary in the most decisive manner in the world by holding the ball one-handed before it pitched. The impetus of his run carried him twenty yards beyond the place where he made the catch - a catch which put incredulity into the face of every man and woman at Old Trafford that day. 'A sinful catch' said the parson.

[kwinigolfer]

Am slowly warming to the Clem Hill candidacy which I think I voted thumbs down to first time around.

Had always had a struggle reconciling the plaudits and general acclaim from contemporaries and historians with the fact that the Aussies took their time inducting him in to their Hall of Fame - which one would have thought reflected the views of those very same people.

Assume after reading more about him that his battles with the authorities might have been a factor here.

Interesting that his candidacy is coincidental with Greig's!
One confronted the authorities.
One resorted to subterfuge.

[msp83]

Am slowly warming to the Clem Hill candidacy which I think I voted thumbs down to first time around.

Had always had a struggle reconciling the plaudits and general acclaim from contemporaries and historians with the fact that the Aussies took their time inducting him in to their Hall of Fame - which one would have thought reflected the views of those very same people.

Assume after reading more about him that his battles with the authorities might have been a factor here.

Interesting that his candidacy is coincidental with Greig's!
One confronted the authorities.
One resorted to subterfuge.

Think to compare Greig and Hill the way kwiny seems to be doing is not quite fair. The circumstances are quite different. The game wasn't as professionalized as it was in the 1970s when Hill was taking on the authorities. Likewise, the players, particularly the captain had a great deal of autonomy in picking the squad and directing it unlike it the case with Greig. What Greig did was also to confront the authorities, on a much larger scale than what Hill did, and through different means.

[kwinigolfer]

Quite!

[msp83]

Quite!

Should I say not really instead!?

[guildfordbat]

Am slowly warming to the Clem Hill candidacy which I think I voted thumbs down to first time around.

Hoggy heated up my interest in Hill sufficiently first time out and I ended up up giving him a Yes vote then. I've probably been a bit quiet about him this time as I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

A real battler which particularly appeals to me. Pretty successful with it too. Particular highlight comes from the Melbourne Test of 1898. From Australia staring down the barrel on 58/6 in the first innings, he turned the match on its head with 188 which led to an 8 wicket victory.

Test average of 39 doesn't stand out but context is everything. He was often facing all time quality bowlers (Lohmann, Barnes) on wickets far removed from the comparative roads of today. Should be noted that the much better remembered Trumper (probably a case of style beating guts) averaged the same.

First to score 1,000 Test runs in a calendar year. Took 45 years before another (Compton) did the same.

Upon his retirement he had scored more runs than anyone else in the history of Test cricket. Took 12 years before that record was beaten by Hobbs. Even with the intervention of WWI, that counts for a lot in my book.

[dummy_half]

I find it really difficult to get a handle on the pre WW1 players. Clearly they were playing in conditions that were much more favourable to bowlers, so a batting average approaching 40 was clearly very good for the time, and I see that Hill's record (if perhaps not his style) matched up favourably to his contemporary Victor Trumper, who was one of our HoF founder members. As such, clearly his playing record, in the absence of other factors has to put him there or thereabouts.

The noteable first of scoring 1000 Test runs in a calendar year should almost be sufficient on its own, especially as no-one else managed that until after WW2 (I'm surprised that Bradman didn't manage it at some point, although I guess that would be because of the lack of matches played).

His run-ins with the authorities appear to be the biggest black mark on his record, but I wonder if this was a case of a young, ambitious professional sportsman simply not seeing eye to eye with the Victorian gentelmen that would have been in charge of the game. I suspect if I knew more of the circumstances and characters involved, I'd have quite a lot of sympathy for Hill... Also, other anecdotes suggest his character was highly regarded by his contemporaries, so perhaps offering further suggestion that the problem was with the administrators more than Hill. Definitely tending towards a YES vote here.

I think the case for Bevan being one of the outstanding ODI batsmen is simply made -average way ahead of his contemporaries and playing a key role in 2 World Cup winning teams, so the question is more about whether the HoF is to be inclusive for excellence in all forms of cricket or more exclusively for those that proved their ability in the Test arena particularly. My perspective throughout has always been towards more inclusion and diversity (voted yes for Jonty Rhodes for example), so I'm prepared to gloss over Bevan's relative failure at Test level, especially as he didn't get a particularly big chance - OK, so failing to reach 100 in 18 matches suggests he struggled with the step up, but his FC record was outstanding, and I suspect if the Aussie batting had been weaker at the time he'd have been given longer and more continuity to really become established. May not have absolutely created the role of 'finisher', but was by far the finest exponent of the initial form of the role (i.e. lots of quick singles, punctuated by occasional boundaries). Add to that his fine fielding and sometimes useful bowling (although oddly this was much more successful in his limited Test career), and Michael Bevan's name was first on the Aussie team sheet in ODI cricket throughout a very successful decade. I will take a lot of convincing that he does not belong in our HoF.

Tony Greig - I'm still feeling he falls just a bit short from a purely playing perspective. No doubt he was a very good and arguably great Test player, but I think his all round quality is something that slightly detracts from his case for true Greatness and for being a memorable player. While most teams now would kill for a no 6 or 7 batsman who could average 40 with the bat and would take 4 wickets a match at 32 (and especially as a competent bowler of either spin or seam), neither average really excites when viewed in the company of the truly Great all-rounders like Sobers (batting avg 57) or Imran (bowling average 22). A little bit of a 'jack of all trades', in being more than competent at both strands of the game but not outstanding at either?

His involvement with Packer and defection from the England Test side (and taking a few others with him) were certainly black marks at the time, but history has probably been kind to World Series Cricket - the great West Indies side was forged in its flames, and players are now able to earn a good living from the game because Packer wrested control of the TV rights from the Establishment. In the long run, cricket is a better product now than it would have been without WSC. I doubt Greig deserves much credit for this, but I don't think we should be too harsh on his ambition to make the best money he could in the short term when the choices were non-political (I have some less sypathy for the rebels who toured Apartheid-era South Africa).
I'm feeling a NO is likely unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

[msp83]

I think the case for Bevan being one of the outstanding ODI batsmen is simply made -average way ahead of his contemporaries and playing a key role in 2 World Cup winning teams, so the question is more about whether the HoF is to be inclusive for excellence in all forms of cricket or more exclusively for those that proved their ability in the Test arena particularly. My perspective throughout has always been towards more inclusion and diversity (voted yes for Jonty Rhodes for example), so I'm prepared to gloss over Bevan's relative failure at Test level, especially as he didn't get a particularly big chance - OK, so failing to reach 100 in 18 matches suggests he struggled with the step up, but his FC record was outstanding, and I suspect if the Aussie batting had been weaker at the time he'd have been given longer and more continuity to really become established. May not have absolutely created the role of 'finisher', but was by far the finest exponent of the initial form of the role (i.e. lots of quick singles, punctuated by occasional boundaries). Add to that his fine fielding and sometimes useful bowling (although oddly this was much more successful in his limited Test career), and Michael Bevan's name was first on the Aussie team sheet in ODI cricket throughout a very successful decade. I will take a lot of convincing that he does not belong in our HoF.

Tony Greig - I'm still feeling he falls just a bit short from a purely playing perspective. No doubt he was a very good and arguably great Test player, but I think his all round quality is something that slightly detracts from his case for true Greatness and for being a memorable player. While most teams now would kill for a no 6 or 7 batsman who could average 40 with the bat and would take 4 wickets a match at 32 (and especially as a competent bowler of either spin or seam), neither average really excites when viewed in the company of the truly Great all-rounders like Sobers (batting avg 57) or Imran (bowling average 22). A little bit of a 'jack of all trades', in being more than competent at both strands of the game but not outstanding at either?

His involvement with Packer and defection from the England Test side (and taking a few others with him) were certainly black marks at the time, but history has probably been kind to World Series Cricket - the great West Indies side was forged in its flames, and players are now able to earn a good living from the game because Packer wrested control of the TV rights from the Establishment. In the long run, cricket is a better product now than it would have been without WSC. I doubt Greig deserves much credit for this, but I don't think we should be too harsh on his ambition to make the best money he could in the short term when the choices were non-political (I have some less sypathy for the rebels who toured Apartheid-era South Africa).
I'm feeling a NO is likely unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

Dummy, I am yet to relook seriously into the case for Hill, so I'd respond to your points on Bevan and Greig.
As for Bevan, I think the case for Bevan being the first finisher is seriously misplaced. I've mentioned Ajay Jadeja and Neil Fairbrother already. Fairbrother had a very similar game to that of Bevan, and Jadeja could play more big shots. As you rightly said, Bevan though, was one of the finest finishers the game has seen. He was more successful than Jadeja or Fairbrother. But then it could be argued that they both played in relatively weaker batting lineups that always didn't give them the kind of platforms that Bevan had. The more important point is that there have been a few brilliant finishers since Bevan's last game for Australia. Mike Hussey was a more than capable replacement, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni is arguably the best finisher the game has seen so far. But that doesn't mean that only the best in the role should make it to the HoF. Bevan was a superb ODI player, and his useful bowling and fine fielding adds to the package. My point is that rather than basing the case on the IMO problematic argument of him being the pioneer of the finisher role, we have to look at him as a fine ODI batsman and a good finisher without attributing too much of historical analysis as such. The continuous flow of singles and hard running between wickets form strong foundations in the finisher role even today. Players like Dhoni and even Hussey can play more big shots and do it more regularly. But then, as I said, Ajay Jadeja was one player who could play more big shots effectively than either Bevan or Fairbrother. But where Bevan is better at is the level of consistency. Don't think there is a lot different in our point of views there, only a couple of nuances, but I don't think I can agree with the original case of him being the pioneer of the finisher role.
As for Greig. You've talked about 2 other all-rounders, Sobers and Imran Khan. I would like to talk about 2 others. Sir Ian Botham, and Kapil Dev. Botham averaged 33 with the bat and 28 with the ball. Dev averaged 31 with the bat and a better under 30 with the ball. In my view, Imran was an all-rounder who was stronger in the bowling department, and Sobers' bowling wasn't really as strong as his batting was. Rather than comparing Greig with Imran or Sobers, I think we should look at his record in more of a Botham/Dev frame. I am not claiming that Greig was better than either of them, but I think he's worthy of being considered along side them.
Besides Greig's role as a quality all-rounder, his overseas performances, his remarkable consistency for almost 5 years, and his captaincy record need to be brought into the frame.

[msp83]

In Greig's case, it is also worth remembering that he became the prodominent all-rounder of his era, fighting through an epileptic condition. That takes character and Greig showed plenty of it.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/250235.html

[msp83]

This is what Wisden wrote on Greig in 1975. An interesting read.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/154508.html

[msp83]

And on Greig as a commentator, I think that most certainly has to come into the mix when we consider his case. I have already shared a link to an article that deals with Greig and Sri Lanka. I don't think any other cricket commentator commanded such love and adoration from the ordinary criket lover, not even Richie Benaud, like Greig managed in Sri Lanka. Benaud might be the most respected cricket commentator, but Greig's relation with the ordinary cricket fan operated at a different level altogether. An extract from Andrew Fernando's article on cricinfo that I had shared earlier.
"Two years ago I was travelling with a cricket-illiterate foreign friend through Colombo when a billboard showing a large man with a wide-brimmed hat caught
his attention.

"Who is that? I keep seeing him around," he asked, pointing. "Tony Greig," I replied. "He is a cricket commentator. He's very popular here."

"Just for being a commentator? What about all the other commentators?" "Well… no," I stuttered, struggling to find the words that would capture the warmth and history of Greig's relationship with the island. "Tony's different,"
I finally offered. "We love him and he loves us." For many people, especially in the provinces of Sri Lanka, it is common practice to have the radio on alongside the cricket on television, providing the
Sinhala commentary they understand. Often six or seven neighbours sit cloistered together in a small room, in front of one of the few television sets in
the village. When Greig's name appears on the bottom of screen, though, someone calls it out. Nothing more needs to be said. The radio is turned down and
the TV volume cranked up. Perhaps no one in the room understands Greig, but they feel like they know him. He is an old friend. He has been part of their
lives for so long now, and to leave his commentary unheard is like leaving him on the doorstep to wither in the heat."


When satellite TV coverage of the game was becoming more and more popular in India in the latter half of the 1990s, Greig's was the most loved voice in India. Greig's exciting commentary played a huge role in immortalizing Sachin Tendulkar's 'Desert Storm' efforts of 1998, there is a youtube link available. His commentary style may not have been to everyone's liking. But there was a lot of energy that he brought to the Commentary box, and I am fairly sure, as someone who developed a closer encounter with the game in the 1990s, from an Indian context, Greig's commentary played a role that is not insignificant.

[msp83]

That Fernando article is a beautiful one, do make sure you have a look at the comments as well though.

[msp83]

On how Greig gained the love and adoration of the Indian crowds in the 1970s.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-29/top-stories/36050124_1_tony-greig-cricketer-indian-spectators

[msp83]

And that master technician Geoffrey Boycott suggests that Greig was not only a fine player who hasn't received the recognition he deserves, but also someone who contributed to the evolution of batting technique.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/9770991/Geoffrey-Boycott-Tony-Greig-was-an-imposing-figure-who-played-the-game-with-a-smile-on-his-face.html

[Mike Selig]

Given that the debate is yet really to heat up, and the fact that the ashes have naturally provided a bit of competition, any objection to carrying on until Weds?

That being said, msp has a few times now mentioned Jadeja and Fairbrother as alternative pioneers of the finishing role to Bevan, and guildford raised the issue of selfishness (although a bit more diplomatically than that). I should respond to both claims as best I can.

Regarding Jadeja, I feel it is more than a bit unfair to put him in a similar bracket to Bevan. For me Jadeja was an early exponent more of the late over hitting; my memory of him is that when he wasn't finding the boundaries, he could get stuck very easily. This is somewhat borne out by statistics - not only was Jadeja's average a full 15 runs behind Bevan's, his SR was actually a few runs less as well. For someone who could find the boundary as easily and as effortlessly as Jadeja could, a SR of 69 is really quite low, and seems to back up my recollection that he wasn't all that good at rotating the strike.

The Fairbrother comparison has a bit more merit. Here things are more subjective, but it is my view that Fairbrother was less analytical and surgical than Bevan was: he would "just play" whereas Bevan used to break down run-chases into achievable chunks, concentrating on never letting the run-rate get out of hand, and giving his side a chance going into the last few overs, before more often than not finishing the job. Whilst we have first hand evidence that this is how Bevan went about things, I can't really offer up any more evidence than just "gut feeling" that Fairbrother was not so precise; although he was certainly less successful, I am not sure that this proves anything, beyond that he was less good, and also not helped by having a much weaker side than Bevan enjoyed.

I don't think there is much doubt that Bevan was really the blueprint on which many successful run-chase strategies were built. However, I am not sure whether that was simply because he was very very good at what he did, or truly revolutionary.

As to guildford's point, I'm not sure it has that much merit TBH. I can't recall many innings with Australia batting first when Bevan's slow scoring was much of an issue (part of that is undoubtedly that he had a strong bowling attack). I can recall a couple of chases where he proved unable to keep up with the scoring rate, and Australia ending in the end just short (the one most in my mind is the tri-series match in 98/99 against England when England scored 292 I think, and Aus fell just short, with Bevan not out, but criticised for not upping the tempo enough).

However do we attach much importance to a couple of failures against the multitude of successes? Will we count Dhoni's odd failure (he has certainly had a few more than Bevan, either through "leaving it too late", or simply remaining not out whilst everyone collapsed, or a couple of times letting the run-rate get to the stage where only he could win the game, and then getting out - on those occasions he arguably did more harm than good) that strongly when we get around to discussing him? I assume he will (rightly) sail into the HoF when the time comes...

The truth is that Bevan engineered an extraordinary number of run chases, sometimes from astonishingly difficult positions, often marshalling the tail through to victory. Amongst all those, there are bound to be a few times when he gets it wrong, but these were very few and very far between.

A lot of the criticism of Bevan (what little there is of it) IMO comes simply down to people not being able to accept how good he was, particularly when viewed against his mediocre test record. Traditionalists were unwilling to accept that his average of 50odd, so far ahead of his contemporaries (very few people averaged above 40 over the course of the years when Bevan played), was genuine, and tried to find reasons to downplay it (low strike-rate, played for his average, all those not outs, etc.).

Certainly Hussey and Dhoni have taken the finishing role to a different level since. However they have really built on the template supplied by Bevan.

[kwinigolfer]

Mike,
Thanks.

Having been well away from the one day game for the careers of all you discuss (International one day cricket of whatever stripe is now so ubiquitous it is impossible to follow in context from 3,000 miles away), it is tres difficile to determine whether Bevan was truly the best in his role, certainly until Dhoni and Hussey came along.
That is the standard that I will have to see before voting, whether yay or nay.

[msp83]

Mike, I've been looking forward to your response on the Jadeja/Fairbrother issue. I must say I have to really disagree on your analysis of Jadeja. There of course is the fact that Jadeja was less successful, but that hasn't been the issue. When you look at Jadeja's stats, you have to keep in mind that he used to open for India in the early part of his career before the Tendulkar-Ganguly combo established itself. But since he began
batting more regularly at 5, Jadeja became a greater contributer to the India ODI side of the 90s. He used to be the fastest runner in the India ODI team of the 90s, and was at his most effective when batting with Robin Singh or Azharuddin. As you rightly pointed out, Jadeja was a better boundary hitter than Bevan was, but his game too was based on the basic templet of flow of singles and 2s, hard running between the wickets, and then the big shots, just that he was better at hitting the big ones towards the end. Jadeja often had to come into a damage control role so often, more than what Bevan had to do, and other than Azhar and Robin, the team that Jadeja played in didn't have too many good runners between the wickets.

[msp83]

It is worth noting that Jadeja averages 1 run higher when batting from positions 4 to 7, and 5 of his 6 ODI hundreds have come in that role.

[msp83]

Since the debates haven't progressed at the pace we would like it to go along, we have to have some additional time. Hopefully some of the usual contributors will be back on full force. We haven't attracted anyone new as yet, hopefully there'll be more posters joining in.

[Hoggy_Bear]

I don't think there is much doubt that Bevan was really the blueprint on which many successful run-chase strategies were built.

Certainly Hussey and Dhoni have taken the finishing role to a different level since. However they have really built on the template supplied by Bevan.

These two quotes just refer back to a question I asked about Bevan earlier (and one related to similar questions I asked about Larwood and Jayasuriya). Do we know the extent to which Bevan helped come up with the 'finisher' role himself?
I just ask because I would give far more credit to a player for being revolutionary if he, himself, helped develop a strategy rather than simply being picked to fulfil it.

[alfie]

I really don't care whether Bevan originated a particular role or just developed it : he was overwhelmingly the best at it , in his era ( the ODI game has since changed a lot) . So if I can bring myself to forget about his Test record - which is pretty forgettable - I am tending to a yes.

[kwinigolfer]

Perhaps Thanksgiving (wot?) will interfere with normal voting patterns, so my votes are:
Bevan: No! Still no conclusive testimony to the effect that he was the best, the very best, at what he did, the closer. Tho' Alfie's testimony was almost compelling.

Greig: Definitely No! I find Greig to have been a career opportunist, a decent all-rounder but not a great one, and a Captain who should walk the plank for mutiny.

Hill: Yes: He has some firsts/bests: Including:
Chosen for his first Tour at the age of 19. Not the youngest ever but pretty darn close.
Record for most runs in Trest Cricket held for 12 years.
First to score 1,000 Test runs in a calendar year - record held for 45 yrs.
Aussie HOF'er in 2005 - would that accolade have been granted earlier if not for his brushes with authority?
And what statistical accomplishments might he have accrued if he hadn't fallen foul of the establishment?

By most accounts a good captain and a 606v2 HOF'er in my book.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Sponsored content]