The v2Forum Hall of Fame discussion thread

by Shelsey93 Fri 22 Mar 2013, 7:35 pm

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

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:11 pm

Another player we have to mention in this context is Brian Close. He too has some impressive overall figures in First Class cricket. He too has played First Class cricket in 5 decades and test cricket in 4 of those. He played First Class cricket for 37 years that is even more than that of Titmus.
Viewed in this light, Titmus' FC records, superb though they are, don't come across as outstandingly unique any more.
All the 3 players, Titmus, Illingworth and Close, they all had considerably better FC records in comparison to their international records. Does that tell us something?

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:16 pm

It has to be remembered that both Illingworth and Close also have a lot going for them besides their FC record. Close's courage and his clos in fielding is legendary. His cricinfo profile even notes his fielding position as forward shortleg. Both he and Illingworth were also considered brilliant captains by many.

by Corporalhumblebucket Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:22 pm

I recall making the Titmus / Illy comparison the first time round. Illy did make 2 centuries while FJT scored more half centuries.

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:26 pm

Another name to be kept in mind when we evaluate Titmus is that of Tony Lock. Is he there in our HoF? As a spinnerm he has a way superior test record to any of the 3 others just mentioned. Lock played FC cricket for 25 years spread over 4 decades, played over 650 FC matches, bowled over 150000 balls, took over 2800 wickets at an average of 19 that is better than that of Illingworth, Titmus and Close. Importantly, he took 174 wickets from 49 tests at an average of 25.

by kingraf Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:33 pm

oh Lord, seems a gate has been opened, and there's no way to close it now..,

anyone willing to give Rod marsh a rousing defense? I can't see it at the moment, but the way things are going, with the shifting statute of qualification, it's worth a read...

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:45 pm

Eric Hollies, the man who famously bowled Bradman in his final innings, played his last First Class game at the age of 45 to finish off a First Class career of 515 games where he bowled over 130000 balls to take more than 2300 wickets at an average of 20.
All these examples suggest that long, extended FC careers were a thing with English FC cricket, many of these cricketers have outstanding records at FC level, yet as kingraf pointed out, only in the early to mid 1950s were England really on top of world game. I would say these examples would raise some significant questions on blanket assertions about the intensity and standards of County Cricket. Of course England players were regularly available for their counties, and the overseas players were of a much higher standards in comparison to today. But there were a lot of low intensity games as well and many of the outstanding CC players of that era were found out at test level or proved to be nothing more than OK players at the highest level.

by Hoggy_Bear Fri 31 Jan 2014, 6:56 pm

kingraf wrote:oh Lord, seems a gate has been opened, and there's no way to close it now..,

anyone willing to give Rod marsh a rousing defense? I can't see it at the moment, but the way things are going, with the shifting statute of qualification, it's worth a read...

Quick recap of Rod Marsh's pluses.
Retired as record holder for 'keeper dismissals, with 355 from 96 tests.
Still holds record for most 'keeper dismissals in a series, I believe, with 28 in the 82/3 Ashes
One half of probably the most iconic, (and definitely the most successful), 'keeper + bowler partnership in cricket history (with Dennis Lillee)
Described by Ian Botham as the best 'keeper he ever saw standing back
Combative batsman who averaged around 27, with 3 test centuries
Highly respected coach who ran successful academies in both Australia and England

by Mike Selig Fri 31 Jan 2014, 7:34 pm

msp, all these names and stats are making my head hurt... Shocked

I guess the point is well made that Titmus's first class record and longevity, whilst excellent, are not unique.

I do think he was a bit better than just an "OK" player at test level though. In fact I stand by my assertion that his playing (note: including first class) record stands up well to Ntini's; averages for spinners are usually higher, and the difference in strike-rates is merely mirrored by an equal difference in economy rates; different times and different roles and all that.

Having said that, the point is well made. Whilst I am not a fan of comparisons, I think guildford has to convince us that Titmus's case is far stronger than all those other names.

I will give him a helping hand. Titmus does still hold multiple bowling records for Middlesex (most wickets, most wickets in a season IIRC, etc.). All those other players, good though they were, as far as I know do not.

by kwinigolfer Fri 31 Jan 2014, 7:44 pm

And Rodders' brother is annually on the "International" ballot for the WGHOF!

I was always sceptical of Marsh's claims as he was a very average keeper by Test standards when he first played. Unbelievable competitor and made himself an indispensible force in a series of very good Aussie teams. More homework required . . . .

As for msp's exhuming legends of the English County game, I was thinking of nominating Tony Lock at some time. Not only for his bowling and occasional good batting, but one of the very best catchers ever - 831 in 654 matches played.

by guildfordbat Fri 31 Jan 2014, 9:10 pm

kingraf wrote:But how good was county cricket really? I've been told it was incredibly strong in his era, and I have no real reason to doubt that - regardless, it strikes me as rather odd that despite being in possession of the best league in the world (and unlike the EPL, most participants were actually English, no)... The entire time England didn't really have a standout team... which begs the question...

How do the two reconcile? I have no answer, actually - I just ask the tough questions...

Went off to investigate this a bit, only to return and find that comparisons of almost every other player that stepped foot on a cricket pitch during Titmus' lifetime is now sought. Shocked

Anyway, first things first - Raf's post.

Very hard if not impossible to prove but I would say from my own experience (I first went to a county match in 1968) that county cricket was very strong in Titmus' time and considerably more so than today. In an odd sort of way, I suspect the intense concentration upon Championship cricket and its generally accepted importance might have actually hindered the England Test team in those years.

Between 1950 and 1968 each English county played 28 three day Championship matches per season. At this time when rotation was an unknown term in the cricket world, a Test cricketer would generally play in all his county's matches apart from when they co-incided with Tests. Furthermore, it was not impossible for a player to finish a county game in Somerset on a Wednesday and then have to get himself up to Yorkshire for a Test match starting the next day in Yorkshire. Admittedly there are today far more limited overs matches but the county demands on a Test player are still massively reduced with him now unlikely to play more than a couple of four day games per season.

Whilst I believe that things are now carried too far, there was next to no rest and little respite for England players in the past. Some individuals thrived on this (Titmus probably included). However, whilst Test cricket was still then the priority, it was not the overriding priority above Championship cricket that it is now; reflected also then in the much higher attendances at county games, the detailed press reports of them and the discussions in the workplace and the school yard as the matches went on (similar to the way that the Premier League much dominates many sporting conversations today).

I don't deny there were other reasons for England struggling as a Test team at this time but they probably best belong in a separate thread.

by guildfordbat Fri 31 Jan 2014, 9:42 pm

msp83 wrote:Another player we have to mention in this context is Brian Close. He too has some impressive overall figures in First Class cricket. He too has played First Class cricket in 5 decades and test cricket in 4 of those. He played First Class cricket for 37 years that is even more than that of Titmus.
Viewed in this light, Titmus' FC records, superb though they are, don't come across as outstandingly unique any more.
All the 3 players, Titmus, Illingworth and Close, they all had considerably better FC records in comparison to their international records. Does that tell us something?

I do feel we should be considering each nominee on his merits rather than looking back at every other unsuccesful candidate and a few who haven't even yet reached the starting blocks. Before coming to a view on Kirsten, is it expected that we trawl through the rejection slips of Gower, Graveney, Boycott, Gooch, Bevan and Woolmer to name just a few who have some broad similarities with this candidate?

Anyway, as it has been raised and because it's bl**dy easy to deal with, let me confirm (as I'm sure I did in November 2012) why Brian Close doesn't cut the mustard.

Many admirable qualities but badly let down by a poor Test record. From his 25 Tests - no centuries, just 4 fifties with a top score of 70 and an average of only 25; despite a decent average, not a regular bowler in Tests and just 22 wickets there.

Furthermore, whist technically accurate, the reference to him playing first class cricket for thity-seven years is highly contrived. Close retired from county cricket in 1977 but played the odd game (somehow accorded first class status) in each of the next nine seasons for the TN Pearce XI and his own DB Close XI.

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 9:46 pm

Titmus played his last full season in 1976 didn't he?

by guildfordbat Fri 31 Jan 2014, 9:48 pm

msp83 wrote:Titmus played his last full season in 1976 didn't he?

Definitely not. It was 1982. The Brearley and cadging a cup of coffee story as set out earlier refer.

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 9:50 pm

The point of bringing in the likes of Lock, Illingworth and Close was not a straight forward comparison. If you have missed it Guildford, it is that Titmus's FC numbers, that should constitute a strong point for his case is not outstandingly unique. It has more or less been the norm in English County Cricket....... And there are similarities that other than Lock, the others mentioned all had some superb numbers in FC cricket and a nothing special record in test cricket.

by msp83 Fri 31 Jan 2014, 9:54 pm

guildfordbat wrote:
msp83 wrote:Titmus played his last full season in 1976 didn't he?

Definitely not. It was 1982. The Brearley and cadging a cup of coffee story as set out earlier refer.

"In his final full season, in 1976, he was sometimes kept out of the team by the emerging John Emburey, but he returned in August to play a key part in
a charge that earned Middlesex their first outright Championship since 1947. Titmus became coach of Surrey (and played one match for them in 1978), but
did not enjoy the pressures and after two years retired to run a post office in Hertfordshire. He made brief returns for Middlesex in 1979 and 1980, but
another appearance was not on his mind when he arrived at Lord's on the morning of August 25, 1982, the first day of the match against Surrey."
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/567392.html

by guildfordbat Fri 31 Jan 2014, 10:49 pm

To try and complete this particular journey before more detours are introduced.

Hollis' dismissal of Bradman ensure him some form of eternal fame but his Test record of just 13 matches and 44 wickets would deny him a ''YES'' vote for our Hall from me notithstanding his admirable county record at a time when - like Titmus' - that part of the game was so strong. I also note that his espn cricinfo obituary refers to his batting as ''a perennial joke'' (cf Titmus).

Lock was mentioned as a possible candidate in the early days of this thread but, if I recall correctly, it was decided not to pursue the case for what were desribed as ''alleged extra-curricular activities''.

In my view, Titmus' figures are extra-ordinary and even if some posters consider that other players are close enough to him, his whole package in my view remains unique.

As for Illingworth - I would like to see him nominated, not in place of Titmus but as a further candidate. I feel he merits it on several levels. That would actually further strengthen the case for Titmus.

by Mike Selig Fri 31 Jan 2014, 11:09 pm

I would have thought the county game was stronger in Titmus's years than before the war TBH (to take up the point on Hollies) - surely the emergence of the West Indies as an international force would have guaranteed that?

Of all the players mentioned so far (did I mention that in comparison lies the road to madness?) I don't think anyone other than Brian Close would have nominated Brian Close; Illingworth would be an interesting case, as would Lock.

Signing out now for this evening, but pleased to see some debate getting going.

by Corporalhumblebucket Fri 31 Jan 2014, 11:30 pm

I agree with Mike's middle para. And naturally I agree with a point made earlier about the case for Frank Woolley being dismissed too easily by some posters...

Do find the case for Fred Titmus rather difficult. I was a strong advocate of Patsy Hendren who was a giant of the county game and was a very good but not great test player. Hendren's records were outstanding in the entire history of the game whereas I am not sure that Titmus was quite at that level. So it's really down to the overall package argument.... I don't place too much weight on the brief playing appearances he made more or less as as postscript to his main career. *Continues to ponder*

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 12:05 am

You ponder away, Corporal. In the meantime, I'll reflect on you voting YES last time in view of ''his huge contribution to the county game''. Wink

More seriously, if someone you felt more worthy has been declined, that shouldn't create a precedent for you to vote NO. Each poster should vote for what they believe is right, regardless of what might have been decided for previous nominees. Otherwise, we run the risk of continuing to accept mistakes and get things wrong.

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 5:27 am

I must say I find it difficult to accept the argument against comparison.
We are talking about sports here, getting the better of the other is entrenched into the very core of the phenomenon. It is very difficult if not outright impossible to set absolute standards.
Cricket as a game revels on comparisons really and cricket fans have religiously engaged in interesting comparative exercises throughout. Even we can se one of the other thread that generated such quality debates like we've had over here was the one on identifying the top ten ever in given categories. We had voted on the top 10 all- rounders, openers....... That involves comparisons among players, between eras. When we pick alltime sides, again we are doing the same. All that involves comparisons amounting to different degrees.

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 5:33 am

As for accounting for past voting patterns. My point of view on that is that past voting patterns often indicate the kind of standard and threshold that we set for entrance to the HoF. As such, they would certainly matter. These are not castiron rules, but I don't think the position is unreasonable.

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 9:46 am

msp83 wrote:As for accounting for past voting patterns. My point of view on that is that past voting patterns often indicate the kind of standard and threshold that we set for entrance to the HoF. As such, they would certainly matter. These are not castiron rules, but I don't think the position is unreasonable.

I can see that but think the most important thing here is to be true to unto yourself. I recall urging posters not to be compelled to vote NO for other female candidates just because Rachel Heyhoe-Flint (who was considered the strongest female candidate) had already been declined - it was for those posters to vote as they considered right going forward. That was even with me having voted NO to Heyhoe-Flint.

IF Tiger Pataudi had had a twin brother with an identical record, impact and injury who was being put up now, I would be shocked and appalled if you were meekly falling into the NO camp just because, in your view, we got the earlier Pataudi vote wrong. Wink

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 10:04 am

Having looked at Illingworth's record and without wishing to sabotage a future case, a possible concern is that he took only 122 wickets from his 61 Tests. Whilst there are no cast iron rules (as msp rightly says), Titmus being above the 150 barrier (153 from 53) has a significance for me.

by kingraf Sat 01 Feb 2014, 10:05 am

Seems an extensively long list of cricketers who even then, had great county records, but didn't quite replicate in international cricket. Which leads me to ask again, just how good was county cricket? if twenty strikers (of one nationality) score 40 goals a season in one league, and yet they all have middling records in, say champions league, I'd say that questions about the quality of opposition are quite relevant.

Similarly, given the fact that since cricket became a rather global game (uh), England have never really quite dominated the game... so I think my doubts about the credentials of the quality of opposition, and by extension validity of his record are quite legitimate - I mean I cant understand how County cricketers could have been so good and yet there's a ten run, 30-ball spike in Titmus' average and Strike Rates once he made the jump... and yet he could come back as a 49-year old semi-retired bloke and play a key role in a championship winning match. Does this indicate his greatness, or the County Game's weakness? I'd say a bit of both, but more of the latter.

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 10:08 am

Raf - please at least extend me the courtsey of looking (or at least showing that you have looked) at my previously researched and considered answer to your question.

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 11:21 am

kingraf wrote:Seems an extensively long list of cricketers who even then, had great county records, but didn't quite replicate in international cricket. Which leads me to ask again, just how good was county cricket? if twenty strikers (of one nationality) score 40 goals a season in one league, and yet they all have middling records in, say champions league, I'd say that questions about the quality of opposition are quite relevant.

Similarly, given the fact that since cricket became a rather global game (uh), England have never really quite dominated the game... so I think my doubts about the credentials of the quality of opposition, and by extension validity of his record are quite legitimate - I mean I cant understand how County cricketers could have been so good and yet there's a ten run, 30-ball spike in Titmus' average and Strike Rates once he made the jump... and yet he could come back as a 49-year old semi-retired bloke and play a key role in a championship winning match. Does this indicate his greatness, or the County Game's weakness? I'd say a bit of both, but more of the latter.

Very relevant points there. We have Guildford's considered response above wgere he mentions the greater priority accorded to county cricket earlier and the possibility of that affecting even England's test side's chances. The point that cricketers had it tough juggling the responsibilities for county and country is a valid one as well. However, is it enough to explain the significant difference and the significant drop in level of performance as far as some of the giants of the CC are concerned when it comes to test cricket? Must say I very much doubt it.
Sorry to bring up yet another line of comparison, but the point of the comparison is what you have to look at. If you look at the IPL, you could see that all sides have 4 foreign players in their ranks, and a majority of them are real quality performers who proved themselves at the highest level. Then there are 2 or 3 top Indian players. The rest of the lineup is usually made of experienced domestic cricketers not good enough for international cricket or emerging youngsters who are still learning on the job. This is often reflected in the overall batting and bowling quality of the side. Another thing to note is that some sides with very rich promoters are in a position to put together a squad that is better than that of some other sides.
The pattern of make up of sides as well as the difference in quality among sides would apply to county cricket as well. The international players, both foreign and national wouldn't be in a position to play all the games as they have international responsibilities, Titmus himself got to make his debut at a very early age partly because the international players of his county side were missing for the game as they were involved in a test match. Yorkshire had a very strong county side in the 50s and 60s. Surrey has always been a resourceful club and they had some big name players in the era under consideration. But not all sides were as strong or rich enough to put together sides of such quality year after year. That's the case now, and I believe that was the case even now.
Today I was reading an article by Harsha Bhogle on problems with the Indian bowling unit. There was an interesting point in there. The Ranji sides do not play 28 or 30 games a season. They play at best 11 games. However, most of the domestic players, particularly the bowlers, find the schedule to be a bit too demanding and keeping up energy and self-preservation in the long term mean that fast bowlers become medium pacers, and the spinners would take less of a workload. As such, the intensity levels could be affected.
I am not at all discounting the argument that CC was stronger during that era, but again, we have to be careful while generalizing how strong it really was on a consistent basis.

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 11:25 am

guildfordbat wrote:
msp83 wrote:As for accounting for past voting patterns. My point of view on that is that past voting patterns often indicate the kind of standard and threshold that we set for entrance to the HoF. As such, they would certainly matter. These are not castiron rules, but I don't think the position is unreasonable.

I can see that but think the most important thing here is to be true to unto yourself. I recall urging posters not to be compelled to vote NO for other female candidates just because Rachel Heyhoe-Flint (who was considered the strongest female candidate) had already been declined - it was for those posters to vote as they considered right going forward. That was even with me having voted NO to Heyhoe-Flint.

IF Tiger Pataudi had had a twin brother with an identical record, impact and injury who was being put up now, I would be shocked and appalled if you were meekly falling into the NO camp just because, in your view, we got the earlier Pataudi vote wrong.

Thankfully that'll remain a counterfactual dilemma!.
But it is quite likely that I would have to vote no to the brother, unless we would bring the bar down a bit.

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 12:10 pm

msp83 wrote:

I am not at all discounting the argument that CC was stronger during that era, but again, we have to be careful while generalizing how strong it really was on a consistent basis.

Yes, I accept that. Whilst I firmly believe that County Championship was stronger in Titmus' era than today (partly from what I have seen and continue to see), it is impossible to prove let alone scientifically quantify. To be fair, I don't think I've ever tried to suggest the extent of that greater strength.

Through my Surrey connections, I occasionally get the chance to chat to some former players from the time of Titmus. Micky (father of Alec) Stewart, in particular, is very approachable and remains as bright as a button in his early eighties with a good take on things past and present. It won't be until after we've voted here unfortunately but, if I get the chance during the 2014 CC season, I'll ask his views. Whilst he has a good memory, in my (admittedly limited) experience he doesn't look back through rose tinted spectacles. I'll let you know in the future if I do have that conversation - might be interesting if nothing else.

by Hoggy_Bear Sat 01 Feb 2014, 12:59 pm

If I may weigh in on the Titmus argument. I do agree to an extent, with the view that msp is putting forward and, indeed, it took a great deal of persuasion from Guildford to persuade me to vote yes to Titmus in the first place. I think the clincher for me was not his test record nor even his FC record although both added various degrees of weight to his candidacy, but it was his standing in the game, particularly his standing as a Middlesex player, as attested to by various quotes put forward by Guildford in our previous discussions.
Non of the players mentioned by msp, good as they were, seem to enjoy the sort of status accorded to Titmus by colleagues and fans. That is a testament not only to his skills but also to his character.
Now, I may well have been inconsistent in saying yes to Titmus when I've voted no to a number of others and, while I agree that in comparison lies madness, that might cause me to alter my vote this time round (along with any more points against his candidature which may be raised). However, I do think that both the length of Titmus' career and the admiaration and warmth with which he is regarded are very strong points in his favour.

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:If I may weigh in on the Titmus argument. I do agree to an extent, with the view that msp is putting forward and, indeed, it took a great deal of persuasion from Guildford to persuade me to vote yes to Titmus in the first place. I think the clincher for me was not his test record nor even his FC record although both added various degrees of weight to his candidacy, but it was his standing in the game, particularly his standing as a Middlesex player, as attested to by various quotes put forward by Guildford in our previous discussions.
Non of the players mentioned by msp, good as they were, seem to enjoy the sort of status accorded to Titmus by colleagues and fans. That is a testament not only to his skills but also to his character.
Now, I may well have been inconsistent in saying yes to Titmus when I've voted no to a number of others and, while I agree that in comparison lies madness, that might cause me to alter my vote this time round (along with any more points against his candidature which may be raised). However, I do think that both the length of Titmus' career and the admiaration and warmth with which he is regarded are very strong points in his favour.

I only gave the middle bit of Graeme Swann's quote before. Hoggy has reminded me of the importance of it all -
''Really sad to hear about the passing of Fred Titmus. He was a great spinner and, more importantly, a lovely bloke.''

Appropriate to also throw in now the words of David Collier, Chief Executive of the EWCB,-
''Fred was simply a master of the art of slow bowling and a very popular figure on the county and international circuit.''

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:00 pm

Back to Gary Kirsten.
Some quotes and links on Kirsten.
"I have always said that he is one of the greatest things to have happened to Indian cricket apart from the talented cricketers we have got. Throughout he has been away from the media, he just concentrates on the work he needs to do. We have had a great time under him. It is an advantage to have him in the side."
Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/492779.html
"I was too hard on myself. I wasn't too relaxed and it used to tie me up in knots on occasion. Gary helped me be at ease with myself. I now take it as it comes. Gary has helped me understand my game a lot better."
Opener Gautam Gambhir, who played his most consistent game for India during the Kirsten era.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/384349.html
“Gary Kirsten's time with the Indian team was amazing, He has given everyone their space. He's understood the Indian culture and how we do things. He's taken that step of coming closer to us rather than dictating. He was our friend, not a coach.”
India seamer Zaheer Khan, who played some of his best cricket for India under Kirsten’s mentorship.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/518880.html
A very insightful interview with Kirsten after India’s World Cup win which was the end point of his coaching stint with India.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/509564.html
Another very informative article on Kirsten’s ways as a coach. Attention to details, hardwork, building individual relations, a hands on approach without being a control freak…….
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/507707.html

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:03 pm

On the celebrated Kirsten-Dhoni partnership. The coach knew his responsibilities very well and he realized the importance of giving the skipper space and control where it was needed.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/381571.html

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:13 pm

Another interview that gives a sneak preview to Kirsten's life philosophy. There is more to Gary Kirsten than just cricket, but cricket is not just a game for him, it is a philosophy.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/343119.html

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:22 pm

"In a lot of ways I saw myself in him, in the sense that he was always more a stable, solid player than a flashy one. His ability to score runs for South Africa in difficult times amazed me. He showed that he was a genuinely big player, someone who could score big. In both Test and one-day cricket he was always developing. Every time you played against Gary in a new series, he was a better player than last time around. I always remember him as a very tough competitor and someone who made the very best of his abilities."

Former India batsman Rahul Dravid on Kirsten the batsman.

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:25 pm

Here is another interesting insight on the making of Kirsten's approach to the game, coaching particularly. The above quote from Dravid is also from this article.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/323842.html

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:42 pm

Gary Kirsten the batsman, was a "Blood-and Swet battler", says the cricinfo editer Sambit Bal. He was one for the crisis, battling hard when the flashier ones would have given up.
A telling extract from the article by Bal.
"Faisalabad yielded him one more hundred in October last year, but it was in the previous Test at Lahore that Kirsten's true character was revealed. On the first afternoon of the Test, Kirsten lay in a pool of blood after edging a pull off Shoaib Akhtar into his face, and he looked out of the Test, if not the series. Yet with his team in trouble in the second innings, he was back on the third day with a bandaged cheek. The first ball he faced was a screaming yorker from Shoaib that he dug out, and the next two were short and sharp - the first hit him on the thigh, the second on his back as he ducked into it. Yet his fourth scoring shot was a fierce pull off Mohammad Sami, and he repeated the dose a few overs later. I had been stirred by stories of Mohinder Amarnath pulling Malcolm Marshall for six upon resuming his innings after a blow on his jaw. Kirsten's courage was no less."
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/134059.html

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 2:53 pm

Another small but not at all insignificant bit of stat. The first man to score test hundred against 9 test playing sides of his time was not Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid or Steve Waugh. It was Gary Kirsten!.

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 3:15 pm

Another interesting bit about Kirsten. The 275 he scored against England in 1999 is the 2nd longest test innings ever, where he batted 878 minutes.

by guildfordbat Sat 01 Feb 2014, 3:21 pm

msp83 wrote:Another interesting bit about Kirsten. The 275 he scored against England in 1999 is the 2nd longest test innings ever, where he batted 878 minutes.

Glad to see your appreciation of the value of attritional cricket. Wink

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 3:28 pm

guildfordbat wrote:
msp83 wrote:Another interesting bit about Kirsten. The 275 he scored against England in 1999 is the 2nd longest test innings ever, where he batted 878 minutes.

Glad to see your appreciation of the value of attritional cricket.

I always like it when players play that particular brand of cricket when the situation demands!. Have never been a fan of Slogfests any ways.......

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 6:24 pm

Another worthy read on Gary Kirsten, gives a solid roundup of his career and lists his major achievements.
http://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/gary-kirsten-the-man-who-brought-ldquo-calm-and-trust-in-the-indian-dressing-room-rdquo-and-masterminded-the-2011-world-cup-triumph-34284

by msp83 Sat 01 Feb 2014, 6:36 pm

Doubt whether any other international cricket coach gained such affection from the cricket fans. But Gary Kirsten did that, and that too from the very demanding Indian cricket fan. Here is a tribute from a fan that is representative of the thoughts of many many others.
http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/39538/thank-you-gary

by msp83 Wed 05 Feb 2014, 3:43 pm

This has been a bad season for us, got badly stuck again. Got off to a good start this round but......

by Hoggy_Bear Wed 05 Feb 2014, 4:42 pm

msp83 wrote:This has been a bad season for us, got badly stuck again. Got off to a good start this round but......

KP causing more disruption steam

by kwinigolfer Thu 06 Feb 2014, 3:03 am

Is anyone going to nominate KP?!

by msp83 Thu 06 Feb 2014, 3:12 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:Is anyone going to nominate KP?!

Alastair Cook is said to be considering the option, considering that to be eligible for a nomination, Pietersen has to retire!.......

by guildfordbat Thu 06 Feb 2014, 6:21 pm

I wouldn't be too surprised if Pietersen is given his county cap by Surrey which has a special significance at the club (roughly on a par with our Hall of Fame Wink

).

by Hoggy_Bear Fri 07 Feb 2014, 9:21 am

Anyway, from discussion of one South African to discussion of another. (And in an attempt to get this thread rolling again) Very Happy

I must admit that Kirsten's case is pretty strong. There are a couple of questions I would like to ask, however. Firstly, how innovative as a coach has Kirsten been? Has he developed coaching techniques himself, or has he simply applied existing coaching methods successfully?
Secondly, and in some ways related to my first question, how greatly did the teams which he has coached improve under his leadership? Did he, like Bobby Simpson, take over teams that were at their lowest ebb and transform them into world powers or did he take over teams that already had the talent and just direct that talent in the appropriate manner.
Obviously, being able to do the latter is a great talent for a coach to have, and I'm not trying to suggest that Kirsten has had 'easy' coaching jobs, but I would be interested in whether Kirsten performed root and branch reorganisations of the teams under his control, or whether getting them to the top of the pile was more a case of tinkering and building on what was already there.

by msp83 Fri 07 Feb 2014, 10:07 am

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Anyway, from discussion of one South African to discussion of another. (And in an attempt to get this thread rolling again)
I must admit that Kirsten's case is pretty strong. There are a couple of questions I would like to ask, however. Firstly, how innovative as a coach has Kirsten been? Has he developed coaching techniques himself, or has he simply applied existing coaching methods successfully?
Secondly, and in some ways related to my first question, how greatly did the teams which he has coached improve under his leadership? Did he, like Bobby Simpson, take over teams that were at their lowest ebb and transform them into world powers or did he take over teams that already had the talent and just direct that talent in the appropriate manner.
Obviously, being able to do the latter is a great talent for a coach to have, and I'm not trying to suggest that Kirsten has had 'easy' coaching jobs, but I would be interested in whether Kirsten performed root and branch reorganisations of the teams under his control, or whether getting them to the top of the pile was more a case of tinkering and building on what was already there.

Mike will be in a better position to respond to the first question. What I understand about Kirsten is that he gave aspects like fielding a hands on supervision, I don't know whether he used new techniques there or brought existing techniques over and implemented them well.
As for the 2nd question. When Kirsten took over the Indian coaching job, it was after the end of the illfated Chappell era that ended with India crashing out of the 2007 WC in the first round itself. Ravi Shastri acted as manager during the Bangladesh series that followed the WC and then the senior players took up the responsibility for some time as they went along without a coach for a few months. Kirsten had joined the side as a consultant before taking up the job as such by the time the Australian tour had roled along. In fact he joined after the infamous Sydneygate test. So you could say that he joined the side at a lo point. Most of India's senior players produced defining performances more consistently under Kirsten, and returning players like Gautam Gambhir really took the step up during his time.
South Africa had crashed out of yet another World Cup when they brought Kirsten in. He
convinced Graeme Smith to stay on and lead the side in test matches and took a good test outfit to the next level. Can't say he picked them up from a very low point really, but he helped them to become a lot more consistent both home and away.

by kingraf Sat 08 Feb 2014, 10:48 am

Kirstens coaching philosophy didn't, I don't think, break any new ground... but he has a world cup and managed two number one test teams. Not even sure how as to many coaches have had two different nations become the undisputed #1 teams in cricket.

Can't really comment on his gig in India, but with South Africa he produced a very liaisez form of management, where half the practise sessions were voluntary, and gave the team increased responsibility of their own careers.

by Sponsored content