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

[msp83]

And I have my doubts about Hall being considered the first real fast bowler for the West Indies, Roy Gilchrist, a contemporary of Hall, had established himself in the side before Hall really came to his own, and in fact Gilchrist was done during Hall's breakthrough Asian visit. Charlie Griffith, Hall's new ball partner, could also crank it up big. Besides these contemporaries, the tradition of real fast West Indies bowlers go back to Learie Constantine and Manny Martindale.

[guildfordbat]

Kwini,

the other four were Abdul Qadir, Bishan Bedi, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Jeff Thomson. I'd argue that Hall was the greatest of the five.

Strongly agree.

Being ''the first'' is very significant to me. Hall is widely regarded as being the first - variously described as ''the originator'' and ''the pioneer'' - of the great West Indian pacemen and providing the legacy to those that followed. That is one of the aspects that for me sets him apart from and above the likes of Thomson and Ntini.

I'll try to dig out a few quotes over the weekend.

Guildford, Ntini was the first Black African cricketer who played for South Africa!.

Msp - it was really a cricketing legacy that I was referring to. The possible cultural legacy of Ntini was well rehearsed last time out. Surprised by the doubts of some about Hall - would have thought his overall case was more than sufficient. Lovely link to the last over of the Tied Test from Shelsey, thanks.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Surprised by the doubts of some about Hall - would have thought his overall case was more than sufficient.

He has a good, but not great overall record. A pretty poor record against the best opponents. Tailed off quite markedly in the second half of his career. Doesn't really have anything in terms off record breaking or innovation to back his claim.
Not saying I'm neccessarily going to say no. Just pointing out the reasons I think his claim is questinable.

[msp83]

Don't think Hall's overall record makes for straightforward entry to the HoF. His average, strike rate and economy rate are all good but none in that list is outstanding. The career hasn't been one noted for longevity or very high number of wickets either.
Add in the concerns already put up here, relatively short career, pretty average second half of his test career where he played more than half of his 48 tests, not a great record against England and Australia.......
I think there is a serious need for far more convincing.

[subhranshu.kumar.5]

Guys I am not getting what this thread is all about. Please someone let me know. I am first time posting here.

[msp83]

Monty Noble's record at the outset, doesn't suggest entry to the HoF right away. But I have had a look at Wilfred Rhodes' record, and I could see Noble has done equally well with both bat and ball as well. In fact their batting average is pretty similar, Noble has a better average with the ball.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Guys I am not getting what this thread is all about. Please someone let me know. I am first time posting here.

Suggest have a browse at the very top of the thread and the links there. Basically it's about compiling a cricketing Hall of Fame for v2. The clear cut cases have largely been gone through, now at the stage of looking at and voting on some of the more borderline characters which various posters have suggested for consideration. Shelsey sets deadline for voting for each round, usually after case for each character has been well aired...

[Hoggy_Bear]

Monty Noble's record at the outset, doesn't suggest entry to the HoF right away. But I have had a look at Wilfred Rhodes' record, and I could see Noble has done equally well with both bat and ball as well. In fact their batting average is pretty similar, Noble has a better average with the ball.

I think Noble has quite a strong case.
Good all-round figures, at both test and FC level, and a respected captain.
He reached the milestone of 100 wickets and 1000 runs faster than Benaud, Miller or Davidson, and had a better s/r as a test bowler than Ray Lindwall. Indeed, Ranji rated him as one of the best 6 medium pacers he faced. Ray Robinson, the great Australian cricket writer, said Noble was "the most accomplished cricketer Australia produced as bowler, batsman, captain and fieldsmen, at least in the pre-1954 era of all-weather wickets". Meanwhile, Wisden's obituary (1940) said Noble's figures proved there had not been a superior all-round Test player.

[Shelsey93]

Msp, remember that Noble was playing before WWI at a time when 30 was a much better average than it was today. With a minimum of 15 Tests, only 5 players averaged above 40 before 1914.

Add in the bowling, and the captaincy, and I think his case is very strong.

[msp83]

Of course many didn't average above 40 with the bat before WWI bbut a as shelsey mentioned, 5 of them averaged above 40, and many good players, some of them we rejected, averaged in the mid to late 30s. Noble's batting average, considered by that standard, is good but not outstanding. But when we consider the all-round package, things are different. He has a pretty good all-round record, and on early reflections, I feel he does have a strong case.
So on initial reflections, both Bob Simpson and Monty Noble have strong cases. Wes Hall in my view starts off with a position close to a no.

[guildfordbat]

Msp, remember that Noble was playing before WWI at a time when 30 was a much better average than it was today. With a minimum of 15 Tests, only 5 players averaged above 40 before 1914.

Add in the bowling, and the captaincy, and I think his case is very strong.

Shelsey - I'm reluctant to say anything that might back up msp after he's been so churlish about Wes Hall but, by the same token, Noble's bowling average doesn't seem that special. Particularly by the standards of his time.

Certainly his Test bowling average is some way off those achieved by Lohmann, Turner and Barnes. Probably unair to compare Noble, an all rounder, against the very best out and out bowlers. However, I've always understood that a very good all rounder will have a figure of at least 1.5 when his batting average is divided by his bowling average. I would have thought that would have still been the case in Noble's era. Noble ends up short here on 1.2.

I do go along with you that Noble's captaincy aids his cause.

[Hoggy_Bear]

1.5 would rule out quite a few all-rounders, Guildford.
Botham, Dev, Rhodes, Hadlee, Benaud, Barlow, Davidson, Goddard and a number of others.

[msp83]

I might have to risk aggravating Guildford's mood of the day!. But like hoggy, I too think 1.5 really is not a realistic figure. Noble's bowling average, considering the period he played and the kind of figures that other quality bowlers had, is nothing more than good. Even his batting figures for that matter, on its own, again is not much more than good. But the all-round package, including his impact as skipper makes the foundations of a pretty good case. Who were the decent all-rounders of his era? Rhodes is one I can think off, and Noble's record compares favorably with that of the Yorkshire legend.

[guildfordbat]

1.5 would rule out quite a few all-rounders, Guildford.
Botham, Dev, Rhodes, Hadlee, Benaud, Barlow, Davidson, Goddard and a number of others.

Hoggy - maybe 1.5 is too steep but I don't think it's unreasonable for a very good all rounder to be approaching it. Noble seems a liitle way off at 1.2.

To quibble a bit, I thought some of the players you mentioned were far more bowlers than batsmen. I also believe from memory that Barlow touches 1.5 if the missing RoW Tests are included.

[alfie]

When I saw Wes Hall nominated I thought this is an easy one...

( side note : makes me feel my age when I read Mike speaking of his father watching Wes bowl at his peak ...I also saw him bowl at his peak )

But that is it : the sight of Hall running in to bowl has stayed with me these fifty years...My instinctual judgement is that this man has to be in the HoF , but after reading a couple of comments on here I think I will need to go back to the figures to justify it. Being on the move currently I have no access to my books alas so need to look online , though I doubt raw figures will ever do justice to Hall.

He wasn't a match for Trueman , for example , and many West Indian fast bowlers have surpassed him since ; but he was in my opinion one of the greats of pre-modern cricket. Wouldn't have had much time for ice baths or laptop analysis - just ran in and bowled , smiled if he took a wicket , shrugged if hit for four , and went back and bowled again...would go on and do it for hours. Captain's dream.

I really hope his figures can justify his enthronement in the pantheon , as it will be a poorer place without him. I know this is all a bit vague and personal ( have been drinking a bit of wine this evening and it may be less than focused ) but he left a great impression. I guess you really had to be there...

Will return to this another day.

[guildfordbat]

Alfie - I believe Hall's lasting impact on those who saw him and those he played with or against plus his continuing popularity is a highly relevant factor.

I'll post a few quotes from the great and the good tomorrow.

[Mike Selig]

It's an interesting one. I entered the debate thinking "Wes Hall - cricketing legend, easy choice".

My impression from those who did see him play is that here is someone for who the raw figures don't do justice in terms of impact. Corroboration here comes (amongst others) from alfie, guildford and my dad. I have always been one to say that statistics in general are often nothing more than a useful guide - surely we all agree that Hall's statistics, whilst not necessarily outstanding, are not in themselves poor enough to remove Hall from consideration entirely. We have never been trying to make a list of "the greatest x ever cricketers based on statistics", and I wonder whether there has been too much concentrating on Hall's stats, and not on his overall impact on the game.

A few points then:
- in many people's minds Hall was a precursor to the (seemingly never endless) conveyor belt of West Indian quicks throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. The likes of Garner and Roberts for example surely grew up with Hall's exploits. Here I think he enjoys a clear advantage over the likes of Thompson - there is no evidence that Thompson inspired a generation of young Australian fast bowlers.
- Let's remember that Hall played at a time where cricket was in general fairly full of attrition - it can't have only been West Indians he inspired.
- some great one-off performances which will live long in the memory.
- a colourful character.

But really I return to my original point. Wes Hall is surely a legendary figures in the game, whose impact is there for all to see. What more do we want?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

I was surprised to see that Hall's overall figures were not as good as I expected. But he certainly is a legendary figure and I too think the HoF would be a poor place without him. For a brief period that Hall / Griffith combo was possibly the most literally frightening opening attack that has ever been assembled. And especially at a time when there was a lot less protection for the batsmen.

[Hoggy_Bear]

But really I return to my original point. Wes Hall is surely a legendary figures in the game, whose impact is there for all to see. What more do we want?

Not wanting to seem churlish, and I know that we shouldn't say yay or nay based on previous decisions, but the likes of MaCartney and Ranji were legendary figures (more legendary, I would hazard to suggest), yet they were turned down,largely, due to doubts about their stats.
Hall is undoubtedly a reknowned figure in the history of cricket, but is that enough?

[Hoggy_Bear]

Having said that, however, I would note that, in 1980, Clive Lloyd included Hall in his greatest ever WIndies team, writing that;
"Wes was everyone's idea of a fast bowler- big and strong, with a long run up and an explosive action propelling the ball at more than 90 miles per hour towards the batsman at the opposite end. In addition he was a character, a player adored wherever he went.

I did not see him when he was at his fastest towards the end of the 1950's and the early 1960's but anyone who can crack his own wicket keeper's jaw (This was wally Grout when Wes was playing for Queensland) or can snap a stump in half as he did when he bowled Peter May in a test in Jamaica is not to be fooled with. He bowled a dangerous outswinger, had a heart of gold and the stamina of an Olympic marathon champion" Meanwhile, in 1983, Trevor Bailey and Fred Trueman, in their book From Larwood to Lillee rated Hall as the greatest West Indian fast bowler, and said of him:
"Wes Hall ... was to me, easily the finest fast bowler the West Indies have ever produced. He stood over six feet tall and was so magnificiently proportioned that he could have been designed by a precision engineer.

In addition to pace through the air, he had a classical fast bowler's action with his left shoulder coming right round so that it pointed down the wicket at the batsman. This enabled him to move the ball away from the right-hander and, combined with his speed, was one of the main reasons why he was the West Indies' main wicket taker...

The Wes Hall run-up was the longest I have seen, but unlike the marathon excursions of subsequent imitators, it was one of the most graceful it has been my pleasure to witness. He reminded me of a train leaving the station: that slow deliberate start gradually building up to full speed as he approached his delivery stride. This incorporated the timing, balance and rhythm required to propel the ball at a pace sufficient to alarm even the brave."

"Wes Hall was built along the lines of the thoroughbred horses he loved so much and used to ride as a kid, a magnificent black stallion, lean, lithe and exciting to watch just moving towards the starting gates. Tall, graceful, broad-shouldered and narrow-hipped, Wes simply glided over the ground during his long, spectacular run-up from a mark near the edge of the boundary. Nobody ever complained about the length of his approach because it was one of the most beautiful sights in the game.

Wes seemed to flow into a high classical action and a glorious follow through. The outcome was exceptional speed, a natural away swing, lift from just short of a length and the occasional break-back.

His pace was never less than very fast and on occasions pure black lightening. Unquestionably he was amongst the quickest and most magnificent fast bowlers cricket has ever seen."

[Hoggy_Bear]

I would further add (sorry for the multiple posts, but I've had a few beers and keep thinking of stuff to add), that Hall does not feature in CMJs 100 Greatest Cricketers, although he is mentioned among the fast bowlers 'regretfully left out'

[kwinigolfer]

I feel that the only time I saw Wes Hall in the flesh was pretty much before he was WES HALL. Watched him plenty of times on TV of course, but there's nothing quite like watching a great athlete in the flesh.
But reading through that part of the sporting library that made it West (and are not Timeforms), the most striking feature of all references to Sir Wes are the respect observers have for the man, his grace and his bowling.

Arlott selects Wes Hall in his "Desert Island Cricket Team" and his citation goes thus:
"It was fortunate for all cricket followers that television was invented in time to show us all Wesley Hall bowling. He had the most spendidly athletic - and, to many batsmen, quite terrifying - run up - charm flying from his neck on its gold chain - and final eruptive heave to deliver a truly fast ball."

The grace and power of Hall was something quite new at the time, possibly only approached by Tyson. (The eccentric Gilchrist might have been as "terrifying" but perhaps due as much to his reputation and wildness, violence really, as his action.)

I am still not sure how I'll vote for Wes Hall, but he was the first of the great West Indies bowlers, and a leader in more ways than one. Not many genuinely fast bowlers over the years have had the mental and physical stamina to bowl, as Hall did in the famous Lords Test of 1963, for three hours unchanged, and one wonders whether such extraordinary efforts might account for mere statistics that don't match the memory.

An ambassador for the game, revered around the world, I'm only surprised he has yet to make the ICC HOF.

[guildfordbat]

I feel that the only time I saw Wes Hall in the flesh was pretty much before he was WES HALL. Watched him plenty of times on TV of course, but there's nothing quite like watching a great athlete in the flesh.
But reading through that part of the sporting library that made it West (and are not Timeforms), the most striking feature of all references to Sir Wes are the respect observers have for the man, his grace and his bowling.

Arlott selects Wes Hall in his "Desert Island Cricket Team" and his citation goes thus:
"It was fortunate for all cricket followers that television was invented in time to show us all Wesley Hall bowling. He had the most spendidly athletic - and, to many batsmen, quite terrifying - run up - charm flying from his neck on its gold chain - and final eruptive heave to deliver a truly fast ball."

The grace and power of Hall was something quite new at the time, possibly only approached by Tyson. (The eccentric Gilchrist might have been as "terrifying" but perhaps due as much to his reputation and wildness, violence really, as his action.)

I am still not sure how I'll vote for Wes Hall, but he was the first of the great West Indies bowlers, and a leader in more ways than one. Not many genuinely fast bowlers over the years have had the mental and physical stamina to bowl, as Hall did in the famous Lords Test of 1963, for three hours unchanged, and one wonders whether such extraordinary efforts might account for mere statistics that don't match the memory.

An ambassador for the game, revered around the world, I'm only surprised he has yet to make the ICC HOF.

Kwini - that's a tremendous tribute to Hall. Especially taken by your closing paragraphs. Surprised you are ''still not sure how [you'll] vote''.

PS Kwini - small accolade (not HoF proportions, I'm afraid) to Trevor Jesty on the 'County Ins and Outs' thread.

[msp83]

Wes Hall certainly is a renowned cricketer, who could bowl as fast as anyone else. There was a certain elegance to his bowling, even watching poor quality video from those times.
But despite a rather romanticized case, I am not quite convinced as yet. We held Thomson's inconsistency and poor 2nd half of his career against him despite him being an absolute terror of a fast bowler during his peak. Makhaya Ntini had pretty decent stats, a lot of impact performances, and his spirit of overcoming serious adversities has been terrific. Modern day South Africa hasn't had as popular a sportsman as Ntini is even today. While Ntini is the first black African cricketer to have played for the rainbow nation and thus symbolized one of the greatest historical transformations, Hall's case as the pioneer of West Indian fast bowling greatness is seriously questionable. As my post above had pointed out, there was Constantine and Martindale in the initial period, then there was Roy Gilchrist and Charlie Griffith who were Hall's contemporaries who could bowl as fast as anyone else.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Msp - but it is pretty clear cut that all the four other WIndies bowlers you mention - Constantine, Martindale, Gilchrist and Griffith - were all well short of Hall in terms of their fast bowlng record. I can see other possible arguments against Hall's inclusion as the first W Indies fast bowler to have a really major impact, but if anything his position is enhanced by the mention of those comparators.

[msp83]

Corporal
But that doesn't make him the pioneer does it? Constantine's position in the West Indian cricket history, in fact the region's modern history as such, is well marked out. Although Griffith's number of wickets are not as much as that of Hall, his record isn't really bad. 94 wickets at 28, and we Indians in particular, won't really forget his name that easily.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Msp - I certainly grant that Constantine was a major figure in his own right. If memory serves me correct I voted against Constantine's entry into our HoF but said that I thought he had a strong position as a prominent / historic figure in the social history of Windies / the wider fight against race discrimination.

In that sense I think it likely that Constantine will be remembered long after quite a few of those in our HoF have been largely forgotten other than by cricketing historians. But as regards major pioneers of WIndies fast bowling if I had to pick one figure, it would certainly be Hall.

[msp83]

Hall averaged over 32 against England and over 31 against Australia. He picked up 65 wickets from 13 matches against the pre-Sunil Gavaskar India at an average of 18, and 16 in 3 matches against a similarly weak Pakistan at an average of 17.9.

[guildfordbat]

Hall averaged over 32 against England and over 31 against Australia. He picked up 65 wickets from 13 matches against the pre-Sunil Gavaskar India at an average of 18, and 16 in 3 matches against a similarly weak Pakistan at an average of 17.9.

Hang on a minute! Wasn't this pre-Sunil Gavaskar India being skippered by Tigrer Pataudi who injected such a fighting spirit into his team and led them out of the wilderness to become a combative cricketing unit?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Hall averaged over 32 against England and over 31 against Australia. He picked up 65 wickets from 13 matches against the pre-Sunil Gavaskar India at an average of 18, and 16 in 3 matches against a similarly weak Pakistan at an average of 17.9.

Hang on a minute! Wasn't this pre-Sunil Gavaskar India being skippered by Tigrer Pataudi who injected such a fighting spirit into his team and led them out of the wilderness to become a combative cricketing unit?

[msp83]

Indeed Guildford, the same Tiger Pataudi, who despite his various acheevements, was found wanting as his stats weren't great, and because although India started doing better, they didn't do so very well.

[msp83]

And the very same Tiger Pataudi, who was rated so highly by none other than John Arlott

[Mike Selig]

In comparison lies a road to madness. So far we have compared Wes Hall to (so far) Thomson, Ntini, McCartney, Ranji, Pataudi, Constantine...

We had very good reasons for rejecting all of the above. I don't see why that detracts from Hall's case.

As far as I can see we usually use statistics as a "pre-requisite" - that is, where people have been excluded based on statistics it is because no matter how strong other aspects of their case are, we simply didn't believe them to be good enough cricketers to be considered. Surely no one is suggesting that Hall isn't a good enough cricketer? In that case he should be considered on his case, not on his stats...

[Hoggy_Bear]

Srry Mike, but stats ARE important. We have questioned and/or rejected players before who were reckoned to be all-time greats because their stats weren't quite up to scratch, why should Hall's case be different?

[Corporalhumblebucket]

In comparison lies a road to madness. So far we have compared Wes Hall to (so far) Thomson, Ntini, McCartney, Ranji, Pataudi, Constantine...

Don't forget Griffith and Gilchrist....

[Mike Selig]

Srry Mike, but stats ARE important. We have questioned and/or rejected players before who were reckoned to be all-time greats because their stats weren't quite up to scratch, why should Hall's case be different?

Important, yes. The be all and end-all, clearly not.

I don't think we have rejected anybody who would be considered an ATG based purely on stats. Reservations that the stats didn't stack up, alongside other factors, certainly.

There are legitimate concerns about Hall's stats. But there can surely be no arguing as to his impact, and other factors.

[msp83]

In comparison lies a road to madness. So far we have compared Wes Hall to (so far) Thomson, Ntini, McCartney, Ranji, Pataudi, Constantine...

We had very good reasons for rejecting all of the above. I don't see why that detracts from Hall's case.

As far as I can see we usually use statistics as a "pre-requisite" - that is, where people have been excluded based on statistics it is because no matter how strong other aspects of their case are, we simply didn't believe them to be good enough cricketers to be considered. Surely no one is suggesting that Hall isn't a good enough cricketer? In that case he should be considered on his case, not on his stats...

The comparisons have to be there because many of the reasons that applied in the event of the rejection of the said players apply to Hall as well.
Hall certainly is a very good cricketer. But good enough for the HoF, well, I have my doubts. That is based on his inconsistent record, poor latter half of his career that suggests an inability to adapt.
Can't help it, another line of comparison to illustrate my point, if the elegance of his run-up and the beauty of his bowling has to get Hall in there disregarding the above counterpoints, , David Gower, who batted like absolute royalty, and who also has a more than decent record, has to be one of the first in there.

[msp83]

It should be obvious that concerns about Hall are not just about his overall stats that doesn't suggest straightforward HoF alone. There is a finer point about sustained excellence through consistent performances. The relatively poorer overall stats against the dominant sides again, is a question that needs to be addressed. While Hall has been one of the more successful early fast bowlers from the West Indies, its a far fetched extention to suggest that he has been the pioneer and major inspiration for the West Indian pace battery in later years.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Srry Mike, but stats ARE important. We have questioned and/or rejected players before who were reckoned to be all-time greats because their stats weren't quite up to scratch, why should Hall's case be different?

Important, yes. The be all and end-all, clearly not.

I don't think we have rejected anybody who would be considered an ATG based purely on stats. Reservations that the stats didn't stack up, alongside other factors, certainly.

There are legitimate concerns about Hall's stats. But there can surely be no arguing as to his impact, and other factors.

Fair enough.
But I do think that Hall's overall stats, his relative lack of efficacy against the best batsmen, and the decline in his stats over the second half of his career are major concerns.
Balanced against that, of course, you have his undoubted impact, his place as a forerunner of the great WIndies fast bowlers of the 70s/80s, and the esteem in which he is held.

[kwinigolfer]

Gilchrist and Griffith both had highly suspect actions but, quite apart from that, Hall was certainly the bowling leader of that pack.
Not sure how Martindale gets into the mix, his career a mere cameo.

Constantine has been considered before, surely. Very close to the Hall, but not as a strike bowler, relatively meagre return compared to Hall.

[msp83]

Kwini
When I brought Constantine, Martindale, Gilchrist and Griffith into the conversation, it was not to suggest they were better than Hall as fast bowlers. But it was to suggest that the tradition of fast bowling in the West Indies doesn't start with Hall. There were others who bowled real fast before him, Constantine was the first true fast bowler from the West Indies, besides being a lot of other thing for West Indian and global cricket. and Gilchrist and Griffith, who were Hall's contemporaries had averages and strike rates not far different from those of Hall. Was Hall the most successful early fast bowler from the West Indies, then the answer to that should be quite obvious.

[msp83]

Could Bishan Bedi be considered the pioneer of Indian spin tradition? He was the most successful, and very highly rated among Indian bowlers in the 1970s. But what we shouldn't forget is that there was Mankad and Gupte before him, and that Venkat, Prasanna and Chandra were his contemporaries.

[Hoggy_Bear]

A little further delving into Hall's stats shows that, in the first 4 years of his career, he played 23 tests, 13 of which were against either India or Pakistan, 10 against England or Australia, taking 116 wickets at 21.8. 73 of those wickets were taken against India or Pakistan at a combined average of 17.
From 1963 onwards, he played 25 tests, taking 76 wickets at an average of 33.2.
In all he played in 12 test series. He only averaged under 25 in 3 of them, all against India or Pakistan in that first 4 year period, (although it should be noted that he averaged under 20 in each of those series). In only 2 other series did he average under 30, and even then only just.
I know that, as Mike says, stats are not the be all and end all, but I've grave doubts that these are the stats of a Hall of Famer.

[alfie]

I hear what you are saying msp : But I really don't think Gilchrist (brief career , only really good against India) or Griffith ( not to put too fine a point on it , a chucker ) ever had the same effect as role models as Hall , who comes up time and again in the comments of later players in speaking of childhood heroes. I think it is fair to say Hall was to a large extent responsible for a generation of youngsters in the Caribbean growing up wanting nothing but to bowl like the wind...doesn't get him automatic entry , but it ought to help.

Loved Kwini's Arlott quotes...the bit about the charm on his neck chain reminds me of the occasion on which he bounced the Reverend David Sheppard , and on the following delivery was himself struck in the eye by the charm , which I believe was in the form of a cross. The batsman remarked then that Wes should have known better than to intimidate a man of the cloth Laughs all round , as while he was a genuinely frightening fast bowler who on occasion injured opponents , Hall had absolutely no malice in him...a true gentleman fast bowler in the Statham/Lindwall tradition.

If his figures fell a little short of great , they were still good. And although he had pace support at times from the like of Gilchrist , there were also many times where he shouldered the pace burden alone : in the famous tied Test in Brisbane he bowled some 47 eight ball overs , all at high speed. Although he took wickets in the next Test in Melbourne , his results fell away later in the series , and I suspect the physical strain had taken its toll. One drawback to being a willing workhorse as well as a man who never believed in bowling within himself was that he could burn himself out , and at times I think he did ; to the detriment of his figures.

The argument about rejection of other players with strong claims goes only so far. Most of those mentioned had a fair bit of support , just not enough on the day , so I do not think the fact that , say , Cowdrey , was unfortunately rejected should preclude a vote for Hall...

[Hoggy_Bear]

Leaving aside discussion of Hall for a bit, there's an interesting article here from the Sydney Mail of 1932, ranking various all-round greats up until that point.
As you will see, Monty Noble is ranked as the best, with Rhodes, Armstrong, Faulkner and MaCartney making up the top 5.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1302&dat=19321221&id=DG9VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PpYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5003,7067605

[Corporalhumblebucket]

Loved Kwini's Arlott quotes...the bit about the charm on his neck chain reminds me of the occasion on which he bounced the Reverend David Sheppard , and on the following delivery was himself struck in the eye by the charm , which I believe was in the form of a cross. The batsman remarked then that Wes should have known better than to intimidate a man of the cloth Laughs all round , as while he was a genuinely frightening fast bowler who on occasion injured opponents , Hall had absolutely no malice in him...a true gentleman fast bowler in the Statham/Lindwall tradition.

Hall himself also later became a Rev, and is reported to have provided support to the late and great Malcolm Marshall when he was terminally ill.

[guildfordbat]

Loved Kwini's Arlott quotes...the bit about the charm on his neck chain reminds me of the occasion on which he bounced the Reverend David Sheppard , and on the following delivery was himself struck in the eye by the charm , which I believe was in the form of a cross. The batsman remarked then that Wes should have known better than to intimidate a man of the cloth Laughs all round , as while he was a genuinely frightening fast bowler who on occasion injured opponents , Hall had absolutely no malice in him...a true gentleman fast bowler in the Statham/Lindwall tradition.

Hall himself also later became a Rev, and is reported to have provided support to the late and great Malcolm Marshall when he was terminally ill.

I've also read that Hall as requested took the service at Roy Gilchrist's funeral.

[guildfordbat]

Alfie - I believe Hall's lasting impact on those who saw him and those he played with or against plus his continuing popularity is a highly relevant factor.

I'll post a few quotes from the great and the good tomorrow.

Bit later than I intended but a few direct quotes now in support of Hall from cricket writers, opponents and a team mate plus an indirect one from closer to home. Several of the quotes are taken from a tribute last year on CricketWeb.net by writer Martin Chandler.

Not only do the quotes emphasise the ''greatness'' of Hall as a fast bowler as you might expect but also his continuing popularity and essential decency.

''He never looked back and for six years was by common concensus the finest fast bowler in the game.'' - Martin Chandler commenting upon Hall's call up as a late replacement for West Indies' tours of India and Pakistan in 1958-59.

''Wes was one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time, with a smoothly fluid and flowing action. His lightning-fast bowling was a fire that illuminated cricket, not one that destroyed its beauty.'' - Fred Trueman. Praise indeed.

''To me Wes Hall will always be the fastest and up there with the greatest bowlers of all time.'' - Australian Colin McDonald, considered by Hall and others to have been the bravest of all batsmen.

''For me to have the honour to bowl at the other end to Wes - even though I could never match his unforgettably rhythmic and poetic approach to the wicket - was a great privilege.'' - Charlie Griffith.

''Wes was one of the most fearsome fast bowlers I ever faced, though he possessed a temperament unlike other quickies, for he was a very gentle and generous cricketer, the reason why he was extremely popular with crowds.'' - Pakistan's Hanif Mohammad.

''... an outstanding athlete, a hostile bowler, and one of the nicest people ever to have played the game. He might have been trying to knock your head off, but he was always able to appreciate what you, as a batsman, were trying to do. Play a good stroke off his bowling and he would applaud you and mean it. He was a fierce competitor on the field but a generous one.'' - Tom Graveney.

''... there was never a hint of malice in [Hall] or his bowling.'' - Ted Dexter.

'' ... a rare box-office attraction, a man who caught and held the affections of the paying public.'' - Australian writer and commentator Johnnie Moyes.

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

''Hall simply exudes good nature at every pore.'' - West Indian cricket writer C L R James.

And finally -

''As I say, I would agree that, on the basis purely of statistics, [his] candidature would be marginal, but that his statistics added to the 'extras' that come with him, make his candidature more convincing. '' - Hoggy_Bear successfully arguing the case for Bob Willis' admittance to the Hall of Fame. Apologies, and in particular to Mike, for introducing yet another comparator but I did feel a comparison with someone actually in the HoF was overdue.

[msp83]

After the initial case for Hall was made, when concerns were put up, I thought the responses have been rather romantic and not exactly substantive in the sense that I found many responses not exactly addressing the concerns. I still have major concerns, but after I put up my reservations, Guildford's last post, for the first time has given me reason to reevaluate things. Not so much about the quotes, but the arguments that follows them.

[Hoggy_Bear]

Thanks for adding my quote to the others Guildford.
I would just say that, in my own mind at this moment in time, in comparison to Willis (Guidford brought it up, Mike, honest ), Hall falls short on both stats and added extras.
Not saying I'll eventually say no to Hall, but I'm going to need a lot of convincing. Some of those quotes, especially the one from Trueman, go some way to doing that, but most of them are simply saying that Hall was fast, ferocious, and a nice guy. Brett Lee was fast, ferocious and a nice guy, but I wouldn't vote for him either (that comparison was all down to me I'm afraid Mike )

[Sponsored content]