The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

First topic message reminder :

NOTE: This is the second part of the 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame thread. The first part can be found here: https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely, it doesn't matter how fast he was compared to those of the 70's and later? There is exemplary anecdotal evidence that he was the fastest of the early Lindwall era and for thirty years before.

Precisely, and the only thing that really matters. He was undoubtedly faster than anything had been before, at the time, or shortly afterwards. But we should be wary of people who say "I saw Larwood and Thompson bowl, and Larwood was as fast": they are using different frames of reference for comparison.

kwinigolfer wrote:Ah,
But did Chris Gayle use steroids?

Not many cricketers I would like to have watched these past twenty five years than Chris Gayle.

Barry Bonds was a fabulous player before he started juicing himself up, all-time great. As it is he'll be an all-time asterisk.

Blimey, I did not know about the steroids. As his HR record been taken from him then?

Gayle, no on the steroids, but he does have a big smile on his face a lot

skye,
Bonds has been a very naughty boy.
Unfortunately it will detract from what should have been one of the truly great careers.
As indeed others' careers are now tarnished. Hall of Fame voting has been greatly affected these past few years, and there'll be another reminder tomorrow with McGwire, Palmeiro and Gonzalez among those whose legacy has been trashed by the pharmaceutical industry. Bloody idiots.

Do cricketers have to be subjected to the same drug testing as other sports(wo)men?

The International Cricket Council a few years ago introduced random short-notice out-of-competition drug tests. And of course the great Shane Warne was sent home after failing a drug test, just prior to the start of the 2003 Cricket World Cup.

And as far back as 1997 Phil Tufnell was handed an 18 month suspended sentence and fined ₤1000 for failing to turn up for a random drug test after a Middlesex Championship match

skye,
Interesting. Thanks.
Hadn't pictured Tufnell and Rio on the same page, but strange bedfellows!

im glad that there are a lot of YES votes for Flint

First contribution to the HoF thread.

Easy ones:
Hutton - Dead easy YES. There is always the question of just how much greater he would have been without the arm injury in the war, but achieved more than enough anyway (avg mid 50s, first pro captain of England, single innings record score).

Knott - YES. Probably the best keeper/batsman ever (as opposed to batsman/keeper like Gilchrist), and typically idosyncratic as befits a keeper.

More difficult:
RH-F: I have limited knowledge of women's cricket, but have to say that until recent years hers was the only name I would instantly recognise as a female cricketer. I think on the strength of that, together with thr statistical arguments others have put forward on here, she just about gets a YES from me.

Larwood - The bowler who made Bradman mortal, at least for one series, and even then only with the benefit of tactics that were considered by manyagainst the spirit of the game. A great professional, and someone that despite the Bodyline controversy, the Aussies appreciated (unlike Jardine). Test career to short to judge on pure stats, but appeared moderate outside of the Bodyline series, yet judged extremely highly by his contremporaries and those in the immediate aftermath. Scapegoated by the MCC, almost certainly because he was a professional. Highly credible County record. Seems to be a real balance of positives and negatives, but ultimately I think I'll just come down on the side of NO because of the relative mediocrity of his performances at Test level other than in the Bodyline series.

Kanhai - Was one of my Dad's favourite players, and was clearly one of the first great overseas players in the County Championship while having a very good record in International cricket and being hugely respected by his contemporaries. For me though, just slightly behind the level of greatness that has so far got players into the HoF, so a NO from me.

Good to see you getting involved, DH, however much I resent your no votes for Kanhai and Larwood

we've got the same votes duminy

is this thread going to split off Fists? We appear to be comfortably over the 1000 posts mark? Still undecided on three of my votes at the moment, quite a hard lot to judge this week

They usually do, MFC, but it hasn't yet - I was rather hoping it wouldn't split, as it is nice to have the entire thing contained within one thread.

You've got until Friday for your votes to be registered

bang, it's split. Maybe I should have kept quiet

where's the other thread gone? would be nice to have it archived or something?

God damn you, MFC

The other thread will now be archived in the 606v2 honours board sub-section.

Fists
The Larwood one in particular was virtually a coin toss - had he had a longer test career with some quality performances with 'off theory', it would certainly have been reversed and indeed the quality of his County record almost swung it for me.

Very good to see you on here, Dummy.

Please don't be discouraged by getting your votes on the ''three more difficult nominees'' totally wrong.

Been away from the Hall of Fame debate for a while, unfortunately, but here are my votes on the current crop:

Len Hutton - Yes - Supreme batsmen, simple yes.

Alan Knott - Yes - Good batsmen, great keeper. Not as definitive as Hutton, but a fairly staright forward yes from me.

Heyhoe-Flint - No - I voted no Belinda Clark, and I would feel hypocritical if I let Heyhoe-Flint in instead. She may well have done enough to warrant a place in the Hall of Fame but my struggle is drawing a parallel with the achievements of the men we have allowed in. If there was a seperate Women's Hall then she would be the first entry, but due to my stance on Clark I annot change it, so it is a reluctant no.

Kanhai - Yes - I'll confess to not being a big expert on Kanhai before this thread, but I have been won over by the arguments for him and he gets a yes from me.

Larwood - Yes - Will expand a little more later as I am going out now, but he is a yes from me for sure.

fair enough about flint JD.... think you might be the only one to vote against her thus far...but each to their own

Sir Len Hutton - -2888 runs in 1937, Wisden cricketer of the year 1938, 364 against Aus in 13 hours, 1946-47 scored 1267 in Aus, 3429 runs with 12 centuries in 1949, averaged 88.83 during the 1950-51 Test series in Aus, Helped England recover from 2-0 down in the West Indies to level the series with innings of 169 in the third Test and 205 in the fifth, during his 22-year first class career, Hutton scored 40140 first class runs at 55.51 including 129 centuries and so many more astounding moments in cricket.

A true great of the game, an easy YES



Harold Larwood -- A boyhood hero of mine as stated in previos posts and a legend of the game who will forever be remembered as the man who tamed Bradman, which is why he is in the ICC HoF list, and imo why he should be in ours.
What greater acheivement could there be in cricket. YES


Alan Knott -- Only really saw him play in his last series for England, the breathtaking 1981 Ashes but even then the commentators were praising this genius of a keeper. Of his era and prior, the greatest wicket keeper ever imo and only just behind Gilchrist of later keeper-batsman. YES



Rohan Kanhai -- Right up until typing his name I was undecided on Kanhai, (I was probably going down the NO path) who had lets face it a very, very good Test average and his Warks figures were phenomenal but what has just swung it for me was Gavaskar's and Grandpa Fists quotes on the man. NO

After more thought, although the great words about him nearly persuaded me, I have chosen my to stick with previous criteria. Just a tad shy.



Rachael Heyhoe-Flint -- As for the same reasons for Belinda Clark. NO

Grandad Fists will be thrilled at his influence!

JDizzle - welcome back. 5 correct votes to boot!

Skye - same for you as well!

JDizzle wrote:

Kanhai - Yes - I'll confess to not being a big expert on Kanhai before this thread, but I have been won over by the arguments for him and he gets a yes from me.

Larwood - Yes - Will expand a little more later as I am going out now, but he is a yes from me for sure.

JD - your old coach Eddie Barlow would be pleased by your vote for Rohan Kanhai. They played together here for the Rest of the World in the 1970 series against England. Kanhai batted number 3 whilst Eddie and Barry Richards opened. Quite a trio!

Look forward to your comments about Harold Larwood.

CF - If she gets in then she fully deserves it. I just felt I couldn't say yes after turning down Clark!

Thank you guildford, I trust you received your much desired best of Larry Gomes DVD from Santa.

Now, on Larwood. I have read that some people want to hold Bodyline against Larwood which I can understand but respectfully disagree with. For me, it is no different to the West Indian attack of the 70's and 80's as both strategies were legal at the time and by their own admission that great West Indian attack went out there to hurt and scare batsmen*. Bodyline is synonomous with cricket now, it is a huge a part of cricket history and has affected the course of cricket laws and history. Larwood played a huge part in this. He will forever have a place in cricket history and I feel he deserves to be immortalised in our own Hall. Has their been a more controversial, a more innovative tactic ever in the history of cricket? I think not. And Larwood played a crucial part.

*Has anyone seen "Fire in Babylon", the documentary on the great West Indian sides of the 70's and 80's? It is superb!

To anyone who has not yet voted on Kanhai: please note that he is now championed not only by Grandad Fists, but also by "Father" Dummy. Two gentlemen, I've no doubt of outstanding wisdom and experience

I think it could be an unreliable constraint to be restricted to a given number of yes votes in any group of five. For example, we could easily have had a grouping which included Hammond, Headley and Hutton - which could have left the other candidates in such a group without a hope... If we wanted to prolong the agony/fun the fairest approach might be to continue the current process and then at the end decide there were, say, five too many and vote on who to eject. Accepting the risk of claims for unfair dismissal on the way...

One general thought. If a newcomer joins the HoF debate via this particular part II thread it may not make much sense as it starts in the middle of a debate. Is there any way of making it clearer how it fits together?

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
... If we wanted to prolong the agony/fun the fairest approach might be to continue the current process and then at the end decide there were, say, five too many and vote on who to eject. Accepting the risk of claims for unfair dismissal on the way...

I'm sure Skye would approve. It would give him another opportunity to try and keep out anyone of the fairer sex!

JDizzle wrote:

Thank you guildford, I trust you received your much desired best of Larry Gomes DVD from Santa. ....


*Has anyone seen "Fire in Babylon", the documentary on the great West Indian sides of the 70's and 80's? It is superb!

I actually got a DVD of Carlos Tevez's Greatest Goals. Trouble is when you want it to start, it refuses to go on!

Haven't seen the film but it is high on the list. As a Surrey member, I was invited to the opening night. That sounds much grander than it was as it would still have cost me megabucks for the cheapest seats - I naively thought at first the invite was a freebie from the Club grateful for my membership. It was anything but! As it turned out, it clashed with something else so Mrs Bat won and I didn't have to think further about forking out over the odds for a cinema trip! [I attached on this thread a clip from the film at the weekend of Michael Holding battering 46 year old Brian Close.]

PS Excellent summary by you about Larwood and Bodyline.

guildfordbat wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:
... If we wanted to prolong the agony/fun the fairest approach might be to continue the current process and then at the end decide there were, say, five too many and vote on who to eject. Accepting the risk of claims for unfair dismissal on the way...

I'm sure Skye would approve. It would give him another opportunity to try and keep out anyone of the fairer sex!

Hey, you have got me all wrong, I am all for having women in:









The kitchen

At our club we managed to get one copy around the entire team at a cost of 50p each, which in these harsh economic times was a stretch.

Seriously though, if you get the chance I definitely recommend it. Some of the footage is stunning and brutal in equal measure. A must see! Some of my favourite quotes: "It's hit him, I think it's broken his jaw" and "We didn't go out there to hurt people, they just got hurt". Absolutely brutal. Just backs up my point that bodyline was no more brutal than what the Windies set out to do that period.

In women's cricket, there's been an uproar recently, because they've had the Bodyform series - where they're actually aiming at the box.

Que. What is the difference between men's cricket and women's cricket ?

Ans. In men's cricket there is a Short leg between two Long legs, and in women's cricket there is a Deep gulley between two Fine legs.


Seriously though, I just don't think that women have the balls for the game.

JD

I think the ball from Marshall to Andy Lloyd shown in one of the attached clips demonstrates what they meant about not (always) going out to hurt batsmen but them getting hurt - the ball wasn't really a bouncer aimed at the batsman but was a short pitched lifter that would have passed outside the batsmans off stump (right arm over across a lefty). Unfortunately Lloyd tried to duck under the ball rather than sway back, so put himself into the line of the ball and took a very heavy blow.

Of course, sometimes some of their bowlers DID go out to hit and hurt batsmen, Patrick Patterson especially had a bad reputation for that.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:One general thought. If a newcomer joins the HoF debate via this particular part II thread it may not make much sense as it starts in the middle of a debate. Is there any way of making it clearer how it fits together?

Corporal, I shall insert a link to Part 1 in to the OP of this 2nd part later today, with a quick word to let them know.

skyeman wrote:In women's cricket, there's been an uproar recently, because they've had the Bodyform series - where they're actually aiming at the box.

Que. What is the difference between men's cricket and women's cricket ?

Ans. In men's cricket there is a Short leg between two Long legs, and in women's cricket there is a Deep gulley between two Fine legs.


Seriously though, I just don't think that women have the balls for the game.

I think you should stop...

dummy_half wrote:JD

I think the ball from Marshall to Andy Lloyd shown in one of the attached clips demonstrates what they meant about not (always) going out to hurt batsmen but them getting hurt - the ball wasn't really a bouncer aimed at the batsman but was a short pitched lifter that would have passed outside the batsmans off stump (right arm over across a lefty). Unfortunately Lloyd tried to duck under the ball rather than sway back, so put himself into the line of the ball and took a very heavy blow.

Of course, sometimes some of their bowlers DID go out to hit and hurt batsmen, Patrick Patterson especially had a bad reputation for that.

Hi Dummy,

I take your point about the ''Marshall to Lloyd'' clip which was attached to my post the other day. I was really just trying to show and emphasise by that the dangers which can go with fast bowling and what the batsman has to be prepared for. I'm sure you'll agree that the ''Holding (constanly) to Close'' clip is a very different kettle of fish.

Interesting that you mention Patrick Patterson. I heard Tony Murphy, now an executive director of cricket (whatever that means!) at Surrey, speak at a members' forum last season. Murphy was a fairly ordinary seam bowler who had spells at Surrey and Lancs but never really made the grade. He mentioned that he played alongside Patterson at Lancs, paricularly for their second XI. Murphy generally wasn't good enough for the firsts whilst Patterson had to miss some firsts' games due to the limitation on overseas players. Anyway, Murphy commented along the lines that it was ''terrifying seeing Patterson bowl to young second eleven kids''.

Guildford
Agree that the Holding example was rather different, in that at least 3 of the balls he bowled in that clip were really targetting Close's upper body and head rather than any attempt to get him fending the ball to slip or short leg. Holding did calm down in later years and became a more skilful bowler, but that spell he definitely got carried away.

I remember quite a lot of the commentators at the time reckoning that Patterson frequently over-did the targetting of the batsman (or just described him as a nutter). I think at some times the Windies bowlers forgot that they could get batsmen out bowled or LBW as well as caught off the back foot. The thought of a 2nd XI batsman having to face PP on what might not have been the finest prepared wickets available is scary.

Apologies for any offence caused for earlier womens cricket jokes, just playing up to the image of me not taking womens cricket too seriously.Which is most definitely not the case. I just am of the opinion that their should be a separate, mens and womens list, as there was until a short time ago.
A great is a great I may hear you say, but for me the issue is about the standard of play and whether or not that the best women of the game belong on the same board as the likes of Bradman, Grace, Warne, Hobbs etc, etc.

I didn't take your post very seriously Skye... (the previous one, that is, consisting of what I can only guess were meant to be "jokes") Should I have?

I found them funny, but then I still possess a small dose of immaturity that just won't leave me

As I said Mike, all along I have been playing (for me anyway) a mildly amusing game regarding women in cricket and Mrs Skye. I have the utmost respect for women in sport and in life in general, take my internet word for that.

And Belinda Clark and Rachel Heyhoe Flint are both GREATS of the womens game, I just think that there should be a mens HoF list and a separate womens one as it used to be.

lol I was only kidding I did find them quite funny really....

Thanks, but still glad that there are no women around this site just yet, or I may have gotten a right royal rollicking.

Were there ever any women cricket posters on the old 606?

We have some women on "Golf", but there may have been more right royal retaliation than rollickings . . . .

kwinigolfer wrote:We have some women on "Golf", but there may have been more right royal retaliation than rollickings . . . .

I often read many posts in the golf section, similarly the tennis section, and certainly most know exactly what they are talking about and give as good as they get.

quiet on this thread today.....


thats odd

cricketfan90 wrote:quiet on this thread today.....


thats odd

Yep, most votes are in and these five candidates have had nearly 300 posts between them, I think we are all worn out

I was reading through some of the earlier debating, some of us didn't hold our punches!

I'm still to vote in this round, but have more or less made up my mind I think.

After a storm there always comes a calm with us lot though

Mike Selig wrote:

I'm still to vote in this round, but have more or less made up my mind I think.

Sorry Mike , bit late with this for you:

Mike Selig wrote:I was reading through some of the earlier debating, some of us didn't hold our punches!

I'm still to vote in this round, but have more or less made up my mind I think.

i think we can safely say that was an understatement.

I've finally decided on Larwood. He has a YES from me. Many fine arguments for and against have been mounted. And I am somewhat going against my normal approach of giving much greater weight to sustained excellence than to a "defining moment." But in the history of cricket the attempt to tame by far the greatest batsman ever really was a defining moment.

So, to my surprise, for the first time I am giving all 5 YES in this round. Plus an additional one to Fists if he manages to keep track of all the votes....